This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context provided. Note: Phonetic misspellings in the original text (e.g., "Ger" for Giefer, "Rag" for Rog, "Reesec" for Reifsteck) have been corrected in the speaker tags but preserved or clarified in the dialogue where necessary for accuracy to the audio. [00:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Ready for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Recording in progress for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Approval of a regular agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the regular agenda? [00:25] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** So moved. [00:26] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [00:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:28] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [00:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:30] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [00:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:32] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [00:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:34] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [00:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Consent agenda. Can I get a motion for the approval of the consent agenda, please? [00:45] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I will motion to approve the consent agenda. [00:47] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [00:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:49] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [00:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:51] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [00:52] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:53] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [00:54] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:55] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [00:56] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Staff agenda items. First on the docket is our city engineer Brad Reifsteck to talk about the consideration of the 2025 gravel road maintenance contract and then the consideration of the 10-year CIP roadway maintenance plant revision. Brad, can you start us off first with the gravel road maintenance contract? [01:20] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yes, mayor. Good evening and good evening to the council. Um, tonight I'm seeking a motion to award the 2025 gravel roadway maintenance contract to Klein Brothers and authorize the mayor and the city clerk to execute the agreement. Um, as you know, this current agreement is with Klein Brothers and it expired uh early last month. Um the general services that the city is offered by the gravel uh roadway contractor includes um maintaining the gravel road network, uh purchasing the material, um spreading and hauling and grading the material on the gravel roads and uh that would also include um providing the labor and equipment to do that work. Um so we did go out and receive quotes for this work. Uh we did receive uh two quotes back. One from Klein Brothers uh with an average price of $130 per hour. Um and the second quote was from Miller Excavation with an average price of $143. Um so staff uh because of the the past work that Klein Brothers has provided the city with their timeliness um and doing exceptional work, city staff is recommending awarding a new contract for gravel road maintenance to Klein Brothers. And I should add that um this agreement is for a two-year term uh with the option to extend it for one additional year. So, with that said, I would be happy to answer uh any questions from the council. [03:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Great. I [don't] see anything. Um Kim [Kristina], you take a lot of calls from residents about Klein Brothers. I get some calls. I'm sure other council members do. Can you just kind of sum up um your experience with our current contractors, Klein Brothers? [03:15] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mayor, council members, [they] are absolutely wonderful. There's uh they are part of the community. They care about Grant. They make Grant a priority and they're reasonably priced and they're really nice to people. I think because they do get residents that run out while they're trying to grade to talk to them and they stop. [03:36] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That is a good point. Their customer service experience—absolutely taking the time to talk to residents and um so I I think we're very blessed and fortunate to have them. I don't—do you guys have any—anything to [add]? I feel like I've only heard good things about them which is really great. Okay. Uh we get a motion. [03:55] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'll move to approve. [03:56] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'll second. [03:57] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [03:58] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [03:59] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [04:00] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [04:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [04:02] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [04:03] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [04:04] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [04:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Next. Brad. You want to walk us a little bit through the um revision to the 10-year CIP roadway maintenance plan in relation to McKusk Road? [04:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, mayor, members of the council, I'm seeking a motion to revise the 10-year CIP for roadway maintenance to include McKusk Road between 88th Street to Manning Avenue in the year 2026. Uh just just some background information real quick. Uh the council did adopt the new 10-year plan at the February 4th meeting of this year uh in which McKusk Road was part of a plan to be uh reconstructed or at least getting some maintenance dollars in 2027. Uh for planning purposes, we did divide McKusk Road up into two roadway segments: the first segment being between uh Highway 96 and 88th Street and then from 