To the flag of the United States of America and the >> recording in progress. >> One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> We got a little uh question here. We got some recognition for some of our California employees. First one here would like to recognize Kim points from the citizens grant appreciation of Kim points in recognition of valuable contributions to city administrator for 20 years. On behalf of everyone, Kim like to thank you for all you've done. You've done a lot 20 years. You did a lot for the city. you brought us through some tough times and and uh that was appreciated by myself and I think everyone else here for the work you've done. So give this to you. Thank you. [applause] >> Thank you. We also have a plaque for you. Uh reads the same from citizens of grant in appreciation of Sharon Schwarz in recognition of valuable contributions as treasure for 15 years of service. You kept us in the black this entire 15 years. So, [laughter] thank you. We wish you best in your future endeavors, both of you. [applause] Thank you. Oh, and uh before I forget, I have these boxes. Oops. Sorry, Nizzy. [laughter] >> Good. >> You put those in there so if you put them in your bag or something, >> they don't get scratched. wind resistant upside down. >> Testing your puzzling skills. All right. Next on the agenda, approval of the regular agenda. Can I get a motion to approve a regular agenda? >> I will move to approve the regular agenda. A second. >> We can all say I. I. >> I. >> Approval of consent agenda. A motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> I >> I >> staff agenda items. First of all, can you guys hear in the back? Okay. I know Jeffy you had said before that and I just a clarification we don't have any amplified. I had thought that that speaker was amplifying our mics, but this is so if you can't hear us, just ask us to speak up louder because All right. So Brad, um we have the consideration of 17 and 36 working hours. This was uh tabled during the last meeting with some follow-ups requested from you, Brad. Um if you could just please provide us an update, uh from what you learned since the last meeting. >> Yes. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um, I'd like to discuss the proposed working hours for the Washington County lead improvement project at Lake Elmo Avenue and Highway 36. As you know, this is a major two-year project scheduled for substantial completion by the fall of 2027. Um, the first construction season uh must deliver the or at least one of the bridges over Highway uh on Highway 36 over Lake Elmo Avenue to carry the traffic during the second season. And to meet this milestone, the county is requesting um extended working hours in the construction contract. Under our current uh noise control ordinance, heavy equipment can operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6 pm. The county is asking or requesting working hours um on Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Sundays um from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Now, these extended hours um will hopefully improve the project efficiency and help meet deadlines, uh reduce disruption for residents and commuters, uh lower overall costs and allow flexibility for weather delays and enhance safety and uh restore normal traffic flow hopefully sooner. Um again, high high impact activities like uh pile driving or pavement demolition, jackhammering, those types of things will remain restricted uh to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Um so staff is recommending uh approve the proposed extended hours with one modification and one modification and that is to allow Sunday work only once per month from 8 uh from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Um now the county had shared some information with me that they had a work session with the city of Lake Elmo and and they are also considering uh one Sunday a a month. Um, so with that said, I would be happy to uh entertain any questions from the council. >> Any questions? Uh, Ben, you want to start? >> Uh, why was the change from every Sunday to one Sunday? Why was that made? >> Well, so last month we heard uh some concern about folks uh not want uh wanting work on Sunday at all. Uh there was a compromise that the uh county Washington County had proposed to the city of Lake Elmo to work only one hour or one Sunday per month. Um and so we're bringing forward that same recommendation. Um but that's certainly your prerogative if if you decide not to have any working uh hours on Sunday. Um, so is it um your understanding that Lake Elmo has approved that one Sunday a month or is that just the proposal? >> You know, I I I don't know that they have approved it. Uh, Council Member Rag. I know they had a work session and I haven't heard the results of of what they've approved. And again, I I I know these hours um are critical for the the county's project to meet the milestones. um and and to give them the flexibility. Um we all know or have been through construction projects ourselves and we know that they're noisy and messy and I think anything that we can do to try to um expedite that process by giving the the con contractor the flexibility to work some additional hours to get it done sooner um I think is a good thing. Ben Scott. >> Oh, you had another question. >> Oh, no. I was just going to say I saw an email that they stated they probably won't be doing like early morning jackhammering during Sundays and and things of that nature. So, would that change that or is that still staying in that kind of nature where it's not going to be too much of a disruption? >> Right. So all the noisy activities like I had mentioned the jackhammering uh pile driving things like that will be done uh during uh working normal working hours Monday through Friday. Um and the extended hours would mostly just be used for grading and paving and potentially brid uh bridge assembly. So um I hope that answered your question. >> Oh yes, perfectly. Thank you, Brad. [clears throat] I know we talked about last time perhaps speaking with residents that are directly impacted by this. Did we have the chance to do that to see because I can understand they don't necessarily want this happening on the weekends, but at the same time having this move faster along, they might say, "Yeah, let's do this because I'd rather have the construction period reduced." Um, and just curious if you're able to have that. >> Bingo. We got I did have a chance to um connect with one of the neighborhood leads down there that um he he printed out uh 40 copies and handed it to um everyone along 60th and 67 uh 62nd Street there. And I only received four responses um from those residents. They were all in favor with the longer hours for exact reason you give them this. So we'd rather deal with um the little bit of noise which isn't really incremental to the traffic anyway. and um get the project done earlier and not have to deal with the the traffic um concerns with the due to the construction. So, they're all Go ahead, John. >> I was just going to ask um is it uh is it your understanding that when we say that we're going to uh have these extended hours that if it was just the grant hours from 7:00 a.m. to 600 p.m. Monday through Friday, that would be the two years. and now it's going to be, you know, effectively um an additional uh 20 hours a week. Does that mean that you actually complete it in uh a year and a half? >> Yeah, I think that's the expectation. Uh Council Member Rag, um again, anything that we can do to to help speed up that process. I know they're really um under the gun to try to get at least one of the bridges completed um over Lake Elmo Drive so that they can use that bridge essentially to detour traffic. Um and so that's really essential to to making sure that this project stays on schedule. