[00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. First item on the agenda, approval of the regular agenda. A motion. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Move to approve. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Second. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: We'll have to do roll call for each motion because John is remote. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Cornett. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Rog. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Cremona. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Anderson. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Aye. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Mayor Giefer. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Aye. Approval of the consent agenda. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Motion to approve. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Second. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Rog. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Cremona. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Anderson. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cornett. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Aye. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Mayor Giefer. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Aye. Staff agenda items. First up is Brad, our city engineer, to talk about the consideration of the cooperative agreement between the city of Grant and Washington County for engineering costs for Highway 12 safe routes to school trail. Yep. Brad. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um, let me share my screen. I've got the exhibit that was part of the agreement that's in your packet. Give me two seconds here. Can everybody see that map? [00:00] Council Members: Yeah. Yes. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Okay. Again, good evening, mayor and the council. Tonight we have an item related to the county road 12 trail improvement. Um this addresses two topics: approval of a cooperative agreement with Washington County for engineering services and discussion and direction on snow removal and winter maintenance for the future trail. This continues our discussion from last month when council asked staff to explore snow removal responsibilities and potential costs for the county road 12 trail. To do this, staff coordinated with Washington County, the school districts, neighboring communities, and our snow removal contractor, Ken Johnson, to understand capacity and limitations. Washington County does not typically maintain trails within this jurisdiction, including this segment. The school district and the city of Mahtomedi confirmed that they cannot take on any additional plowing. Ken Johnson could remove the snow on the trail using a pickup truck at a minimal cost. Historically, the city's position has been to support limited trail construction, but not to provide snow removal. This context may be helpful as council considers direction on winter maintenance. It's also important to restate the cost sharing between the city and the county for engineering fees. These are typically split 50/50 and that's what is in the current agreement. To recap phase one work completed to date: includes geotechnical investigations, wetland delineations and preliminary design work. The total cost to date for the city share of this work was $14,718. The proposed phase 2 work which includes the wetland mitigation, the permitting, wetland banking credits, and final design engineering; the city's share for that work is $27,607. So the combined total estimated engineering cost for the design of this trail along CSAH 12 for the city is $42,325. The fees associated with this agreement do not include construction administration fees. These would come later after the project is bid. Construction administration fees are estimated at 10% of the construction costs based on the preliminary trail design. Construction costs are estimated at $450,000 which would result in an estimated construction administration fee of $45,000 of which $22,500 would be the city's share. So the city share for engineering cost for the entire trail project along CSAH 12 is $64,825. As you know, this trail is part of the larger safe routes to school grant connecting county road 12 to Mahtomedi school campus as a continuous and connected facility. In August, council approved moving forward with phase one, the preliminary design, to better understand the alignment, the impacts, and the costs. The cooperative agreement before you tonight allows the project to continue into final design and bidding with Washington County as the lead agency managing the consultant contracts. It is also important to note that if the city decides not to move forward with the county road 12 trail segment, the entire grant including the connection to the school campus is at risk. So tonight I'm requesting council action on two items. The first one is whether to approve the final design of the county road 12 trail improvements and enter into the cooperative agreement with Washington County. And then secondly, if the agreement is approved, whether or not the city would provide snow removal. So, with that said, I would be more than happy to answer any questions that the council or mayor would have. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. Before we open up for discussion, I want to provide a clarification I just received on Friday at the school district's community leaders forum. Which Barb, you were there. I think you heard that. Correct me if I misstated what I heard from one of the Mahtomedi council members there. He confirmed that the city of Mahtomedi is currently actually performing the winter maintenance on that trail section and he didn't feel like it would be an issue for the city to continue doing so. Um but I think maybe we would want to have some sort of official agreement with the city of Mahtomedi. So just throwing that out there. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Mayor, may I interrupt? You're referring to the 2025 trail construction that was completed as part of the roadway construction project they're doing. That's further east of the intersection of the campus entrance. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. So, we're talking about the section that was done previously, right? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. That's what they're maintaining right now. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. Um, so I I think we should just check with them and... [00:00] Kristina Handt: Mayor, I think I've already reported to the council what happened when I called their city administrator. So I would suggest we pursue a different option. If we want to do it, we can pursue a contract with our contractor or again continue with past practice. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: There's definitely some confusion on who's doing what there and I don't know. We can just decide... but I asked the question. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: I would assume that any cost to provide snow removal on this segment of trail would be minimal whether Ken does it or if the city of Mahtomedi would volunteer to do it for the city of Grant. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah it doesn't seem like a big deal. So okay, open up to council discussion. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Mayor Giefer, a question. Um, so the funds for construction have been secured as part of the safe routes grant cost. What if it's over the construction amount? Are we on the hook 50/50 for that or have you good engineers got enough contingency in your bids that we're going to be happy? [00:00] Ryan Haves: Mayor, members of the council, Ryan Haves, Washington County project manager. So, the Safe Routes to School grant was in coordination with the school district. Um so in total we have just over $700,000. Our scope was about $550,000 to start; in an effort to reduce wetland impacts, the scope is reduced. So we're at $450,000 estimated. So we're already below I guess what the grant is. So I think our contingency is strong. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Um, I appreciate county and the school coming tonight. I don't know, maybe a future project. I'd like to see you maybe before this. Now, it kind of seems like, well, everyone's coming to the meeting to make sure we make the right vote. Not that I'm saying we won't, but I appreciate you all coming tonight and supporting the project. And, you know, these safe route schools are competitive and tough to get. So, I think it's good that we got this. It does need some additional pedestrian access. The snow plowing thing, it's probably a minor thing in the scheme of things, Mr. Mayor. But that was my major concern is where we end up ultimately on our city funds and if the contingency is there for construction and if something comes way off, I'm sure we'll hear from the county before they would award a contract. So that's my questions. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: John online. Do you have any questions, John? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: It just seems as though the, you know, as I read, it seems as though we are on our doing our fair share for the partial funds for the construction. And it seemed as though that we weren't agreeing on the snow removal. So, I don't know if the city of Grant should be doing the snow removal or it should be somebody else that is doing the snow removal that has been doing snow removal on other parts of it. So, I don't know. But I don't know how much it's going to be. It would be nice to know what it would cost to do snow removal. And you know maybe that's something that we can get partially reimbursed for if we do do it as a city. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: For clarity based on the cooperative agreement, trail costs are 50/50. So would that include snow removal as well? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: That's a good question. Um, mayor, members of the council, typically the trail maintenance is not a 50-50 split. It would be the responsibility of the city. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: And just to reclarify what you said earlier, your inclination is that snow will likely be—I say nominal, but fairly small costs in the grand scheme of things. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. Um talking with Ken Johnson, he thought he could easily remove the snow with his truck. There perhaps might be some damage to the turf adjacent to the trail that may need to be fixed every spring, but he certainly could do it at a minimal cost. We didn't get to the exact number. But again, we don't feel like the cost of removing the snow by city of Grant forces is very expensive. And if we can work on an agreement with the city of Mahtomedi, even better, right? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: I think that would be best. I think they would be happy to do that. There's a lot of confusion. When I spoke to the mayor of Mahtomedi, Dick Brainard, he called his city administrator and his city administrator said he didn't know. And when the council member at the meeting I was referencing said, "Yeah, we do that," I'm pretty sure he's being accurate there. So given that they're doing that section now, I don't think that would be a big deal for them to do another couple hundred feet, but we can confirm that with them. I'd also like to thank Superintendent Duffren for coming and speaking and also Washington County Commissioner Myron and also the other folks that aren't here from Washington County public works—Director Wayne Sandberg and his crew Kevin Peterson, Andrew Giesen, Joe Gustafson, Corey Slagle. Mahtomedi, all those guys have been great to work with. So, I appreciate your guys' partnership and not only this but other projects. So, that being said, is there any more discussion before we entertain a motion? [00:00] Audience Member: Is it appropriate for a public question? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Not at this time. No. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: I'm happy to make a motion to approve the cooperative agreement and that understanding we would assume responsibility for the winter maintenance of the trail, and that given that we would perhaps explore if Mahtomedi will do it, understanding if their answer is no that the city would then be responsible for the snow maintenance. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: A second. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council member Cremona. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Anderson. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cornett. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Rog. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Aye. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Mayor Giefer. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Aye. Next up for you, Brad. Consideration of patching and potholing contract. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yes. Mayor and council, this item is a request to authorize a one-year independent contractor agreement for roadway patching and pothole repair services. The city routinely contracts for bituminous patching and pothole repair to maintain safe and serviceable roadway conditions on paved streets. These services are essential for public safety, preserving pavement life and responding quickly to worsening roadway conditions. For the past six years, the city has contracted with Arc Paving under an independent contract agreement that establishes responsibilities, insurance requirements, pricing, and service expectations. That agreement expired on December 25th, 2025, and the city requires continued roadway patching and pothole repair services throughout 2026. To ensure competitive pricing, staff requested quotes from two contractors. FPI Paving contractors submitted a quote of $715 per crew hour with bituminous mix priced at $80 per ton. Arc Paving submitted a quote of $825 per crew hour with bituminous mix billed at cost and invoiced directly to the city. While Arc Paving's hourly rate is higher, staff evaluated the proposals based on overall value and total anticipated cost to the city rather than hourly rates alone. Considerations included past performance, service reliability, efficiency, familiarity with city standards, mobilization practices, travel time, and total annual costs. In 2025, the city spent approximately $114,000 on pothole patching and roadway repairs, which included approximately 355 tons of bituminous mix. Staff used this historical data to prepare a comparable cost scenario for 2026. Under this scenario, FPI quoted a rate of $715 per crew hour, which results in $85,800 for 120 hours of on-site work. While mobilization is included in the quoted hourly rate, FPI charges travel time on a port-to-port basis. Based on an estimated 30 minutes of travel each way, staff anticipates approximately