Okay, we're ready. [clears throat] >> I pledge algiance 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. >> Move to approve. I will second. >> I >> I >> I >> approval of the consent agenda. >> I will move motion to approve. >> Second. >> I >> I >> I >> I going too fast for you, Christine. And the >> No, but remember what you're supposed to do. >> I'll try, but you'll feel free to correct me if I get off the rails. >> Um staff agenda items. First up is Brad. Consideration of resolution to call for public hearing for final assessment for 2026 uh street improvements resolution 66 street and Great Oaks Trail. Um Brad, if you can summarize this for us. I don't necessarily think you have to um read through the entire presentation, but if you want to just hit the high points on this. >> Sure. Um good evening, mayor, members of the council again. 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. Uh this project includes improvements to Grado Trail North and 66 Street North. The project was initiated by petition from adjacent property owners and is proceeding in accordance with the Minnesota statute chapter 49 and the city's assessment policy. So just to give you a quick timeline, uh 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. So the estimated construction cost based on the bids is $228,4.34 with approximately $51,000 in associated project expenses. The total estimated cost for the project would be $279,44.34. The city share of the project is $37,573. The remaining estimated simple or assessable amount is $241,831.34 which will be levied against the benefiting properties. So the estimated assessments for buildable unit are as follows. 66 street north is $11,60 for buildable unit with 10 lots being included. Great Oaks Trail North is $18,747 per billable unit uh with seven lots included. So, consistent with past roadway project, staff recommends structuring the assessments over a 15-year term at 4 and a.5% interest with equal annual installments beginning in January 2027. Property owners may pay the full assessment without interest paid by October 31st, 2026. And as I mentioned, the 4 and 12% rate is consistent with prior projects uh and reflects a reasonable rate compared to the city's current earnings on comparable funds. However, the council has complete authority uh to set both the rate and the term length. So, resolution 202609 formally calls for and ratifies the assessment hearing. The proposed hearing date is April 7th, 2026. At 6:30 p.m. during the regular council meeting, uh notice will be published in the official newspaper and they will call affected property owners at least two weeks prior to the hearing as required by statute. At the hearing, affected property owners will have the opportunity to provide input before the council considers adoption of the final assessment role. So, with that said, staff is recommending that council schedule the assessment hearing uh at the April 7th meeting and adopt resolution 269. So, with that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> I think we might have a few questions. I know I have one about interest rates. We'll start um at the left with you, Greg, and then move. >> Uh Brad, I Christine 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. >> Yeah, may our council members uh we have had uh I think at least a few three or four uh residents pay off the assessments. >> Okay. >> Early uh before they go to the county assessor. Um so that is a pretty frequent um occurrence for these types of projects. And we haven't decided how we're funding our portion of the project yet, have we? >> Um, I believe you've decided to take it out of fund balance per year 2026 budget document at least. >> All right. And then on the interest, you know, a lot of times that's set on if the city bounds. Do we have some flexibility there? Could we set maybe a not to exceed 5 and a half% and set the final rate at the April meeting or do we have to pick that rate tonight? Oh, I think you have to pick the rate tonight. >> Yeah, that's what I understood. Brad say, >> can I tack on to what you just said? Um, so yeah, I I had the same thoughts. I did a little research and I was going to suggest five and a half% because I did um basically um unsecured personal home improvement loan for roughly that amount um starts at 7% and goes to 36% and home equity loans which probably most equivalent to what we're talking here for 15ear secured um loan the current rates are 5 and a half to 8% so I think if we went something like five and a half we would be more competitive because it's there is administrative overhead for us to um do this and we're we're offering people um rates that are 2% really below what they could. So I think we should at least match the lower end what they could get out on open market. That's my thoughts. I'll turn it back to Greg and that works for me. There's always some ad admin involved even if we're taking it out of fund balance and we're given some le some latitude on setting that rate. So I would support that. >> Any thoughts? Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. Um I do know that at least at the public meeting in January, you know, homeowners were concerned about costs was I think their main concern, but it looks like it's lower than what initially was um anticipated because we're going from $15,249 down to 11,60 um and from $25,732 down to 18,747. So, it's really nice to see that the now estimate has gone down quite a bit. >> Okay, go John. >> Brad, when you said 4 and a.5% is standard, what did you mean by that? >> Well, I didn't necessarily mean standard. It's just >> tradition. Tradition >> what we've used in this past uh for city projects. Um, we haven't changed it. I think the first project that we did was the uh woodland uh acres project and we did bond for that project but at that time I think we the bond rate um was a little lower than it is today. I think the bond rate was uh like 3%. And so for that project we went a point and a half above the bond rate that we got for financing the project. So, um, again, the bond rate is a little different than a home equity loan. Um, but they are higher than they were back in, um, 2017 or 2018 when we did that project. So, >> do you um, and if you don't know, that's fine. But do you happen to know what the bond rate is when you set these things or is that something just just completely like you just use four and a half% and that's just it? Well, so the the bond rate is typically set uh if you were to bond for this project and have to go out and solicit uh quotes for the bond for your city. Now, you know, back in 2018, the the city of Grant financial standing was excellent and we we got good really good rates on on bonds. Um but again, um that's just past history, right? And we don't have any information to go off today. Okay. Mayor, >> um if I can. So, the last time the city bonded was in 2020. I'm not sure if the project if that's the Woodland Acres that Brad is talking about, um the interest rate that that you're paying on those bonds is 2%. So, the four and a half, I'm not sure then if you went two and a half over. I did reach out to um Ellers, who's our investment, and ask them if we were to go out and at that time they thought the project was going to be about 400,000, what what are your other clients seeing for interest rates? And it was around that 3.2%. So it is typical for cities to do that 1 to 2% over your bond rate to cover administrative costs. So somewhere in that five to five and a half percent I think would be um consistent with with what other cities would do were they bonding and would also cover the costs of uh the work that we're doing. And there's also the co the lost cost of interest um of what we'd be making if that money was sitting in our money market which last month was 3.7%. So that's where I'm saying five to five and a half% would kind of cover that that uh range. >> Okay. >> No, I have everything's been pretty much covered for my liking. >> Okay. No other questions. Um do we have a uh sounds like we might have a motion for modifying interest rate if everyone's comfortable with leaving the terms the same? >> Yeah, I think the term's fine. >> So you're looking for a resolution to adopt? Excuse me. >> Well, hang on a second. Um, three of us said that we we would be in favor of changing the four and a half% to five and a half or whatever. So, I'm looking for a motion to reflect that or um I can make the motion myself. >> Yeah, 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 interest rate. >> I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. >> Was it change it to 5.5? >> 5.5. >> Correct. >> Everything else is the same. >> Who was the second? Sorry, I was writing. >> Okay, got it. >> Okay. Um, all in favor? >> I I >> Okay. Um, Brad, you're also up. Next, uh, consideration of the ordering of the feasibility study for MCHus and Loftton resolution 2026-10. >> Yeah. Good. Good evening, Mayor Council. Tonight, again, I'm requesting authorization to prepare a feasibility study on the proposed 2027 street improvement project, which would evaluate improvements along the CUC road and Loftton Avenue North. Under Minnesota statute, chapter 429, the city must complete a physibility study before formally ordering any assessable public improvement. This step provides the technical, financial, and legal foundation necessary for council to determine whether a project should move forward. Uh, by way of background, Musk Road has historically been divided into two segments. The western segment from 88th Street to Dell Road is scheduled for a mill overlay. Uh, as part of the formal golf course uh redevelopment agreement. Uh, the eastern segment from 88th Street to Manning Avenue is currently planned only for localized patching funed in the 26 maintenance budget. At the December 1st neighborhood meeting, residents were informed about the petition process under chapter 429 and the city's assessment policy. While they understood the option, committee expressed concern about the difficulty of reaching the required petition thresholds. There were also questions about fairness, particularly given that one segment of MCU is scheduled for improvement while another is not. At a recent council meeting, we review payment core data and unlike many local roads in grant they that were built with only two to two