Based on the context provided, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names identified. *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, we're ready. [clears throat] 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. [clears throat] All right. Next up, we have approval of the regular agenda. Get a motion to approve. **[00:00:25] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to approve. **[00:00:26] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I will second. **[00:00:27] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All in favor? **[00:00:28] Council Members:** Aye. / Aye. / Aye. **[00:00:30] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Approval of the consent agenda. **[00:00:32] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I will move motion to approve. **[00:00:34] Council Member John Rog:** Second. **[00:00:35] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All in favor? **[00:00:36] Council Members:** Aye. / Aye. / Aye. / Aye. **[00:00:38] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I'm going too fast for you, Kristina. **[00:00:40] Kristina Handt:** No, but remember what you're supposed to do. **[00:00:42] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I'll try, but you'll feel free to correct me if I get off the rails. Staff agenda items. First up is Brad. Consideration of resolution to call for public hearing for final assessment for 2026 street improvements—Resolution 66th Street and Great Oaks Trail. Brad, if you can summarize this for us. I don't necessarily think you have to read through the entire presentation, but if you want to just hit the high points on this. **[00:01:05] Brad Reifsteck:** Sure. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Staff is requesting that the council declare the estimated project cost and schedule the public assessment hearing for the 2026 street improvement project and, if desired, adopt resolution 2026-09. This project includes improvements to Great Oaks Trail North and 66th Street North. The project was initiated by petition from adjacent property owners and is proceeding in accordance with Minnesota statute chapter 429 and the city's assessment policy. To give you a quick timeline, the feasibility report was adopted on October 7th, 2025. A public hearing was held on November 4th, 2025, after which council ordered the improvements and authorized preparation of plans and specifications. On January 6, 2026, council approved plans and authorized the advertisement for bids, and bids were received on February 26, 2026. The estimated construction cost based on the bids is $228,434 with approximately $51,000 in associated project expenses. The total estimated cost for the project would be $279,444.34. The city's share of the project is $37,573. The remaining estimated assessable amount is $241,831.34, which will be levied against the benefiting properties. The estimated assessments per buildable unit are as follows: 66th Street North is $11,600 per buildable unit with 10 lots being included. Great Oaks Trail North is $18,747 per buildable unit with seven lots included. Consistent with past roadway projects, staff recommends structuring the assessments over a 15-year term at 4.5% interest with equal annual installments beginning in January 2027. Property owners may pay the full assessment without interest if paid by October 31st, 2026. The 4.5% rate is consistent with prior projects and reflects a reasonable rate compared to the city’s current earnings on comparable funds. However, the council has complete authority to set both the rate and the term length. Resolution 2026-09 formally calls for and ratifies the assessment hearing. The proposed hearing date is April 7th, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. notice will be published and affected property owners will be called at least two weeks prior. Staff is recommending council schedule the hearing and adopt resolution 2026-09. I’d be happy to answer any questions. **[00:04:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I think we might have a few questions. I know I have one about interest rates. We'll start at the left with you, Greg, and then move. **[00:04:22] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Brad, I—Kristina probably doesn't know. Brad, do you know how many, how often we have people prepay these or pay these off? These aren't small assessments, but I got to imagine since we didn't have much feedback that some of these people might pay this off before the end of the term. **[00:04:40] Brad Reifsteck:** Mayor, Council Members, we have had at least three or four residents pay off the assessments early before they go to the county assessor. So that is a pretty frequent occurrence for these types of projects. **[00:05:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** And we haven't decided how we're funding our portion of the project yet, have we? **[00:05:04] Brad Reifsteck:** I believe you've decided to take it out of fund balance per your 2026 budget document. **[00:05:10] Council Member Greg Anderson:** All right. And then on the interest, you know, a lot of times that's set based on the city bonds. Do we have some flexibility there? Could we set maybe a "not to exceed" 5.5% and set the final