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks, >> Greg. >> I got my questions answered. I guess I'm fine with one Sunday and I mean taking one hour off the heavy equipment time seems kind of silly from 7 to 6, but I guess if that's what they're going to do, but I'd be fine with uh with the one Sunday. I agree like like you said with the residents, let's just rip the band-aid off and get this done and 6 36 is noisy enough. So um >> so you're making a motion? >> I would go ahead and approve the proposed working hours for the uh 36 Lake Elmo Avenue project. >> Second. Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Hey. >> Hi. I'm sorry. [laughter] >> All right. I got another one for you, Brad. Um, consideration of the city's MS4 permit status. Could you walk us through that, Brad? >> Yeah, Mayor. Uh, good evening again. Um, tonight I'm here to provide an update on the city's MS4 permit status and recommendations uh for the next steps. Um, the m Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently reviewed our MS4 designation and historically grant was required to hold an MS4 permit because a small portion of the city fell within an urbanized area of 50,000 or more. That was based on the older census data. Uh, however, the 2020 census shows that no part of Grant is in a urbanized area of that size and we don't meet any alternative designation criteria. So, the MPCA MC MPCE CA, excuse me, has confirmed this and indicated that a petition for release would likely be granted. Um, so if released, the city would no longer need to maintain a storm water pollution prevention program, submit annual reports, or meet other MS4 permit requirements. This would uh reduce administrative costs and allow us to focus on other local storm water priorities. um you know releasing the uh responsibility does not mean less protection for the water quality. Uh MPCA would assume oversight responsibilities and uh our four wershed districts would continue enforcing storm water rules which are often stricter than the MS4 requirements. Um there are [clears throat] a couple future considerations uh or two scenarios that could trigger redesignation. Uh one is a petition by another party based on water quality concerns. Um and the second would be any future census data showing uh new uh urbanized areas. So, uh, with that said, staff is recommending authorizing submission of a formal petition to the MPCA requesting, uh, re-evaluation and release from the MS4 obligations. Um, with that said, I would be happy to answer any questions. Uh, so Brad, the MPCA reached out trying to reduce some of the MS4s that really shouldn't be. So, this is more than likely it'll be granted if we ask for the petition. >> Yeah, Council Member Anderson, that is correct. Uh, they did reach out to us uh explained it uh thoroughly to us that uh um because we no longer uh meet those criterias that we could uh petition them to uh relieve us of our MS4 requirements. >> And then just uh one quick question. So not having to do the hearing and the other thing is this some marginal savings on ours part over the course of the year. >> Yeah, it's it's it's not a substantial cost to um um you know take care of the MS4 for the city of Grant. There's there's some engineering um but it's it's relatively a small amount. I want to say it's between 25 and $3,000 a year. Uh that's what we annually spend on MS4 requirements for the city of Grant. >> So I mean we would have to hand out those uh pamphlets during the city cleanup day. >> That would that could go away if you you would like sir >> save a tree. >> Any other questions? Can you think of any disadvantages of us removing this um designation? >> You know, Council Member Cremon, I really I really can't. You know, we've got um four really good watershed districts um that enforce storm water management plans and rules that again often exceed the MS4 requirements. And again, you know, MPCA will be also assuming the oversight. So, I I just think less regulation in this case is probably best. >> All right. So, you're Ben, did you have something? >> So, you're looking for a recommendation from us. Um, is anyone being willing to make a motion to um direct staff to submit the formal uh petition to the MPCA to reevaluate our MS4 status and release us from our MS4 obligations? >> I'll do that. >> I'll second it. Okay. >> I >> I >> I like that. >> Next on the agenda, we have city planner Jennifer Swanson. Jennifer, we have the um consideration of resolution number 2025-27, minor subdivision application for P25.30.21.13.003. Jennifer, is she on? I think it's asking. >> I'm here. >> Oh, okay. We We couldn't see your face. Okay. Could you please walk us through this uh minor subdivision request, Jennifer? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh before you this evening, uh as you indicated, we have a request for a minor subdivision or a simple lot split. I have a very short presentation that I've prepared to walk us through it. Uh, so if you give me one moment, I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen >> and after she gives her presentation, then we'll open the public hearing. [clears throat] >> All right. So, it looks like I'm just double checking to make sure you can see the screen. Just want to double check. Can you see it on your side? It's not showing. There we go. All right. So, this evening we have the request for a simple subdivision. Uh the applicants this evening are the autos. Uh the property is approximately 20 acres plus or minus. Uh the land use and zoning right now the the guiding of it is rural residential agricultural. It is zoned A1. Uh we did go ahead and notice a public hearing for this evening. In terms of the existing conditions of the parcel, uh the you can tell uh from the aerial here that we essentially have a 20acre piece which is the the the identified uh parcel in blue. Uh that subdivision or that 20 acres was subdivided from the larger farmstead uh which extends all the way out to Manning Avenue. So the property itself right now uh is bordered on the south side by CASA 12 uh and that is its only frontage as it stands today. Uh the parcel itself has been used for agricultural production for as long as I can tell from the aerials. Uh there are no existing structures on this particular portion of of the larger farmstead of the parcel. Uh and per NWI records there are no wetlands on the parcel. The applicants this evening are asking for a simple lot split, parcel one, parcel two. Uh both to be equalized parcels. Uh so each of them would be uh 10 acres essentially plus or minus. Uh the applicants uh intend to develop their residence on parcel one uh and intend to sell parcel two which is that which is shown in green on your screens. Uh the the intent is that both parcels eventually would be de um developed with a rural residential use. As such, our ordinance requires that we uh review essentially uh the parcel to ensure that there's adequate buildable area that a part uh a develop or a residence, excuse me, can be developed to meet all the applicable setbacks. Uh and that there is space for a septic system. uh and that is usually evidenced through uh submission of soil borings of where those primary and secondary drain fields would be. Uh