and a half inches of asphalt u musk road was originally constructed as county roadway and contains approximately 8 10 in of asphalt structure the base remains sound the distress we are seeing is primarily surface uh level so uh a council initiated project provides several advantages and allows better coordination with the developer uh develop funded scheduled for 2027. Uh it provides a more predictable timeline, strengthens the city's position when pursuing local road improvement program grant funding, and it allows for a comp comprehensive corridor based evaluation rather than a segmented approach. Council also directed staff to consider Loftton Avenue North within the same study. Uh Loftton Avenue was exhibiting similar maintenance needs and its proximity to MCU makes it cost effective uh to include bundling both corridors allows economies of scale for geomet or geotechnical work surveying and report preparation. It also ensures residents of both roadways receive consistent information about rehabilitation versus reconstruction options. As part of the feasibility process, staff will also define a proposed benefit district consisting with Minnesota state statute chapter 429 and best practices out by the outlined by the League of Minnesota City special assessment toolkit. Chapter 429 requires that any assessments be based on the special benefit received by properties within the defined district. The study will therefore identify benefiting parcels, evaluate proportional benefit and prepare a mock assessment role using a clear and legally defensible methodology. Uh establishing the benefit district at this stage ensures transparency, equity in alignment with statutory requirements before any improvement is ordered. The proposed the ability study would include four primary components. First a geotechnical evaluation including cores and laboratory testing to determine appropriate rehabilitation methods. Second a topographic survey to defi define the project limits assess drainage and established quantities. Third the preparation of feasibility report itself including alternative analysis primary cost opinions assessment district mapping and then mock assessment role. And then fourth, alignment with potential funding sources, including state and local programs. The estimated cost for the full full feasibility report, including both Musi Road and Loftton Avenue, is $15,000. The study does not commit the city to construction. Rather, it satisfies the statuto requirement providing and provides technical clarity and established costs expectations, defines potential benefit district, and positions council to make an informed decision. public hearing process. Therefore, staff recommendation is that council authorize the preparation feasibility study and adopt resolution 2026-10 ordering the study. And so with that said, I'd be happy to ask any questions. >> Starting at the right, Ben, you got [snorts] any? >> Yep. Uh probably not going to be able to answer this directly, but just in this case because you we've talked about this on the last meeting. The surface is actually what we're dealing with, not the actual lower part of the road. That is probably fine due to the other cores that we've pulled out. If we fix it now, that's going to save a lot of money in the raw long run because we don't have to worry about the substructure of the road. Is that correct or not correct? >> Well, so again, last last meeting we talked about the cores that were available from the segment uh between Dell Road and 88 Street. Those cores uh would uh satisfy just a rehabilitation project with a mill overlay. As part of this feasibility report, we we'll go out and take cores of the sub segment that we're talking about so that we can make a good determination of uh the best rehabilitation method uh for that segment as well. We're assuming that the cores are going to be similar to the ones that we're taking, you know, between 88 Street and Delwood. So, uh we're assuming that this is a rehabilitation project for uh Mikus Road. Um but we won't know until we get the information. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do we um have any word on any grant funding for helping to do this section? >> So the LR or LRP grant that we applied for earlier this year, I don't think the announcements are going to happen until April. So, but we would know before we complete the feasibility report whether those um you know funds are awarded to the city. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Nothing for my end >> Mr. Mayor Ger. >> Um so Brad, you're talking about the report and the assessment area, benefit area. Um so you're going to have more than one option as far as potential assessments. I mean, that's what we've done before. I visualize this having some different options. And would we need to identify that benefit area as part of the resolution tonight? So, we cast a broader net. >> Well, in my prof, members of the council, my professional opinion, I don't know that we would necessarily needed to find the boundary. We certainly would go through the exercise of of looking at different benefiting districts. Um again, tonight's resolution is really focusing on uh ordering the feasibility report for the MCU road and Loftton Avenue roadways. Um and not necessarily defining the benefiting district. Um one of the outcomes of doing the feasibility report obviously is is getting that benefit district defined. >> Mr. Mayor, >> we had discussion about this at the staff level. I think we should get a legal opinion about that if Amanda could offer that. >> Okay. I guess I'm not even clear what >> what we're asking. If if we're trying to >> so change our >> in the title of the resolution, we list the streets, we list the project areas or the streets going to be improved. One of the things I'd like looked at in the report is is there benefit to some of 88? Is there benefit to the new culde-sac that was built off of 88th? Whether it's a portion of a full assessment or not, I want this big of area included now that we can for consideration of different options. And I think it's easier to pair back from that later than try to add it after the fact. And I don't know if we need to do that as tonight's resolution or they in the as part of the report. Bob always figured it was part of the initial resolution order in the feasibility report. You identify the entire project area. Council, uh, mayor, council, so under, uh, Minnesota statute 429.031, subdivision one, my understanding is the same as council member Anderson that because the feasibility study is a document that you use to justify assessing a parcel, the feasibility study needs to include the parcels that you would be potentially assessing. So, if you're talking about expanding it to properties that are not immediately adjacent to these roads, you should identify them in this resolution for the feasibility study. >> Well, we're we're talking, Greg, to make sure I understand it correctly. We're talking um modifying our traditional [clears throat] approach for how we've done assessments. Is that >> We're not We're not assessing anybody tonight. What we're doing is setting the groundwork of what the report will look at. >> Okay? >> And I want more than one >> that wouldn't lock lock us into filming a particular >> I'm I'm trying to give us as much flexibility as possible because this is going to be a little different than yeah the previous project we just voted on where it's 100% in my opinion and I don't I'm not I'm not going one way or another tonight or saying we're going to assess all these other ones. I just want to make it as flexible as it can be for us moving forward without having to go backwards. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> And then um well we can get to that in a minute on the resolution. The other question I had Brad is uh we didn't really have a schedule in there. You kind of talked through it. The other point I'd like to make and would like would like consideration would be either have a schedule at next month's meeting or consider a neighborhood meeting or two with this again. And just my opinion knowing the the process you've done in the past, Brad, is when you get the draft report in draft form, I think the council should look at it, whether that's in a work session or at a meeting before we adopt it, before you have a neighborhood meeting so we're all on the same page if we if we make some recommendations that differ from what's been done in the past, have a at least one neighborhood meeting ahead of the improvement hearing so people have more than one option to provide us input because sometimes people don't like coming to council meetings and talking and usually you get the negative answers. is there not not both sides of the story. So I would like included in your report some sort and and we're not in a huge rush here but some ability of the council to review the draft report get your fi findings prior to having the open the neighborhood meeting with the with the public so that we know what the message is. we know what the what skiing re um the residents are getting as far as potential assessments and and costs and then we can come back here adopt the report set the hearing date and start the process forward on there and you can think about that as far as schedule and and work with staff but I think the council should see the report a couple times. I want residents the opportunity to pro provide feedback more than just at the hearing and in this setting. >> Makes sense. Brad, is that um was that is that clear to you or do you need any further [clears throat] direction or >> that um mayor members of council that's completely clear? I think this project is a little different than >> anyone that we've done in the past. So that perfectly makes sense. >> Does the rest of council agree with council members Anderson's recommendations? >> Yes. >> All right. So I think then we need you're you're you're looking to amend the recommendation. So we need to be clear so we can capture that. >> So in um excuse me the [clears throat] first paragraph of resolution 202610. Um the city has identified MCU road and Loftton Avenue and I would like to include now I forgot Christina the name of the road. >> Leeward Circle. >> Leeward Circle. Thank you. And that portion of 88th Street North line roughly 750 1750 ft west of MCU basically to the developers west line because he's going to have two lots that are going to use 88th for a driveway. That's my thinking. >> Okay. So that that's basically a motion to Okay. >> Can you repeat the 88th Street part of it? >> I would say >> how we should write it in the resolution. Typically, I've seen it 1,750 ft west of Mchusic Road on 88th Street North. Then I think we've got the biggest net we can cast. Brad's got some options. And if we pair some of these back later, that's fine. That's a lot easier than trying to add them. >> Second. >> Okay. Discussion. Um Brad, is there in in your estimation, is there any um cons to amending this resolution as described? Any cons and any corners we >> you know, it's just mayor, members of council, it's just something that we haven't done in the past and and I'm all for casting the bigger net if that's if that's what council decides to do. Um we may have to revisit the city's assessment policy at some point before we go to the improvement hearing on this project or some sometime in between, you know, feasibility and and the assessment. >> That was going to be one. Oh, you have another question first. >> Um, council member Cremona pointed out that our project description is in three different paragraphs. So, those changes need to carry through on the resolution. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, of course. >> So, you're amending your motion to reflect that. Okay. Can I second it again? >> All right. Um, getting back to the um the comment about uh how this may or may not conflict with our rule policy which has a lot of gray area. Amanda, I'm assuming that you consider that when you talked about this. Um did you have any thoughts on um the analysis of the of our current road policy as it pertains to what we're talking about here? Is there any um danger of us doing something like this without um modifying that road policy or is there enough gray area in our current road policy that we would be fine? >> Uh mayor, council, for the purposes of the question, I did not look at the road policy. It's strictly what the statute requires. Basically, what we're doing right now is we're saying, okay, we have to establish what we could potentially justify as an assessment amount. And in order to establish that assessment amount, you have to show that the property received special benefit. And so if we aren't looking at these properties to show that potentially they received a special benefit for this road improvement, we can't assess them if we even if we wanted to. So from the policy perspective that that I would defer to Brad in terms of does that need to be modified? Maybe. But right, we're kind of on like the pre-step if that. >> So yeah. So we'll have another opportunity to actually debate the the merits of bringing in leeways like assessing those which um >> okay >> yeah all this is doing is just saying hey before we can assess something we have to see if there's a special benefit there it's possible the feasibility state comes back and says >> we can't show a connection to those properties and then you know that and you can't assess I'm not saying that's what it's going >> it's just you couldn't add it later if you wanted to so you'd have to add it now what you're We got a you're you're clear on the um the motion modified in three spots. We got a second. >> Is there any more discussion? >> John, you got something? >> I I just, you know, for the benefit of what we have in front of us today about the the the 15,000 for the feasibility study, that's fine. But, you know, if we add these other properties, I guess Amanda would be the uh final uh say as to whether we can or can't or if they have benefits or not based on our current road policy, right? Maybe next meeting >> potentially. I mean, that would be something we'd have to look at the policy and if if our policy, for example, says you can only assess properties that are abuing or adjacent to the road, >> then that would be a problem. It it doesn't say that. >> The statute doesn't limit us. >> Okay. actually very explicitly says the only test is does it have a special benefit? Yes or no? You can assess. >> Okay. >> Uh so it would be if we had somehow you know limited ourselves in our policy which >> okay >> and you're not you're not making a decision to assess tonight. So even does say that >> I feel good. >> I feel good about it. Okay. >> Um iron irony. I >> I >> I Oh, I >> All right. Thank you. All right. [cough] [clears throat] Next up, we have new business and Washington County presentation highway 96 corridor study. We have Mattie Dalmire and Michael Klein. Looks a little bit like Commissioner Mir. I don't know if there's a something going on there, but um Maddie, can you kick us off? >> Yeah, absolutely. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for having um us here tonight. Uh as mentioned, my name is Maddie. I'm a planner of Washington County Public Works. Um Commissioner Mir is in fact in the audience. uh my project partner Mike Klein was unable to attend um this evening but I am very happy to be here to provide an update on the highway 96 study to you all. Um so um for our presentation today I'm briefly going to cover a study um the study purpose and where we've been. Um I will spend most of my time up here today discussing where we're at. So this is very in progress update on the study um where I will walk through our current draft recommendations um that are coming out of the study and finally I will end with where we are going and next steps. So, as a reminder, um following the jurisdictional transfer of Highway 96 um from the state of Minnesota to Washington County, Washington County set out um to complete this study to better understand the needs along Highway 96 um and identify potential improvements that we need to start planning for. Um our corridor extents actually go a bit beyond the county's perview. Um we actually are studying all of Highway 96 from Highway 61 over White Lake all the way to Highway 95 at the St. Craig River. Um that was really um determined in partnership with Mindot and Ramsey County of let's look at the whole roadway as people driving this don't know where that jurisdictional boundary is. Um our study really set out to explore um safety and multimodal improvement needs um that we need to think about along Highway 96. Um, and then in addition to that, really wanted to look into identifying time periods for potential improvements. Um, again, in the spirit of starting to plan for when these things may happen. Um, the other item to note there with near-term improvements is that Washington County does have a 2028 CIP project for 96. Um, for which this study is helping shape what that scope is going to look like. Um, if you did attend our open house and you have met he will be the project manager for that effort. Um so you'll see familiar faces as we um get into that process as well. Um so if we walk through our study process a bit and just cover where we've been um so really any study like this that the county undertakes step one um is really just getting a better understanding of existing conditions. So, if any of you were able to attend our first open house, um that's really a meeting where we come with a blank map and ask community members like, "Hey, what are you seeing on this road? Where do you see issues? Where do you see opportunities?" Um and we really pair that with our technical evaluation um and data collection. Phase two of our study is where we jump into exploring and evaluating potential improvements. Um again for highway 96 we were specifically looking for safety and multimodal needs. Um for safety we reviewed that both from a reactive lens. Where are we seeing seeing crashes um today? Um and as well as a proactive lens of where are we where do we see potential safety concerns that we want to get out ahead of. Um and then multimodal improvements as a part of this study really focused on bringing um an adopted regional trail plan um back into the public conversation. And um there was a long range plan that was um adopted in 2001. Um and we wanted to kind of bring that back in front of the public, get feedback um and get input from folks on just generally multimodal fires along Highway 96. Um, also as a part of that phase two, we did additional engagement activities. Um, and just this last September had a very um, great turnout at our um, second open house. I was I did include some slides on that um, as that's relatively new information that I figured we could go through with this group. Um, in your packets tonight, I did include a one-page summary from openhouse 2. Um for those um listening that's also available on the county's web page if people are interested um in that. But you can see here if we quickly go through some of those results um we have been trying to track where people live or where people are coming from as they're providing input to our study. So we can understand you know what are residents in Grant saying versus what are residents in White Bear Lake saying. So you can kind of see spread of input on this slide. when we specifically asked about multimmodal input um you can see the two charts on the right hand of your screen um with the city of grants responses split out and circled in yellow there um so we've got how important is it to you that 96 includes improvements for peds and bikes um is that top chart um and the darker green bars are this is extremely important the orange bars are this is not at all important I would say grants got the kind of hardest spread of those how those bars are showing up where you've kind of got a green bar and an orange bar. Um whereas some of the other communities have more of a skew showing up there. Um and then that question along the bottom knowing that this is kind of small font here is how open are you to changes along 96 if they improve safety for people driving, walking, biking and rolling. Um so similar thing, dark green is very important, orange is not important. Um the other item that we did want to ask is just holding up um some of these priorities next to each other. Right? So the chart on the left side of the screen um represents a question that we asked where we said um you know if we're holding up implementing multimodal improvements or your your priority for getting multimodal