rate at the April meeting, or do we have to pick that rate tonight? **[00:05:25] Brad Reifsteck:** I think you have to pick the rate tonight. **[00:05:27] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Yeah, that's what I understood Brad to say. Can I tack on to what you just said? I had the same thoughts. I did a little research and I was going to suggest 5.5% because I did a comparison to an unsecured personal home improvement loan—those start at 7% and go to 36%. Home equity loans, which are probably the most equivalent for a 15-year secured loan, have current rates between 5.5% and 8%. I think if we went with 5.5%, we would be more competitive but still covering administrative overhead. We're offering rates 2% below the open market. That’s my thoughts. I’ll turn it back to Greg. **[00:06:20] Council Member Greg Anderson:** That works for me. There's always some admin involved even if we're taking it out of fund balance. I would support that. **[00:06:28] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any thoughts? **[00:06:29] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. I do know that at least at the public meeting in January, homeowners were concerned about costs, but it looks like it's lower than what initially was anticipated. We're going from $15,249 down to $11,600 and from $25,732 down to $18,747. So, it's really nice to see that the estimate has gone down quite a bit. **[00:06:55] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Go ahead, John. **[00:06:57] Council Member John Rog:** Brad, when you said 4.5% is standard, what did you mean by that? **[00:07:01] Brad Reifsteck:** Well, I didn't necessarily mean standard. It's just tradition—what we've used in the past for city projects. The first project we did was Woodland Acres; we bonded for that, and the bond rate was like 3%. We went a point and a half above that. Bond rates are higher now than they were in 2017 or 2018. **[00:07:35] Council Member John Rog:** Do you happen to know what the bond rate is when you set these things or is that something you just use 4.5% and that's just it? **[00:07:44] Brad Reifsteck:** The bond rate is set if you were to go out and solicit quotes. In 2018, the City of Grant's financial standing was excellent, and we got good rates. We don't have any current information to go off today. **[00:08:02] Kristina Handt:** Mr. Mayor, if I can. So, the last time the city bonded was in 2020 for Woodland Acres. The interest rate the city is paying on those bonds is 2%. I did reach out to Ehlers, our investment firm, and for a project this size, they are seeing interest rates around 3.2%. It is typical for cities to do 1% to 2% over the bond rate to cover administrative costs. So 5% to 5.5% would be consistent with what other cities do. Also, our money market is earning 3.7%, so 5.5% would cover that interest loss range. **[00:08:55] Council Member John Rog:** Okay. No, I have everything's been pretty much covered for my liking. **[00:09:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. No other questions. Do we have a motion for modifying the interest rate if everyone's comfortable with leaving the terms the same? **[00:09:10] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I would move to approve Resolution 2026-09. The only modification would be in that proposed mailed notice of hearing in the second paragraph—change it from 4.5% to 5.5% for the interest rate. **[00:09:24] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'll second that. **[00:09:25] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** We have a motion and a second. Was it change it to 5.5? **[00:09:28] Kristina Handt:** 5.5. Correct. Everything else is the same. Who was the second? Sorry, I was writing. **[00:09:32] Council Member Ben Cornett:** That was me. **[00:09:33] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. All in favor? **[00:09:35] Council Members:** Aye. / Aye. / Aye. / Aye. **[00:09:38] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Brad, you're also up next. Consideration of the ordering of the feasibility study for McKusick and Lofton, Resolution 2026-10. **[00:09:47] Brad Reifsteck:** Yeah. Good evening, Mayor, Council. Tonight, I'm requesting authorization to prepare a feasibility study on the proposed 2027 street improvement project along McKusick Road and Lofton Avenue North. Under Minnesota statute chapter 429, the city must complete a feasibility study before formally ordering any assessable improvement. McKusick Road has historically been divided into two segments. The western segment from 88th Street to Dellwood Road is scheduled for a mill and overlay as part of the golf course redevelopment agreement. The eastern segment from 88th Street to Manning Avenue is currently planned only for localized patching in the 2026 budget. Residents expressed concern at a neighborhood meeting about the difficulty of reaching petition thresholds and the fairness of one segment being improved while the other is not. McKusick was originally a county roadway and contains 8-10 inches of asphalt. The base remains sound; the distress is surface-level. A council-initiated project allows better coordination with the developer schedule for 2027, a more predictable timeline, and better positioning for grant