so you can see from the graphic that the applicant did provide a conceptual layout of how each lot could be developed to comply with all of our standards uh which is shown uh both on both lots parcel one and parcel two. staff conducted this a zoning review to determine whether or not uh the conceptual plans as shown uh comply with our ordinance. Uh as it stands, both parcels would comply. Obviously, we've got two fairly large-siz lots in this particular case. Uh we do not have obviously the specific structures in this case. Uh so obviously the applicant and whoever ends up purchasing parcel 2 would be subject to our zoning regulations uh at the time of their application to ensure that they comply with all applicable setbacks. Uh but as it stands obviously there's adequate area in which uh those uh improvements could be located. The applicant did submit soil tests for both parcels. Uh you can tell by parcel one and parcel two that there is a designated area uh where those soil borings were conducted. You'll note on parcel one that it appears that potentially the drain field area encroaches onto parcel 2. Um that area it's obviously a little bit difficult because it's a a large square that identifies where the primary and the secondary drain field would be. Uh staff just notes that we should have a condition that essentially says any specific septic system design, drain field, etc. must be located on the parcel in which it is serving. Uh so there might need to be some shifting that occurs to ensure that that uh particular system complies with that standard. Uh based on the soils, however, it does appear that there's adequate area. So staff doesn't have any concerns. It's just something to note with respect to the conditions. The other piece on uh this particular lot division is the fact that because the parcels uh abut and are adjacent to the Casad 12 rightway uh that the division uh is passed by Washington County for their review and con uh comment. Uh staff did I believe provide you or email you the response that we received from Washington County staff yesterday. Uh the staff over at Washington County have indicated that they do have concerns with having two driveway access points uh to serve each lot. Uh and that they would like to see a shared driveway or shared access point uh that has to do with some long-term future improvements on the road uh anticipated on CASA 12. Uh and so essentially staff is suggesting that the applicant as well as the city and the county need to continue to work towards uh that solution for the access uh and in your conditions this evening we've addressed it in terms of if a shared access is required uh and that's what is needed from Washington County uh which I'll touch on in just just one moment. So uh as it's drawn again this is conceptual so there's nothing that really needs to happen in terms of the concept plan itself. Uh the lot line is really what we're concerned with this evening in terms of what gets recorded from a subdivision perspective. Uh there are no uh concerns that were expressed by the city engineer. Again, uh they don't usually Brad doesn't usually get involved at this stage of the game because we have such large parcels. Uh his comments would come likely once there's an actual development that's proposed here, you know, a residential structure, etc. where we've got actual grading plans that need to be reviewed from him. Uh the agencies that do or will have jurisdiction over this in the future once uh something is proposed uh the parcels are in what the Browns Creek WHED district. Uh so obviously in terms of grading um and site work they'll have to obtain the necessary permits at the time of application for building permit. Uh and then once again we did receive those comments from Washington County. So, uh, we do know, uh, that they've got some initial concerns. Um, however, it it it does appear that there is a solution that can be worked out. Uh, but I do I do know that the certainly wants to do that as well to determine access to both. Uh, there are several conditions that are in your uh packet this evening uh and also attached to your resolution. Uh you'll see with respect to the conditions uh the the big one obviously has to do with that potential access and the shared driveway. Uh staff does recommend that we include a condition within that that states uh that if we end up with a shared driveway or a shared access point um that that uh driveway easement or shared access point uh be reviewed by the city attorney to ensure that the information in that easement uh is appropriate and ensures that there's perpetual access to both lots. Uh and so once we determine what that access looks like and what the best solution is uh if there is that shared easement that the the city engineer would need to re excuse me the city attorney would need to review it. Uh the other pieces of uh the conditions are are relatively straightforward and pretty consistent with what we typically see within a simple lot subdivision. Um other other than the access there's not a a huge concern from staff's perspective. uh and it does appear that the access can be solved. Uh so with that, staff is recommending approval of the the minor subdivision this evening uh with the conditions that are as noted. Uh there is a draft resolution for you this evening. Uh and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> No questions. >> Greg, go ahead. Um, so based on the letter we got from Washington County, the driveway is still in flux, we'll say, and the condition on there about regarding working with the county and the city stands, and we'll just keep that in the resolution. We don't really know what the outcome's going to be with the driveway, just driveways. >> Yeah. >> Uh, so, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. Um, I will say that typically we actually don't get this level of scrutiny uh when we don't have proposed building plans um and we don't actually have uh driveway locations specifically identified. So um this was just a concept plan. Usually when the lots themselves come forward um or the the proposed residential structure comes forward that's when the access permit is obtained for the driveway. Um, in this case, uh, the applicant, it's my understanding, had actually communicated with Washington County before they ever even made their application to us as the city. Um, so it it got a little bit reversed, which is not an issue at all. Uh, it just means that we need to continue that discussion and whether it's a if it's a shared access, uh, we just want to make sure that that shared access provides perpetual access to whichever lot, you know, is crossing over the other. Um and so that's why that condition in there is simply says uh that we should continue to work together. We need to come up with a solution and then whatever is we need to make sure it's memorialized and and that there's access for both lots. >> So the actual access will will be determined in a future resolution when they decide to present building plans or whatever is what you're saying. >> Uh Mr. Mayor, members of the council, that's correct. Um and there won't be a resolution necessarily. That's why uh my recommendation and what we've done in the past if there's been a shared access that's required um that that private driveway it's essentially a private driveway easement agreement that gets established um for whatever portion that crosses over somebody else's lot um that we would ensure that that's reviewed by the city attorney to make sure that there's