88th Street over to Manning Avenue. And the reason we did this um we had known for over probably a year that the development was going to occur at the old golf course site. Um, and so we were able to negotiate as part of that development agreement that they would uh do the mill and overlay on the roadway segment between Highway 96 and 88th Street, assuming, you know, all of their property uh is directly adjacent to McKusk uh roadway there. Um and so we thought it would be uh obviously beneficial to the city and to the developer to to get them to do that work. Uh now the other segment between 88th Street and Manning Avenue. Um, we did back in 2017 have a neighborhood meeting regarding that segment of roadway and and actually the the entire length and at that time the neighborhood wasn't interested in moving forward with petitioning the city for roadway improvements and mainly because that that segment between 88th Street and Highway 96 was just so expensive. There wasn't enough um density on that roadway segment to make it cost effective for everybody living on McKusk to have to pay for that roadway segment. And so now that we've got um you know that segment paid for through the developer uh and and we know that the the developer has just started that phase over off of 88th Street. So, we know that again as part of that development agreement, um, McKusk Road will be improved between Highway 96 and 88th Street here in the next couple of years. And it generally takes about a year to get through the special assessment process. Um, and so we wanted to get that in front of you um to see if we couldn't move uh that roadway segment up a year from 2027 to 2026. And I think with that um um you know moving that work up, we would try to get uh some some letters out to those residents for next year's project here this fall so that we can be really proactive and and trying to get the neighborhoods to understand um you know the special assessment process, uh the difference between a road reconstruction and the maintenance and and even the the the amount the city would be contributing um to that project if we decide to uh if they decide to petition um for the project. So I guess city staff is recommending that we revise the current 10-year CIP to move McKusk Road uh segment between 88th Street and Manning Avenue from 2027 to 2026. So, with that said, I would be uh happy to answer any questions that the council would have. [08:15] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** So, um go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um with the timing of that, does that give us the opportunity to like allay the uh mobilization cost or is that still probably something that is going to happen regardless? [08:28] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You know, so the developer has their own contractor, right? And because the special assessment process requires us to go out for bid for our project, um we would still have to probably have those mobilization costs, but I'm assuming the contractor that's doing the work for the developer will see our project out on the uh you know, out for bid and I'm hopeful that they will take a look at our project and because they're already going to be there um would give us a good bid for that project as well. [09:03] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Thank you. [09:04] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Brad, what is you—you mentioned about the density from 96 to um 88th and what's the density going from 88th to Manning? Is it more houses? [09:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So I I want to say, you know, on the north, so between 96 and 88th, I want to say there's only like three properties. Um, but between 88th and Manning, there's quite a few more. I want to say like 10 or 12 properties. Um, so the density is is quite greater. Right. There's one big parcel um I want to say on the north side of McKusk um towards 95 and then of course the golf course property. You know, those are the two largest parcels. Uh, and they take up that whole segment of roadway between 88th and Highway 96. I think there might be one one other parcel that's on Lansing at the corner of Lansing and and Manning. But other than that, all the other properties are, you know, between 88th and Manning Avenue. [10:15] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** And then if I get a followup, so you said the golf course. Can you assess the golf course on the frontage of that road? [10:20] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** So we basically did that with this development agreement, right? So the developer is doing this project in two phases. The first phase is over off of 88th south of McKusk and then the second phase will be uh the piece that's between 96 and 88th street. So essentially we did assess the developer for the roadway. They are doing this roadway improvement at least along there uh you know the property that is adjacent to McKusk they are paying for that work and so the um I guess in my opinion I'm assuming they're not technically being assessed for it but in mine they are because they're having to pay for it as part of the development agreement. [11:08] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Oh I thought you meant there was another one up on the you know more towards Manning but my mistake. Okay. [11:13] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Oh I'm sorry. Did I misunderstand your question? [11:14] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Nope, that's fine. Okay. Um, so I had a question for you, Brad. Um, given the the improved efficiency, reduced project cost. Um, what do you think the likelihood is that, um, when you meet with the residents, they'll go ahead and, um, you know, with a majority vote to approve it? What's the basic like ballpark difference um compared to the figures that you were giving them now to what you anticipate giving them when you meet with them next? And would those new figures be in line with other um assessments that have more density? [11:48] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So I mean basically both roadway segments are about the same length, right? So the price of each segment is