Here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added based on the provided context. Please note that several names in the original transcript were phonetically misspelled (e.g., "Mayor Ger" for Mayor Giefer, "Council member Rock" for Council Member Rog), and these have been corrected in the speaker labels. [00:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Wait for pledge allegiance to the flag. [00:05] **All:** >> Recording in progress >> and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Right. Can I get approval of the regular agenda? [00:18] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Move to approve the regular agenda. [00:20] **Council Member John Rog:** I'll second. [00:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:23] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Hi. [00:24] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [clears throat] [00:26] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [00:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:28] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [00:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [00:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [00:32] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I. Approval of the consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? [00:35] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** So moved. [00:36] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'll second. [00:37] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:38] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [00:39] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [00:41] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:42] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [00:43] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Anderson. [00:44] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I. [00:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [00:46] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I. Staff agenda items. Brad is online, I believe, with us. Um, Brad, would you before we open the public hearing, would you like to talk us through the consideration of resolution 2025-15, ordering improvements for the 2026 street improvement project? [01:05] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yes. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um, as the mayor said, we're here tonight to conduct the uh public improvement hearing um for the 2026 street improvement project, which includes 66th Street North and Great Oak Trail North. Um the street improvement project uh petition uh were declared at the June 3rd uh regular council meeting. And at that council meeting, um staff was directed to uh prepare a feasibility report. Um within that feasibility report, the costs uh of the project were identified at approximately $370,000. um the street uh or the city has allocated approximately $37,000 uh for the street improvement with the rest of uh the [snorts] funding coming from special assessments. Uh I would like to note too that uh during this whole process we conducted two neighborhood meetings. uh one before the uh feasibility report was prepared just to share information with the residents adjacent to the streets the city's policy on special special assessments. Um and then the second meeting was after we prepared the feasibility report um to explain uh uh in more detail the mock assessments that uh came out of the feasibility report. Uh in either case, at either meeting uh for both streets, we did not hear any dissent uh from any of the residents um regarding the street improvement project, meaning they wanted to uh keep moving forward with uh uh the process of of um going through the street improvement project process. Um, the other thing I would like to mention too is that uh all the residents were notified of this public hearing tonight uh via regular mail and it was also posted in the city's official newspaper in accordance with the minimum 10-day notice. So, um again with that said, mayor, I would turn over um the meeting back to you to conduct the hearing. [03:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So, we'll open the public hearing and we'll have uh council discussion. So, I'd like to get a motion for opening the public hearing. [03:25] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** So, move. [03:26] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [03:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Public hearing is open. Council member Cornett. [03:28] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Hi. [03:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [03:30] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [03:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [03:32] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Sorry. [03:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [03:34] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Hi. [03:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [03:36] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. All right. Would anyone like to speak? Public hearing. [03:45] **Carrie Casta (Resident):** [laughter] Um I'm Carrie Casta. Um live at 11006 66th Street North and Grant. Um we we did have an initial meeting, a local neighborhood meeting. Um but I think the costs were a little bit um a little different than what was sent out. Um, if I'm if I'm not mistaken, and you guys can verify it, it looks like they're almost double of what was originally discussed. Um, one of the things that Brad wasn't sure of at the time either was what the the proration time was going to be, you know, I mean, I uh that tends to make a little bit of difference when budgeting um especially when the numbers double what we initially talked about. Um, some of my concerns and while I understand, you know, we want to we want to have a nice road in front of us, the road really has not been maintained. It it hasn't been maintained at all. I mean, unless you want to call painting it black and then shortly thereafter coming over and filling a few little potholes in here and there, it's not that old a road. Um, so if we do go through with this, I guess as somebody that's investing in that road, I'd like to know what's going to done be done to assure us as residents um how our investments going to be spent and and what what it's going to look like with regard to maintaining it, you know, or are we going to just do this every 15 years or so? Now, I might not even be there in 15 years. You know, you just never know. But that being said, my kids might or somebody else might, and they shouldn't have to take another whack to build a whole new road all over again since this road really isn't that old. So, I I feel like there's a few questions that I personally would like answered, you know, and I maybe I'll just get voted. I I don't know. But I either way I'd like some some questions answered since I'm going to be paying a portion of it. I don't know if you can do that or who can do that, but— [05:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —we can talk about it after we close the public. [05:41] **Carrie Casta (Resident):** Okay. Thanks. [05:43] **Brian Wer (Resident):** Yeah. Hi, my name is Brian Wer. I also live on 66. So, um, kind of like Carrie said, uh, you know, my initial message on this road was again, you know, half of this to maybe 10,000 at most. At 15,000, I just I I vote my dissent. I just the road is in need, but it's not I don't think it needs to be totally ripped up and redone and all that at a cost of 15,000 plus per thing. So, I I'm just not in favor of the project and maybe looking at alternative meth things for a lot less money. Simple as that. [06:20] **Female Resident:** I'm live at 11076 66th and we're at the end of the cul-de-sac and the road is horrible. The farther you go down, the worse it gets. And it's full of potholes. I mean, it's it's hor— we have grandkids and they, you know, go down the middle of the street because otherwise you will fall in a pothole. So, it does need repair. And I guess my concern is when we first moved in there, the road was beautiful and it's really gone downhill. And like Carrie said, it was just kind of a slapover paint job. I'm willing to be part of this because I want a nice road for investment of our property. So again, I think my question is, will the city continue to maintain it? If we replace it, maintain it to the level that it should be and not let it deteriorate because when we moved in, the builder, I think, did the road. And I what I heard from Brad, it was not the best construction it should have been. That being said, we all moved in after, so we didn't know. But now we do, and we have that information. So, I guess I would like the the city to be invested into it, too. If we say yes, we're for it. Let's maintain it and keep it nice. Thank you. [07:45] **Carrie Casta (Resident):** Can I put in two more cents? [laughter] Just a quick one on that one. And and I guess that's part of my concern is, okay, the road is going to pot. We get that. We need to do something about it. But initially the city of Grant, you know, and and it it looks like they're they're going to put in their share as well, but initially the city of Grant should have been responsible for saying the road needs to be built in these particular parameters. It doesn't sound like that was done. So somebody paid for a road, got off cheap because Grant allowed them to. So now the road's totally going to pot and they're coming back to the residents saying, "We're going to whack you $15,000 because the road's going to pot when it shouldn't have been in the first place." because I don't believe and I and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but when when we had the discussion initially, um Brad had kind of explained what what he thought was going on, but um you know, he didn't know some of the details and you know, whether the road was why it was going the way it was, but but I just I feel like if the city allowed it to go in in an incorrect manner in the first place. Maybe they need to kick in a little bit more than normal. That's just my two cents. [08:50] **Scott Morgan (Resident):** Scott Morgan, 11033 66th Street. I I would concur that the maintenance of the road was probably not well the way it appears, it wasn't taken care of. And there's some really good points here about if this is going to be, you know, updated or changed. I would also like to know what is in it, you know, for for the residents that are going to be, you know, paying for some of this and along with Brian's comment, um, is there an in between on this thing? I mean, is there something? I don't know. I mean, I'm just wondering. A new road is is nice. obviously is nice, but I it I don't know if I we ever really talked about that. And then then with the cost being higher than we originally were were, you know, told, I just would wonder if there's something that could be chatted, you know, we could talk about that way. So that those are my thoughts. [09:40] **Larry Lenuan (Resident):** Larry Lenuan, I realize we've got developments coming into our town and part of the problem is like Woodland Acres, uh some of the other uh Victoria station when those were originally put in. Yes, the city required that they be black topped, but they didn't require them to be black topped to a standard. Now, if you go back WSB, which was a good engineering firm, uh, in fact, Brad Reifsteck worked for them, uh, we did a study on the roads. And you'll find that a lot of the roads in Grant have only got two inches of black top on them. That means that you can't do a 1 inch mill-in overlay on a road because you simply can't mill one inches off of two inches of black top. So, you're stuck doing a total reconstruct. So, moving forward, I would recommend that the city uh set a standard to a five or seven ton road. Should have three and a half inches of a base. First off, you should have a good base, but then you should have three and a half inches of base asphalt and an inch and a half of wear. of that. Uh, a good example, Fran Meer came to our city council years ago and explained how and why you correct the roads that are in disrepair. And we were talking about grading them. At the time, somebody thought, well, we already had a a grader, but we weren't talking about road graders. We're talking about actually grading the roads and what you can save. And that's, you know, a good example is McKusick Avenue used to be a county road. The county turned it over to the city and they said, "We'll give you McKusick if you give us Jamaica." And they did a great job putting in Jamaica and they've maintained it. Uh, our city took over McKusick. Looks like a third world country. That being said, moving forward with these developments or any roads that I recommend you put it in to a standard that allows for a mill-in overlay in the future so that you can take a 30-year road and extend it to a 50-year use. Thank you. [11:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Anyone else? Do we have anyone online? So Brad, we had some questions there. Um, [11:34] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** need to close the— [11:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, yeah. We need to close. So, yeah. Um, [11:37] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** To close the public hearing. [11:38] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [11:39] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Public hearing is closed. Council member Cornett. [11:40] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Hi. [11:41] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [11:42] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [11:43] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [11:44] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Hi. [11:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [11:46] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [11:47] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [11:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. So, Brad, I don't know if you took note. We had some questions there on um the the standards of the roads. um how old is the current road? How long will the new one expect to last? Um what will we do to maintain it properly? Um will it be constructed differently than and have a longer life than the um current road? And um Larry mentioned five to seven ton standards. I