nothing in it that would um allow you know the property owner whose parcel is crossing to take that away or withhold it from from the other parcel or lot. Um, so we just would want to make sure that that that language was adequate and that the city attorney had the chance to review it. >> Great. >> One more quick thing. In the title of the resolution, Jennifer, is that east? Should that be west of Manny? >> Good catch. Yes, it should be. >> Thank you. >> She just threw that in there just to see if any of us ready. Good job. >> All right. Anything else? We get a motion. >> Move to open public hearing. >> Move to move to mo uh move to to open public hearing. We have a second. >> Second. >> Public hearing is open. And just a quick reminder, the purpose of public hearing is so members of the public can express their thoughts and concerns. The council does not answer questions or deliberately discuss matters during the public hearing. [snorts] So, anyone who'd like to speak, please remember to sign in with your name and address so we could properly record the minutes. Anyone who would like to speak, public hearing, no one in attendance, anyone online? No one I Oh, that was pretty quick. I guess we need a motion to end public hearing. >> Move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> I >> I >> All right. >> I move to approve resolution 2025-27 with the minor change from east to west. >> Second. I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Right. Amanda, you're up next. Consideration of resolution number 2025-28, the Family Leave Act. >> Yes, your honor, Council. So this is the resolution that is adopting the required changes related to the Minnesota paid leave law policy as well as meal and resttime breaks that were passed in statute this year that we need to adopt before the end of the year because they go into effect January uh 1st. So the policy is what the what the statute requires in relation to Minnesota paid leave. Um, and then there were some minor changes to the meal and rest break policy again as required under the statute. >> I'm looking for a motion to approve the resolution 2020 528. >> I have any questions? We get a motion. It's pretty much not an option we have here. >> Yeah, there's not a lot to discuss. >> All right. Move to approve resolution number 2025-28. >> A second. I >> I >> uh next one consideration ordinance 2025-85 combining the roles of city clerk and city treasure into one role. >> Yes. Uh thank you on our council. So um as you all know your your current city clerk and your current city treasurer um will be done with their employment at the end of this year uh moving into 2026. Uh Christina Han will be uh acting as both the city clerk, city administrator, city treasurer. That is permitt permitted under Minnesota statute provided you have an ordinance that combines those two positions. So this ordinance combines those two positions as one. Under um the Minnesota statute, it requires that there is an audit of the city's financials. Obviously, the city was already doing that, so that's not something new. Um, so, uh, the the duties are established under, you know, the same person for those same duties. The term of the office is for as long as the council wants to, uh, have it be a combined position. Um, and that that's pretty much it. Available for questions. >> Motion. >> A motion to approve 2025-85. >> Second. I >> I >> I >> consideration of resolution number 2025-30 dispandment of personnel committee. >> I don't know if we did if we would have a resolution to officially do the >> do, >> but we're just making official committee. >> Yeah, we're okay. >> Yeah. So, so my understanding I mean we had a resolution to create the personnel committee at the November meeting and then I believe my understanding is at the meeting that you had is that last >> 21st. Thank you. On the 21st, you made a motion to dissolve the personnel committee. This is just putting it in written form so we have a paper trail so 10 years from now we can figure out what we >> and we can spin it up in three months if we have to. >> Start it up when exactly how we did it the first time. Yes. >> All right. Move to approve resolution 2025-30. >> Second. >> I I >> All right. So, new business. Let's take the first two one at a time and then um the look at licenses. We could Amanda said we could do all in one shot. So um consideration of resolution 2519 the final 2026 budget. We talked about that earlier. Sharon had an updated number for the resolution. Um I did not write that down. Um, share >> 2,228,547. >> Okay, I see that number >> and you're writing that down. >> You said 54752 >> 547 >> 547. >> So, Ben, would you like to make a motion to accept the final 2026 budget and recite that number that was just given? >> I would love to. Uh I motion to approve resolution number 2025-9 uh for the amount of 2,228,547 for our general fund budget. >> Second. >> I >> I >> consideration of resolution 2025-20 final 2026 levy. Um I don't think there's anything to change on there. Uh, we talked about it. Ready for a motion. >> Move to approve resolution number 202520. >> Ben second. >> Second. >> I >> I >> So we got six. Do we need to read them all or we just say the the six? We could just say 2025-21 through 2025-26 and make a motion and then >> Yes. Yes. council or yes, mayor. Sorry, suck that >> your honor. [laughter] >> Okay. So, did you make that move? >> I just seconded what you said. >> Oh, I guess I made the motion and we got a second. Okay. I >> I >> I >> uh consideration of reestablishing city of Grant Planning Commission. Uh council had a work session back in May to discuss the potential reestablishment of the planning commission. The general consensus at that time was logistically speaking there were not enough land use applications to justify reforming the PC, but we wanted to kind of keep an eye on this to see um when it might make sense to uh talk about potentially spinning up again. And I think I think I think we we and during that work session we we came up a threshold of like 75% of the time or eight months out of year. I think that's kind of the the metric we align on. Um, is Jennifer still with us? >> Yes. >> Jennifer, can you give us an update on how many months of the past 12 that we've had at least one substant substantive land use application that would, you know, require a public hearing or anything that would have been relevant for a planning commission? >> Yeah, Mr. members of the council there would have been when I looked back probably four possibly five meetings depending on uh if items were carried over uh you know between meetings etc just because of the timing. So somewhere between four and five months four and five meetings would have occurred based on the land use applications that we received over the last year. >> Okay. Um, so I I I don't Jennifer, I don't think you were in the work session when we were t or were you? You weren't in the work session, were you? >> I wasn't. >> Yeah. So, could you just um give us a little bit of um guidance and what your experience is with best practice for planning commission for a city of our size and application volume? like are we looking at this correctly with with the arbitrary metric that we came up with for you know uh 75% of the time or like what what can you kind of share with us based on your experience? >> Yeah. So Mr. May or members of the council I don't know that there's a correct way or a correct answer per se. Um but what I can tell you is I've worked with a lot of planning commissions and