about the same. So if you're reducing half the cost to those residents between 88th and Manning, uh you're going to reduce the assessment that we talked about back in 2016 or '17 by half. And I I want to say it was around—and don't quote me on this—but I want to say it was around $19,000 or $20,000. And so if we get it back down to a reasonable amount like 10 or 12,000, I think they may um decide to petition the city for this project. But again, there's no guarantee, right? [12:35] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** And um if they don't, we still have the option to order it too? [12:40] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You certainly could. Uh it's just not something that we've done in the city of Grant, right? So our our typical protocol is, you know, we we put this CIP together. We mail out a letter to the residents. We try to get them all together to explain, you know, the roadway process, the special assessments and all that. And then we want them to petition us for the roadway improvements, right? But um there is you know in Minnesota state statute uh you know council can order a project rather than having the residents petition for a project. So it's certainly an option. It's just something we haven't done in the city of Grant at least in my tenure. [13:25] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Very cool. All right. Thank you Mr. Mayor Brad. Um part of the developers agreement does that include paving part of 88th? [13:33] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** It does up to I think maybe 100 feet past their entrance is what I want to say. Uh, council member Anderson, does that get the last the the driveway of the new house on the north side of 88th? Does it go that far or just to the new road? I think it just goes just past the new road into the development. [13:54] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Oops. Okay. Um so in the CIP we had actually about $63,000 in patching for the entire length of McKusk. You just broke it in half based on the two subsegments you had in there. So your recommendation would be that the city contribute the maintenance cost towards this project if it were to move ahead as a petition project of the $31,000? [14:15] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That is what I would recommend. Um but it certainly would be uh a worthy discussion point for council to consider uh including the other half of McKusk since it is being um reconstructed by the developers. So I I want to say both halves were equally the same around $31,000 or just over $31,000. Um so that's something as a council you could consider. [14:45] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** And then our current policy, does it allow us to assess parcels not on the road but use the road like Lofton or maybe a part of 88th where their main entrance or only entrance is using McKusk? [15:00] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** There is a little bit of wiggle room in our policy. Um that's a gray area, but we certainly could explore um some different methods of doing some assessments and we could certainly consider um looking at that roadway segment that enters off of McKusk. I mean I see some benefit—Lofton basically you don't get to Lofton without driving on McKusk. [15:28] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** So is there a benefit there? I know a quarter share is used. It's a bit confusing in section three of the policy on parcels fronting the road but not addressed on the road. Parcels addressed on the road but not fronting the road. Typically, I've seen that ability to just apply a benefit to parcels that use the road but aren't necessarily on the road. So, um I think there's probably some benefit to maybe a bigger footprint, if you will, for doing this. I think this is a unique situation for the city that we have a developer taking on a big share of a road improvement cost and I'd like us to consider ways to maybe um utilize that to get the whole thing done and I'd be in favor of at least starting with the neighborhood meeting and then depending on that maybe have like a workshop or something to talk about. [16:20] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah. Um go ahead. As to the neighborhood meeting, would that include um the properties that use it but aren't on it like Lofton? You just said, I mean, generally, would it? [16:35] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, it generally would. We email or send out letters to all the residents that are adjacent to the roadway. So if we wanted to move up Lofton into the 2026 plan with this segment of McKusk, we could certainly do that and then we would send out letters to those residents that would be adjacent to Lofton. [17:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Thank you. So that's something we would need to decide before next steps. [17:03] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. So I I think again my recommendation or the motion that I'm seeking is to um you know move up McKusk Road segment 88th Street to Manning Avenue and then if if if council desires we could certainly include Lofton Avenue as well uh to the 2026 plan. Again, I don't know the exact timing of when the developer plans to do McKusk, but I know it's not going to be this year. And I'm pretty sure that if it happens next year, it'll be later in the year. And like I said, even if the council were to order the improvements versus having the residents petition, that whole process typically takes 9 months to a year just because we only have one council meeting per month. Um, so I guess I would recommend if council desires that we include Lofton Avenue with the motion. [18:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Sure. Brad, you know, when we had the uh meetings with the developer and they decided that, you know, obviously that 88th Street was where they're entering and that's where they're going to pave. Um if we pave the rest do you think—I mean looking at a uh you know cars per day or something—which is the route that they would take? Would they go to Manning now because it's paved or would they go to 96 because we didn't pave it and then the people that want to