believe we have a nine ton standard. Is that correct, Brad? [12:20] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yes, mayor. That is correct. It's it's more than just the pavement thickness itself, but it's the underlying uh aggregate base as well. Um so we've been building our most of the roads that we have uh reconstructed uh have a minimum of 7 in of class 5 below um the existing pavement before we do the reclaim. Typically once we reclaim uh there's anywhere between 8 and 12 inches of class 5 aggregate below these roads. I want to say the 66th Street road um has approximately 12 to 15 in of class 5 underneath the existing pavement. Um so um that would that roadway would would meet that 9 ton design uh standard. And as far as Great Oak Trail, uh again I think uh the underlying gravel there was anywhere between 7 and 12 in as well. Um, and with a 3-in bituminous pavement, um, you know, that that design standard is is met. Um, as far as the maintenance goes, uh, I know that's always been a big big issue. Um but but over the last 10 years, the city of Grant has been committed to um doing the maintenance in a timely manner, meaning once we re we reclaim the roadways, put the new bituminous um pavement over the new road, um cracks are going to start to form in that pavement. Um typically, if not one year, two years after the pavement is laid. And so the council over the last 10 years has been committed to um doing these crack seals um on these newer roads and and we've been doing them um pretty consistently every two years um since we've reconstructed these roads. So, um I know in the past anyway, um the councils have been um pretty consistent in making sure that we at least do the crack sealing for the roads um the newer roads that we pave. Uh as far as you know alternatives for um paving these roads, we have done um in certain circumstances we have just done a 2-in overlay on top of some of the existing pavements. Um, the last time we did that was on 65th Street and that was about five or six years ago and that seems to be holding up fairly well, but the condition of that existing pavement was in a lot better shape than what I'm seeing out on 66th Street and Great Oak Trail. [14:55] **Council Member John Rog:** Is it Brad, just interjection, is that why you didn't maybe discuss the overlay as a potential in between option because the road was just too bad? [15:05] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That's that's correct. We we didn't explore that option in the feasibility report. I know I had mentioned it at the neighborhood meetings, but in my um observation of the existing pavement, it just didn't seem like a 2-in overlay um would be the most cost effective way to to reconstruct these these two roads. Um and I and I get it. I mean, I I think one of the the the issues, and I think I told this to the residents at our our meetings, is that um the data that we're using to do our estimates early on is just GIS data. And some of the data that we had for 66 Street was not correct. So, we go out and we survey the streets so that we have really good um areas that we can measure. And um for some reason the cul-de-sac wasn't included with the original um GIS information that I had. So it was the cost estimates uh were lower than what we expected. Um, again, I when I when I put these cost estimates together for the feasibility report, I try to be conservative so that when we get to the um the bidding of the project or even award that um the prices for the assessments and the construction and the project cost will come down. Um, and that's been the case on every project that I've I've I've bid in the city of Grant so far. So, I'm not expecting, you know, prices to go up from from what I've shown in the feasibility report. Um, but you never know, right? Um, but again, I'm hoping that prices were higher than—the cost estimates were higher than, you know, what we'll receive in bids. Uh, and the the assessments would go down from from those estimated costs that are in the feasibility report. [16:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So you did you did one. So you did basically like you usually do as worst case estimate in terms of the the feasibility report and— [17:03] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —correct. I I try to be very conservative with my unit costs and the feasibility report. [17:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And so what was the what was the last um percent in favor when you had the last meeting with the latest estimates? [17:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So, I want to say that um 90% of the residents on 66th Street were in favor of the project. Um and we haven't seen any written comments um or emails from any residents that were no longer in favor of it. Um but again, this this was the opportunity again, you know, we had the opportunity at a neighborhood meeting for for for people to uh let us know the city know that they were no longer in favor of the project and this would be the second opportunity. So now we've got some folks that seem like they're they're no longer in favor of the project and um so I guess um you know you the council will have to consider that. [18:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Um so the the current road life was what 15 years I think some is that accurate? was 15 years since it was— [18:12] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —No, I I want to I want to say both these roads were built in the early to late or early to mid 1990s. [18:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So, they're 25 to 30 years old. [18:22] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Okay. That's that's the records I have. [18:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah, which is standard, which is pretty long I guess for average life center road. Um and you you did um talk about the the increased uh maintenance that we're allocating towards roads. So, um, we should be able to keep ahead of the the maintenance and and get the the proper maintenance done before the alligator cracking starts and should um extend the life of these roads to the maximum according to our current road budget. [18:58] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That that is correct. We again we try to um it's it's very important that we're timely with the crack sealing right to keep the water from entering the the cracks and and causing um you know in the springtime when you get those freeze thaw cycles. That's when you tend to get the uh the water problems on the roadway. So, if we can make sure that we get on the the crack ceiling, um, again, it's usually not until year two after the pavement has been put down, uh, is when you'll typically see the first cracks form. Um, so it's it's important that we get on those cracks. And again, um, you know, past councils have been pretty supportive of of doing that work. It's fairly inexpensive. Um, and so we've been we've been pretty diligent about doing that. [19:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Great. John, you had a question. [19:50] **Council Member John Rog:** I did. So, if this road was, you know, 25 30 years old, what is your estimate of this reconstruction? What's the life of the road? Assuming that you do the the cracked ceiling or fog thing, whatever you do. Um, what's the life of the road that you're expecting to put in? [20:10] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** So again, I would conservatively say 35 years, but if we're really diligent about doing the crack sealing, um you could easily extend it another 5 to 10, but the other step that's important too is um at some point uh you're going to need to do a either a crack seal or a fog seal. Um and those are a little bit more expensive, uh maintenance, uh repairs that need to be done to streets. Um, so that's something to consider in the future. But, um, again, we've been seeing these streets last for 30 years without much maintenance on them at all. So, I'm fairly confident that we can go to at least 35 or 40 years just doing the simple crack sealing and maybe occasional fog seals. [20:55] **Council Member John Rog:** So, my question—and you follow up—those are at the on the city's budget, right? [20:58] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Correct. [20:59] **Council Member John Rog:** Okay. All right. Thank you. Lindsay. [21:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** That's actually my question is we do these roads. How far can we extend it out? And you already answered it. So, thank you. [21:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Ben? [21:06] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, he's answered pretty much everything. uh just to ensure like I know that we in our proposed budget we allocated a lot of dollars and I might be kind of just reiterating something like that fog seal and crack seal that's something that we're now being more diligent on to make sure that we don't have these similar issues as we had in the past so it doesn't get to a point where that doesn't alleviate like a wider spread issue of the road with our increased budget—that's going to go help correct? [21:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That is correct. It's it's like I said, it's really important to do that crack sealing uh in a timely manner just to extend the life [snorts] um of these pavements. So um dollars have been allocated in our current budget um for the streets that we've paid over the last um 10 years and then um moving forward with with streets as we um you know get petitions to reconstruct them. [22:02] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** And then just this is my own ignorance. Um but uh was that in the past like just not done on a timely manner? So that that's why these issues seem to be exacerbated to this point. [22:12] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Um you know I don't know what happened before my time at the city as far as the maintenance goes. Um I know there was some seal coating done right in prior years and some um crack sealing as well. Um, but it really takes a full-time effort to stay on top of the maintenance. Meaning, um, you got to have a good effective plan, right? The one kind of like the one that we put together. And you've got to have somebody that stays on top of it, whether it's me or another city engineer or what have you, right? You need you need somebody within the city to make sure that they stay on top of the maintenance of these roadways. Um otherwise they're not going to last. [22:50] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** All right, that's all. Thank you. [22:52] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And Greg, do you have another question? [22:53] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Couple things. Um the process obviously we we're having the improvement hearing tonight. Um in the resolution, Brad, I think the council received your report on October 7th, not June 3rd. We should probably make that note in the resolution before we consider it. Um, but standard practice, if we move ahead with the improvements tonight, Brad puts plans and specs together, brings them back, we go out for bid, the assessment hearing has been done at the end of the project, right? That's the way he and the schedule out his feasibility report. Has that been the practice of the city? That's right. [23:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Um, council member Anderson, I was having a really hard time hearing you. Can you repeat that? [23:42] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Past projects, the council has held the assessment hearing after the project's complete. [23:48] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So, we've done it both ways, but I would recommend that we do the assessment hearing at the time of award of the construction contract. That way the way cost—and the council knows the cost—before we enter into a contract or if there's going to be some objections to the assessment. [24:10] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** That would be my recommendation is we maybe consider that for this project. So what would happen is once the bids are back, we'd have the actual assessments. We could have the assessment hearing before we award the contract to do the work. Then if for something goes wrong in the field and there's a little bit of cost overruns that would end up being on the city. That's probably why they were done at the end of the project before to capture all the projects. But I think a couple of people that spoke tonight, you know, they're concerned about the costs being different than proposed. You know, Brad gave these estimates. Usually the estimates are high been my experience. But that way before we move ahead and do the project, we know what the actual assessment numbers would be for the residents. And you're confirming, Brad, that that's how we're going to have this process. [25:05] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That is that is correct. If that's the council's wish, that we can certainly do it that way. Um we've done it both ways um for projects in the city. [25:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So, if we did it that way, would we have to update the feasibility report? Because right now, it looks like we have it set that we would assess it after the project. [25:22] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** No, I think we wouldn't necessarily have to change schedule report. We could just switch it. [25:26] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, for my own sake, could you you talked about crack sealing and fog ceiling. It sounds like we do crack sealing more than fog ceiling. Does one extend the road longer? I'm assuming one is cheaper than the other and that plays role. [clears throat] [25:42] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** So the crack sealing is very important to do every two years. Um the fog seals we've been using over the older roads just because there's so many cracks. Um, the fog seal will fill all the cracks. Uh, the fog seal is a little more expensive than the crack sealing and it tends not to last as long as the crack sealing, but again, we've been doing that because it's more cost effective to try to seal as many cracks as we possibly can with a fog seal. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for a newer road until maybe year 10, depending on again the number of cracks that are in the pavement. It's really a case by case basis for each street. [26:30] **Council Member John Rog:** That's fair. [26:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any more questions? So, it looks like we're ready to entertain a motion which will probably include the tweaks that we talked about—correcting the date on the um council receiving the resolution and then um switching the assessment hearing around to be at the time of award. So, do I have a motion? [26:48] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 2025-15 with the changes you mentioned. [26:53] **Council Member John Rog:** I'll second them. [26:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [26:56] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [26:57] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [26:58] **Council Member John Rog:** I. [26:59] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [27:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [27:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [27:02] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I. [27:03] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [27:04] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I. Okay. Uh, next we have another one for Brad. Consideration of County 17 and 36 working hours request. This is seemed pretty straightforward. Brad, you just want to do a quick recap of this for us. [27:20] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Chair, mayor, members of the council. Um, this item here is to consider working hours outside of the city's uh noise ordinance for construction activity for a Washington County project uh for Lake uh I'm sorry uh Lake Elmo Avenue and Highway 36. Um, currently the county is at about a 95% um, design completion and they um, are hoping to get um, this project bid in early January. Um, with those bid documents, they would like to uh, specify the working hours for the project. And so they've uh asked the city um to formally approve um working hours that are beyond the city's normal construction activity work hours. Um, again, the city's work hours typically in the noise ordinance are from 7:00 a.m. to 6 pm. And the county is requesting uh working hours Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Um, Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Now, the current noise ordinance doesn't allow work on the weekend. So that's why we thought it would bring we would bring this to the council's attention and and seek approval for um noise hours just specifically for this construction project so that the county um can use the u um periods of time to speed up uh construction of this project. With that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions. [29:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah. Um, [clears throat] you know, I I I look at where the construction is on the um on the uh would be the south side. How many houses are close by to where the construction is going to be ending on that side? You know, you got the church and [clears throat] you know, the uh— [29:25] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —Yeah. So, the I want to say the city limits of Grant and Lake Elmo are on the north frontage road down the center of the north frontage road. Um and so there's a lot so in Grant uh we do have a few commercial properties adjacent to this intersection. Um you've got uh cousins and you've got u shifts and the old Carvana. There are some residential neighborhoods um I want to say about 1500 to 2,000 feet to the north of this uh this intersection. Um but again for the most part um most of the businesses or most of the properties adjacent to this project are commercial properties. [30:05] **Council Member John Rog:** But isn't it going to the southside? [30:08] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So there's work on the southside that's in the Lake Elmo city side. Um most of the work is done on the south side of Highway 36. um with minimal um construction activities or changes on the north north frontage road. [30:25] **Council Member John Rog:** Okay. It just seems that um you know when you start adding in Saturdays and Sundays um you know that's any anybody that's close by is going to hear that you know and you know I'd hate to I'd hate to be even close to that because then you you hear it a lot of construction a lot of diesel engines um and and you know Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Um, isn't that uh isn't that a bit much considering that we had no weekends on, you know, in our in our ordinances? [30:58] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Well, again, this is project specific, right? And so, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the contractor is going to be working every Saturday and every Sunday through the duration of the project. Um, but I don't have that specific information, right? And again, um I'm assuming the county is going to have to ask um the city of Lake Elmo as well for approvals of of working hours. Um typically in most cities, they do allow Saturday work, but typically no Sunday work. [31:35] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, I I I would say no Sunday. I mean, Sunday is I don't know. I wouldn't want to hear anything on a Sunday. Have we done um this before in the past for project specific where we've extended our noise um hours to allow work to happen on the weekends or starting as early as 6:00 a.m. on a weekday? [31:58] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Um you know, I'm not aware of anything. I know I want to say before I my time here at the city there was a construction activity and a I want to say a private parcel that had to get a cup to to allow them to have working hours be above and beyond the city's um noise control ordinance. So that was a very unique situation. Um, but I'm not aware of any other projects, at least in the city of Grant, um, where we've approved, uh, hours outside of, um, the normal construction activity hours. [32:35] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Uh, my only question is, um, we already have the regular hours with the weekend hours. Are there any of the businesses along the road that that's going to like greatly impact where there might have like an actual issue uh with people getting to their establishment or will that generally be just the noise issue that we're talking about? [32:55] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You know, I haven't seen the full uh completed plans, but I'm I'm almost certain that um there will be times where um there will be construction activity in front of some of these businesses. Um but they will have access to their properties um at all times. But there again, there may be times where they're doing work directly in front of the driveways or things like that where they would not have access. But um I I'm pretty certain that it's the you know the idea that um these businesses would have access to their property at all times. [33:32] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Beyond this meeting, do the properties who are likely going to be impacted by this have any notification ahead of time that this request um is in place that the county wants to extend the work hours? [33:48] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You know, I'm not certain that the property owners know that these hours um are being proposed by the county. Um I'm not sure that that information has been shared at a neighborhood meeting. Um so I can't say for certain. [34:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Doesn't Brad doesn't typically the county public works don't they contact the affected residents and businesses? [34:10] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Typically they have. I mean they've been in contact with these residents for over the last three and a half years. I I'm just not certain they've um shared the the working hours that they're they're requesting. [34:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. And if they if they had feedback relevant to this, they would share with us. Typically the county—I mean— [34:32] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —As far as the neighborhood— [34:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —As far as yeah anyone objecting to it. [34:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Um yeah typically if they have minutes or um comments they they typically would share them. I have not seen any uh comments directly re related to the working hours though. [34:48] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** And at this point we have no reason to believe they've been notified outside of obviously they can look on our website and see that this is in our minutes or in our packet. [35:00] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, that's correct. [35:01] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So that that's a good segue to what I was going to say. Um can we proactively notify them if we decide to adopt this so they so we we make sure that they know that someone's told them. [35:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So, we don't have to make a decision on these working hours tonight if council decides they want to postpone this. I I don't think uh from what I understand the county was looking for approval in the next month or two and because you know we only meet once once a month. I thought it would be prudent to put it on tonight's agenda, but we can certainly move it if if council chooses that we can get some more information from the county and see what information they've shared with the local businesses and uh the surrounding area and and see if these uh working hours uh have been shared with the public. [35:55] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Um, and I I understand they want to keep this project on schedule. I mean, have they given us any more information on why they're hoping to extend the hours by having essentially two more full work days? Um, do we have any information why it's not currently going to stay on schedule for fall of 2027 if they don't extend those hours? [36:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, I think they have a pretty I think they want to get this project done in one construction season. Okay. Um, or at least one one year. And so that's a pretty aggressive schedule as it is. I don't know if it's regarding whether their funding will um you know runs out at a certain point. That's typically why they want to get things done as quickly as they can because um of funding considerations. But um again, we can get some more information if if that's what the council would would like me to do. [36:50] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I mean, I personally would just like a little bit information. I suspect are people that are affected by this, they want to obviously have the construction done as fast as possible so it's no longer impacting their business. That said, you know, I think they also would probably want information knowing that I know for me, I wouldn't like to have construction at 6 a.m. um on a on a weekday. That said, um I understand that doesn't mean that they're actually starting to do work that very, you know, at 6:01. Um but I personally would just like to get a little bit more feedback of, okay, what happens if we don't approve this or we cut down Sunday? you know, how is that going to prolong the project so we just have as much information at our fingertips when we make this decision? [37:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So, you said two months. Was there um timeline for— [37:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —Yeah, I think by the end of this year, right? So, we've got one more meeting in December and I and I can certainly find out exactly when they need a a decision from us. And again, we don't you know, we can stick with the regular city hours. I mean, we we don't have to grant approval of these additional hours. [38:00] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** We could also, Brad, we could um do a conditional approval provided that they've reached out to the residents themselves and haven't had any feedback— [38:10] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —Yeah, I think it's very tough to keep their feet to the fire on that one. I think I would rather just try to get some more information from them and bring this back at the December meeting. But, um, again, that's that's up to council. [38:25] **Council Member John Rog:** So, the Monday—If I may, just the Sunday—the Monday through Friday from what our ordinance says versus the Monday through Friday here. That's an extra 15 hours. So that's basically two working days just Monday through Friday. And then you say Saturday and that's a that's another full work day. So you have an extra three work days just on Saturday. And so I think three extra work days on the Monday through Saturday. I don't think Sunday is um I wouldn't I just wouldn't do Sunday. I'm sorry. I just it's just too much. You know, you look at you look at what they're doing uh where Manning was and then the the the hospital they're putting in there. This isn't quiet stuff. So I don't know. [39:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Well, it's fair question and you know I think it's good, Brad, if you would follow up with them and and ask them um if they've got feedback from the residents and with full understanding of the implications to the residents too. I mean, if if they have a choice of um expanded work work days versus expanded length of the the project, they might, you know, make it their decision accordingly. So, it seems like we're kind of leaning towards tabling it. And then if that's the case, we would um need a motion to make sure Brad has clear instruction, which I think you do have, Brad. But— [39:50] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** —Yeah, the other thing I would suggest, mayor, is that um we check with the city of Lake Elmo as well to see what their no noise ordinance [sighs] is. So that uh you know, maybe maybe what we try to do is just change to match what their working hours are. Um, but I can find out that information as well. [40:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, good point. [40:11] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** That would be good. So, Lindsay, you