funding. Council also directed staff to consider Lofton Avenue North. Bundling both allows for economies of scale. The study will define a proposed benefit district. The estimated cost for the full feasibility report is $15,000. Staff recommends council authorize the study and adopt resolution 2026-10. **[00:12:45] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Starting at the right, Ben, you got any? **[00:12:48] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Yep. In this case, the surface is actually what we're dealing with, not the actual lower part of the road. If we fix it now, that's going to save a lot of money in the long run because we don't have to worry about the substructure. Is that correct? **[00:13:05] Brad Reifsteck:** We're assuming that the cores will be similar to the western segment, which would satisfy just a mill and overlay rehabilitation. We'll take new cores as part of this study to make that final determination. **[00:13:30] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Do we have any word on any grant funding for helping to do this section? **[00:13:35] Brad Reifsteck:** We applied for an LRIP grant earlier this year. Announcements won't happen until April, but we would know before we complete the feasibility report. **[00:13:45] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Okay. Thanks. **[00:13:46] Council Member John Rog:** Nothing from my end. **[00:13:48] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Mr. Mayor. Brad, regarding the report and the assessment benefit area—are you going to have more than one option for potential assessments? I visualize having different options. Would we need to identify that benefit area as part of the resolution tonight so we cast a broader net? **[00:14:10] Brad Reifsteck:** In my professional opinion, we don't necessarily need to define the boundary tonight. The resolution focuses on ordering the report, and one outcome of that report is defining the district. **[00:14:25] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Mr. Mayor, we had discussion about this at the staff level. I think we should get a legal opinion from Amanda. I want to look at whether there is benefit to parts of 88th or the new cul-de-sac. I want as big of an area included now for consideration, as it's easier to pair back later than to add after the fact. **[00:14:50] Amanda Johnson:** Mayor, Council. Under Minnesota statute 429.031, my understanding is the same as Council Member Anderson. Because the feasibility study is a document used to justify assessing a parcel, it needs to include the parcels you would potentially be assessing. If you're talking about expanding it to properties not immediately adjacent, you should identify them in this resolution. **[00:15:15] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'm trying to give us as much flexibility as possible because this is going to be a little different than the previous project. I also have a request for the schedule, Brad. I'd like the council to review the report in draft form before you have a neighborhood meeting. I want residents to have the opportunity to provide feedback more than just at the hearing. **[00:16:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Does the rest of council agree with Council Member Anderson's recommendations? **[00:16:18] Council Members:** Yes. **[00:16:20] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So we need to amend the recommendation. **[00:16:25] Council Member Greg Anderson:** In the first paragraph of Resolution 2026-10, the city has identified McKusick Road and Lofton Avenue—and I would like to include Leeward Circle and that portion of 88th Street North lying roughly 1,750 feet west of McKusick Road. **[00:16:55] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:17:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Discussion. Brad, any cons to amending this as described? **[00:17:05] Brad Reifsteck:** It's just something we haven't done in the past, but I'm for casting a bigger net. We may have to revisit the city's assessment policy at some point before the hearing. **[00:17:15] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Brad, the project description is in three different paragraphs. Those changes need to carry through the resolution. **[00:17:22] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Thank you. I’m amending my motion to reflect that. **[00:17:25] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second it again. **[00:17:26] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Amanda, any thoughts on our current road policy as it pertains to this? Is there enough gray area? **[00:17:35] Amanda Johnson:** Mayor, Council. For this purpose, I did not look at the road policy, strictly the statute. We have to show the property received a "special benefit." If we aren't looking at these properties now, we can't assess them later even if we wanted to. **[00:18:15] Council Member John Rog:** If we add these other properties, I guess Amanda would be the final say as to whether we can or can't assess based on the policy? **[00:18:25] Amanda Johnson:** The statute doesn't limit us. The only test is "does it have a special benefit?" **[00:18:35] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I feel good