go to Manning would eventually have the developer pave that on his own dime? You know what I mean? So why would we pay for it when it's very possible that the residents would force the developer to pave it after they complained? [19:00] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Well, I think the developer has a good reason why they wanted to uh make the improvements to McKusk is because they wanted their neighborhood to have a nice road to get out to 96, right? So they were offering to pave that segment of roadway assuming that their residents would use McKusk to get on to 96 and then maybe back to Manning. Now you guys know the condition of McKusk and I I think a lot of people would want to use the improved half. But you know who knows how traffic behaves. It's more of an art than a science to be honest with you. [20:00] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I don't think you'll see the developer pave a city street that is not part of his agreement. But yeah, I think I think some of the issues before with like cut-through traffic was before the roundabout was put in on 96. And if anybody's tried to go across Manning or take a left off of McKusk at certain times of day, good luck. Yeah. So, I don't think a lot of traffic is going to increase just because if you're on 96, it's much easier to go around the roundabout and go south on Manning than try to cut through McKusk. Um I think if we got money budgeted to fix that road, I just hate wasting $30 to $60,000 to patch something when there's an opportunity to kind of fix it right here. [20:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yes, John. [20:51] **Council Member John Rog:** I you know, do we pay for it some? The residents are paying some, developer's paying some. I think there's some benefit to go all the way around and I think maybe the cost should go all the way around a little bit. That's I just, you know, this is a unique little bit of a unique opportunity. This isn't just the people that live in McKusk like the roads we talked about earlier. I think there's some benefit there and maybe casting a broader net with Lofton at least gives them the option. [21:18] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** So are you saying not only take maintenance dollars that were for Lofton to put in this project but also assessment to Lofton residents? [21:26] **Council Member John Rog:** I just want to make clear I think you include Lofton in the neighborhood meeting. Lofton's obviously not in the condition McKusk is and I didn't have a chance to look at Brad's map before the meeting. I don't see that one as having a lot of issues. My point was we've got $63,000 planned for McKusk in two or three years. Do we use 31? Do we use both? Do we look to assess those that benefit that aren't sitting on McKusk a quarter share per policy if that's possible? That's why I would consider inviting them. [22:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So Brad, if I understand what you said a little bit ago, um you would need an amended motion to do that. [22:12] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** No, you know, we haven't we haven't made a motion yet, mayor, but I I think the motion should just be to include McKusk Road between 88th Street and Manning Avenue and Lofton Avenue um from 2027 into 2026. [22:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Okay. I think we need to include from 96, don't we? 96 to 88. 96 all the way to Manning. [22:40] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Well, we we could certainly add those to the mailing list, right? And and and have them be part of the neighborhood meeting. I I guess I see where you're going. Council Member Anderson, I think you're right. I think the entire thing needs to be moved. [22:58] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** And just for clarity, from what you're trying to explain as a possibility, we wouldn't be redoing Lofton. It would just be they would get partially assessed for redoing McKusk. Correct? If it fits the policy? [23:08] **Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Correct. Yeah. [23:09] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Okay. Yep. That makes sense. [23:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Kim, do you have anything to add? [23:12] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mayor and council members, no, I would just say that all of these other options would absolutely be discussed and you guys would decide on that um if we can move forward and move this into the 2026 10-year capital plan and get a neighborhood meeting on the books. We will have a lot more information. [23:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. You want to make the motion? [23:37] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'll make that motion with with the $31,000 maintenance budget for that east half of McKusk and including the Lofton neighborhood in the neighborhood meeting. [23:55] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mr. Mayor and council members, some clarification. Um, I don't think the recommended motion here includes any budget dollars, so I would not do that. [24:06] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Even better. All right. I'd move that we revise the 10-year CIP to include McKusk Road between Highway 96 and Manning Avenue from 2027 to 2026 and include the Lofton neighborhood in the neighborhood meeting. [24:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [24:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you. Council member Cornett. [24:27] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [24:28] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [24:29] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [24:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [24:31] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [24:32] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [24:33] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [24:34] **Mayor Giefer:** Aye. All right. There's no action items for our city planner, Jennifer Swanson, nor our city attorneys, Amanda or Nick. Uh that brings us to new business consideration of the Stillwater uh fire service contract