city councils over the last 20 years. Uh and the ones that are the most effective or tend to be the most effective are those that meet on a very regular basis uh because it's easier for them to uh get to know the code, understand what their role is uh and not forget between meetings. It's that when you meet, you know, three or four times a year, it can be very difficult to do uh meaningful good business in terms of understanding their role, understanding the discussion, understanding the ordinances. Um so the challenges I've had over the years really have to do with those commissions that don't meet as frequently uh as a result. Uh the other piece that is challenging in that particular case is uh asking commissioners to hold their nights open uh and then having quorum uh actually be available for those uh because uh if they know that you know the potential of a meeting is maybe 30% or 25% at the time. Uh especially during the summer months which is also when we tend to possibly get applications. uh they don't always hold the meeting open because uh obviously you know they're going to a cabin or doing things with their families uh and and so it's it's challenging in terms of being able to get quorum which becomes very challenging in a city such as Grant where they meet or we meet once a month um and so to balance those timing uh pieces particularly when it comes to the 60-day rule becomes extremely challenging uh to make sure that we're actually meeting those dates uh that are required. Um the in the past the city council here has made the determination that the planning commission really only meets when we have an active land use application. Uh and there hasn't been a lot of directive uh on the part of the council back to the planning commission to have general policy questions or or discussions. That's not to say that's right or wrong. That's just uh over the last 15 years that I've been with the city uh sort of how we've structured things with the planning commission. So those are some of the challenges in terms of uh if you have a commission that's not meeting very regularly uh and making sure that you have good productive discussions uh and and have an effective planning commission. So uh I hope that answers your question. If you have anything as follow >> provide my my two cents >> a follow on. Um, so when John and I joined the planning commission, we're working on the comp plan and I think John, I'll speak for you, chime in yourself. I think we learned more about land use and the city codes and everything, you know, working that comp plan. Um, which I I would see I [snorts] would see that either some sort of citizen advisory group or planning commission or something would be um needed uh if we get to that point. So, how far are we away from uh potentially having to revise our our plan based on whatever the Met Council is telling us? So, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we have received uh the all cities, so not us, you know, because we're special or anything. All the cities in the Metropolitan Council's jurisdictions uh received their system statements uh at the end of September 2025, I believe. Um, and so basically that's our first indication that the comp plan needs to be updated. Our comprehensive plan update uh to comply with that system statement will be due uh by December of 2028 uh because you need to have it in place by the time 2030 rolls around. Uh and so there's usually a process to go back and forth with the metropolitan council. Uh when that that process sort of, you know, once you submit it to them, there's the six-month affected adjacent jurisdictional review. Uh there's the Met Council review, etc. So, uh they're due by the end of 2028. uh in the past or I should say the last comprehensive plan that I worked on for the city uh I think we convened um we did use the planning commission in that particular case uh to your point uh several cities will actually use an advisory panel or similar uh if they don't have a planning commission that's active or even if they do sometimes plan you know communities will choose uh to use an advisory panel uh to get a a better cross representation of of residents etc. So uh the planning commission doesn't necessarily have to be that that body or that vehicle that uh works on the comprehensive plan. It also can be an advisory panel. I think the last time we did it uh we probably worked on the update for I would say 9 to 12 months. Um so I would think that in terms of budgeting and how we would look at it, it would be a 2027 project possibly. Um, I don't anticipate a huge revision in this particular case to the comp plan, uh, because I believe the system statement is pretty consistent with what we've already had uh, in place for our 2040 plan. There's a couple regional elements that still have to be updated uh, based on the new uh, regional policy. Uh, but generally speaking, I think it's going to be a pretty straightforward update in this particular case. Kim, is there any other opportunities for planning commission um potentially uh things to work on like if I think at one time we had a backlog of um code that we needed to be reviewed? I think but that was that done by the last? >> Yeah, we finished all that. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments of I mean, I'm torn. I feel like we definitely know that residents are interested in a planning commission, that there are people out there that want to get involved. I think the hard part is that right now it doesn't feel like we have a big pile of work for them to do. Um, and so that's where I feel like I'm I'm kind of torn with the the planning commission because we want to capture that excitement, that enthusiasm to be involved to make, you know, a difference and get their impact um and input in the city, but certainly can appreciate that when you don't do something, you know, every month or even every other month, it's like you're relearning every time and that's hard. >> Yeah. And you know, I have the same kind of sentiment. You know, John and I when we started out the plan commission. Uh we were we were tapped for that because we were coming to the meetings. We're you know, getting involved. And so it would be nice for people that um would would like to serve in the planning commission if you're out there listening to this on um to just show up at the at the meetings and you know let us let us see your interest and kind of get to know how things are going with the the city and learn as much as you can and then um we can maybe um gauge the the appetite for people to actually volunteer and serve in the planning commission from people's actual engagement. So, just a just a thought to share with folks out there that might be interested in this sort of stuff. >> I think I think from what Jennifer just said, it sounds like uh about this time next year, we should reconvene the planning commission so that we can look forward to some of the uh you know, some of the land use applications as well as reviewing or redoing the uh comp plan. And that sounds like it's going to be a nine-month process adding in all the land use. I think that's a that could be a full year. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> oh, so if we're Jennifer, I think you said the end of 2028. So, we'd probably want to start at the end of 27 or a little bit earlier. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I can give you a better a better uh answer to exactly when I think or would recommend starting um after I review the system statement. I've just done a very highlevel review of it. Um I can't anticipate it taking more than that uh because I do think actually this update will likely be even less than what we did the last time. um because there's just not as much that's new uh in terms of the at the last comp plan we really did more of a full rewrite of it and so I would anticipate this one to be more of a an update so I can't imagine it will take more than you know the six to n months um and so you know to that point it could be at the end of next year it could be 20 the also we there's no harm we could get it done early there's nothing to say that we couldn't submit before the end of 2028, particularly because uh I do think this one isn't going to take much to do. Um and and to that point also, um I'll just reiterate, you don't necessarily need a planning commission to do that. uh if you decide you have budget and you'd like to do it in 2027 for example uh but we still have the same kind of uh like land use application workload uh you could convene an advisory panel uh and and have folks working on the comprehensive plan update uh without actually establishing a new planning commission. So like if next year we don't have that many applications for example, we certainly have tools available to us to be able to appoint individuals who would be interested in that and do it through an advisory panel type of process uh that would be focused on that particular project. So just food for thought as we start to plan for it. >> Okay, Lizzie, >> I'd say that we maybe touch back in in maybe like March and see where we're at and just see is anything changed with land use? Yeah. >> Are we seeing a lot more in and then if we're still the same, right? Let's touch back in in six, you know, another three months and just kind of keep >> an eye on that. Yeah. >> Exactly. So we know that and also that we make it clear to the residents, it's not that we're trying to stifle your involvement. We want you involved. We just want to make sure it's meaningful involvement and that we're using your time wisely. >> Yeah. And I like the idea, Jennifer, of potentially utilizing I mean, I guess I'm not sure what the technical differences are. Maybe the advisory board would just be more temporary versus PC. But yeah. Um Kim, were you going to say something? >> Mayor and council members, historically, and I I believe it's still in your ordinance that the uh uh advertisement for taking planning commission applications is done in December. And that's kind of what the city has done historically. And then by the time they get them, you interview uh you know, applications submitted, you interview, you appoint at your February meeting, they're in place in March. And that's kind of the timeline. >> Okay. But we wouldn't necessarily have to do that to the Okay. All right. All right. Any other discussion? >> Let's see. >> No, I'd agree. Let's look at this here again in the spring and think I like the option of an advisory committee but also it would give the planning commission another task. I know when I was on there, we looked at some ordinance things in addition to land use. But I think the two years I was on there, we met five, maybe six times each year. And again, to uh to Jennifer's point, it's kind of like, you know, learning the bike again once you get back on there after three months off. And you kind of pencil that night in. And then when when it's get the email from Kim, oh, it's canceled. It's kind of like, oh, great. Well, now what do I do with my my night? >> Yeah. The comp plan, I think, was really valuable, too. >> Yeah. you know, get the experience working on that because I don't think we would have learned near as much as we did. >> And and I think we reviewed everything whether it changed or not. >> Yeah, we went through the entire thing. The >> entire thing, >> the whole SWAT analysis, you know, >> there was quite a bit in there. Okay. Um, see where we at here. >> Uh, consideration of resolution 2025-29, submitt of local road improvement grant. I see we have Kurt here. We have Brad, you still online? I think he is. >> Did he drop? >> No, he's on. >> Okay, Brad, you just I'm still >> want to give a brief update on the collaboration that's happened the last few months to get us to this point and and then maybe we if if Kurt wants to um we can >> um point of clarific if if since Kurt is um we pass a resolution for him to help in there, we could treat him as like temporary staff, he could give an update, too. Sure. Okay. Why don't you start us out, Brad, and then Kurt, if you want to add anything, we can we can jump to you. Go ahead, Brad. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of the council, uh the resolution before you uh is to submit the application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding uh under the local road improvement program. Um this is uh a grant program that the uh uh like I said the department of transportation is funding. Uh we are supporting or we looking for uh uh monies to uh reconstruct and rehabilitate uh musk uh road between uh Manning Avenue and um Delwood Road. And so, um, we've already, um, received a resolution of support from Washington County. Um, and so this resolution is just having the city, um, also show their support. Uh, this resolution is a requirement of the application process. Um, so, uh, it's important that we get this done. I think the applications are due um >> two weeks >> uh on December 12th >> and then we will um they'll they'll notification the notifications will go out April 1st you said >> yeah that's that's what I understand is that sometime in late March or early April the uh announcements of the grant uh recipients will be uh made. >> Yeah. Anything else for you, Brad? >> Um, nothing more. >> Kurt, I know you spent a lot of time on this. Um, heard a lot of good things from from Brad and the folks at Washington County. Um, is there any updates that you'd like to share with the council residents or and you would like to comment on? >> Nothing really. I mean, we're Brad and I continue to work on it. Um, I'm trying [clears throat] to get it wrapped up by my mic. >> Yeah. >> Uh, you sure? >> I don't have a lot more to add. It's just uh Brad and I and Amanda and others have a few things that's to wrap up to get the package ready for submission. Uh the 12th is the cuto off. I'm trying to get it done by the 9th uh because I'm going to be leaving and I don't want somebody to try to pick it up in the middle. So, we've got [clears throat] everything put together. We've just kind of been some final review and touch up on the application and um we'll try to get it submitted by the 9th. Well, thank you again for all your your work on this. Was >> pretty cool. >> Um, any questions from >> Is this saying December 9th? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. This week. >> Wow. >> I heard it there. >> Nice and quick. >> Anything else? Sean. >> Good. So, this is for MCU project. And what what are we asking for as far as far as our local share? >> Yeah. Uh, Council Member Anderson, this is for the MCHusk Road uh, improvement project. Um, part of the impetus is the uh, improvements that the county has planned for the intersection of Manning Avenue. Um, I think in 27 or 2028. Uh, they're looking at a future signal at that intersection. So, some of these improvements uh would be to prepare for the signal at that intersection, including uh left and right turn lanes on on Mikusk on the um the grant side. And then the rest of uh Mikusk is also in the the application for pavement rehabilitation beyond the turn lanes. the turn lanes. Um the county had proposed or or provided a drawing showing the turn lanes and and the improvements for for the intersection uh almost extend to um Loftton Avenue. So anything beyond Loftton Avenue, we were uh proposing to rehabilitate Mikus Road. >> Yeah. And and Brad, just to to clarify the point you made, whether or not we did this project um in a couple years, Washington County would have basically ordered us to do our part on that um that intersection there. Is that >> Yeah. Typic typically when when the counties do intersection improvements, um the local legs are responsible for some of those improvements. And so um in this case, you know, Musk Road to develop the the turn lanes and things like that would be the responsible of the city. >> And council member um Anderson that you had asked the question on on the money side of it. Brad, you might have it in front of you there, but it's just slightly over a million that we're requesting in the application. So basically all construction costs u minus engineering costs, >> right? Yeah. It doesn't pay for Right. We'd have to the city would have to be responsible for the engineering costs and if the project were to go over the amount that we request >> and what's the schedule of spending the money if awarded? >> Uh money has to be spent during 2026, 27 and 28. Those three we have till the end of 28 to spend it. So if we win, we get the money. We we'd need to do the construction plans and specs, get those out for bid. So if that was something we didn't have in the budget, we could include the following year and we could still get this as long as we get it built and spent by 28. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. And that's and that's sort of the plan too is just to to get that award. Then that'll be March like Brad said >> and then we would begin to roll that out with the the people on Makusk and all the steps we have to take and all the planning and all that the bids and everything and then get it going. Yeah. >> And the county already passed their sponsor resolution. He said >> they did. Good. >> And we had that signed resolution. >> All right. Well, thank you. >> One more uh question if I might. So, when you say that they're putting in these turn lanes and they're going backwards to Loftton, >> Loftton, >> and where's Loftton? I'm I'm trying to figure out >> that's the road that the guest house on. >> So, so it goes a little bit north, >> right? Got it. So, that goes back to the guest house and that's Loftton. And so, the other people are putting the subdivision, they're going all the way to where 88th or is that, you know, so how much how much >> you mean where is the access point onto Mikusk for that division? Well, I mean, they're going that far and then a little bit more probably. So, what's the gap between Loftton and where they're ending? >> 88, I think. So, >> you know, how much is that, you know, what's that distance and how much is that going to be, Brad? Roughly. >> Yeah, we we talked about this last night at Brad's Mus. Brad, you want to take take that question? [clears throat] >> Yeah, mayor, members of the council. So, the developer for the Stillwater Oaks uh is responsible for the Milan overlay between Delwood Road and 88th Street. And so, um, what's left between, um, 88th Street and Loftton is about 2500 ft. And then you've got another,000 ft from Loftton to the intersection at Manning Avenue. Roughly, Musk Road is about 60 or 6,000 lineal feet between road, >> but it sounds like the turn lanes and all that stuff is going to go back to Loftton, right? the paving from the the turn lanes and the intersection and all that will go back all the way to Loftton, right? >> That is that is correct. >> Okay. And what I'm saying is so the remainder is 2500 ft. >> Correct. >> Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> So considering the length of the road and what the city is on the hook for engineering, but the paving is Washington County, right? From Loftton to the intersection, right? No, I think that's city responsibility, wouldn't it be? >> Yes, it's it would be the city's responsibility >> for paying. >> Yeah. The whole the whole project is the city's responsibility. It's >> But I mean, we get money from Washington County. >> No, Washington County is acting as our sponsor. >> The money from the state, >> right? We're getting money from mind basically. >> Okay. All right. So, that's hopefully we get that money loft into the Manning intersection. >> And we're asking about that piece. And then we have that little piece in between Loftton and 88. >> So that's what we talked about last night with the residents. And >> if we got, you know, two new sections of road on either side of that little bit and the residents, >> for whatever reason, don't want to choose to >> petition that, then we'd be looking at potentially ordering that because it really wouldn't make sense from a safety standpoint to have two new roads and then potholes in between. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And Brad and Brad, you might be able to react to this. I was looking just tonight before the meeting. I was looking at your uh estimate. You know, I knew it's a initial draft, but it it appeared to me like that estimate takes it all the way from uh Musk 96 all the way to MHusk and Manning. Right. The the L the LI funds will pay for the whole mill and overlay and the expanded lanes and everything. That's correct. So, uh, >> in order to get the the turn lanes in, um, that portion of MCU would have to be reconstructed and I want to say that was about $600,000 or or we were estimating around $600,000 to reconstruct that portion of MCHusk. The other portion would be rehabilitated between Loftton and uh, Del Road. So unless our estimates are off, I don't think there's a gap in there for funding, right? Like that 2500 ft, right? >> It's what we're proposing for is money to do the whole thing. >> Okay. From from state funds. >> From state funds. >> Excellent. That's what I was hoping to hear. >> Yep. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. Any other questions? We get a motion. >> Move to approve resolution number 2025-29. Second. I >> I >> I >> That's good news. >> Okay, I think we're all through new business. Unfinished business. None. >> Is >> discussion items? Any updates from staff? >> Yes, council. I I do have one. So, just a point of clarification. Um I think it's already been said that this is um uh Miss Point's last meeting with the council. her uh separation agreement. Um my understanding is she has signed it, right? Yep. So it's signed. So we're we're good. >> Yep. So we're good on that side. Um one of the things that we had talked about in November was that her employment runs through the end of this month. So it runs through the end of December. However, depending upon the timing of getting a new person in, the intent was that she was not necessarily going to be working full-time for the entirety of December, >> but she'll get paid through the >> correct. So she all of the the from an employment perspective she is an employee through the end of the year but daily duties to be deter TBD kind of was what we had talked about in November. Um now that we are here um I don't want to speak for uh for Christina um and I don't know if we should introduce her also. I I think that she has not technically been introduced as the so maybe during council updates you guys can do that >> or my staff update >> or staff