one additional billable hour per trip, resulting in an estimated 20 additional hours of crew time or $14,300. This results in the total estimated crew cost for FPI being $100,100. The bituminous mix under FPI's proposal would be billed at $80 per ton at 355 tons. This results in a material cost of $28,400. The total estimated cost for FPI including crew time and materials is approximately $128,500. Now, Arc Paving's quoted rate of $825 per crew hour results in $99,000 for the same 120 hours of site work. Arc Paving is a local contractor and does not charge travel time to and from the project locations; therefore, resulting in no additional billable hours beyond time spent performing the work. Arc Paving purchases bituminous mix at a market price from the same regional suppliers used by most paving contractors in the area. Based on 2025 data, ARC's average mix cost was approximately $81 per ton at 355 tons. This results in a material cost of $28,755. So the total cost estimate for Arc Paving including crew time and materials is approximately $127,755 which is slightly lower than the comparable FPI estimate. Arc Paving typically operates with a four-person crew which for this type of patching and pothole repair work, the crew size is less critical than efficiency and experience and ARC has consistently demonstrated reliable and efficient performance. The services quoted by both contractors are intended for small area patching and pothole repair and do not include the use of paving machines. Larger area patching or full width paving is not included in this agreement and would be bid separately if needed. Based on total cost comparisons, historical performances and operational considerations, staff believes Arc Paving provides the best overall value to the city for 2026 roadway patching and pothole repair services. Therefore, staff recommends entering into a new one-year independent contractor agreement with Arc Paving, Inc. with an expiration date of December 31st, 2026. So, the action I'm requesting tonight is a motion to authorize staff to enter into a one-year independent contractor agreement with Arc Paving for roadway patching and pothole repair services through December 31st 2026. With that said, I would be happy to answer any questions. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: So, Brad, thank you for that was a lot of information. So to sum it up, we're talking ARC Paving total all-in cost of $127,755 a year. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Versus FPI a little bit higher at $128,500. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Okay. Um for for transparency, is it possible because a lot of this information wasn't in the packet, can we get Brad's additional details that he shared included as an addendum? [00:00] Kristina Handt: It's already on the website. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: It's already on the website. Okay. All right. Awesome. Um and then let's see. That's all I had. What do you guys—any questions here, Lindsay? [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Um this is more practical. So right now, because the last contract ended at the end of last year, what do we do during the month of January? Typically, is it just because it's winter? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. We don't typically—the hot mix plants close in mid-November. They don't typically open up again until usually April or later. So, none of this work is done during the winter months. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Brad or or Christine, who directs the patching? What roads, or do we just say we have x amount to spend? Use your wise judgment subcontractor and go patch because I saw them out various times that I got no comment or no problem with their performance last year. Some people don't like the way it looked, but I think in the case of Kimbro, they had to do something a little drastic and what I call maybe a smear patch. But who directs the roads? Do you give them a list? How does that work? Just so for us new ones on the council know a little bit. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, mayor, members of the council, typically how that's worked in the past is Ken Johnson has directed the paving contractor or we may get calls into the city administrator and then she'll direct Arc Paving. That's how it's worked in the past. So we try to do the best we can in covering the roads. You know, that smear patch seems to work a lot better than just pothole patching. Especially when you've got a bunch of alligator cracks and things like that. So it may not look the prettiest, but it certainly holds up better than a typical pothole patch where you're just cleaning the hole and filling it in with hot mix. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: John online. John, do you have anything? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: No, Brad did a good job discussing the details of both quotes. So, I appreciate that, Brad. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. Um given that there is a slight savings with ARC, and I've heard pretty positive feedback from residents, I'm inclined to stick with ARC. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: I was just gonna have a question. Kristina, I know you're new, so I feel like you probably aren't going to be able to—maybe there's records, but I'm curious if we've had any either complaints or compliments regarding ARC specifically to the city just to know that we've had them for a while. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Yeah, Council Member Cremona, I'm sorry, too new and during the time of the year, I haven't heard anything one way or another. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: I've seen a couple in my time out here. And I think they do as good as anybody, better than some of the other ones we've had. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. Where they don't just throw it in there and leave the cars to tamp it down. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Mayor, members of the council, I know Ken Johnson really appreciates Arc Paving being in town as well. They've been super responsive. Whenever he's asked them to come do a small patch or whatever, they've been super to work with and super responsive. So, I think that goes a long way as well. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: And another thing, they drive the roads every day. They know our roads like the back of our hand. So they know where to focus and they do, like you said, work well with Ken. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Go ahead. My thought is support the local—I mean they're in Grant. I like that they're in Grant that we get to kind of support our local businesses here and given the fact they're also cheaper. Um and sounds like people have had positive experiences working with ARC. I'd move that we award the 2026 contract to Arc Paving. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Second. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Anderson. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cornett. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Rog. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cremona. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Aye. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Mayor Giefer. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Aye. City Planner Jennifer Swanson has no action items. City attorney Amanda Johnson has no action items. We move to new business: discussion on the McHusk Road project initiation. Brad, you're up again. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. Let me see if I can find my exhibitor. Sorry. I should have been prepared here. For some reason, it's not showing up now. There it is. Sorry, I think I've lost my connection. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Brad, can you hear us? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: I can hear you, but I've lost my connection to our office server. Let me see if I can't get it back here. Doesn't seem to be working. Um, I apologize for that. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: All right, we'll just go start off and we'll follow along. The folks that are in the audience won't be able to see anything, but hopefully... You want me to work on it a little bit more? See if I can't get it restarted here? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: We can give you a five-minute recess. I guess we'll take a five-minute recess. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Is it the same one that's in the packet, Brad? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, maybe you can... [00:00] Kristina Handt: That's what I was trying to do. Yeah, I guess I didn't think about that. [Laughter] Good job. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Might be a short recess. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Here. I've got it. You got it open, I think. Oh, there it is. Does everybody see that? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Not yet. Oh, yeah, we do. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: All right. Well, the five-minute recess turned into a 30-second recess. We're back. All right. Thank you, mayor and council members for being patient. So I'm here this evening, I guess, to request a council direction regarding a potential roadway improvement project on McHusk Road. As outlined in the staff memo, this segment of McHusk Road is currently scheduled only for basic city funded pavement maintenance in 2026, based on roadway conditions, available funding, and the underlying pavement structure. Staff believes this segment warrants consideration of a targeted improvement such as a mill and overlay rather than continued spot maintenance. McHusk Road is planned and funded in two primary segments. Segment one is west of 88th Street; this roadway will receive a mill and overlay in 2026 through a development agreement associated with the former golf course property. The second segment, which is east of 88th Street to Manning Avenue, does not have the same funding source and is currently reliant on city maintenance dollars. McHusk Road is also different from many local streets in Grant from a structural standpoint. Most city streets within the city of Grant that are local were constructed with relatively thin pavement sections, typically two to two and a half inches of asphalt which limits the rehabilitation options once the pavement begins to break down. McHusk Road, as a former county roadway, was built to a higher standard. Pavement cores indicate an existing asphalt thickness of approximately 8 to 10 inches, meaning the pavement structure remains sound and the distress observed today is mainly surface related. Residents along this segment were informed of their option to pursue a petition-driven improvement project and a neighborhood meeting was held on December 1st to explain the petition process of the assessment methodology, estimated costs and project timelines. Feedback from that meeting indicated concern about the difficulty of advancing a project through the petition process given the participation thresholds involved and the varying levels of perceived benefit among properties. Under the city's special assessment policy, costs are allocated based on billable lots rather than frontage footage. While the approach is fair, petition-driven projects can be challenging and typically take about a one-year time frame from initiation to the end of construction. To accelerate this project, additional special councils may be needed to complete all the required hearings and resolutions under Minnesota State Statute 429. Planning ahead helps keep the project on track for 2026 and minimizes disruption. So a council-initiated project allows for a holistic evaluation of McHusk Road, coordination with the adjacent segments already planned for construction and application of city maintenance funds and potential grant opportunities to reduce the cost and disruption. So 2026 represents a cost-effective opportunity with available funds and potential grant support further reducing the assessment impacts. With that context, staff is seeking council direction on whether the city should initiate a roadway improvement project for McHusk Road between 88th Street North and Manning Avenue for the 2026 construction season and whether that project should proceed as a council-initiated improvement project rather than through a resident petition process. With that said, I would be happy to answer any questions. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Greg, you want to go? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Sure. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: So at the December public meeting, Brad, you really didn't have costs. It was more the assessment process and how to move forward and it was kind of left at the residents, similar to past practices, would have to petition to get the rest of McHusk done. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, Council Member Anderson, I did share some high-level cost estimates with the neighbors at the meeting. I did break it down between the segments and showed an estimate for the segment between 88th Street and Manning Avenue and then what the developer was responsible for. So they have seen some preliminary costs, but a more detailed cost would happen during a feasibility report. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: And the developer plans to do his portion this year. Is there a way we could meet with him, staff meet with him and get a little better handle on his schedule? I think as you mentioned, if we moved ahead as a city project, it'd be a bit of a lift to get this built yet this year. Not saying it can't be done, but my thoughts, council, is to pursue this as a city project, at least to the point of the improvement hearing, get some real costs, some real funding scenarios, get the public input, and then make a decision. This is an opportunity where we've got some money to do a portion of the road, maybe some more grant funds. I don't know. I see Kevin snuck out on us. I don't know what potential McHusk work would be on the county side, but I think it's incumbent on us to at least look at maybe as Brad said, a holistic approach to this road. As part of your typical process, Brad, do you have another neighborhood meeting once you start the report? Because I'd really like to get have the residents have more opportunity to get back to us. You know, maybe if we moved ahead with a report after it's presented to council, we have a neighborhood meeting prior to the improvement hearing just so we give every opportunity to get full feedback from everybody to chip in what they thought. And at the end of the day, if they say nope, we like it the way it is, that's fine. But I think we at least need to consider that process. And I think we should cast a broader net. You know, look at the entire road as far as assessments and maybe even the side streets of Lofton and a portion of 88th because in Lofton's case, you don't get there but for McHusk, and let's look at everybody that benefits from this project and maybe everybody chips in. That might include the city a little extra too, but I think if we moved ahead with the report, Brad could lay out some different potential assessment options, some funding options. I'm glad you had some info on the cores. I was curious about the road thickness because for this year's project, we're doing a reclaim and pave just because there's not enough mat there. But since that was a county road and I'd assume we're doing at least a 2-inch mill or the developer is so we can get through all the patches and get to a decent surface to put a new wear course on. I'll stop rambling. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: You can tell what he does for his day job. [Laughter] [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. I appreciate that, Council Member Anderson. So, as far as the neighborhood meetings, I typically would prepare a draft report and then I would meet the neighborhood before I would present it to council because sometimes I get comments from the residents and I would include those as part of the report. And so then you would have a comprehensive feasibility report that would include comments from the neighborhood. Um but I'm open to either way. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. Brad, it seemed I was at that last neighborhood meeting because we had it here. It seemed like at that time it was a general favorability of the residents or was I just totally misinterpreting that? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, I think generally there is, you know, the residents are in favor of the project. They're obviously in favor of improving the road, right? But they just weren't sure how the assessments would come into play and how the construction of that segment between 88th and 96th would happen. And I certainly would like to engage the developer on the schedule on that project. Maybe we can push it off to 2027; he's been really good to work with so far and he may be amenable to pushing it out. That would give us more time and at least to get through the special assessment process. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah, Brad, I had thought that that was kind of the plan all along. I remember when we talked about moving McHusk from 2027 to 26 was the specific reason of collaborating with the developer on the project, you know getting the economies of scale, doing it in one project. So what was the intent on that? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: No I think you're right mayor. The small detail that we didn't anticipate was the schedule. Typically, from initiation to fully constructed it takes a year to get everything done for a specially assessed project. Now, in this case, since it's a mill and overlay, we may not need to do any cores on the segments between 88th and Manning; we could maybe assume that the cores the developer took on McHusk west of 88th Street would suffice and so we wouldn't have to spend that extra money to do cores. Typically we would do a survey on some of the road reclamation projects and that's really just to get a good idea where the existing edge of roads are and a good cost estimate knowing the limits of the roadway pavement. And I'm not sure that we would need a full topo survey of this road either. So I think we could speed up a little bit on preparing the feasibility report, maybe even perhaps a month to get that back to the council. I think the next steps here if council decides to move forward with the project would be we would bring back a resolution at the next meeting just to kickstart the project. And the resolution would state that the council is initiating the project and ordering the feasibility report. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Brad, if I may ask a question. Where do we stand on the grants for this section? So the grant announcements won't be made until April or so. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Okay. And and so would that be the entire amount from Lofton to Manning or would that be a portion? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Pretty close. I mean, it doesn't quite get us there, but it's most of it. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Okay. And and that would cover that paving then or or mill and... [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Yeah, it would. It would cover the construction costs. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: And so then how many feet would be left over to do? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: You know, I want to say it's like 800 feet between 88th and Lofton. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: And what would be a cost typically that you would see for 800 feet of roadway for what we'd be doing? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Yeah, I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head, but I want to say my overall estimate for the entire roadway between Delwood Road to Manning was $900,000. And I think again, if you break this into segments, the developer has got half of that. And a grant would pay whatever's left of that half would almost pay for half of the half. Right. So, we might be talking $250 or $300,000 by the time it's all said and done for that middle section between Lofton and 88th Street. And those are all just rough numbers, right? Don't hold me to them. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. I don't I don't know if we can count on that grant money. I mean, it's nice that we try, but it seems like the success rate... [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Well, I was just wondering what it would be and where it would come from. Um, you know, again, time will tell. You never know. I mean, they could surprise us hopefully. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Brad, can we back up a little bit? I know you're talking about like the core measurements and all that stuff that Greg probably understands as an engineer, but it seems like that road is so deteriorated and so are you confident that a mill overlay would be adequate for that project? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. So the cores that we looked at that were part of the developer project, the pavement is intact and it's really just the surface that's been beat so badly. So, like Council Member Anderson said, I think if we do a two or two and a half inch mill and overlay, get below those existing patches—some of them are probably 3 inches deep just because they've been worked over over the years. But looking at the cores, the cores they take through the pavement and through the underlying gravel... if you've got a bad core, it'll break apart when they pull it out. And we had evidence of that on the 66th Street project. I think I shared that information with council in September or October of last year because I think that comment came up: Why don't we do a mill and overlay of 66th Street? And it was because of the pavement core; it didn't hold together when you pulled it out. And so, as soon as the pavement doesn't bind together or it falls apart, then a mill and overlay is not a good candidate for that roadway and a reclamation project is the best solution. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: So you're saying that the entire stretch, the developer portion and ours, would work with the mill overlay. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. The portion that the developer is doing they took cores of that portion and the cores were intact and so the stability of the roadway is intact for the developer portion. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: What about the... [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Well, I guess that's what I'm saying is we could assume that the roadway was constructed all in the same year, right? Whenever that was, 20, 30, 40 years ago. I'm just assuming the cores for our section that we would be responsible for would be similar to the ones that the developer took and we wouldn't necessarily need to spend the extra money to do cores on the section that we want to do. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Well, I think it's a risk though if we don't do a core sampling assuming that it's going to be the same. And what do we find out? Taking cores is very cheap. I mean, I think the last time we did it for 66 Street was $3,000 to do the cores. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Can I help maybe redirect? Because I feel like we're going down a little tangent here. So I want to for us non-engineers and folks in the room, maybe it would help if you first started with the overall policy question that's in front of you which is I think significant from the little bit that I know of Grant and that is: do you want to start a road project that's not petition oriented? That's really the first question you want to ask and answer for yourselves and then let's start going down it. If it's yes, then do you want to start that now or do you want to do it later and then get into all these little details. I think you might be getting a little lost in the weeds. To me, you should really first be answering that question of do you want to stray from that past practice, which you can do per your policy per state statute. Do you want to do that? And I would also then also include Greg's option... I'm trying to help walk you through this process of it because if a majority of the council says no, we're not going to do this unless we get petitioned, none of that other stuff matters. That's why I'm trying to help guide you through the discussion. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: We would need four-fifths. Correct. Go ahead, Lindsay. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: So yeah. So to that end, I know you mentioned that you had a neighborhood meeting. How many people attend this? Is this 100% participation, which I doubt is the case. I mean, how many people are showing up from the neighborhood? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, I want to say we had 20 to 25 people show up. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: What percentage is that? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: There were husbands and wives, right? So it wasn't more than half of the parcels representing the project show up. But it was over 20 people. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Okay. So, I mean, would you say that's roughly 50% of the neighborhood or are we looking less? Trying to understand the percentage of how many people showed up on this. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Well, again, even if council decides to move forward with this process rather than using the petition process, we still have to follow the city's policy, right? Meaning we would give the residents the opportunity to weigh in at a second neighborhood meeting either before the council meeting where we present the feasibility report or after. It doesn't make any difference. I guess the only question is whether the council wants to initiate the project or they want to wait for a petition. Now, the only difference: the cost of the feasibility report has always been borne by the city regardless. And so, we've always given the residents once we do the feasibility report the opportunity to come to the public hearings to come to the neighborhood meetings to voice their opinion whether they're in favor of a project or not. If we have that neighborhood meeting after we get the draft report done and we have more than 50% of the people still in favor of the project, well then I think we keep moving forward. Or once we get to the public hearing, if we get an overwhelmingly amount of people that are not in favor of the project, then we could decide to cancel the project right there. So there's a lot of opportunities where you shouldn't feel like you're being trapped by having the council initiate the project. There is a few differences like Kristina said, you need four-fifths of the council to move the project or order the project, but again those are things that we can work past. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Absolutely. I understand we have a couple off-ramps if we're starting to go on this. I just want to kind of get an understanding of how we're starting this process possibly if when the people are at this neighborhood meeting and it sounded like they were kind of driving of saying "our preference is having a city initiated project." I'm trying to understand is it 50% of the people of the neighborhood pushing that way because they just don't want to go through the resident petition process or was it closer to 10%? That's where I'm trying to... [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: No, I think a lot of the people that were at that meeting were in favor of a project, right? They just didn't want to go through the position of putting a champion of the neighborhood in charge of getting this petition. It can be awkward and time-consuming. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Well, Brad, do you think it was potentially the thinking that if the city initiated then the city would pay for everything and they wouldn't be assessed anything? Do you think that's... [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: No, no, no, no. That was never the thought at the meeting. But it's always been that the city pays for the feasibility report, but then those costs if a project does move forward, all those costs for the feasibility report and the process of getting to the end are rolled back into the assessment at the end of the project. But if the project doesn't move beyond the feasibility report, then the city takes on the risk of losing the opportunity to recoup the cost of doing the feasibility report is all. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: So we essentially advanced the cost part of the project, right? So the city like eats it if we don't do it, but otherwise recoups it if they do. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah. And that's... [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Brad, you're talking about the $60,000 that would be used for that? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: No, no, no. The feasibility reports would be somewhere between 12 and 15,000. I'm guessing probably even less than that depending on how much topo survey we do and if we want to do cores on the roadway segment that we're proposing. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Well, in your report you mentioned that the city has $60,952 available to use for the project. So, what specifically then were you suggesting? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Well, yeah. So, that was what was allotted for maintenance for the patching of McHusk Road based on our pavement management plan. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Okay. Got it. [00:00] Kristina Handt: So, I have to—cuz I know the budget's important and you know that finance is a passion of mine. So, I've been trying to unravel your budget. You heard earlier when we were talking about the patching budget that there's $128,000 in there, right? And I met with Sharon today. So, there's that $128,000. There's $80,000 in seal coating. You also asked some really good questions about who's responsible for spending this money. So that $128,000 and that $80,000 for seal coating is basically what Brad gets to use for this 60,000 for the 37,000 that you heard for the Great Oak and 66 Street. It's also what Arc Paving will get to use. It will also be the pot of money for whatever other seal coating projects might come forward. The pavement management plan that came to you was dated September 30th. That was after the preliminary levy was set. So there wasn't this extra 60,000. So I want to be very careful that it's maybe in your 10-year plan, but it's not in your 2026 budget. So, this is something that will have to come out of fund balance if you decide to do it in 2026 or depending on the timing of some things. It might be something we spend and we have to levy and pay ourselves back in 2027 or it's part of our 2027 stuff. There's not this 12,000 even if it's just the feasibility stuff. There's not that funding in the 2026 budget. So, again, we can pay ourselves back by increasing the levy next year to cover it. We'll do better time on our budget. [Laughter] [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: If I may. You know that that's maintenance dollars, right? If we don't move forward with a project and McHusk needs maintenance dollars—pothole patching or whatever—that money would be used, right? But if we move forward with a road reconstruction project, that $66,000 would just be leveraged against the special assessments, meaning it would offset some of the costs of the project. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Leveraged against the special assessments. But so if that's the city's contribution, we're not we're subtracting that from the special assessments, right? And so for the city to have that money, again, we're not letting Arc Paving spend $128,000 this year. We're taking that 60,000 and also the 37,000 that we're saying the city's contributing for the other 2026 streets. So really, what is that? It's about 98,000 of that 128,000 if these two street projects go forward. I can't do the math quick. So, what is that? 30,000 that's left there plus the 80,000 in seal coating is how Sharon explained it to me today. So, I think I just want to be careful that we're not double counting funds twice. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: That's a good clarification. Go ahead, Lindsay. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Um, so I'm newer on council. Have we ever done a city-initiated project for road construction? Brad, you've been around for a while. Have you ever seen that in Grant? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: No, we've never done that. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: And if we do that, the assessment process is still the same, right? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Okay. And Brad, from your perspective, why should we treat McHusk differently? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Well, so you've got this segment that's being done by the developer, correct? And we got another segment that's potentially being improved with grant money—this LRIP grant money. So what you have left is this middle section. You wouldn't get people that are living on the segment that's being completed by the developer and you wouldn't get people that would be living on the piece that was completed using grant money to participate in a petition for the middle piece. There would be no reason for them to sign a petition because they already know that their road is being improved with other funding. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: So, it's a unique situation essentially that we're dealing with. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: It is a unique situation. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: And then if we decide to do a city initiated order, could we at some point talk about the points that Greg brought up with Lofton and some of these other streets or would that be a complete separate overhaul of our road maintenance policy that we would have to do? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, that would be something that we've never done in the past. Now, at some point, I think that's going to have to happen. Some of those conversations are going to have to occur. Kimbro Avenue is another example, right? Where you've got very low density and you may have to expand the assessments to the adjoining gravel roads to make those costs reasonable for the residents that do live on Kimbro. And I think, you know, McHusk is one of the city's most heavily traveled roadways as well. And it's not just the residents that are living on this roadway that use it. So I mean at some point when you don't have the density and you've got more of a local collector roadway, you may have to look at alternative ways of assessing those projects. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: But for now, we would be locked into our current policy. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Actually, the policy says "unless otherwise directed by the city council, lots to be assessed are either addressed on the road to be improved or fronted on the road to be improved." So, the way I read that is the council could direct otherwise from the policy. And that's what I'd like to see in the report is maybe three or four options to assess this. Again, everybody benefits. Everybody should pay a little bit. It's different. They haven't done it for a while or quite a while. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Are you looking for a motion? Are you going to come back with a resolution? Well, I think we come back with a resolution to initiate the project, but tonight I'm just... again like Kristina said, we're just looking for direction whether the council wants to initiate the project or not. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: I'd like to hear from four of you individually. It doesn't have to be a formal vote, but you know, at least a head nod or a hand raise that you want to move forward with the city initiated process and then we can do that. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: From what it sounds like to me, they were in favor. They wanted more information and if we go ahead with the council order, we can provide more information and we have off-ramps should we need to, should the residents not like that. Is that correct? [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Correct. We still have the same off-ramps we do with a petition project. Nothing changes. And we have the flexibility that Greg just mentioned in terms of assessment. Yeah. If we look at the entire road, we're leveraging the developer's money. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: So, is that what we're looking for as a motion to start with a feasibility? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: The first, yep. Tonight, tonight we're just looking for direction whether or not you want to initiate the project by council. And then next month we would bring back the resolution, the formal resolution saying that the council is initiating this project and to move forward into the feasibility report. Do you want us to bring back a resolution at the next meeting to have a city initiated project? Just nod your head. John? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Yes. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: All right, we I think we got our direction that we'll bring back a resolution for a city initiated project. That's all we need, right, Brad? Thank you. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Thank you. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: And then can we also, Brad, if the council agrees with Greg, and maybe this is too early but going forward we'd like to explore some of the different options and assessing some of the other side streets and stuff. [00:00] Brad Reifsteck: Yeah, we certainly could do that, mayor. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Okay. All right. Good on that one then. I think so. Kristina, now you're up. [00:00] Kristina Handt: This is going to be another head nod, and I hope this one's going to be easier. Would you like us to make our variance ordinance consistent with state law that passed in 2011? It'll cost us about $1,100 with Jennifer and Amanda's time and publication costs. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: John, does that sound good to you? [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Yeah. Have the fun in that. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Okay, that's what we will I will give Jennifer the direction to do that. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Okay. Well, I didn't even get to call her name and she wrapped it up. Okay. Unfinished business. Nothing. Discussion items, staff updates. Anything to share? [00:00] Kristina Handt: Um, you see Jack's report in the packet. Again, as always, I won't go over that unless there's any questions you'd like me to follow up with him on. We're continuing to work on code enforcement issues. Continue to have some repeat requesters; they're getting the same answers back from me. So if you hear from folks that they feel like they're not getting answers, please reach out to me. I'll tell you that and show you they're getting the same answers back. Also, just for the public's benefit, I know at the last council meeting, council had talked about a couple of policies that you had started looking at back in November and December, and we had talked about bringing them back. I'd like to kind of just scrap what you did last fall and start fresh if that's okay. We'll kind of start with some best practices and maybe identifying comparable cities. That's going to always be easiest for us then to know who we're going to and seeing who we should be looking to when we're looking for policy updates and stuff. Council member Cremona had mentioned stuff about roles and responsibilities. I think the League of Minnesota Cities has some really good resources that we could talk about at a future council meeting and what the mayor's role and just how much extra he's allowed to do than the rest of you. And in case anybody has weed complaints, the mayor is the weed inspector under state statute. So all of those complaints can go to him. Just so the public knows. And then the other one was about performance evaluations. I know that in April the council will need to make a decision about whether or not council and myself will need to make a decision about whether or not this becomes a longer term relationship. I don't know if one thought that I had is perhaps you do an informal performance evaluation at the March meeting—could be as simple as us having a closed session. It's closed session under statute as you learned last time and it's feedback on what's Kristina doing well, what could Kristina do different, what are some goals? If that's something that council is interested in doing, we could schedule that for the end of our March meeting. Is that something folks are interested in? [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah, I think that's good. [00:00] Kristina Handt: I think that was all the updates I had. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: City council reports, future agenda items—anything? [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: No, I'd just like to thank Kristina for the updates. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Yeah. I mean, the updates for those of you that are listening, Kristina has been providing really detailed updates like every two weeks, I think. You know, since we're talking about it, I'll throw in one specific item that she shared with us: she saved us $6,000 for next year and the year after in the form of not having to pay Washington County property taxes for where we're sitting right now. So, thank you for seeing that and the office hours. I've heard a couple people saying that they're really jazzed about that. And one thing I wanted to ask you, Kristina, in relation to your updates, the whole legislative initiative to preemptively take zoning rights away from the city—that seems like a really important topic for our community. Would that be something that we could post on the website just to give people information on where to find this legislation? [00:00] Kristina Handt: That changes so frequently, mayor, that I would be hesitant. I'm going to, like I told that one resident that reached out to you that you shared with me, we'll watch for the League of Minnesota Cities updates. In previous years, I know they've sent resolutions asking cities to pass in support of that. But even the Senate file and House file number that that resident sent us was from a biennium ago. So, I would worry about having out-of-date information. Not that I don't want to share it with folks, but it's just going to move so fast. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: I did notice a change now—it was 2229 and 3418. So, yeah, it changes. Okay. But you're keeping an eye on that. So, that's good because that would definitely impact Grant significantly if we were forced to put in duplexes and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, that's all I had. Who would like to read the community calendar? Greg raised his hand. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: I'll do it. Mahtomedi school board meetings Monday, February 9th and February 23rd, 7 p.m. at the Mahtomedi District Education Center. Stillwater Public School Board Meetings Tuesdays, February 17th at the Oak Park Learning Center, 5:30 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesdays at the Government Center. Can watch Commissioner Myron at work. Thank you for attending at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesdays. President's Day, Monday, February 16th, 2026. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: And then you say motion to adjourn. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: I would make a motion to adjourn, Mr. Mayor. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: I'll second. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: We need to do the roll call. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cornett. [00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Rog. [00:00] Council Member John Rog: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Cremona. [00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona: Aye. [00:00] Kristina Handt: Council Member Anderson. [00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson: Aye. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Mayor Giefer. [00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer: Aye. Man, that was a painful road discussion.