about it. All in favor? **[00:18:40] Council Members:** Aye. / Aye. / Aye. / Aye. **[00:18:45] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you. Next up, we have Washington County presentation—Highway 96 corridor study. We have Maddie Dalmire. **[00:19:00] Maddie Dalmire:** Mayor, members of the council, thank you for having us. My name is Maddie, I’m a planner with Washington County Public Works. Commissioner Miron is in the audience as well. I’m here to provide an update on the Highway 96 study. We are studying Highway 96 from Highway 61 in White Bear Lake all the way to Highway 95 at the St. Croix River. Our study explored safety and multimodal improvements. For safety, we looked at both reactive (crashes) and proactive lenses. For multimodal, we revisited a regional trail plan from 2001. In our engagement, we tracked where people live. Grant residents showed a broad spread on the importance of bike/ped improvements—some very for, some very against. Generally, Grant residents ranked safety and speeds as high priorities, but ranked pedestrian crossings lower and property impacts higher than other communities. For our draft recommendations, we split the corridor into zones. Zone 3 is most relevant to Grant (Manning to Hadley). It has 12-foot lanes. Draft recommendations for Zone 3 include pavement preservation, striping lanes at 11 feet (to gain shoulder space), guardrail improvements, and potential turn lanes at Lansing Avenue and Heron/Quail. We also recommend a trail feasibility study for Zone 3. We didn't feel we had enough data to present realistic solutions for the regional trail alignment yet. Near-term (2028), we hope to tackle pavement and safety in Zones 1, 2, and 3. Long-term would include the regional trail pending that feasibility study. **[00:26:30] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you, Maddie. And thank you, Fran [Miron], for coming as well. Questions? **[00:26:40] Council Member John Rog:** Hi, Maddie. As somebody who travels this road every day, sometimes four times a day—going from 12 feet to 11 with all the curves might be difficult. A lot of people cut those curves. During the day, you cannot see oncoming traffic around them. Have you thought about that? **[00:27:10] Maddie Dalmire:** Mayor, Council. We do think about the curves. The 11-foot lanes are common practice in the county, but it's not a foregone conclusion. As we move into the 2028 project engineering phase, we might find some segments need to stay at 12 feet. **[00:27:40] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Mine was in line with John's. If we're doing the feasibility of a trail along the same pathway, why take away from the width of the road anyway? **[00:27:55] Maddie Dalmire:** To clarify, the 11-foot lanes are in the striping, not physically reducing the paved roadway. **[00:28:10] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** You indicated there's going to be a third open house. Has that been scheduled yet? **[00:28:15] Maddie Dalmire:** Not yet. We are coordinating with MnDOT and Ramsey County. I will share the date with your staff. **[00:28:30] Council Member Greg Anderson:** As someone who rides a lot of bikes, I don't ride on 96 because of how narrow it is. The 11-foot lanes should help slow traffic in theory. Regarding the trail feasibility—does that mean it’s in the existing right-of-way or outside of it? **[00:29:10] Maddie Dalmire:** We don't know yet. The right-of-way along 96 varies dramatically. It's pretty tight in many locations. I would not anticipate we could get a trail in without some property acquisition. **[00:30:00] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other questions? Thank you very much for joining us tonight. All right, next—Consideration of selection of peer cities list. Kristina, you gave us some good options. **[00:30:25] Council Member Greg Anderson:** The only one I thought—Newport might be a little more urban than we are. **[00:30:30] Council Member John Rog:** I would put in Oak Park Heights. That's pretty close to us as well. **[00:30:35] Kristina Handt:** I took Oak Park Heights out because it's so commercial. This was a balancing act of size, proximity, and services. We want a group so that when we need to compare a special assessment policy or purchasing policy, we are looking at similar cities, not a Woodbury or a Stillwater. **[00:31:15] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** What about May Township? They are our neighbor. They have similar values about keeping it rural. **[00:31:30] Kristina Handt:** They are a township, but if the council thinks proximity and values are enough, we can add them. I’d like to keep the list between 8 and 12 cities. **[00:31:55] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I think adding May and Stillwater Township makes sense to cast a wider net. **[00:32:05] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** If we add those two, what do we remove? **[00:32:10] Kristina Handt:** I would take out Annandale and Independence just because I don't know them as well. **[00:32:20] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I'm okay with that. Motion? **[00:32:25] Council Member Greg Anderson:** So moved. **[00:32:27] Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'll