want to make the motion to table? Sure. I'll move to table uh where this go... Resolution 25-6. [snorts] Nope, wrong one. Apologies. Uh— [40:28] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —Yeah, I don't think there's— [40:29] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —Never mind. I move to table um the working hours being extended for the improvement at Lake Elmo Avenue and Highway 36 with the understanding this would come back on the agenda in December um with hopefully we'll have more information from the county relative to the implications of not sticking to this um heightened schedule as well as um information relative to what contact they've made with the residents or businesses are going to impacted by this as well as what Lake Elmo has um for their hours. Nice and got it all in. [41:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Perfect. Thank you. All right. So, Brad, you're clear. We can—We got a um a motion. We need a second. [41:12] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. [41:13] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [41:14] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [41:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [41:16] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [41:17] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Cremona. [41:18] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [41:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [41:20] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [41:21] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [41:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. Okay, that takes us to city planner. Jennifer's no items. Uh Amanda, you're up next. You have a consideration of resolution 2025-16 accepting donation of services and authorizing work on behalf of the city. We talked about this last uh meeting and Amanda's um put together the um resolution for us. I don't think it's pretty self-explanatory. Does anyone have any questions on the resolution or Amanda, is there anything you think you need to add to that? I think it's we're it's pretty clear. [42:00] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** No, your honor, just noting that um obviously you're accepting the the donation with gratitude and also clarifying that um his services do not create some sort of agency uh relationship, employment relationship, contractor relationship, etc. [42:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right, we have a motion. [42:16] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I motion to approve resolution 2025-16. [42:18] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. [42:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [42:21] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [42:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [42:23] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [42:24] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [42:25] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I. [42:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [42:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I. No new business. No unfinished business. Thank you. Discussion items. Do we have any updates from staff? Okay. Um, I have a couple questions uh for staff updates. Um, Brad, did you um can you share some of the updates on the property? Um, excuse me. Um, the situation with the Stillwater Oaks development and the concerns shared by the the neighboring resident there. We talked about that a little bit, but just want to give a quick update to the council on that. [43:08] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Sure. Mayor, members of the council. Um, so there was a resident that lives uh or owns property um just north of the development off of 88th Street. Uh, and apparently there was some work that was um done by the developer contractor on private property. Um, I'm not sure the extent of the work, but I was told that they removed a old bituminous trail that was on private property and um so we're in the midst of investigating that work. Um the contractor um will be um staking the property line so that we can clearly identify um where the work was completed. And then um the developer has told me that they will uh restore the property if it was disturbed on private property to its original condition. So that's kind of where we're at. We're still investigating the work. Um but uh we should have some some good answers by the end of this week. [44:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And they did say the developer did make a commitment to restore the property and we have the escrow that we can use for to cover those costs if needed. [44:25] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** If needed. Yes, sir. [44:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Um, next question I have. Um, Kristina, do you have any updates on the property 8650 60th Street North? The um neighbors to the the temple that were had some complaints there. I think there's um potentially some movement there from the city in regard response to that. [44:45] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mayor Council members, I believe that's been turned over to the attorney. [44:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Okay. Um and then do we have any update on scheduling the um meeting with the um BCWD, the Browns Creek Watershed District on that meeting that they wanted to have to talk about their tenure management plan and get our input on that. [45:10] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mayor and council members, I have not heard from all of staff about their availability. [45:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, Brad. Brad, you still with us? [45:18] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Does it? I'm sorry. Yes, I am. [45:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. Um Brad, do you want to give an update on um the staff meeting with the Browns Creek Watershed District to provide input to their 10-year management plan, which we also need to incorporate into our own um comp plan. [45:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So, you know, as the the city administrator noted, she's uh working on setting up a meeting with uh Karen at Browns Creek Watershed District. So, um, we're hopeful that, uh, we can have that meeting this week. Um, but if not, next week. So— [45:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —is that true, Kristina? Are you actually setting up a meeting? [45:58] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mayor and council members, I have checked with the staff, uh, the city staff about their availability for a meeting. [46:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So, it's pending. It's pending. Okay. Gotcha. [clears throat] Gotcha. Um, uh, let's see. City Council reports future agenda items. Um, anything from council members there? [46:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I think we talked about, feel free to correct me. Um, but I think we talked about revisiting whether we want to do a planning commission around this time. So maybe in December if we could put it on the agenda to talk about whether we want to do a planning um, commission. I know we initially talked about it early in the year and we thought it it was maybe a little too early and that we'd reassess at the end of the year. [46:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yep. I recall that and I think we had what we talked about that time is we're going to take a look at how many um applications that would have been um reviewed by the planning commission. So, is that that's something that we can add as an agenda item to see where we're at, get some metrics, and try to make a decision on um if it makes sense to spin up the the planning commission so we can add that to the agenda for December. Anything else? You good back over there, Greg? [47:15] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I have a couple. So, um, last week I met with the Mahtomedi School District, city leaders update where, um, different communities that are in school district, Mahtomedi, Hugo, um, Dellwood, um, Willernie, Grant. Of course, we, um, talk about things that are kind of affecting uh, the different communities. And Mahtomedi's update was they're building a trail through the Katherine Abbott echo shores to O Anderson and they are applying for grants to hire additional firefighters and they indicated that in the future they may wish to partner with Grant for fire services. So, right now we we're kind of tied into our uh contact with Stillwater is really our only viable option, but potentially um with their grants and be able to hire more firefighters, we might be able to do a potential uh partnership with them for at least part of our city. So, that might result in a little bit reduced cost, but that's that's in the future. Um Hugo's update was um their residential construction continues to boom. Um, interestingly, their growth forecast was reduced to 5.6% by the U. Met Council and a ceiling was actually placed on growth, which is kind of contrary to the just grow like crazy and that's primarily due to water supply concerns. It's being increasingly um a concern of of cities in the metro area's water supply. And um lastly, the the Liberty um school there. There's strong opposition to the campus. So, they they bought all this land and they're doing a lot of um work, but they still have they're they're counting on um the future approval from the council to continue their their full expansion. Right now, I think it was just limited to to one building. So, um, that will impact Grant residents quite a bit as it's a neighbor of ours and we'll see a lot of potentially increased traffic through our our streets. So, um, that's something to be look. And then Dellwood, Dellwood mentioned, this is kind of curious that they um, uh, have a potential to receive 4.6 million in grant money for trails. and they were kind of debating if that's something that you know what are the strings are attached for that and how they're uh going to handle that but I thought it's interesting that it's it appears it just just landed in their lap but I think they're in the process of evaluating that to see because that would uh you know 4.6 six million that would build a lot of trails in a small city like um Dellwood and then for our own for grant you know it is a it is a possibility that Met Council will look at imposing water usage restrictions in Grant within the next 20 years or so. So, it'll be really important to stay engaged with the Met Council so we can be proactive in protecting our private well usage because I don't think anyone in Grant would like the Met Council coming in and saying, "We're going to put meters on your uh well and restrict the amount of water you can use." So, um that's something we we need to stay engaged with. And then um last week I attended a um a cable commission meeting was a zoom meeting hosted by uh the SCC suburban community cable commission which we're a member and attorney for the city of Woodbury um gave a presentation on how Woodbury negotiated their first local broadband franchise in Minnesota. And this is um kind of important because we lose revenues um declining revenues year after year for cable um when when broadband companies broadband only come in. Right now there's really no franchising. So they ask for a permit and they get it and you know that there's lost opportunity for for franchising. So um this is relevant for grant too as we look for opportunities to replace these declined revenues. um if we get inquires from broadband companies seeking permits then we can talk about you know potential franchising. [51:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Community calendar. Who would like to read? [51:52] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'll read it. Special election, November 4th. Mahtomedi School District. Mahtomedi public school board meeting Thursday, November 13th at the Mahtomedi District Education Center at 7 PM. Stillwater Public Schools Board Meeting Thursday, November 13th, Stillwater City Hall at 7 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting, Tuesdays, Government Center, 9:00 a.m. And Thursday, November 27th is Thanksgiving Day. [52:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. we're going to take a a 10-minute recess and then we're going to have um it says on the agenda it's closed session, but it'll actually be an open session. So, anyone like to stick around for that? Um they may. And we'll be taking a 10-minute recess. [52:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Still cold. We're going to zoom the meeting. [snorts] Um, Amanda, would you like to start us out on item 10, which was labeled closed session, but is actually not a closed session. Would you like to start us out there? [52:50] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Uh, yes, your honor. Uh so just for uh point of clarification, this originally came in as a close session uh to evaluate the performance of the city clerk and I just want to take a couple minutes to walk through and clarify on the record uh some recent events. So at the October council meeting, the council requested that I gather information to create a new program uh for the city clerk performance evaluation. The original plan was going to be that uh tonight I was going to present a new performance evaluation process for your consideration at the work session. Uh that the intent was that then uh there was going to be a performance review for Miss Points at the December meeting. However, on Tuesday, October 28th, uh Miss Points called Mayor Giefer and stated that she was providing him a heads up that we she was submitting her resignation. Miss Points then emailed the council and stated that she needed to uh quote get the legal verbiage to go into a close session at the end of the meeting to discuss the departure of the city of Grant administrator clerk end quote. Miss Points also communicated with attorney Nick Vivian requesting assistance for a close session to discuss her quote immediate transition out of the position. Importantly, a meeting to discuss the departure of a city employee is not a legal reason to go into a close session under Minnesota statute 13D.05. On Wednesday, October 29th, uh, Miss Points was informed that the close session would be structured as a performance review. She was told that she could tender her official resignation at that time. On Thursday, October 30th, Miss Points was informed that she was not entitled to be in the entire closed session and that the council would be permitted to hold the closed session, at least in part, without her if they chose. She was also notified that under Minnesota's statute, she had the right to request that the session be open to the public. On Friday, October 31st, I received an email from somebody named Joel Holstead. he is an attorney and he stated that Miss Points has not resigned and did not want to resign and uh multiple requests to clarify if Mr. Holstead is acting as Miss Point's attorney have gone unanswered. Also on Friday, October 31st, Miss Points requested that the performance review be in an open public meeting. Due to Miss Point's request, the council must hold this discussion in an open meeting. I want to talk about the status of Miss Point's employment agreement as well. Um, during the course of this last week, Mayor Giefer requested a copy of Miss Point's employment agreement. Miss Points responded stating, quote, "I will look for it, but I know there is no severance package included if I resign." End quote. Repeated quests have been made for the agreement. As of now, no signed copy has been provided. This afternoon, Miss Points emailed myself and attorney Vivian an unsigned agreement with severance terms that were revised from the word document prepared by Eckberg Lammers. I have copies of both versions of the employment agreement here for the council. This first agreement that I'm giving you is the draft agreement that in the Eckberg Lammers file and appears to have been created in 2013. It is unsigned. Please draw your attention to paragraph 8, the termination benefits. In the termination benefits in that document, it states that if she is terminated from her position without cause, she is entitled to six months of aggregate salary. Today, uh, Miss Points provided this document to myself and Mr.