This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context of the City of Grant officials and staff provided. *Note: As timestamps were not provided in the original text, the `[00:00:00]` format is used as a placeholder.* *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** To the flag of the United States of America and the >> recording in progress. >> One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. We got a little uh question here. We got some recognition for some of our city employees. First one here—would like to recognize Kim Points from the citizens of Grant in appreciation of Kim Points in recognition of valuable contributions as city administrator for 20 years. On behalf of everyone, Kim, I'd like to thank you for all you've done. You've done a lot in 20 years. You brought us through some tough times and that was appreciated by myself and I think everyone else here for the work you've done. So give this to you. Thank you. [applause] **[00:00:00] Kim Points:** Thank you. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** We also have a plaque for you. Uh reads the same from citizens of Grant in appreciation of Sharon Schwarz in recognition of valuable contributions as treasurer for 15 years of service. You kept us in the black this entire 15 years. So, [laughter] thank you. We wish you best in your future endeavors, both of you. [applause] Thank you. Oh, and before I forget, I have these boxes. Oops. Sorry, Nizzy. [laughter] **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Good. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** You put those in there so if you put them in your bag or something, they don't get scratched. Wind resistant upside down. Testing your puzzling skills. All right. Next on the agenda, approval of the regular agenda. Can I get a motion to approve a regular agenda? **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I will move to approve the regular agenda. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** A second. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** We can all say I. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Approval of consent agenda. A motion to approve the consent agenda. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Staff agenda items. First of all, can you guys hear in the back? Okay. I know Jeffy you had said before that and I just a clarification—we don't have any amplified. I had thought that that speaker was amplifying our mics, but this is [recording only] so if you can't hear us, just ask us to speak up louder. All right. So Brad, um we have the consideration of 17 and 36 working hours. This was uh tabled during the last meeting with some follow-ups requested from you, Brad. Um if you could just please provide us an update, uh from what you learned since the last meeting. **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yes. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um, I'd like to discuss the proposed working hours for the Washington County road improvement project at Lake Elmo Avenue and Highway 36. As you know, this is a major two-year project scheduled for substantial completion by the fall of 2027. Um, the first construction season uh must deliver the or at least one of the bridges over Highway uh on Highway 36 over Lake Elmo Avenue to carry the traffic during the second season. And to meet this milestone, the county is requesting um extended working hours in the construction contract. Under our current uh noise control ordinance, heavy equipment can operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The county is asking or requesting working hours um on Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and on Sundays um from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Now, these extended hours um will hopefully improve the project efficiency and help meet deadlines, uh reduce disruption for residents and commuters, uh lower overall costs and allow flexibility for weather delays and enhance safety and uh restore normal traffic flow hopefully sooner. Um again, high impact activities like uh pile driving or pavement demolition, jackhammering, those types of things will remain restricted uh to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Um so staff is recommending uh approve the proposed extended hours with one modification, and that is to allow Sunday work only once per month from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Um now the county had shared some information with me that they had a work session with the city of Lake Elmo and they are also considering uh one Sunday a month. Um, so with that said, I would be happy to uh entertain any questions from the council. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any questions? Uh, Ben, you want to start? **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Uh, why was the change from every Sunday to one Sunday? Why was that made? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Well, so last month we heard uh some concern about folks uh wanting work on Sunday at all. Uh there was a compromise that the uh Washington County had proposed to the city of Lake Elmo to work only one hour—or one Sunday per month. Um and so we're bringing forward that same recommendation. Um but that's certainly your prerogative if if you decide not to have any working uh hours on Sunday. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Um, is it um your understanding that Lake Elmo has approved that one Sunday a month or is that just the proposal? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You know, I don't know that they have approved it. Uh, Council Member Rog. I know they had a work session and I haven't heard the results of of what they've approved. And again, I know these hours um are critical for the the county's project to meet the milestones um and and to give them the flexibility. Um we all know or have been through construction projects ourselves and we know that they're noisy and messy and I think anything that we can do to try to um expedite that process by giving the contractor the flexibility to work some additional hours to get it done sooner um I think is a good thing. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Oh, you had another question. I was just going to say I saw an email that they stated they probably won't be doing like early morning jackhammering during Sundays and and things of that nature. So, would that change that or is that still staying in that kind of nature where it's not going to be too much of a disruption? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Right. So all the noisy activities like I had mentioned—the jackhammering, pile driving, things like that—will be done uh during working normal working hours Monday through Friday. Um and the extended hours would mostly just be used for grading and paving and potentially bridge assembly. So um I hope that answered your question. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Oh yes, perfectly. Thank you, Brad. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** [clears throat] I know we talked about last time perhaps speaking with residents that are directly impacted by this. Did we have the chance to do that to see? Because I can understand they don't necessarily want this happening on the weekends, but at the same time having this move faster along, they might say, "Yeah, let's do this because I'd rather have the construction period reduced." Um, and just curious if you're able to have that. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Bingo. We got—I did have a chance to um connect with one of the neighborhood leads down there that um he he printed out 40 copies and handed it to um everyone along 60th and 62nd Street there. And I only received four responses um from those residents. They were all in favor with the longer hours for exact reason you gave, Lindsay. So, we'd rather deal with um the little bit of noise which isn't really incremental to the traffic anyway and um get the project done earlier and not have to deal with the traffic concerns due to the construction. So, they're all—Go ahead, John. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** I was just going to ask um is it your understanding that when we say that we're going to uh have these extended hours that if it was just the grant hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, that would be the two years. And now it's going to be, you know, effectively um an additional 20 hours a week. Does that mean that you actually complete it in a year and a half? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, I think that's the expectation. Uh Council Member Rog, um again, anything that we can do to to help speed up that process. I know they're really um under the gun to try to get at least one of the bridges completed um over Lake Elmo Drive so that they can use that bridge essentially to detour traffic. Um and so that's really essential to to making sure that this project stays on schedule. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Okay. Thanks. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Greg. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I got my questions answered. I guess I'm fine with one Sunday and I mean taking one hour off the heavy equipment time seems kind of silly from 7:00 to 6:00, but I guess if that's what they're going to do. But I'd be fine with the one Sunday. I agree like like you said with the residents, let's just rip the band-aid off and get this done and 36 is noisy enough. So um... **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So you're making a motion? **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I would go ahead and approve the proposed working hours for the Highway 36 Lake Elmo Avenue project. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Hi. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Hi. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Hi. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Hey. Hi. I'm sorry. [laughter] **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. I got another one for you, Brad. Um, consideration of the city's MS4 permit status. Could you walk us through that, Brad? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, Mayor. Good evening again. Um, tonight I'm here to provide an update on the city's MS4 permit status and recommendations for the next steps. Um, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently reviewed our MS4 designation and historically Grant was required to hold an MS4 permit because a small portion of the city fell within an urbanized area of 50,000 or more. That was based on the older census data. However, the 2020 census shows that no part of Grant is in a urbanized area of that size and we don't meet any alternative designation criteria. So, the MPCA has confirmed this and indicated that a petition for release would likely be granted. Um, so if released, the city would no longer need to maintain a storm water pollution prevention program, submit annual reports, or meet other MS4 permit requirements. This would reduce administrative costs and allow us to focus on other local storm water priorities. Um, releasing the responsibility does not mean less protection for the water quality. MPCA would assume oversight responsibilities and our four watershed districts would continue enforcing storm water rules which are often stricter than the MS4 requirements. Um there are [clears throat] a couple future considerations or two scenarios that could trigger redesignation. One is a petition by another party based on water quality concerns. And the second would be any future census data showing new urbanized areas. So, with that said, staff is recommending authorizing submission of a formal petition to the MPCA requesting re-evaluation and release from the MS4 obligations. Um, with that said, I would be happy to answer any questions. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** So Brad, the MPCA reached out trying to reduce some of the MS4s that really shouldn't be. So, this is more than likely it'll be granted if we ask for the petition. **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, Council Member Anderson, that is correct. Uh, they did reach out to us, explained it thoroughly to us that because we no longer meet those criteria that we could petition them to relieve us of our MS4 requirements. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** And then just one quick question. So not having to do the hearing and the other thing—is this some marginal savings on our part over the course of the year? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah, it's not a substantial cost to take care of the MS4 for the city of Grant. There's some engineering, but it's relatively a small amount. I want to say it's between $2,500 and $3,000 a year. That's what we annually spend on MS4 requirements for the city of Grant. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** So I mean we would have to hand out those pamphlets during the city cleanup day. **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That would—that could go away if you would like, sir. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Save a tree. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Any other questions? Can you think of any disadvantages of us removing this designation? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** You know, Council Member Cremona, I really I really can't. You know, we've got four really good watershed districts um that enforce storm water management plans and rules that again often exceed the MS4 requirements. And again, you know, MPCA will be also assuming the oversight. So, I I just think less regulation in this case is probably best. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So, you're—Ben, did you have something? **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** So, you're looking for a recommendation from us. Um, is anyone being willing to make a motion to um direct staff to submit the formal petition to the MPCA to reevaluate our MS4 status and release us from our MS4 obligations? **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'll do that. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** I'll second it. Okay. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I like that. Next on the agenda, we have city planner Jennifer Swanson. Jennifer, we have the consideration of resolution number 2025-27, minor subdivision application for P25.30.21.13.003. Jennifer, is she on? I think it's asking. **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** I'm here. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, okay. We couldn't see your face. Okay. Could you please walk us through this minor subdivision request, Jennifer? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh before you this evening, uh as you indicated, we have a request for a minor subdivision or a simple lot split. I have a very short presentation that I've prepared to walk us through it. Uh, so if you give me one moment, I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And after she gives her presentation, then we'll open the public hearing. [clears throat] **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** All right. So, it looks like—I'm just double checking to make sure you can see the screen. Just want to double check. Can you see it on your side? It's not showing... There we go. All right. So, this evening we have the request for a simple subdivision. Uh the applicants this evening are the Ottos. Uh the property is approximately 20 acres plus or minus. Uh the land use and zoning right now—the guiding of it is rural residential agricultural. It is zoned A1. Uh we did go ahead and notice a public hearing for this evening. In terms of the existing conditions of the parcel, uh you can tell from the aerial here that we essentially have a 20-acre piece which is the identified parcel in blue. That 20 acres was subdivided from the larger farmstead which extends all the way out to Manning Avenue. The property itself right now is bordered on the south side by CSAH 12 and that is its only frontage as it stands today. The parcel itself has been used for agricultural production for as long as I can tell from the aerials. There are no existing structures on this particular portion of the parcel. And per NWI records, there are no wetlands on the parcel. The applicants this evening are asking for a simple lot split: parcel one, parcel two. Both to be equalized parcels. So each of them would be 10 acres essentially plus or minus. The applicants intend to develop their residence on parcel one and intend to sell parcel two which is that which is shown in green on your screens. The intent is that both parcels eventually would be developed with a rural residential use. As such, our ordinance requires that we review essentially the parcel to ensure that there's adequate buildable area, that a residence can be developed to meet all the applicable setbacks, and that there is space for a septic system. And that is usually evidenced through submission of soil borings of where those primary and secondary drain fields would be. So you can see from the graphic that the applicant did provide a conceptual layout of how each lot could be developed to comply with all of our standards. Staff conducted a zoning review to determine whether or not the conceptual plans as shown comply with our ordinance. As it stands, both parcels would comply. Obviously, we've got two fairly large-sized lots in this particular case. We do not have specifically proposed structures in this case. So obviously the applicant and whoever ends up purchasing parcel 2 would be subject to our zoning regulations at the time of their application to ensure that they comply with all applicable setbacks. But as it stands obviously there's adequate area in which those improvements could be located. The applicant did submit soil tests for both parcels. You can tell by parcel one and parcel two that there is a designated area where those soil borings were conducted. You'll note on parcel one that it appears that potentially the drain field area encroaches onto parcel 2. Staff just notes that we should have a condition that essentially says any specific septic system design, drain field, etc. must be located on the parcel in which it is serving. So there might need to be some shifting that occurs to ensure that that particular system complies with that standard. Based on the soils, however, it does appear that there's adequate area. So staff doesn't have any concerns; it's just something to note with respect to the conditions. The other piece on this particular lot division is the fact that because the parcels abut and are adjacent to the CSAH 12 right-of-way, that the division is passed by Washington County for their review and comment. Staff did provide you or email you the response that we received from Washington County staff yesterday. The