update. Yeah. Um >> you you uh you read my mind. So, um, so we can do that, but I believe, um, from from, uh, Christina's perspective, she feels ready to step in and take over. And so the, uh, proposed language in the separation agreement says that Kim's duties will be done, daily duties will be done December 4th because the office is closed on Friday. That would be December 5th. She will continue to be available uh via phone if if there's questions or you know where do I find this or what's this kind of thing through the remaining of the remainder of this month provided that council is okay with that. >> Yeah, I'm sure you'll be somewhere warm. >> Not any luck. >> So, it's been a very smooth transition really. Uh thanks to you Kim for for that and Christina for being a quick learner. This is uh very very quick, very smooth. So guys seem to work very well together. That being said, then Christina um Christina is our our new city administrator, treasurer and she's already started. Christine, would you like to just uh introduce yourself a little bit? >> Uh yeah, mayor, council, uh everyone, I'm happy to to be here in Grant. This is my fourth Washington County community, so I I'm very familiar with the area and and a lot of the players. And so that's made um a smooth transition as well as Kim putting up with my endless uh questions for the last month or last week. Maybe it's felt like a month now. [laughter] Um but, you know, live in the area with my daughter and so, you know, really close by and that's um been uh uh is an advantage and I'm just uh excited to get to meet more people and learn more about Grant and maybe do some changes we've already talked about. Um, so things might start looking a little differently, your packets and whatnot come come 2026. Um, just to try and uh improve efficiencies and just other ways that I've done things. Um, always feel free to ask questions if you're wondering why something's different from what it was before. But that's really kind of the goals that I'm looking at um as I approach this this position is to to try and see where I can find some efficiencies and help you reach your goals. So, >> Yep. And then uh along with that too uh we'll be posting office hours on the website coming up in the next couple weeks. So look for that. There'll be scheduled office hours. >> Yeah. I got to kind of get my feet under me and know what the how things run um so that I can make sure that I'm there those posted office hours, but um folks can expect to see them starting in January. >> Yep. >> Mayor, council members, I'll just say we've worked together for about a week. Uh, she's very experienced. She is ready to go and I don't think the city could have made a better choice. She will do very well. >> That's good to hear. Thanks, Kim. >> So, do we just want to button up the last day for Kim? >> Well, it's the fourth, right? >> The fourth, right? Do we need to vote on it or not? >> I saw nods. I'm generally nod because you've already granted me authority to get the agreement all wrapped up, but that was one detail I wanted to >> and I got to sign before I Okay. >> Yep. Thank you. Um, uh, Brad, you still did, did did was there anything to share after that Browns Creek watershed district meeting last month where they're trying to get our input into their 10-year plan? Is was there anything particular about? >> Not not really. Um we we talked about a a few things um regarding um permitting and and the city's culverts and and things like that. Uh the watershed district is trying to update all their mapping. They were supposed to send me um a drawing that showed the culverts that they didn't have information for. Um, and I told them that I would reach out to either the Klein brothers or Ken to to see if we can't confirm the covert sizes and the um actually the locations of some of them things. So, um, that was about it. Okay. Any other staff updates? I have a city kind of a staff update, I guess, myself. So, um, as most of you know, I'm representing Grant as a cable commissioner for Ramsey, Washington, Southern Community Channels, um, cable and, um, I've been on the, uh, finance and personnel committee and I've been appointed to the, um, executive committee as secretary. So, um, that's a that's a change for me and also be working on um, a strategic plan. And so one of the the gaps that I saw when I joined the committee is they were kind of rudderless in terms of their strategy. And so a couple of us got together and decided it might be a great idea if we had a strategic plan so we could um work on the long-term sustainability of the cable commission because most people know cables die and slow slow death. And um we need to be proactive with the cable commission and look at new ways to generate revenue like um look at ourselves as more of a a media company rather than just strictly cable. um kind of along those lines. Um Christina, if you ever um see some franchising um requests coming for broadband, let us know because the the cable commission has got some some thoughts on how to um respond with that. They're working with member communities to to potentially take advantage of of some franchising opportunities. And I know people say it's, you know, it's it's a hidden tax, but it's something that we could look at in terms of generating revenue. And so, um, if you if you come across any application like that, we just bring it to the council, we can and also, um, I'll get you in touch with the, um, the folks from the commission that um, can get you up to speed on that much more than I could. >> I've watched that YouTube video that you were on last month. I might have seen it in my last city. >> Okay. Well, you're one step ahead of me. Um, that's all I got time for community calendar. >> I was going to ask one question. >> Um, we had, uh, you know, done a a great job so far in the city of Grant of getting fiber optic to a lot of homes. Um, are we going to complete everybody uh at some point? So, they did share a month or two ago, Kim, correct me if I'm wrong, they had update. I think you shared, did I have you share that with council? Should you check your Yeah, that should have been shared. Uh, we can have it shared out again, the latest update on that. Um, but they're they're not super specific with their their their maps and you know, so they kind of give you a high level statistics, but terms of specific households. I don't know if I I seen that level of uh detail yet, but they're they're getting there. >> That's good. The idea is to get the whole the whole of Grant covered. It's eventually every house. I'm not sure the whole of grant I don't think that was part of the Kim >> mayor council members it was uh to get as much of grant covered as possible based on the grant dollars that were received >> and the ARPA funds that the city donated. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So good answer. I think it was like 248,000 or something like that grant money. >> Um community calendar Not all at once. Who'd like to read it? >> All right, I'll read it. >> Glasses are on. >> Wow. [laughter] >> Mamedai public school board meeting Thursday, December 11th. Mamedai District Education Center at 7 p.m. Stillwater Public School Board Meeting Thursday, December 11th. Stillwater City Hall at 700 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesdays Government Center 9:00 am. And for those of you who didn't know, Christmas Day is Thursday, December 25th, 2025. >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. >> Second. >> I thank you, Kimmy Sharon.