extension. We talked a little bit about that already in the budget meeting. Uh are there any questions on that? Because we covered it pretty good. Okay. Then um we're down to the resolutions for the preliminary budget and preliminary levy. Uh we got so you just need a motion on that, right? Each one. Yep. I think we pretty much had the discussion in in the workshop. Um who was going to make the—I think Ben, you were really itching to do that. [25:15] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Oh yeah. Uh we'll do the first one 2025-12 first. Yep. I motion to approve 2025-12. Be it resolved that the city council of the city of Grant, Washington County, Minnesota hereby adopts a preliminary city general fund budget for 2026 in the amount of $2,216,133. [25:40] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. [25:41] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [25:42] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [25:43] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [25:44] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [25:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [25:46] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [25:47] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [25:48] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [25:49] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Uh, the next one. 2025-13. Ben, you want to do that one, too? Unless anyone—okay, go for it, Ben. [26:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Which one is that? I don't really have that... The 2025-13. All right. Motion to approve 2025-13 establishing the 2026 general fund preliminary levy certification at $1,715,836. [26:22] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [26:23] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [26:24] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [26:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [26:26] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [26:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [26:28] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [26:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [26:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [26:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Unfinished business there is none. Discussion items—staff updates. Any other staff updates? [26:40] **Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Mr. Mayor, council members, did we get a motion for 6A Stillwater contract? [26:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, we skipped over that. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, my bad. Uh, I did not ask for a motion on that. Um, can we get a motion on the Stillwater Fire Service contract extension? [26:55] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, I move that we approve the city of Stillwater Fire Service contract extension. [27:01] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [27:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [27:03] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [27:04] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [27:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [27:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [27:07] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [27:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [27:09] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [27:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. And thank you for keeping me on task there. I don't know what uh what was going on in my brain. Okay. Unfinished business. None. Discussion items. Staff updates. Anything? Okay. City council reports. Future agenda items. [27:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Happy to um just I think we all know that there was a terrible incident in Minneapolis. I think we're all very sad and upset that it happened, but um we appreciate residents reaching out to us to let us know their thoughts on it. That said, as city council members, we're not able to um make changes relative to um gun reform, for example, and things like that. But, um you know, certainly I think all of us take all of this very seriously. And so I don't think it's a lack of um caring or effort on our parts. It's just we're limited as a city council on what our jurisdiction is and what we can and can't do. You know, that said, I you know, understand that people, you know, want to see action and things happen. Either it's a whole variety of things, right? Um and so we we certainly appreciate that and understand and um you know, I certainly have reached out to our um Congress people just to let them know where are they at on this and just to see what action plans those Congress people have. And I have already heard from Representative Johnson who let me know that he has been working towards an action plan on school safety. So, I'm happy to keep everyone up to date if I hear more from these people. But again, you know, as city council members, our hands are a little tied on what we can physically do. [28:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Nice to Okay. Uh, community calendar September 3rd through September 30th. I can read it. Okay, let's see. All right. Mahtomedi Public School Board meeting Thursday, September 11th and September 25th. Mahtomedi School District Education Center, 7:00 p.m. Stillwater Public School Board Meeting, Thursday, September 11th, Stillwater City Hall, 7:00 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting, Tuesdays government center, 9:00 a.m. [29:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to adjourn. [29:31] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [29:32] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [29:33] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [29:34] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [29:35] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [29:36] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [29:37] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [29:38] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [29:39] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [29:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Meeting is adjourned.