—Excuse me, attorney. And if you would please draw your attention to paragraph number eight. If you will notice, paragraph number eight is not page like the other paragraphs. So it's fonted out. So you have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and then eight is fonted out. The second to last line of the first page, there's a weird font. If you look, it says "because of misconduct, conviction, and then the word for FOR" appears to be a different font than the rest of that sentence. Um, the word personal appears on the last line of page one and then you go to page two. Page two matches the document in the Eckberg Lammers file. So the reason that I am highlighting these differences is that the termination benefits listed in paragraph 8 state that if she is terminated without cause, she is entitled to a lump-sum cash payment equal to 2.17 weeks of salary for every year employed. It has the appearance that the second document that I gave you uh looks to have been edited as a PDF as I mentioned. Sorry, was there a question? [58:15] **Council Member John Rog:** No, no, I just— [58:17] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —uh so as I mentioned the point that um or the the termination benefits in the unsigned agreement that was provided today is the 2.17 weeks per year. The version that has been sitting in an Eckberg Lammers file probably since 2013 um states six months of severance in the event of termination without cause. The council packet from March 5th of 2013, the date that supposedly this contract would have been approved, does not include a copy of the employment agreement. So, at this point, the council has a couple of different options. You can continue to allow Miss Points to continue her employment as city clerk. You can offer Miss Points a separation agreement with compensation and a final date of employment as determined by the city council. If you choose this option, you the five of you should discuss what you would agree to for compensation, what you would like her final date of employment to be, and what terms you would be expecting from Miss Points in exchange for that compensation. Your third choice is to terminate Miss Points without cause. If you terminate Miss Points without cause, then there would need to be a discussion about which agreement you think governs—the one from the Eckberg Lammers file, the one that Miss Points provided today, or if no employment agreement governs because we do not have a signed employment agreement to date anywhere. Your fourth option is that you can terminate Miss Points for cause. It's important to note that under the statute, misconduct is a defined term and it means any intentional, negligent or indifferent conduct on the job or off the job that is a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee. It's this standard is a high standard. Further single incidents generally do not rise to the level of misconduct. That is the information that I wanted to make sure was placed on the record for the council. Um because obviously this is something that we're doing in an open session. It's a little bit more awkward than if this was a conversation that was being held in a closed session, but that um is solely the choice of Miss Points. Um, so now I turn it over to the council for discussion. [1:00:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, our clerk has clearly indicated that she does not wish to continue her employment with the city. Um, to kind of further the um, information that Amanda shared above in an email dated Tuesday, October 28th, our clerk stated to me, "I would like to part ways as professionally and amicably as possible. I have been with the city for 20 years in January and have no ill will towards you or the city. You need to think about timing needed to go through the hiring process. Any training time you would like me to provide to the new hire. I believe we will be able to negotiate this respectfully and part ways in a friendly manner. Be very clear. I am not going to leave the city in a bind in any way, shape or form." So, I appreciate those sentiments and given where we're at right now, um, I move to enter into a separation agreement with Miss Points in a form recommended by the city attorney, including the following terms: Payment of $38,000, which would align to the Eckberg Lammers um, version of the employment document; cooperation from Miss Points to turn over all city property and assist transition to interim clerk as directed by mayor; and waiver of claims. And before we um go into discussion, can I get a second so we can go into discussion about this motion? [1:02:10] **Council Member John Rog:** I guess I'll second. [1:02:11] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. Council Member Cornett. [1:02:13] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, we're we're we're going in discussion. [1:02:15] **Council Member John Rog:** I thought that was a motion and a second. [1:02:17] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Well, we're—Well, we're going to make the vote. [1:02:19] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Do Do we want to disc—I mean, is there I think we need to um align on um the uh the options and if everyone agrees. Amanda, do you want to clarify that any discussion points relevant here? [1:02:30] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. So, my understanding is the mayor made a motion, there was a second, and so now there's is there further discussion about the motion. And so, this would be the point of the meeting uh where if the council wanted to discuss the motion, if there was going to be friendly amendments made to the motion, if there was changes made to the motion or just, you know, dissent of some type, this would be the part where the council would discuss that. [1:03:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Can I to clarify? So the six months essentially of like severance is that—lack of better word—industry standard? [1:03:08] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Uh the the six months uh severance is is definitely industry standard for city administrators in larger cities. Um, but it's it is expected that if you are terminating your sort of the head of a city, it's can be difficult to find positions because it isn't like they're um all over the place. So, yeah, I do see the six-month um number a lot. I do want to point out that the 38,000 is a little bit more than what is in the Eckberg Lammers um version of the employment agreement uh based on the the numbers that the clerk gave me for her salary and then what was confirmed by the city treasurer. Um those are the numbers that I'm running off of. Uh but I don't you know those have not been independently verified. depending upon what council wants to do tonight. One of the potential future actions in this meeting will be for a independent third-party verification of the financials and we can walk through that in a moment. [1:04:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So clarification for the um separation agreement, you would need some time to write up the details of that and then um that would be—would we need a um another council vote on that or— [1:04:28] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —so if the council wants to move forward with the with a separation agreement with these terms or a variation of these terms as the five of you or the majority of you agree to then it would be up to Miss Points if this is an agreement that she is is willing to accept, right? She doesn't she's not bound to accept a separation agreement, she's not required to do so. So then you would direct me to engage in conversations with Miss Points about accepting or rejecting the separation agreement. [1:05:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other discussions? We have a a motion and a second. We're ready for a roll call. [1:05:06] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Mr. Mayor, could you please just uh clarify the motion? It was based on two conditions. [1:05:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So, the move is to enter in the separation agreement with yourself, Miss Points, in a form recommended by the city attorney, including the following terms: payment of $38,000, cooperation from Miss Point to turn over all city property, assist in transition to interim city clerk as directed by mayor, and waiver of claims. And and can you just um clarify that um the the transition like what that would look like at a two-person um committee or is that not needed at this time? [1:05:40] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. So depending upon what happens, we would need to set a a date certain for end of employment. Um so that would be um something that we would need to discuss now-ish to to right after this um motion would be, you know, when would you want um the last Miss Point's last day to be? Um and then what is the expectation between now and that period of time if there is a period of time? Um, and then if there is uh what sort of assistance you would want um her to provide to transition to the interim city clerk. And the interim city clerk would be somebody that we would need to that you would need to um hire relatively quickly obviously um to step into the position. As you all know, there's a levy and multiple things that need to happen still this year. And so depending upon that timeline that would need to happen relatively quickly. So yes, one of the action items that is available to the council that I have prepared for the council tonight if you go that direction is to establish a personnel committee which would be two members of the council. So less than a quorum but they're empowered to make uh some decisions and and kind of keep the lights on and do the things that are necessary in a transition period if needed. [1:06:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And that would happen after after this motion. [1:07:00] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes, your honor. [1:07:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. All right. Does that clarify? [1:07:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah. [1:07:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [1:07:07] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Hi. [1:07:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [1:07:09] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [1:07:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Cremona. [1:07:11] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [1:07:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [1:07:13] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [1:07:14] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [1:07:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. Um Amanda, so we want to talk about the what you got next in your stack there? [1:07:22] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. So um at this point um I need to have a conversation with Miss Points regarding um her willingness to enter into a separation agreement. that that does need to happen because obviously it requires both sides of of the agreement to to happen. Um but in addition to that um I would also ask that at this point in time the council authorized the formation of a personnel committee um that I just mentioned. The personnel committee would um—I'm just going to read the resolution if that's all right because I realize this was not in your packet. resolution authorizing the formation of a personnel committee. Whereas the city council of the city of Grant recognizes the importance of effective personal management and consistent application of employment policies in ensuring a professional, fair, and efficient organization. And whereas the city council finds it beneficial to establish a committee to review personnel matters, including but not limited to employment policies, position classifications, compensation structures, and employee evaluations. Now therefore be it hereby resolved by the city council of the city of Grant, Washington County, Minnesota as follows. One, a personnel committee is hereby established as an advisory body to the city council of the city of Grant tasked with ensuring that personnel topics are thoroughly evaluated and appropriately documented before council consideration. The personnel committee shall consist of two members of the city council as confirmed by the city council. The personnel committee shall