improvements included against um potential impacts to the corridor where on that spectrum do you land? Um the chart on the screen here summarizes both the feedback we received at the inperson event, the online engagement across the entire corridor. Uh we also asked about um what people are thinking about um when they are thinking of intersection improvements and what types of priorities they may have. So we asked about several different characteristics. Um the highest rated priorities from that feedback were reducing crashes or improving safety is number one. Um slowing traffic speeds um in the area is number two and then improving pedestrian crossings as the third highest priority. This is again um a summary of all of the feedback that we received. We do split out again the feedback that we're hearing by community. So, you can see um I'll I'll circle some more um on here, but these are all the different the six different Washington County communities responses split out. Generally, they follow that same trend, right? Safety, speeds, and pedestrian crossings is the highest priorities. Um the two communities that differed from that were Stillwater Township and Grant. Um so Grant is in the bottom left and you can see that the pedestrian the priority for pedestrian crossings um is ranked slightly lower um and the waiting for um property impacts is slightly higher. Um so that brings us to our phase three which is where we're at um which is um at the draft recommendation phase. So to form our draft recommendations we've split the corridor into zones um and have developed a list of potential improvements by zone. So you can see the zones in the red boxes along the map here. We start with zone one on the east or on the right hand side of your screen. That's from Highway 95 over to the county's 55596 project. That's a planned improvement project we have. That's why there's a gap in between those two boxes. Then we have zone number two, which is from that 55596 project over to CASA 15 or Manning Avenue. Then we have zone three. We're entering into grants now from Manning Avenue over to Hadley Avenue in um Delwood. And then lastly, zone four is from Hadley Avenue over to the West County line. Um so I'll go through each of these with you um focusing primarily on that zone three and then at the end we'll go through how those improvements can split into those short, mid, and long-term priorities. Um, so these first couple zones I'm just going to use to orient you all to the maps and the information on the slide. Certainly can answer more detailed questions on these zones if you're interested. Um, so the map along the bottom is going to be consistent throughout. Um, again, we've got 95 or the river on the right hand side, Highway 61 and White Bear Lake on the left hand side. Um, the blue dashed lines are showing those city or township boundaries and where those lie. Um, and then each of our zones have two different slides. So here is um the existing conditions information for slide one or a summary of um kind of key takeaways from that and then slide two um is outlining our draft recommendations for that zone. So you can see from this slide that zone one is primarily um a preservation section based on the the items that are listed there on the slide. Um, a few items that I wanted to note that you're going to see on all of the zones moving forward. Um, based on the bullets here in um, so passing, you'll see pavement on all of these zones, right? We're always thinking about how we need to improve pavement and what's the appropriate timing. When we do that, we also always evaluate the striping and passing and no passing zones. Um, so anytime you hear of a pavement project coming through, that's something that we're also looking at. Um you'll also see general guardrail notes um in certain zones. So after Washington County took over Highway 96 um we did evaluate and identify some guardrail that's failing um and kind of went through that design process um and with the timing of that determined to kind of shelf that plan until we got to our 2028 improvement project. Um so that'll be coming along with those 2028 improvements. Um and then lastly, I did want to note um on the last bullet here about intersection lighting needs. Um so the county is developing policy or guidance on rural intersection lighting um based on best practices. Um so we're still in process of reviewing analysis um results for that. Um but our initial analysis shows that most intersections along 96 that would warrant um intersection lighting already have it there today. Um, so we can certainly follow up as we progress on that piece of it. Um, so zone two, again, this is existing conditions from that project at 555 that the county has planned over to Manning Avenue. Um, and the only new item that I'll point out with this zone is that on these draft recommendation slides, you may see this blue table um, on the right hand side of the screen for some of the zones, and that's outlining potential turn lanes. Um, so turn lanes is something that we did look at um and brought to our second open house. We didn't get a ton of feedback um on those potential turn lanes. Um but just as a reminder to this group um we analyze potential turn lane locations based on two items. Um, one is the county is also drafting a turn lane um, some turnlane guidance um, that that is in progress um, specifically to help identify turn lane needs as developments are coming in. Um, that guidance is based on speed, amount of traffic and peak hour turning volumes um, at intersections. Um, certainly Highway 96 being a developed corridor, this doesn't necessarily apply apples to apples but was kind of like a firstr run analysis that we looked or that we took um to identify areas where we may want to take a closer look. And then the sec second factor that we used in identifying potential turn lanes is really um leaning into that proactive safety of where do we potentially have blind spots where people are coming around corners or over hills. Um an intersection comes up pretty quickly um where you may see a rear end crash um concern. Um all right, so now we're in the meat of it here. Zone three um is going to be the most relevant to grant. So this one is extending across city boundaries from Manning to Hadley Avenue in Delwood. The segment is approximately five miles long. It has 12 foot lanes with variable shoulders. Um we've got challenging topography in various locations with a lot of steep slopes, water bodies pretty close um to the roadway. Um, our right ofway varies depending on where you are, um, both in how wide it is and whether it is defined or prescriptive. Um, we don't have any intersections or segments with a concerning crash history within this zone. Um, and then the other items to note is that that regional trail plan that was adopted um, does identify a future regional trail um, from the Gateway State Trail Crossing and West. And then we have the existing Browns Creek State Trail that runs from that Gateway State Trail crossing to the east. So if we dive into draft recommendations for this zone, um they include pavement preservation. Um so improving the pavement throughout the zone. With that, we would look to stripe the lanes at 11 feet. Um if you remember, they're right now at 12 feet. Um it's pretty common practice nowadays that we're that we're putting our lanes at 11 feet. Um the kind of double bonus in this segment is that we might get a little bit more of that shoulder space for those people who are out walking um or biking on the roadway there. Um we do have some of that guardrail that was identified as needing improvements within this zone. Um again we will look at the intersection lighting needs. Um we had two locations with potential turn lanes. Um so that's um Heron and Quail which is further on the um pretty closer at the west um city boundary and then as well as Lancing Avenue. Those two kind of popped up as potential locations to look at and explore. Um and then lastly I wanted to address the multimodal piece of this. So again um in striping lanes a little bit narrower. We're hoping we can buy ourselves a little more shoulder space um to make anyone out walking and biking a little more comfortable in the existing section of the roadway. Um for this segment, we also have the draft recommendation to undertake a trail feasibility study. Um so coming through this study process and kind of getting towards the end of it, um we really did not feel that we had enough information, enough data. um to either present um sort of like realistic solutions to the community to get feedback on or be able to provide the background information of what potential impacts would look like, what costs would be. Um and so really feel we have to for this segment, we've got to take the time to do a deeper dive um and spend more time doing um technical analysis as well as community engagement to to get a better understanding of um what that might look like. Um, and that would be for that regional trail alignment specifically. So that's west of the Gateway State Trail crossing. All right. And then our last zone that I'll quickly touch on, um, we have zone four, which extends from Hadley Avenue to Delwood to the Western County line. This is, just to note, this is the intersection, um, or the zone where we had our only two intersections with existing crash concerns. So, we really looked at where crashes are above the critical crash rate or where we're seeing um serious injury crashes. Um and those locations were Apple Orchard Road and Highway 244. Um improvements in that zone 4. Again, a lot of those on the list are similar. Um and then you add those um two intersections at looking at um improvements at those locations to the list. Um, for zone 4, we do have a trail identified in our draft recommendation to go from Apple Orchard Road to the Western County line. Um, and the intent there is that, um, there's several neighborhoods that connect in through that Apple Orchard Road. Um, intersection. Um, we feel that from a technical perspective, we could get a trail in that segment. And then there are also other trails identified on the Ramsey County side or just further west um that that could tie into um for that location. Um I'll jump to our um timing slide. I will note there is a zone five which is not included in here um which really