staff over at Washington County have indicated that they do have concerns with having two driveway access points to serve each lot, and that they would like to see a shared driveway or shared access point—that has to do with some long-term future improvements on the road anticipated on CSAH 12. And so essentially staff is suggesting that the applicant as well as the city and the county need to continue to work towards that solution for the access. As it's drawn, again, this is conceptual so there's nothing that really needs to happen in terms of the concept plan itself. The lot line is really what we're concerned with this evening in terms of what gets recorded from a subdivision perspective. There are no concerns that were expressed by the City Engineer. Again, Brad doesn't usually get involved at this stage of the game because we have such large parcels. His comments would come likely once there's an actual development that's proposed here where we've got actual grading plans that need to be reviewed. The agencies that do or will have jurisdiction over this in the future: the parcels are in the Browns Creek Watershed District. So obviously in terms of grading and site work they'll have to obtain the necessary permits. And then once again we did receive those comments from Washington County. There are several conditions that are in your packet this evening and also attached to your resolution. The big one obviously has to do with that potential access and the shared driveway. Staff does recommend that we include a condition within that that states that if we end up with a shared driveway or a shared access point, that that driveway easement or shared access point be reviewed by the city attorney to ensure that the information in that easement is appropriate and ensures that there's perpetual access to both lots. The other pieces of the conditions are relatively straightforward. Staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision this evening with the conditions that are as noted. There is a draft resolution for you this evening and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** No questions. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Greg, go ahead. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Um, so based on the letter we got from Washington County, the driveway is still in flux, we'll say, and the condition on there about regarding working with the county and the city stands, and we'll just keep that in the resolution. We don't really know what the outcome's going to be with the driveway. **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. Um, I will say that typically we actually don't get this level of scrutiny when we don't have proposed building plans and we don't actually have driveway locations specifically identified. In this case, the applicant, it's my understanding, had actually communicated with Washington County before they ever even made their application to us as the city. So it got a little bit reversed, which is not an issue at all; it just means that we need to continue that discussion. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So the actual access will will be determined in a future resolution when they decide to present building plans or whatever is what you're saying. **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. And there won't be a resolution necessarily. That's why my recommendation and what we've done in the past if there's been a shared access that's required—that that private driveway easement agreement gets established and we would ensure that that's reviewed by the city attorney to make sure that there's nothing in it that would allow the property owner whose parcel is crossing to take that away or withhold it from the other parcel or lot. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Great. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** One more quick thing. In the title of the resolution, Jennifer, is that "east"? Should that be "west" of Manning? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Good catch. Yes, it should be. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** She just threw that in there just to see if any of us read it. Good job. All right. Anything else? We get a motion. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Move to open public hearing. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to move to... Second. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Public hearing is open. And just a quick reminder, the purpose of public hearing is so members of the public can express their thoughts and concerns. The council does not answer questions or deliberately discuss matters during the public hearing. [snorts] So, anyone who'd like to speak, please remember to sign in with your name and address so we could properly record the minutes. Anyone who would like to speak, public hearing? No one in attendance. Anyone online? No one. Oh, that was pretty quick. I guess we need a motion to end public hearing. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Move to close the public hearing. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I move to approve resolution 2025-27 with the minor change from east to west. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Right. Amanda, you're up next. Consideration of resolution number 2025-28, the Family Leave Act. **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes, your honor, Council. So this is the resolution that is adopting the required changes related to the Minnesota paid leave law policy as well as meal and rest-time breaks that were passed in statute this year that we need to adopt before the end of the year because they go into effect January 1st. The policy is what the statute requires in relation to Minnesota paid leave. Um, and then there were some minor changes to the meal and rest break policy again as required under the statute. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I'm looking for a motion to approve the resolution 2025-28. I have any questions? We get a motion. It's pretty much not an option we have here. **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yeah, there's not a lot to discuss. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** All right. Move to approve resolution number 2025-28. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** A second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Next one: consideration of ordinance 2025-85 combining the roles of city clerk and city treasurer into one role. **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. Thank you, your honor, Council. So, as you all know, your current city clerk and your current city treasurer will be done with their employment at the end of this year moving into 2026. Kristina Handt will be acting as both the city clerk, city administrator, and city treasurer. That is permitted under Minnesota statute provided you have an ordinance that combines those two positions. So this ordinance combines those two positions as one. Under the Minnesota statute, it requires that there is an audit of the city's financials. Obviously, the city was already doing that, so that's not something new. The term of the office is for as long as the council wants to have it be a combined position. Um, and that that's pretty much it. Available for questions. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Motion. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** A motion to approve 2025-85. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Consideration of resolution number 2025-30 disbandment of personnel committee. **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** I don't know if we did—if we would have a resolution to officially do the... but we're just making it an official committee... Yeah, we're okay. So, my understanding is we had a resolution to create the personnel committee at the November meeting and then I believe my understanding is at the meeting that you had on the 21st, you made a motion to dissolve the personnel committee. This is just putting it in written form so we have a paper trail so 10 years from now we can figure out what we did. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** And we can spin it up in three months if we have to. **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Start it up exactly how we did it the first time. Yes. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** All right. Move to approve resolution 2025-30. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So, new business. Let's take the first two one at a time and then um the look at licenses. Amanda said we could do all in one shot. So um consideration of resolution 25-19, the final 2026 budget. We talked about that earlier. Sharon had an updated number for the resolution. Um I did not write that down. Sharon? **[00:00:00] Sharon Schwarz (City Treasurer):** 2,228,547. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, I see that number and you're writing that down. You said 547? **[00:00:00] Sharon Schwarz (City Treasurer):** 547. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, Ben, would you like to make a motion to accept the final 2026 budget and recite that number that was just given? **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I would love to. I motion to approve resolution number 2025-19 for the amount of 2,228,547 for our general fund budget. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Consideration of resolution 2025-20, final 2026 levy. Um I don't think there's anything to change on there. We talked about it. Ready for a motion. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to approve resolution number 2025-20. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So we got six [licenses]. Do we need to read them all or we just say the the six? We could just say 2025-21 through 2025-26 and make a motion and then... **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes. Yes, council or yes, mayor. Sorry—your honor. [laughter] **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Okay. So, did you make that move? **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I just seconded what you said. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, I guess I made the motion and we got a second. Okay. I. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Consideration of re-establishing City of Grant Planning Commission. Council had a work session back in May to discuss the potential re-establishment of the planning commission. The general consensus at that time was logistically speaking there were not enough land use applications to justify reforming the PC, but we wanted to kind of keep an eye on this to see um when it might make sense to talk about potentially spinning up again. And I think during that work session we came up a threshold of like 75% of the time or eight months out of year. I think that's kind of the the metric we align on. Um, is Jennifer still with us? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Yes. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Jennifer, can you give us an update on how many months of the past 12 that we've had at least one substantive land use application that would, you know, require a public hearing or anything that would have been relevant for a planning commission? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Yeah, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, there would have been when I looked back probably four, possibly five meetings depending on if items were carried over between meetings etc. just because of the timing. So somewhere between four and five meetings would have occurred based on the land use applications that we received over the last year. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Jennifer, I don't think you were in the work session when we were talking—or were you? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** I wasn't. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. So, could you just um give us a little bit of guidance and what your experience is with best practice for planning commission for a city of our size and application volume? Like are we looking at this correctly with with the arbitrary metric that we came up with for 75% of the time? What what can you share with us based on your experience? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Yeah. So Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I don't know that there's a correct way or a correct answer per se. Um but what I can tell you is I've worked with a lot of planning commissions and city councils over the last 20 years. Uh and the ones that are the most effective or tend to be the most effective are those that meet on a very regular basis because it's easier for them to get to know the code, understand what their role is, and not forget between meetings. When you meet, you know, three or four times a year, it can be very difficult to do meaningful good business in terms of understanding their role, the discussions, and the ordinances. The other piece that is challenging is asking commissioners to hold their nights open and then having quorum actually be available. If they know that the potential of a meeting is maybe 30% or 25% of the time—especially during the summer months—they don't always hold the meeting open because obviously they're going to a cabin or doing things with their families. And so to balance those timing pieces, particularly when it comes to the 60-day rule, becomes extremely challenging. In the past the city council here has made the determination that the planning commission really only meets when we have an active land use application. And there hasn't been a lot of directive on the part of the council back to the planning commission to have general policy questions or discussions. So those are some of the challenges in terms of if you have a commission that's not meeting very regularly. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** A follow-on... Um, so when John and I joined the planning commission, we're working on the comp plan and I think John—I'll speak for you, chime in yourself—I think we learned more about land use and the city codes and everything working that comp plan. Which I [snorts] would see that either some sort of citizen advisory group or planning commission or something would be needed if we get to that point. So, how far are we away from potentially having to revise our plan based on whatever the Met Council is telling us? **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** So, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we have received—all cities in the Metropolitan Council's jurisdictions—received their system statements at the end of September 2025, I believe. Um, and so basically that's our first indication that the comp plan needs to be updated. Our comprehensive plan update to comply with that system statement will be due by December of 2028 because you need to have it in place by the time 2030 rolls around. When that process sort of, you know, once you submit it to them, there's the six-month affected adjacent jurisdictional review, there's the Met Council review, etc. In the past, the last comprehensive plan that I worked on for the city, I think we convened—we did use the planning commission in that particular case. To your point, several cities will actually use an advisory panel or similar if they don't have a planning commission that's active. So the planning commission doesn't necessarily have to be that body or that vehicle that works on the comprehensive plan. It also can be an advisory panel. I think the last time we did it, we probably worked on the update for I would say 9 to 12 months. Um, so I would think that in terms of budgeting and how we would look at it, it would be a 2027 project possibly. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Kim, is there any other opportunities for planning commission um potentially things to work on like—I think at one time we had a backlog of code that we needed to be reviewed? I think but that was that done by the last? **[00:00:00] Kim Points:** Yeah, we finished all that. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Any other questions or comments? I'm torn. I feel like we definitely know that residents are interested in a planning commission, that there are people out there that want to get involved. I think the hard part is that right now it doesn't feel like we have a big pile of work for them to do. And so that's where I feel like I'm kind of torn because we want to capture that excitement, that enthusiasm to be involved, but certainly can appreciate that when you don't do something every month or even every other month, it's like you're relearning every time and that's hard. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Yeah. And you know, I have the same kind of sentiment. You know, Jeff and I when we started out the plan commission, we were tapped for that because we were coming to the meetings, we're getting involved. And so it would be nice for people that would like to serve in the planning commission—if you're out there listening—to just show up at the meetings and let us let us see your interest and kind of get to know how things are going with the city and learn as much as you can. And then we can maybe gauge the appetite for people to actually volunteer and serve. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I think from what Jennifer just said, it sounds like about this time next year, we should reconvene the planning commission so that we can look forward to some of the land use applications as well as reviewing or redoing the comp plan. And that sounds like it's going to be a nine-month process. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. Um, Jennifer, I think you said the end of 2028. So, we'd probably want to start at the end of 27 or a little bit earlier. **[00:00:00] Jennifer Swanson (City Planner):** Yeah, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I can give you a better answer to exactly when I think or would recommend starting after I review the system statement. I don't anticipate a huge revision; I anticipate this one to be more of an update. So I can't imagine it will take more than six to nine months. To that point, also, I'll just reiterate, you don't necessarily need a planning commission to do that. You could convene an advisory panel focused on that particular project. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'd say that we maybe touch back in in maybe like March and see where we're at and just see—has anything changed with land use? Are we seeing a lot more in? And then if we're still the same, let's touch back in another three months. Exactly. So we make it clear to the residents, it's not that we're trying to stifle your involvement; we just want to make sure it's meaningful involvement and that we're using your time wisely. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. And I like the idea, Jennifer, of potentially utilizing—I mean, I guess I'm not sure what the technical differences are. Maybe the advisory board would just be more temporary versus PC. But yeah. Um Kim, were you going to say something? **[00:00:00] Kim Points:** Mayor and council members, historically—and I believe it's still in your ordinance—that the advertisement for taking planning commission applications is done in December. And then by the time they get them, you interview, you appoint at your February meeting, they're in place in March. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** No, I'd agree. Let's look at this here again in the spring. I know when I was on there, we looked at some ordinance things in addition to land use. But I think the two years I was on there, we met five, maybe six times each year. And again, to Jennifer's point, it's kind of like learning the bike again once you get back on there after three months off. And you kind of pencil that night in, and then when you get the email from Kim saying "Oh, it's canceled," it's kind of like, "Oh, great. Well, now what do I do with my night?" **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Consideration of resolution 2025-29, submittal of local road improvement grant. I see we have Kurt here. We have Brad, you still online? I think he is. Brad, you want to give a brief update on the collaboration that's happened the last few months? **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Um, point of clarification. Since Kurt is—we pass a resolution for him to help in there, we could treat him as like temporary staff; he could give an update, too. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Sure. Okay. Why don't you start us out, Brad, and then Kurt, if you want to add anything, we can we can jump to you. Go ahead, Brad. **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. Mayor, members of the council, the resolution before you is to submit the application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding under the local road improvement program. This is a grant program we are looking for monies to reconstruct and rehabilitate McKusick Road between Manning Avenue and Dellwood Road. And so, um, we've already received a resolution of support from Washington County. Um, and so this resolution is just having the city also show their support. This resolution is a requirement of the application process. Um, so, it's important that we get this done. I think the applications are due on December 12th. And then the notifications will go out late March or early April. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Anything else for you, Brad? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Nothing more. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Kurt, I know you spent a lot of time on this. Um, heard a lot of good things from from Brad and the folks at Washington County. Um, is there any updates that you'd like to share? **[00:00:00] Kurt Chatfield (Temporary Staff/Planner):** Nothing really. I mean, Brad and I continue to work on it. I'm trying [clears throat] to get it wrapped up. Brad and I and Amanda and others have a few things to wrap up to get the package ready for submission. Uh the 12th is the cutoff. I'm trying to get it done by the 9th because I'm going to be leaving and I don't want somebody to try to pick it up in the middle. **[00:00:00] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Is this saying December 9th? **[00:00:00] Kurt Chatfield (Temporary Staff/Planner):** Yeah. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** So, this is for McKusick Road project. And what what are we asking for as far as our local share? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Yeah. Council Member Anderson, part of the impetus is the improvements that the county has planned for the intersection of Manning Avenue. Um, I think in '27 or 2028, they're looking at a future signal at that intersection. So, some of these improvements would be to prepare for the signal, including left and right turn lanes on McKusick on the Grant side. And then the rest of McKusick is also in the application for pavement rehabilitation. Typic typically when when the counties do intersection improvements, the local legs are responsible for some of those improvements. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And Brad, you might have it in front of you there, but it's just slightly over a million that we're requesting in the application. So basically all construction costs minus engineering costs, right? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Right. We'd have to—the city would have to be responsible for the engineering costs and if the project were to go over the amount that we request. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** And what's the schedule of spending the money if awarded? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Money has to be spent during 2026, '27 and '28. We have till the end of '28 to spend it. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** One more question if I might. So, when you say that they're putting in these turn lanes and they're going backwards to Lofton... and where's Lofton? I'm trying to figure out... **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That's the road that the Guest House is on. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** So, it goes a little bit north, right? Got it. So, that goes back to the Guest House and that's Lofton. So, the other people are putting the subdivision—they're going all the way to where? 88th? So what's the gap between Lofton and where they're ending? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** 88th, I think. The developer for the Stillwater Oaks is responsible for the mill and overlay between Dellwood Road and 88th Street. And so, um, what's left between 88th Street and Lofton is about 2,500 ft. And then you've got another 1,000 ft from Lofton to the intersection at Manning Avenue. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And Brad, you might be able to react to this... it appeared to me like that estimate takes it all the way from McKusick 96 all the way to Manning. The LRIP funds will pay for the whole mill and overlay and the expanded lanes and everything. That's correct. **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** That is correct. In order to get the turn lanes in, um, that portion of McKusick would have to be reconstructed and I want to say that was around $600,000. The other portion would be rehabilitated. So unless our estimates are off, I don't think there's a gap in there for funding. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Excellent. That's what I was hoping to hear. All right. Any other questions? We get a motion. **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to approve resolution number 2025-29. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, I think we're all through new business. Unfinished business: none. Discussion items? Any updates from staff? **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Yes, council. I do have one. Just a point of clarification. Um I think it's already been said that this is um Miss Points' last meeting with the council. Her separation agreement—my understanding is she has signed it. Yep. So it's signed. We're good on that side. Her employment runs through the end of December. However, depending upon the timing of getting a new person in, she was not necessarily going to be working full-time for the entirety of December, but she'll get paid through... correct. Christina Handt feels ready to step in and take over. The proposed language in the separation agreement says that Kim's daily duties will be done December 4th because the office is closed on Friday. She will continue to be available via phone if there's questions—"where do I find this?"—through the remainder of this month provided that council is okay with that. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah, I'm sure you'll be somewhere warm. It's been a very smooth transition really. Thanks to you Kim for for that and Kristina for being a quick learner. This is very very quick, very smooth. Kristina Handt is our our new city administrator/treasurer and she's already started. Kristina, would you like to just introduce yourself a little bit? **[00:00:00] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Uh yeah, mayor, council, everyone. I'm happy to be here in Grant. This is my fourth Washington County community, so I'm very familiar with the area and a lot of the players. And so that's made um a smooth transition as well as Kim putting up with my endless questions for the last week. [laughter] Um but, you know, live in the area with my daughter and so, you know, really close by and that's an advantage. I'm just excited to get to meet more people and learn more about Grant. Um, so things might start looking a little differently—your packets and whatnot—come 2026. Just to try and improve efficiencies and help you reach your goals. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yep. And then along with that too, we'll be posting office hours on the website coming up in the next couple weeks. **[00:00:00] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** Yeah. I got to kind of get my feet under me and know how things run so that I can make sure that I'm there those posted office hours, but folks can expect to see them starting in January. **[00:00:00] Kim Points:** Mayor, council members, I'll just say we've worked together for about a week. Uh, she's very experienced. She is ready to go and I don't think the city could have made a better choice. She will do very well. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That's good to hear. Thanks, Kim. So, do we just want to button up the last day for Kim? **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** Well, it's the fourth, right? **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** The fourth, right? Do we need to vote on it or not? **[00:00:00] Amanda Johnson (City Attorney):** I saw nods. I'm generally nodding because you've already granted me authority to get the agreement all wrapped up. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Brad, was there anything to share after that Browns Creek Watershed District meeting last month where they're trying to get our input into their 10-year plan? **[00:00:00] Brad Reifsteck (City Engineer):** Not really. Um we we talked about a few things regarding permitting and the city's culverts and things like that. Uh the watershed district is trying to update all their mapping. They were supposed to send me a drawing that showed the culverts that they didn't have information for. Um, and I told them that I would reach out to either the Klein brothers or Ken to see if we can't confirm the culvert sizes and the locations. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other staff updates? I have a staff update myself. So, as most of you know, I'm representing Grant as a cable commissioner for Ramsey/Washington Southern Community Channels. I've been on the finance and personnel committee and I've been appointed to the executive committee as secretary. One of the gaps that I saw when I joined the committee is they were kind of rudderless in terms of their strategy. We decided it might be a great idea if we had a strategic plan so we could work on the long-term sustainability of the cable commission because most people know cable's dying a slow death. Um, Kristina, if you ever see some franchising requests coming for broadband, let us know because the cable commission has got some thoughts on how to respond with that. **[00:00:00] Kristina Handt (City Administrator):** I've watched that YouTube video that you were on last month. I might have seen it in my last city. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Well, you're one step ahead of me. Um, that's all I got time for. Community calendar? **[00:00:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** All right, I'll read it. Glasses are on. Wow. [laughter] Mahtomedi Public School Board Meeting Thursday, December 11th. Mahtomedi District Education Center at 7:00 p.m. Stillwater Public School Board Meeting Thursday, December 11th. Stillwater City Hall at 7:00 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesdays Government Center 9:00 a.m. And for those of you who didn't know, Christmas Day is Thursday, December 25th, 2025. **[00:00:00] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Move to adjourn. **[00:00:00] Council Member John Rog:** Second. **[00:00:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you, Kimmy. Sharon.