serve in an advisory capacity only and shall report its recommendations to the full city council for final consideration and action. The personnel committee shall consist of—and I need two names. Uh this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption adopted by the grant city council this third day of November. Um so this pol this personnel committee is able to assist in doing the things necessary to find an interim city clerk and then a subsequent resolution will also be authorizing them to undertake um duties of the city clerk as needed until an interim can be hired. [1:09:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So you you need a a vote on that first resolution now. [1:09:44] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. [1:09:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** This would be resolution 2025 and I believe it's 17 based on where we are. And then do we need to name—should we have a discussion about? [1:09:55] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. So you need to tell me who you want on your personnel committee. [1:10:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So um Lindsay, would you be interested? I think you— [1:10:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I can I can do it if we need to. Um does anyone have any—Is it limited to just because of open meeting? [1:10:11] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. And there's no provision for— [1:10:14] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —something like this that's more of an operational thing. It's not really—okay. [1:10:18] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Nope. Has to be less than a quorum. [1:10:20] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** All right. Ben, you okay with okay with me and Lindsay? [1:10:23] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Yeah. [1:10:24] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I mean, if anyone really wants to do it, I'm happy to let them. [1:10:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, it sounds like uh we have alignment myself and Lindsay and then we just need a motion. [1:10:35] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** So, it's motion to approve resolution 2025-17. [1:10:38] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'll make the motion. [1:10:39] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** A second. [1:10:41] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Cornett. [1:10:42] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [1:10:43] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Rog. [1:10:44] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [1:10:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Cremona. [1:10:46] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Hi. [1:10:47] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council Member Anderson. [1:10:48] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [1:10:49] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [1:10:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. [1:10:51] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** And then we wait on the second part then Amanda or do we have— [1:10:55] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Yeah. So um so we'll wait on the second part. Um at this point I need some direction from the council in terms of uh for the the separation agreement what they are looking for for a time frame. So 38,000 is the payout. The expectation is cooperation, turning over all of city property, those types of things. Um, waiver of claims. That's pretty standard. And— [1:11:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —so what have— [1:11:21] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —but what would be the last day of employment? [1:11:23] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So in in your [clears throat] experience, Amanda, working with other cities in these situations, what's a typical time frame for a transition? [1:11:35] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** That varies greatly across the board. Um, it ranges from walking somebody out the night that you uh have ended the relationship. um to um you know a couple of months and so it would depend on the dynamic—the particular dynamic in this situation. And and potentially it's something that um you know if Miss Points is willing to provide some sort of direction to the council in terms of her one: willingness to enter into the separation agreement and two: um you know the amount of time that she is willing to uh continue to work for the city then that could be part of the information the council considers. [1:12:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So, go ahead. [1:12:18] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** I just need to interject here, Mr. Mayor, council members. That was the whole point of the meeting um was to come to these terms. Uh it was framed to me in a way that it needed to be a performance review and that's absolutely fine. Uh there was never any intention to have a performance review. Um because of the situation and some incidents at the city office, it is time. What I wanted to ask the council was how long did you want me to stay in the position while you hire somebody? Do you want to post on the League of Minnesota Cities? Do you want to interview as a full council? Because then you have to host those meetings. Sounds like you want to do a committee which is absolutely fine. And then what would you like if any training time? Those were the things that I wanted to talk about. [1:13:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So I guess the question would be for training. How—and this is question both you and Amanda. What Kim you feel would be typical training time required? And Amanda, from your experience with other cities, would that align with, you know, and and then it would be, I think, a question of the the termination date and then how that how that affects the the transition. I guess that's something we need a little clarity on, too. So, um, Kim, what are your thoughts in, um, elapse time for transition? Two weeks, month, what? [1:13:55] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** Um I I will honestly and truly tell you—and this is not going to happen—there's not going to be uh training provided for a year, but it does take a full year because you do things so often it's annually. Okay. We are at the time right now where you've got all your year-end reports, the tax forms. Um the audit does begin what in February? So I I guess I would think a a month maybe two, but again that is entirely up to you. [1:14:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. Training maybe was a was a bad term. Maybe it was more like just to um because assuming we're going to find uh a person that's familiar with, you know, clerk administrative duties. [1:14:48] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** I would highly recommend it. Yes. [1:14:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yes. So it's more of just transfer of knowledge of current processes, where things are stored, that kind of stuff. So um assuming the focus is on that um you know there's a lapse time and then there's um you know total number of hours and so if you're talking total number of hours Amanda do you have any perspective to share like based on your firm's experience with things like this—is it 80 hours? because 80 hours seems a lot. [1:15:20] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. Yeah. I I mean It it varies, right? It's it's just it depends on the the relationship between the council and the person who's leaving. Um, and it depends on who you get to step into the role. If they can hit the ground running and they need the list of passwords and that's about it, or if they need something more. I'm I'm sorry I can't give you a a firm answer, but it it really does vary in this situation. Um giving the given you know the events leading up to uh today it would be my recommendation that it's a relatively short period of time. Um i think that that would be in the best interest of all the parties involved. [1:16:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So that let's say we say two weeks that time would start after we find a replacement obviously right— [1:16:20] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Well, yeah. So, it's—I think we would need to find a replacement ASAP. Yes. Yeah. But the two week let's say it takes a week to find a replacement and we're saying two weeks. Well that the two weeks would start. [1:16:35] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** We need a date. I mean, we don't need a date specific, but I think in everybody's best interest, it would be best if we could say it's—it's November 27. Like, just pick a firm day. Um, because it's important from a end of employment perspective to be very clear about when that final employment date is. So, that's why I don't know that it works to say, well, once we get somebody, then you'll you'll have two weeks after that. [1:17:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I got you. I got you. And the other piece of it is I mean we could say employment is ended as of today. Today is the last day of employment. Um and then the the compensation is for in part for the um uh a cooperative transition, right? And so it isn't that she's an employee during the cooperative transition. she's just cooperating with the transition um and providing the passwords, providing the whatever the things are that are needed, but the employment date would actually end today. [1:17:35] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Okay. Is it possible to turn that on its head and say like if we have a date a month, two months out, we're coming into the holiday season, it's it could be difficult to find somebody to fill that role where—no, and I don't know if this is possible, so let me know—like no later than December 31. And then if we find somebody and Kim decides then to cut ties like then that's acceptable. So it's gives room. Is that a possible? Is that legal? Is that allowed? I don't I don't know. [1:18:05] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. So you can say you know um employment to end no later than X date but upon you know mutual agreement by the parties it could be earlier. And then essentially if the city and Miss Points agreed, oh, we've got a person and we're done. You know, that could be something that would be agreed upon later. The tricky part with that is sometimes when you leave some of those um loose ends, then there can be future conflict around a loose end. And so sometimes it's better to just kind of wrap up all possible loose ends. So it could just be no later than blank date. And the city just has to know you have to have somebody in the spot or frankly your personnel committee is going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for a while. [1:18:55] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** Mr. Mayor, council members, may I make a suggestion? Getting you at least through your next meeting, which would be December 2nd, being here, being in place, then perhaps offering a a couple of weeks of training, which I would be still on payroll. Um either that, my last date, December 2nd, or the January meeting, whichever you feel you have the most time for or need. [1:19:25] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Can it be? Can you find somebody in a month? I don't know. And if you do then the you know two weeks or whatever week period uh two weeks 3 weeks in December could be for showing the new person whatever they need to be shown. And if you did that timing, that would include getting the the new person or interim clerk, whatever it may be, through your January packets and what that process is, doing the agenda and getting the the bills out and that sort of thing. So you could say—because packets would go out on the 30th for your January meeting—uh end date December... my end date with the training and all that 30 31st. December 31st. [1:20:10] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** That is that is nice. I think that would be that would be good. [clears throat] [1:20:18] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Go ahead. What are the mechanics of the personnel committee and finding a replacement? Will that be ongoing pretty quickly and are we going to discuss that at December or what's what's going to happen there? [1:20:32] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** No, your honor or your council, I would um actually want to discuss that tonight to start getting direction on that uh this evening. I'm hesitant to go down that avenue until we have a little bit more uh firmed up um on like this is kind of step one and then that would be a follow-up step. What I can share is um I do there is somebody that I know that has significant city administration experience um and is currently in an interim position someplace else and would be available um in as short notice as two weeks to be able to step in here. Doesn't mean that that's a right fit. that doesn't mean that you know you want to interview that person and make a decision about them. I can't any of that. [1:21:20] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** It certainly would be something we consider, but I think we'd want to parallel path and you know do a posting with LMC and whatever you know I I'm sure you I'm sure Eckberg Lammers has a somewhat of a blueprint for um cities to follow when it comes to replacing staff because and the league for that matter probably. [1:21:40] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. Yeah. I mean— [1:21:41] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** —of how to solicit um— [1:21:42] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —well your options are posting on the league which you're not really going to get a whole lot um or you use a recruiter which there's they're expensive um and there's not—respectfully—there's not a lot of good ones unfortunately I have been in this process in a couple different cities with having to find city administrators and I can tell you that it's it's a mixed bag. Um, but that's where I'm not sure that the goal would be to get a permanent person in because that could be 6 months, that could be a year. I think— [1:22:15] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** —So, In