covers essentially the Ramsey County segment. So if you all are curious, I'm certainly happy to answer questions about that and give a verbal update. But um we can save that for the questions phase here. Um, so if we go through um how these draft recommendations could play out and when we could see improvements, um, I'm going to kind of click through and populate this map below going near-term to long-term. Um, so again, I will just note the county is already working through the design phase for 2027 improvements at 555 and 96 shown with this um, at this red dot. Um, as mentioned, we have a 2028 project programmed in our CIP. Um, and really if we're thinking about the zones that I just shared, we're hoping to tackle zones one, two, and three with that 2028 project. Um, so that's a really long stretch of road, a lot of focus on pavement preservation, guardrail improvements, potentially turn lanes. Um, that may come down to um funding or budgeting. Um and then along with that looking at those passing no passing zones um and some of those other items. Um the other near term item just to note for people driving this corridor, Mindot does have a pavement preservation project programmed in 2030 for that segment um essentially from Highway 244 over to 61. So just something for folks to be aware of. Mindot and the um agencies kind of on that side of the border are continuing coordination of um what that scope looks like exactly. If we jump to the midterm, this is really highlighting that zone 4. So that section in Delwood from Hadley over to Apple Orchard or over to um the county line. Again, knowing that we have some more intensive improvements identified in that area with those intersections with safety concerns. um that's more of a midterm item looking for funding opportunities, looking for the right timing with that community on when that should occur. Um and then along with that, we have our trail feasibility assessment. I will say with our 2028 project, um we are already getting going on that. Um Washington County survey teams may be out or maybe getting out soon to survey the entire corridor. Um, and we did just get Geotech under contract to look at that for the entire corridor as well. So, a if you get calls about that, that might be um what it is. You can certainly point them to us. Um, but those two pieces of information are also really going to be helpful in setting us up for a trail feasibility analysis. So, we're really thinking both about roadway improvements and any future trail improvements as we're collecting that data so we have it all in front of us. Um, and then lastly, long-term, we've got additional intersection improvements as identified. That could be additional turn lane improvements. Um, or as Washington County continues to learn and grow with this corridor, um, other locations may may arise. Um, and then again, that regional trail pending that feasibility analysis. Um, we'll see where that takes us. Um, so lastly, we'll hop to where we're going or next steps. Um so for this study itself we're looking to wrap up um probably in the next six weeks or so here. Um we have a couple of dish additional engagement items. We are meeting with Delwood City Council. Um and then we'll also have some openhouse or public engagement type activities occurring to share this information. Um and then as mentioned we're going to be rolling Washington County staff will be rolling straight into our 2028 project and kind of getting ready for that. So, um, as this study is closing out, we'll we'll continue to be around and, um, coordinating with city staff, um, as we start working on that project. Um, and with that, I would be happy to stand for questions. >> Yeah, thank you, Mandy. Um, and thank you, Fran, for coming and showing your support as well. Um, questions. We'll start. Go ahead, John. And up first. >> Yep. Hi, M. So, as as somebody who travels this road every day, twice a day, sometimes four times a day, um going from 12 feet to 11 with all the curves, and a lot of people cut these curves, >> um you may find a little bit more difficulty if you go from 12 feet to 11 with all those curves. There's a lot of curves in that road, >> flying curves. >> And at night, at least you can see headlights, but during the day, you cannot. So, um, have you thought about that and about going from 12 feet to 11 feet? I mean, what other roads are 11 feet that have that many curves? >> Yeah, mayor and members of the council. Um, thank you for the comment. Um, as I mentioned, I mean, certainly we do think about the curves, right? That's a very unique um thing about 96 is that we're both curving kind of horizontally and we're curving up and down. So, certainly something that has to be taken into consideration. Um, as for the 11 foot lanes, um, again, as of now, our draft recommendation is to do that. Um, in most other areas in the county, we have done that. Um, but that's not a foregone conclusion, right? As we move into that 2028 project and really like get into the engineering phases and analysis, that might be a piece of it that comes up that, hey, in this segment we can manage 11 feet. in this segment, we really need to stick with 12. So, there will certainly be more to come on that. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> And mine was actually in in line with John's. Um, if we're doing the feasibility of a trail along the same pathway, we're taking away the road. Does that make sense? Because if we're going to have a trail there, why take away from the width of the road anyway? >> And just, you know, why would we double tap that is my thought. It's not nothing to be answered now. Just kind of a observation, >> right? Yeah, thank you for that comment. I will clarify the 11 ft is in the striping itself and not actually reducing the the physical roadway. >> But certainly still something to take into consideration. >> You guys weren't at open houses, but you know, it was fair. I didn't make it. [clears throat] >> Um I was busy riding the road, driving [laughter] back and forth. >> He was on it, >> Lindsay. Um, so you indicated there's going to be a third open house. Has that been scheduled yet? >> It has not been scheduled. We are working right now to coordinate that um with Mindot and Ramsey County who are also um partners with us on this study. As soon as we set that date, um I will make sure to share that um with your staff so you can get it on calendars. >> Thank you. >> Um as someone who rides a lot of bike in the summer, I want to thank the county for having a lot of good paved full shoulder roads to ride on. But I do not ride on 96 because of how tra So 11 feet um to John's question should help slow traffic is the theory and gives us a little bit more room, but I'm almost more nervous driving past someone riding bike on 96 than the guy riding bike. So I I see what you're doing there trying to get a little more room, maybe slow people down. John likes his corners, so maybe you have to bank them when you do the pavement project. [laughter] Not sure. Um, so the pavement project would be basically putting the footprint of the road back. You just might change the the pavement striping, the lane configuration. Maybe you tighten up the lanes. You're not widening it in 28. It's basically the same footprint. >> Correct. >> With maybe a few turn lane improve. >> Correct. If if there are locations where we identify, you know, priority turn lanes, that would be the the case where in those locations the road could become wider or would become wider. And then so there so like at Kimbro where there is a turn lane a very short turn lane hopefully that can get lengthened I don't know if we can because of the driveway there but um the trail feasibility does the regional trail >> maybe you don't have an answer to that is that necessarily mean it's going to be in the existing rightway or could it be outside of that or don't we know >> um mayor members of the council what a great question um the short answer is we don't know and I think that is what we >> in entering into this study process. That's really uh where we landed is right now there's a lot of different ways we could make that happen um with a lot of different considerations tied to them. Um so we did not feel that through this process that we had enough detail to start narrowing down those answers or narrowing down those possibilities. >> Yeah. Is it fair to say if you weren't going to do it along 96 there, the um amount of acquisition of private property would really be problematic? >> Uh yeah, mayors and members of the council, again, the the right of way along 96 varies dramatically depending on where you are. Um specifically where we have that regional trail alignment, um it's pretty tight in a lot of locations. So, I would not anticipate we could get a trail in without any acquisition. Um, how that process would look um you know, time will tell or these next steps will kind of get us closer to helping answer what that could potentially look like. >> And with the turn lanes and such that you have identified so far, it doesn't look like there's significant private property acquisition at all. It's probably mostly within easements. Is that fair to say? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, um, yeah. So, so from our draft recommendations, again, we have not entered into an engineering phase. Um, so we don't have things designed down to even a foot. Um but primarily the improvements that we're recommending at this point um besides the intersections that we've identified specifically it's uh improving the pavement where the pavement is improving the guard rail where the guardrail is or putting it back where it should be um and not expanding that um roadway. Where where that could occur is at locations where turn lanes are implemented. >> Any other questions? Thank you very much for joining us tonight and um sharing information and Fran, always good to see you too as well. >> Thank you for having us. >> Yeah, thank you. >> All right, next uh new business consideration of selection of pure cities list. This one I think Christine, you did a pretty good job of giving us some good options. Um there's three options presented to us. Does anyone have any questions on on the options themselves? Any any thoughts? Any any discussion? Are we ready to go right into a a motion on one of the options? >> No. >> You want to discuss this? >> Well, I mean that I think you you did I think you did a pretty good job on this. So it sounds like there's not but um I couldn't find uh of course I don't have the basis of comparison as you do to you know say yes or near for whatever substitutions but it looked reasonable to me. Um any thoughts? >> The only one I thought you know Newport might be a little more urban than than we are but um by and large I think it's a good mix. I don't think I'd really change anything. >> I would I would put in Oak Park Heights. That's pretty pretty close, too. And it's pretty close to us as well. >> So, the reason I took Oak Park Heights out is because it's so commercial. >> Yeah. >> Um, but I, you know, so it was a balancing act of >> size, proximity, and types of services. Um, and full disclosure, I don't know a whole lot about those ones out in the West Metro. Um, so that was more about um size. But >> to be honest with you, I don't know. Um, >> but that was why I mean you could disagree and be maybe location and and proximity to grant is more important and take that one in and add and take out one of the other ones or or whatnot, but that was that was how I approached it. There's not a right answer really. It's it's what you as a council think are your peer cities. This will so just for the benefit of the public who might be watching, we're trying to create a group of peer cities. So when we want to go out, for example, rewrite the special assessment policy, we can go to the same group of cities and ask them, you know, send us a copy of your special assessment policy. If we need to go and get a um a purchasing policy or a credit card policy, you can tell the auditors are here last week, right? You [laughter] know, I I know the cities that we're going out and and asking for. Um I've kind of got that all nailed down and and we're comparing ourselves to similar cities, not a Woodberry or a Still Water or a White Bear Lake, right? Because that's not who we are. So, so >> go ahead. >> The only one I was wondering is maybe May. It's her neighbor. It's right there. >> May Township. >> Yeah. Township. Just knowing how they also put a lot of value in being rural similar to to >> So, and they've got a population of what, like 1,500 or 20,000. >> Yeah. Which I feel like it has that rural aspect that I think is really important to us. >> And they're a township versus a city. >> Yeah. >> But I feel like we >> Yeah, I know. I just I'm just >> to me I'm like I'm like they're so s They're right there. Um you can throw a stone to them. So to me I was like oh seems >> if I'm reading Christina's mind she's saying May Township is probably the one community that's even farther behind in your eyes than Grand. >> I don't know enough about them. I would say if you wanted to do a township though at least try and have one similar size. So like West Lakeland Township that's closer to 4,000. um if you wanted to try and get a a mixture. Um >> I was more looking towards like obviously in Grant our big value is trying to be rural and so whenever I think of May Township I think you know you see the signs everywhere they want to keep May rural I see it right by my house. So that's why I was like okay they have similar values that we kind of are trying to instill. So it' be just very interesting to see what documentation stuff that they're doing um given the fact it's so important to them. >> Yeah. We're not I don't think we're necessarily looking at um land use policy. It's more like ongoing administrative procedures, right? So, >> well, right. Like I don't you know I don't know what how townships special assess for example if it's different or >> or things like that or or policies and staffing and you know that that kind of stuff. That's where >> it wouldn't be a to your point council member Cremon. Yeah. It wouldn't be about like we're not going to compare comp plans for example with them or anything or like that. Um >> but whatever >> policy and processes that you know >> Yeah. >> So you're not >> I mean there there could be you know to your point you know Stillwater Township called me to ask what our ordinance was on ATV use on the roads. >> Yeah. >> I mean yeah maybe there's something like that that's more similar. So that's where maybe we want to throw them in throw something like that into the mix. Um they're you know they totally up to you. It doesn't doesn't necessar if it's maybe the proximity and maybe not the other, you know, I don't know what kind of services if they're giving the same services. They're not the same population, but maybe they meet the proximity and that's one of the three is enough for council. >> Your call. I mean, I assumed it's a grab bag. I mean, none of these are going to be a perfect hit fit. That's why we have a whole bunch. So I think adding May and still at our township makes sense just to have a little bit more um you know throwing a little bit of wider net to go okay this one fits with this one fits that. So >> if if we're adding to do we want to take off any tour or what incremental um effort would it be for you Christina? >> I would really like to at least keep it between 8 and 12 is what the league of Minnesota cities recommends. That's that's where I got that from. So otherwise again it just it's more that we have to keep contacting. So if there's some that you feel are too something to Newport or something. >> Well, could we you want to have that balance of them? >> I agree. It seems like Newport would be one that we could maybe take off and then um maybe Anendale because that uh I don't know Annale doesn't doesn't in my mind doesn't seem really aligned as much with Grant. I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, and >> even Centerville, I don't know. >> So, Centerville, ironically, is one that reached out to me as a comp for um they like hired a a consultants and we were one of their comp cities for a whole staff organizational thing. So, >> Okay. >> Good excuse to keep them. >> Yeah. So, we got one, two, >> but yeah, they're much more urban than we are. So, that >> Okay. So, if we want to keep it to 12, we added two. Um, if we're making the recommendation to add those two, what would you recommend to remove, Christina? To try to keep it in the >> I, you know, I would probably take two that I don't know. So I would probably Annale and and Independence just because I don't know them. I was happy to drive through handover this weekend. So >> So >> that's the only reason it gets the edge. >> And to be clear, you're we're not you're just looking for a general recommendation, not passing resolution. You're just looking for a general direction from the council. Right. >> Well, I'd want a motion so that we're establishing this in the record that these are the cities. Um but I I didn't draft a resolution. Um, >> so, um, I guess I would be okay personally if we add those two and just leave it to Christina's discretion to remove. >> Well, let's agree on it as it's your cities. Okay. I want you to do it. >> Okay. Well, >> if you agree, Annale and Independence is you guys do whatever. >> Perfect. >> You have to own this. >> I'm okay with that. [laughter] >> Kind of what I was going at your discussion. So, I'm I'm okay with your recommendation. Would you So, moved. Okay. Okay, we got a we got a a motion and we got have a second. >> I'll second. >> Got a second by council member Cornet. Um I I >> I >> Okay, sounds like that pass unanimously. [clears throat] Okay. Um >> All right. Can I walk us through this one quick? >> Sure. >> Please. So, I wanted to bring this back. I know we've talked about it a couple times during my um staff updates, but I want to make sure that I'm um uh not leaving something behind. I know that you've had had a discussion, maybe a partial discussion, we're planning to have a discussion, a work session got cancelled. And I'd mentioned at the last meeting that there was a lot of resources that the League of Minnesota cities had that I would have gone to rather than what Amanda did. And she knows I kind of didn't like some of the stuff that that she had. So I first on the roles and responsibility stuff um that that's in here. I pulled some of that information from the league and the first question is just kind of you know do you have any more questions about roles and responsibilities? Do you feel like you need any more resources? Um I think the big takeaway that I hope the council gets is it's a we not an I. There's a very few things that the mayor gets to do separately from you know all of you collectively. um just important about working together on on things. So >> yeah um I'll just share my pers from my perspective the immediate problems that we were trying to resolve when this topic was introduced and discussed really are no longer present. So to me it's it doesn't seem as an urgent need to establish different policies and what um the LM LMC is um suggesting. Now, can we tweak them and can we address some of the stuff um below in the other sections? Yeah. Um but I I number one, I don't think that we need any One of your questions was do we need more um more information, more documents, and I don't personally think we need I think that was that was, you know, a good information to share. What do you guys think? I mean, it's really it's all out there for us to look at and LMC if we have >> Yeah. I wasn't sure who went to the newly elected officials training or anything. I think we all we all hit that. >> Sorry if it's all repetitive. We did. >> So, so um for the first question, does the council have any more questions or need additional information about roles and responsibilities? I think we're good on that. >> Okay. Um, and do you guys generally agree with with my statement that I said a little bit ago about the real genesis of this and the urgency no really no longer being there that we don't have to focus on I think we got uh a lot of fish to fry right now and um we can focus on that kind of like fitting not saying we can't improve them but it's not broke enough that we need to like focus on that is that the general general feeling of the council. Yep. >> Yep. Does that help? >> Was that what you're looking for? >> That helps on the first part. And then, you know, the second part was about that rules of procedure. Some of that kind of is where your bylaws [clears