second. **[00:32:28] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All in favor? **[00:32:29] Council Members:** Aye. / Aye. **[00:32:30] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Unanimous. Kristina, walk us through the roles and responsibilities. **[00:32:35] Kristina Handt:** I pulled information from the League of Minnesota Cities. The big takeaway is that the council is a "we," not an "I." There are very few things the Mayor does separately from the collective body. Do you feel you need more resources on this? **[00:33:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** From my perspective, the immediate problems that sparked this are no longer present. I don't think we need more documents. Does the council feel like they'd like to spend five minutes on those six examples for the rules of procedure? **[00:33:45] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Point one: Updating the time of meeting. No-brainer. Point two: Special meetings missing the three-day notice. Add it. Point three: Changing the order of business to streamline the agenda. I defer to you, Kristina. **[00:34:10] Kristina Handt:** It would go: Call to Order, Pledge, Public Input, Agenda Approval, Consent, New Business, then Staff Updates/Discussion. **[00:34:30] Council Member Greg Anderson:** One thing—if it starts where we start recording before or after the Pledge? **[00:34:40] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** We start recording at the Pledge. **[00:34:45] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I still think we should record public comments. I know in the past it did not pass, but it shows transparency. It holds people accountable for what they say. **[00:35:10] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I just think of current events where people use it as an opportunity to grandstand. Do we need to memorialize that when it’s often performative? **[00:35:30] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** The meeting is for everyone, even those who can't attend for health reasons. **[00:35:50] Council Member John Rog:** Knowing what other cities have done, I would probably say we should record the public comments. **[00:36:00] Kristina Handt:** Okay, I will draft it that way for you to adopt later. Point four: Addition of agenda items—should it be a majority or two council members? **[00:36:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I don't think we are prepared to decide that tonight. Let’s skip to Point five: Changing the word "upon" to "before." That makes sense. Point six: Restricting public comment to things NOT on the agenda. **[00:36:45] Council Member Greg Anderson:** I prefer we allow them to speak even if it's on the agenda because if there’s no public hearing later, they have no other opportunity. **[00:37:10] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Agreed. Clean it up and remove that requirement. **[00:37:30] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Discussion of issuing RFP for recycling services. **[00:37:45] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Could we put this in the newsletter for feedback? Most people use the program as it is. I would take Waste Management (WM) up on their offer to come to a meeting this summer before we decide on an RFP. **[00:38:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I discovered a billing error where they were overbilling us, but historically they were underbilling us significantly. So we might have a "sweetheart" deal. **[00:38:45] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I like the idea of having them come to a meeting and putting it in the newsletter so residents can provide input. **[00:39:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, we’ll invite them and mention it in the newsletter. Kristina, staff updates? **[00:39:45] Kristina Handt:** No office hours next week. Spring cleanup is Saturday, May 2nd, 9:00 to noon. The Mayor will be grilling hot dogs. Also, do you want to bring back the planning commission discussion in April? **[00:40:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Let's push that back. We aren't ready for that. Lindsay, future agenda items? **[00:40:30] Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I was working with Celia Worth. She offered to assist the city as a volunteer to update the website so it's ADA compliant by the 2027 deadline. We’ll bring a resolution in April. **[00:41:15] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That's a yes from the council. **[00:41:30] Council Member John Rog:** Community Calendar: Mahtomedi Public Schools board meeting Monday, March 23rd, 7:00 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools board meeting Tuesday, March 24th, 5:30 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting, Tuesdays, 9:00 a.m. Go see Fran. **[00:41:55] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Next we need a motion to go into closed session. **[00:42:00] Council Member Greg Anderson:** Move to go into closed session. **[00:42:02] Council Member Ben Cornett:** Second. **[00:42:03] Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Aye. / Aye. / Aye. **[00:42:05] Kristina Handt:** We'll need to kick everyone out. It'll probably be a 15-minute discussion.