focus— [1:22:16] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —the idea would be trying to find somebody interim [snorts] and then deciding if that person is the right fit for permanent. If not, then you're looking for a permanent person. Sean— [1:22:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** —I don't know if that—I was just going to say I don't know if that gets us where we need to be. Um, you know, then if that person doesn't work out, then we're then we're back where we would be and without the benefit of trying. [1:22:42] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That's the whole purpose of interim, right? Is to buy you time. And there's nothing to say that. Um, and I don't know too much about, you'd probably know more of this person that you have in mind if they would have uh an openness to potentially, you know, go beyond interim, you know, and how long of an interim process he or she would be willing to take. So, [clears throat] yeah, there's no there's no guarantees. Yeah, it's just— [1:23:10] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —so the question then um is the December 30th acceptable for an a termination date? [1:23:18] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** 31st. [1:23:19] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —for the yeah for the end of employment. So— [1:23:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —termination in a separation agreement. I I suppose it's a it's not really a termination date. It's just an end of employment date. [1:23:28] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** So, what are Amanda? What are the pros and cons between extending it out um that far versus doing it the day and then I mean— [1:23:40] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —I mean respectfully it's liability, right? And so the the the awareness is the relationship is ending and um there are certainly instances where the policies are we don't keep employees after ter after there's an end of the the relationship because of the risk of exposure or you know deleting files or doing some sort of of um uh damage to the city. Obviously those come with their own risks of criminal charges. Those come with their own risks. the separation agreement. The way that the separation agreement has to be drafted, just to be really clear for everybody, is no payment on the separation agreement is made unless and until uh Miss Points would would, you know, complete all of her tasks under the agreement. In other words, she'd have to continue her employment through whatever date it was that council stated. She would have to, you know, cooperate in a reasonable transition. she'd have to turn over all of her um city um property, etc., etc. So, that's the protection to the city is the payment, the 38,000 doesn't get isn't paid until all of those things happen. Um, but that said, [clears throat] I would it would be remiss for me not to acknowledge that certainly, you know, employees have damaged employers before in the interim between when they say they're leaving and then their actual final day. [1:25:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any question? So, right now, I just need to um get a a council direction on the 30th. [1:25:12] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah. So, a council direction on last day and then an indication I guess from from Miss points that this does seem like a path that she would like to pursue as well so that we can know that that's generally where the direction that we're headed because if she does not want to enter into um a separation agreement with the city then the options are you don't have that as an option right then your option is you you continue to employ Miss Points as the clerk or you terminate Miss Points says the clerk, those would be here other. [1:25:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, does that seem generally favorable? [1:25:52] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** Mayor and council members, I am more than willing to enter into a separation agreement after review um and am fully going to cooperate with—okay—with all those things that will be listed in that separation agreement. [1:26:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, the 31st and then we can say, you know, when this person comes in for training, it goes if we find somebody— [1:26:15] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Well, yeah. So to be clear, if if if we find someone next week, they would start working with Kim. We'd essentially be double double booked in the clerk position. But that's— [1:26:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —I mean paying for both. [1:26:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. Correct. Even if you say two weeks from now, we don't we don't need you anymore, you are you would still be on the hook for that for um her all of her all of her employment benefits. So now we're talking about salary, B, you know, everything from now until December 31st. And then after that termination date and after all the the conditions have been met, um then she would get the 38,000. And the other thing is um the there is like a 20-day you have the right a 20-day right to to change your mind about a settlement agreement. Um but that would be effective like the day that you sign it. So because we're talking about such a long period of time, those 20 days expire while we're still in the window of time. Does that make sense? So there's some like weird mechanical pieces, I guess. Um but or technical pieces, but yeah. So you would be double billing, double booked. [1:27:18] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** But it it does mitigate the the the risk and try to find someone in a short amount of time potentially. The sooner you can bring somebody in, the more that they're able to, you know, learn the nuances of Grant, right? And so there's a value to that. And the alternative is maybe you find somebody, but you say, "Well, we don't need to start for three weeks instead of two or whatever." You know, you have you potentially could have some flexibility that way, too. Then the other piece is um you know maybe it'll be easy to find an interim and maybe it won't be easy to find an interim. [1:27:52] **Council Member John Rog:** I'm good with I think we need to get through another regular meeting and by her on the 31st. [1:28:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** So just so we're clear, by her on December 31st, correct? Not November. [1:28:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Well, she said the 30th, but 31st is probably it's 31st. December 31st. 31st termination date. [1:28:15] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —termination in a separation agreement. I I suppose it's a it's not really a termination date. It's just an end of employment date. So just to recap—so just to recap: December 31st, 38,000 flat rate flat payment amount, cooperation to turn over city property, assist in transition to interim city clerk, waiver of claims—yes? That's generally the acceptable terms to the council. [1:28:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yep. [1:28:46] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I guess so. [1:28:47] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Okay. You're shaking your head. So like— [1:28:50] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —Yeah, I get—I mean it seems like it's okay. [1:28:52] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** And then Miss points, that's generally accept—those are generally acceptable terms to you as well. [1:28:58] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** Uh yes. I understand that you and I still need to—you need to look at the actual fine print of the document. I understand that. And and my only question is that that separation agreement coming back to the council or—No. [1:29:15] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —So that separation agreement um no. Because the motion was— [1:29:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —Oh yeah— [1:29:20] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —to approve separation a separation agreement in a form as prepared by the city attorney. [1:29:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So no that's fine. Um do we need to um end the regular meeting and then talk about the the second part of the two person committee or is that done within the meeting? [1:29:35] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. So first let's get a motion or a actual vote on your motion because I don't think we've done that yet. Right. So, a vote on the actual um um termin sorry uh employment separation agreement. So, did we do an official— [1:29:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —Yeah, we voted to— [1:29:52] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Not on the date. We haven't voted on the date. [1:29:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So, so if we can go ahead, you're right. Okay. Um— [1:30:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —make a motion for December 31st as the final date. [1:30:05] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. [1:30:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [1:30:07] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Hi. [1:30:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [1:30:09] **Council Member John Rog:** Hi. [1:30:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [1:30:11] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [1:30:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [1:30:13] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. [1:30:14] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. [1:30:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. Okay. Uh then we need to—So we have the personnel committee. We have a motion to move forward with a separation agreement. Um, do you want to do a small audit review of city clerk compensation? [1:30:35] **Council Member John Rog:** Let's say that again. [1:30:38] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** So, do you want to have a third-party review the the city clerk's compensation? As I mentioned, um the dollar amounts that I was given from the clerk and from the city treasurer when I was looking through the disbursement lists um that are attached with your monthly uh packets and then looked at like the budget-to-date documents that are provided on the website. I couldn't get the numbers to math out— [1:31:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —how far off? Go ahead, Sharon. Sharon, you— [1:31:08] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —so the ones would not include the taxes that the clerk distributes to you guys, the tax withholdings. And um so the numbers for some reason on Catas do not include the taxes and I think that I also took the 20... Oh, I just took the number from... No, I just took the number from the budget. [1:31:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, there's the budget—like budgeted amount—and then there's the budgeted actual—and those don't line up. [1:31:38] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** They wouldn't, right? And they they they don't line up and I get that but um there's also the disbursements and if you look at like the monthly disbursements, I can't—frankly it looks like you make less than than not not more. I don't—I mean I it's it's not in the way where I think there's missing money. It's it's I can't quite get it as high as what you guys are saying. [1:32:05] **Kim Points (City Clerk):** Well, that it seems like we're we're pretty close. And if if it's okay with Kim, I don't think we need to spend extra money to— [1:32:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** —Yeah, it's okay. [1:32:15] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah, almost. [1:32:17] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. If if you've already agreed and it is your decision and that's in the separation, the flat out 38,000, I would just want the caveat that needs to be dated like January 1st. Oh yeah, you would want it paid out. It can't get paid out till next year anyways because it wait termination be yeah or not termination end date. Um okay. So we don't need to do that. Um okay. Um we do need to do this resolution. So this is a resolution regarding the city clerk. A resolution regarding the city clerk. Whereas on November 3rd, 2025, the city council of the city of Grant voted—sorry, I need to I needed to fill this in as we're going along—unanimously, to enter into a settlement agreement with the clerk. Um and whereas on November 3rd, the city council voted unanimously to create the personnel committee. And whereas the city council desires that the personnel committee shall oversee the duties of the city clerk until such time as a replacement can be hired. Now therefore be uh hereby resolved by the city council of the city of Grant, Washington County, Minnesota, the personnel committee shall oversee the duties of the city clerk until such time as a replacement can be hired. So basically what this is stating is that in this interim period uh if needed um as oversight for the city clerk position, the personnel committee has the ability to interact with Kim with Miss Points as needed for anything related to to the city clerk position. Um and what that allows is there could be some moving pieces that are happening as we're sort of getting all this together. And that just allows them to to respond without necessarily having to call a full um aid in the transition. [1:34:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. [1:34:06] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —an emergency meeting for something that would not require formal council action. All formal council action still has to come back to the council. This is going to be the data temporary daily duties. Does that make sense? So that's resolution 2025-18. Okay. So, write all that down. You need a motion. [1:34:30] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yes, please. Move to approve resolution 2025-18. [1:34:34] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [1:34:36] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [1:34:37] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I. [1:34:38] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [1:34:39] **Council Member John