throat] are are housed, if you will. And so, did you have some thoughts on that, mayor? >> Yeah, I do. So, there's like six of them. A lot of those we already talked I think um we we could just bank through alignment on those six things and just pick the low hanging easy fruit there that you laid out for us. >> Okay. >> Um does the does the council feel like they'd like to spend uh five minutes on on those six examples that uh Christina shared the sections of the document that she suggested we prioritize review and update? >> Sure. >> Okay. So there's um there let's see. Let's go through this. Um the the first one updating the time of the meeting. Nob brainer. Any any objections there? No. >> Second one. Special meetings is missing language about a three-day notice. Another no-brainer. Add it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Third one, um discussion about changing H order of business to streamline the agenda. I personally I would defer to what works best with you Christina because for me I don't think it would really affect the way we make our decisions. If it's allowing for more streamlined >> meeting process I would defer to you. >> And what I mean by that is it's weird to me when you had staff updates and then new business and unfinished like let's just have consent agenda, new business and >> then our updates at the end like >> kind of it it's weird how it's separated. I >> So, >> okay, we good in that one. >> And and maybe the community calendar. Does that still need to be on there? That feels like a really old timey thing. So, >> um >> do other cities not do that? I just assumed everyone. No, that's just an US thing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thing about the worldwide web now where people go >> I agree. It's [laughter] it's archeric. We can we can remove that. People know where to >> Well, I just I didn't write it in here, so I wanted to some of my thoughts. Yes. So, just for clarity, what it'll be is essentially like old new business, old business. >> I don't even think I would have old business. Uh, so it would go >> um, you know, call the order, usually the pledge of allegiances first, public input, >> uh, the approval of the agenda, approval of the consent, and then we just do new business, and then we could do um, discussion items, and that's where the staff updates could be, and then we would adjourn. >> Okay. Unless there's >> I'm good with that. That makes sense. >> Sounds like everyone else is. One little thing with that, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Okay. >> Um, you're saying pledge of allegiance, then public comments. >> Yeah. >> Do we want to think about that? Because if the it starts where we start recording >> before after we do the pledge of allegiance. >> So, I would keep that one thing as is. We're public comment. Before we start recording, we start recording pledge of allegiance to move. >> Makes sense. >> I still record public comments. >> I still think we should record public comments. As you know, I've brought it up in the past. I feel very strongly we should be. Um, I know in the past it did not pass, but from my position, public comments should be >> and we can definitely bring that up again, but for for now, I think we just >> I mean, that's kind of what we're talking about right here because >> would be part of our >> Sorry, I don't know all the history. I didn't mean to step in it. >> Oh, no. I personally I' I've always been very strong about it should be recorded. >> In most cities, it is from the moment you call call to order. So, correct. >> I didn't realize that. >> We have at least changed it. we've updated a little bit that you can now hear it because it used to be if you weren't physically here if you watch it you wouldn't be able to hear it. So now at least you can hear it if you're like live but you can't later watch it. So >> yeah and I think we can revisit that again this this year because we did have um but for now just for expediency I >> mean I feel like expedency is talking about it now and deciding now because it would be in our policy. Well, >> yeah, you could talk about >> So, want to talk about public comment now? >> Yeah. I mean, you mean >> sounds like you are. You can >> Okay. I just think of current events where people use it as a opportunity to grandst stand in a more recorded permanent fashion and do we need to actually memorialize that when it's oftentimes performative and not really helpful to the general purpose of the meeting. >> Yeah. And that's I mean if if people would look and I I can't remember the exact meaning but there was a there was a couple like I think November of 2017 there was a couple of them where it was just um you know uh it's probably farther back than that but there was there was some definite um sound reasoning back when um I think it was former mayor K mayor former Premier Huber um made, you know, made the suggestions to do that and um I think we I think we we need really need to take a a hard look at pros and cons. I think Ben, you brought some. So, I don't know if I'm totally prepared to make the decision right now tonight, but um I'm just one person. >> From my position, recording it holds people accountable. they're going to be recorded. So, they need to be aware of whatever they want to say. That is their choice. They are allowed to the freedom of expression and to use their voice, but they need to know they're being held accountable because it's being recorded. By not recording it, you are not holding people accountable. Uh it's done in I it is common place to do it in other cities. I know when I was canvasing for this position, it was brought up by many people that it was unusual that it was not recorded and that it had shows lack of transparency. So from my position, it should be recorded, why is it that the people who are here get the benefit of hearing something that happened during a meeting, but then later if you're not able to attend the meeting for health reasons, whatever reason it is, why don't they get the ability to have the full breath of the meeting? >> Well, and other things to consider too is the intent of public comment is to inform the council, not necessarily to spread viewpoints to your neighbors. I would say the meetings to inform your neighbors and everyone. So I certainly have come to public comment before I was on it to let people know, hey, I'm coming today to talk about road issues. You don't know if they come. I'm coming. So I'm, you know, the neighborhood >> representative, for lack of a better word. So you know, I certainly think that the meeting while it's obviously beneficial for the five of us here, it's beneficial for everyone, too. So >> are you going to make a motion? >> I I mean, if anyone wants to talk about it else otherwise, sure. I would. My whole thing is if each of you I think I just need to know where you are and I can know. So I I'll make these changes and even the ones you've agreed to just looking for a little direction on this. The then the rules of procedure will come back for you to to adopt because this is a document of the council. So you don't necessarily have to make your final decision tonight, Council Member Rag, but if you're could weigh in. I think you're the only one I haven't heard of and it's a two two right now. So, >> well, I I I I think probably knowing what other cities have done and what we haven't done, I would probably think along the lines of Lindsay and saying that we probably should uh record the public comments. >> Okay. So, I will draft it like I had suggested again. It nothing will be changed till I bring it back for you to adopt the update to the rules of procedure. So, you can have this conversation again. >> Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to spring this on you tonight. So, >> that's good. >> Um, all right. So, where were we? We were at >> section two now. >> Um, >> number four. >> Number four here. Uh, addition of the um agenda items of the majority the if the majority. So, let me back up. I think where we were before, Christina was um that section 2C addition of agenda items. I think we're >> we're at um if we should keep it the majority of the council agrees on a proposed item or if we want to just change it to two council members and so I think that's what where we were before. >> Oh, >> so >> work session discussion before I came. >> Yeah. And I don't think we really aligned on that. Again, this is we're kind of getting into to a work session topic that I don't think everyone anyone is really prepared to discuss and bring their pros and cons. So, >> well, why don't I just leave it for now then? And again, it'll come back um and >> but um >> you can have that be prepared for that. >> But the next two I think should be >> pretty simple. The um suggestion the words upon to change before that makes sense. >> That's makes sense. Yeah. And then um section 2D um I think that's a good question. I'm not sure what the in original intent of um having that qualifier in there. I mean was it is it anything le Amanda? Do you know if it would be any legal requirement to to restrict public comment to being anything not included on the regular agenda? I really never understood that myself. Go ahead. >> I'm gonna jump in. Okay. So, in in the different cities that I've been in, some of them will allow folks to speak when the agenda item is up. And so, therefore, public comment is for items not on the agenda. The I believe the way that Grant has done it is you've had just public comment once at the beginning, whether it's about an item on the agenda or not, with the exception obviously of a public hearing when they speak during that time. So, maybe the language just needs to clean up if you want to be cleaned up if you want to stick with your past practice. I wasn't I don't think I didn't intend to change what you've been doing in here. I just felt like the language maybe wasn't >> Well, yeah, for sure. The language is confusing, I think. >> So, so >> yeah, because is it normal for cities to say you can't speak? >> There's a there's a mix. There's some that'll say if it's not on the agenda, you can't talk about it at public comment. But if it excuse me, if it's on the agenda, and to me, if it's on the agenda without a public hearing, well, where else are you supposed to speak to it? But [clears throat] councils are given a lot of latitude on how they adopt or adopt their open forum rules. Right. >> So it's kind of up to us in my opinion is I we want to hear from the public and if we're going to say well you can't speak about it because it's on the agenda later but there's no public hearing. So you basically in my mind you're kind of thwarting public comment then I'd prefer if we did it all. Then I've seen other meetings when you let them talk at the item when it's not a public hearing. the meeting kind of gets out of out of whack and then it gets off track where if we allow them to speak even if it's on the agenda at public comment I'd be fine with that because otherwise without a public hearing they don't have any other opportunity. >> Yeah. And and oftentimes people won't um have an opportunity to review that packet to provide their input to us via email or something. So yeah makes sense to just clean it up and maybe just remove that >> that requirement stipulation. >> That makes sense. So, unless there was anything else in those first two sections, I was hoping we could just focus on that. I know there's a lot of other things in the rules of procedure manual, but um again, with all of the other workload and things coming up, unless there was something in those other sections that council felt strongly about, I'm going to kind of ignore those other sections for now, but would focus on these first two. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Okay. Moving on to discussion of issuing requests for proposal for recycling services. We've got five options in front of us. Um I don't know, Christine, I don't think you really need to walk it through. It's pretty self-explanatory. Um let's just open it up to >> Mr. Mayor >> discussion. >> Could we We have a newsletter coming up. Could we put this in there for some feedback? >> What would you like me to write about? Well, anecdotally, when I drive around, I see a lot of yellow cans or green cans every Monday, depending on what side of 96 I'm on. So, it seems like most people use the program as it is. Okay. >> Um, just thinking for some feedback. Maybe we open up a can of worms if we just said the council will be considering renewing recycling services at the end of the year. Provide some feedback. I would take WM up on their oper on their offer to come to a meeting here this summer. as much as I like or don't like RFPs and competition and putting more work on staff right now depend I think we leave that window that option open till maybe summer but I think we try to get some feedback get WM in here to do a little spiel and then kind of make a decision I haven't f heard a lot of issues like I said driving around you see cans everywhere on Mondays so I think changing is always a little bit of a heartburn and whether the reason's good bad or indifferent sometimes people see change as just negative Well, and it might it might indeed come with unintended consequences because I think the service with the exception of that what the example that you you mentioned there. I think it's been pretty good service. >> And then it comes to like the other point and Greg you touched on too like I might as well take the opportunity to see if we can um potentially renegotiate. I don't know what the 2025 prices are. Like do you know what percent increase they they went to? if we have any um leverage in >> you know >> um I I discovered a billing error in the January one where they overbuild us so I caught it and they went back to what was in the contract and when they looked back in previous years they were underbilling us pretty significantly so um >> okay so we have sweetheart of a deal so I can't do a [laughter] an analysis I can't remember what it said back in 2021 if it was supposed to be a 3% or 5% or something I I I guess we could look at back at what it was supposed to be. Um >> Well, yeah. So maybe we better be careful then if we try to renegotiate too much, they might say, "Well, what about >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. Any other thoughts on that? >> I like the idea of having waste management come to our meeting. Even if we pick them, I think it's just a good opportunity to open the line of communication and it would be nice to at the very least in the newsletter indicate that we're looking at this so that way uh welcomes our residents to provide input. Sometimes, you know, we'll get positive. It's not like we're looking for negative. We might get a lot of positives saying that, you know, we really like working with them. We've had no issues and so then we just have that information at our fingertips or at the very least let our residents know we're interested in hearing from you. So to the extent that you want to share with us, we're listening. >> And do we just want to ask them if they're happy with their service with waste management? >> Is it just that simple? Are we considering not offering this service? >> Well, I don't know if we to Greg's point, if we open that door too much and it might be a can of worms, I think. >> Yeah. Because really we I mean we could say we're going to not have contract and everyone go for themselves. I think we're all saying that we still feel a contract and then it's like from there I think we're all staying saying saying we still think it makes sense to to stay with waste management >> and then it's um more like okay within waste management do they have any >> if there's any go ahead. >> We could also just put you know our the contracts will be ending soon. we're looking to extension. We're inviting waste management to come to our next meeting. We welcome you to attend. >> Yeah. >> Or if you can't attend, feel free to reach out. So, it's a little bit more just open-ended >> and it's just truly if they're listening right now, that's exactly what we're going to tell them in the >> newsletter. Drive people coming in. I mean, as much as I like seeing Fran, I'd like to see other people join him out there. So, >> will will it jazz him up enough the topic of recycling bins? [snorts] >> Maybe. Maybe not. But we if it's not that hard for us to extend the invitation, >> forget the next meeting is going to be packed with your >> I would be very surprised, but you know, maybe in a good way. So >> happy surprise. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. You you good with that direction? >> I am. Yep. >> Um unfinished business. There is none. Um discussion items, staff updates. you you've been doing really good with your weekly updates and uh I think that I don't think anyone would say that they want less information because we're we went from nothing to maybe we're you know drinking through garden holes now but I think we we can adapt to that. We'd rather have more information, more transparent, see, you know, more communication and than not. >> Well, I brought much fewer things here for the public to have to remember. So, okay. >> For my updates tonight. >> Yep. So, go ahead. >> So, no office hours next week. Just a reminder, the the city offices will be closed. And then I've already started to get some calls. It will be in the newsletter, but I want to let folks know that spring cleanup has been scheduled for here on uh Saturday, May 2nd. The mayor will be grilling hot dogs again. I heard. >> Sure. >> Through the grapevine. All right. >> 9 to noon. >> Um, and then one question for council. Back in December, we had had the planning commission discussion and you' said you wanted to bring it back in spring. I don't know if April is considered spring. We've only had the one application since we last talked about this. So, is this something you want me to put on the agenda next time? Or maybe we should wait a little longer. Thoughts on that? >> May May is June is still spring, too. who maybe could just >> I want summer to be here in the warmth. >> Oh, wow. [laughter] >> All right. So, I will maybe push that back. It doesn't sound like we're ready to talk about that yet. >> Mayor, that's all I had. Mayor. >> Okay. Um, anything else from >> Amanda? >> Amanda, are you good? Uh, any other future agenda items? Lindsay? >> Um, I was working actually with Celia Worth. Um, she reached out. she has offered to assist the city with updating its website so it's ADA compliant. Um we would be doing this um as a volunteer position. So we're working together right now to kind of get logistics figured out so that way we can present a um a resolution at our next meeting. But it would be nice because as we all know we have a deadline to have have our website be ADA compliant uh in 2027. So this will give us enough runway so that we'll be able to get that um well within the deadline. So this is an item that we'll bring back in April if council wants. >> Yeah. And then so >> that's a yes from the council. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> It'd be similar to like the um resolution you did with Kurt where it would be for volunteer purpose um and providing us with that um essentially techsavvy information that I certainly don't have. So I'm happy there are other people in our community that do. >> Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Let's uh [clears throat] let me get back to my uh I lost my note here. All right. One second. I'm frozen, guys. >> I guess we just have to skip you this month. >> All right. Um, >> might be one of the last. >> I'm I'm back. I'm back now. Um, community calendar. There we go. Community calendar. >> Perhaps the last to read. >> Last day. >> Yeah. Who wants to have the last? >> I mean, it should be one of you two. >> I'll do it. >> Yeah. >> Um, community calendar, March 4th through March 31st, 2026. Mamedai public schools board meeting Monday, March 23rd. Madame District Education Center, 700 p.m. Still Water Public Schools Board meeting Tuesday, March 24th. Oak Park Learning Center, 5:30 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting, Tuesday's Government Center, 9:00 a.m. Go see Fran. >> Um, next we need to go into a close session. Do we need a motion for that to go into close session? I think we do. >> Move to go into a close session. >> Second. I >> I >> I >> so need to >> um I we'll need to kick everyone out >> and if you want to come back um you can uh it'll probably I'm guessing a 15-minute discussion if you had enough. >> Take care of you guys. >> You don't want to hear the motion to Hello.