Rog:** I. [1:34:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [1:34:41] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I. [1:34:42] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [1:34:43] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I. [1:34:44] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Hi. [1:34:46] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Okay. So that's all that I have that I need from you for right now. No, that's not true. Now we need to talk about uh interim. Um do you want to have a special meeting within before December to discuss next steps for uh interim/permanent city clerk? Do you want the personnel committee to to take that on and then bring back applicants to the council for consideration? How would you like to set that up? [1:35:15] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Uh question, could we have it pending, whatever progress we'll be able to make and then um we could um reach out to the council if we have appropriate updates to share or need input and kind of just play it by ear or would that open meeting law vi— [1:35:32] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Yeah, the problem is we're probably going to bump up against an open meeting law violation. It would be best if right now there was direction from the council if it's yes um you know committee go ahead and start working on putting out the the um job posting or you know pursue if you want the resume of the person that I was referencing please please obtain the resume so that you guys can start moving forward on uh the interim or permanent. [1:36:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So are you—Go ahead. Since I'm one of the people on this personnel committee, I'd really love to hear from the three other kind of what their input is so that way we know how to proceed. [1:36:12] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Uh, as getting somebody replaced will be of the utmost importance. I'd say getting it out as soon as possible, letting the small committee run it, and then trying to get it lined up is going to be paramount to the city's success. So, I think doing that ASAP is probably our best bet moving forward. [1:36:32] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I think that was a given, but I think what Matt is now wanting to know is if we want to have a meeting in between now and a regular council meeting in December. Yeah. Okay. I'm apologies. [1:36:45] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, I would say then that we—Is it possible to set a meeting and then cancel it if— [1:36:52] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —Yeah, for sure. But just set a meeting and then plan to cancel it if—we about you know open meeting not being posted in time because we i mean it's only November 3rd so this is there's a lot of month um so that's my concern waiting until December to get approval of a job posting and those kinds of things. That's a lot of time um because we would need council approval for a job posting unless they authorized the personnel committee to do it now. unless they authorize the personnel committee to to do that. And basically they just want to see applicants once there's applicants. [1:37:35] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So I guess I would defer to you three on what you want since I will be part of the process regardless. Um so I'd like to hear if you'd like us to just get it posted and then once we have interviews in place contact you or if you want to wait to give approval. [1:37:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Well, I—Sorry. [1:38:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, Mayor. I think to what you're trying to say before is as soon as possible. You'd rather us—Yeah, you're good with approval. I don't anyone else has strong feelings. [1:38:05] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I think getting the application out and starting the process. I don't think we need to be involved in that, but obviously reviewing the applicants. I think that's just more cumbersome if we start going through the weeds on the details of description. [1:38:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, let's say this person or we find some person tomorrow, Lindsay and I review the resume. Look, everything looks good. Um, then do we wait to—I mean, [1:38:35] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —then we would probably push out an email to the council saying, "Hey, we'd like to do an interview with this person. Here's the resume. maybe like to do"—and it wouldn't need to be a posted meeting because it's—so it wouldn't run a fall of a two week notice for a regular meeting. You only need to do three days. Yeah. So a special meeting can be three days and this would be a special meeting emergency meeting separate but this would be a special meeting. So what I would recommend is um I can send you the resume of the individual I'm I'm speaking of. I will send it to all five of you but specifically please personnel committee take a look at it. decide if you want to have a conversation with that person. The two of you are perfectly, you know, you you are, it sounds like you're fine to have a conversation with them. See if you would like to recommend. Yes, let's bring this person in front of the council for a full council interview. Then that full council interview would be this special meeting that we would set up sometime this month. [1:39:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. All right. Are there—do we want to set that meeting right now just tentatively or wait to see? [1:39:46] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'd like Ben's suggestion. [1:39:48] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Yeah. [1:39:49] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So cancel dates that work well for everybody dates and times. [1:39:53] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Are we looking as [clears throat] I mean the earliest we obviously could set it would be Friday the 7th. Correct. Like if I'm correct because we need to get a uh we would need to get a notice out tomorrow. Tomorrow, right? So really unless we want to do it the seventh, it's any day after that. [1:40:15] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I think the seventh would work best. [1:40:17] **Council Member John Rog:** The seventh would work best for you. [1:40:18] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah. [1:40:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And by time, what time are we talking? [1:40:22] **Council Member John Rog:** Um, well, do is is seven is Friday the 7th open for people to do during the day. [1:40:28] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** It would have to be during the day for me. [1:40:30] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** It have to be in the afternoon. [1:40:32] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, that's fine for me. [1:40:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Afternoon as in what? For you? [1:40:35] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Afternoon. 12:30 or later? [1:40:38] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Um, 12:30 would be great for me. [1:40:41] **Council Member John Rog:** A little earlier would be for me because it's going to be probably an hour at least. [1:40:46] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** This also presuming that this individual would be available. Correct. [1:40:51] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah, I just texted him. Okay. [1:40:54] **Council Member John Rog:** One quick question. Do we want to give it an extra couple weeks though to allow like the posting and applications also to come in so we have a more holistic picture instead of like it. [1:41:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, correct me if I'm wrong, Amanda, but it's two-stage interim and then we also will be looking for, you know, interim is just a stop gap that could potentially lead into, you know, regular full-time, but we'll—it's parallel path. Is that right? [1:41:20] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah. I think that there isn't any hard fast rules. Okay. So, it sounds like this person is open Friday afternoon. [snorts] there are hard and fast rules for how you have to how you go about hiring other than the meetings need to be open to the public. Um, but that's it. [1:41:40] **Council Member John Rog:** So, I I just have a my my back's against the wall because I have to pick up the kids and I probably have to leave no later than 1:45. So, earlier is better for me, like, you know, 11:30, something like that. But again, it's just that's just me. [1:41:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. 12:00 okay for everyone? [1:41:58] **Council Member John Rog:** 12:00 would work. [1:42:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** —and is this being posted as a work session? [1:42:03] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Uh it will be posted as a special meeting. Special meeting and the special meeting is just strictly interview candidate for interim city clerk. [1:42:12] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** And for confirmation, is this an in-person meeting here or would it be by Zoom or somewhere else? [1:42:18] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** 12:00 works. Uh well, that's you have to where where do you have the meeting? [1:42:25] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. What did you say? [1:42:27] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Where do we want to have the meeting? [1:42:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, here. Do we have the option of Zoom? [1:42:32] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Um, yes. You can have you can you can have everybody except for one person via Zoom, but somebody—one person at least one person needs to be here. You all need to be able to see and hear each other and you have to take votes via roll call, but there really isn't a necessarily a vote per se in this situation. [1:42:50] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I can be here. [1:43:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'm fine being here. I just want to confirm. [1:43:02] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Yeah, I can be here. I mean, like I said, it's just—okay—if I have to leave, I have to leave. [1:43:08] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** So, um, okay. So, this person, I will circulate their their resume. Um, you can plan on meeting with them on Friday at noon here. And, uh, for clarification, would you like either myself or Miss Points to be at this meeting? [1:43:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Is it either or? [1:43:26] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Well, no, it could be both. Just making sure you I we know who who else you want at the meeting besides you and the candidate. [1:43:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** What's typical? [1:43:37] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —I would say I'm in uh probably half of the interviews for uh city administrator positions. Nobody else. I don't do any other I'm not in any other interviews. [snorts] um yeah, I would say half maybe the last. I I think if you were just to provide any kind of relevant um you know typical questions where I don't think you necessarily have to be here if you just forward like whatever you typically use when you do meet. [1:44:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Does that sound okay with you? [1:44:05] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** That makes sense. [1:44:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Saying noon, right? [1:44:08] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah. Sounds good. [1:44:09] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** I also want to clarify that meeting won't be taped. [1:44:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** No, no, we don't need—okay. [1:44:15] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So then as to the posting, do we have approval to start posting? Correct. Without—anyone else need to—just the personnel committee approving that posting? Is that accurate? [1:44:28] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah, we can start tomorrow. [1:44:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So then you also have the authority to create the job description. Right. Right. So I did find a job description in our files from a long time ago. I will send that to the two of you. I'm not pretending that it's good or you know anything like that. It was just what I found in Grant's files from long 20 years. So yeah, things have changed. [1:44:52] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** We could look at that probably get more useful information from the League of Minnesota Cities, but yeah, forward it to us. [1:44:58] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Okay. So are you then—do you want an agenda for this meeting? What do you want packets? What do what do you want? [1:45:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So— [1:45:06] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** —I will post the meeting in terms of Yes. If you just post the meeting and the agenda is interview candidate for interim city clerk position. Um this person's identity is considered private data right now. So we probably don't we won't be providing any like public packet information okay on this one interview candidate for intern right because technically their data is private until they are a finalist okay this isn't really a finalist situation it's just sort of a meet and greet I don't know I don't know how to call Okay. I don't think I have anything else. [1:45:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. I think now I have everything I need. Now we can do a motion. [1:45:55] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** No, you can be done. [1:45:56] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Can I get a motion to adjourn? [1:45:58] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Oh, yeah. Let's Let's I'll move to adjourn. [1:46:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'll second. [1:46:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I Everyone say I— [1:46:04] **All:** I. [1:46:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Adjourned. All right.