I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. First item on the agenda, approval of the regular agenda. A motion. >> Move to approve. >> Second. We'll have to do roll call for each uh motion because John is remote. >> Council member Cornet. >> Hi. >> Council member Rag. >> I. >> Council member Cremona. >> I. >> Council member Anderson. >> I. >> Mayor Gfer. >> I. Approval of the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Council member Rag. >> I. >> Council member Cremona. >> I. Council member Anderson. I, >> Council Member Cornet. >> I, >> Mayor Gepher, >> I. >> Staff agenda items. First up is Brad, our city engineer, to talk about the consider uh, consideration of the cooperative agreement between the city of Grant and Washington County for engineering costs for Highway 12 safe routes to school trail. Yep. Brad. >> Good evening, mayor, uh, members of the council. Um, let me share my screen. I've got the the exhibit that was part of the agreement. that's in your packet. >> Give me two seconds here. Can everybody see that map? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. Uh again, good evening, mayor and the council. Tonight we have a item related to the county road 12 trail improvement. Um this addresses two topics. approval of a cooperative agreement with Washington County for engineering services and discussion and direction on snow removal and winter maintenance for the future trail. This continues our discussion from last month when council asked staff to explore snow removal responsibilities and potential costs for the county road trail or county road 12 trail. to do this. Staff coordinated with Washington County, uh, the school districts, neighboring communities, and our snow removal contractor, Ken Johnson, to understand capacity and limitations. Washington County does not typically maintain uh trails within this jurisdiction, including uh this segment. Uh, the school district and the city of Madame Mameidi uh confirmed that they cannot take on any additional plowing. Uh Ken Johnson uh could remove the snow on the trail using a pickup truck uh at a minimal cost. Uh historically, the city's position has been to support uh limited trail construction, but not to provide snow removal. Uh this context may be helpful as council considers direction on um winter maintenance. It's also important to restate the cost sharing between the city and the county for engineering fees. Uh these are typically split uh 50/50 and that's what is in the current agreement. Um to recap phase one work completed to date. Uh includes geotechnical investigations, wetland delineations and preliminary design work. Uh the total cost to date for the city share of this work was or is $14,718. Uh the proposed phase 2 work which includes the wetland mitigation, the permitting, uh wetland banking credits, and final design engineering. Uh the city's share for that work is $27,67. So the combined uh total estimated engineering cost for the design of this trail uh for the city is $42,325. Uh so the fees associated with this agreement do not include construction administration fees. Uh these would come later after the project is bid. Construction administration fees are estimated at 10% of the construction costs based on the preliminary trail design. Construction costs are estimated at 40450 $450,000 uh which would result in a estimated construction administration fee of $45,000 of which $22,500 would be the city's share. So the city share for engineering cost for the entire uh trail project uh along Casaw 12 is $64,825. So, as you know, this trail is part of the larger safe routes to school grant connecting county road 12 to uh Madameai school campus as a continuous and connected facility. In August, council approved moving forward with phase one the the preliminary design to better understand the alignment, the impacts, and the costs. Uh the cooperative agreement um before you tonight allows the project to continue into final design and bidding with Washington County as the lead agency uh managing the consultant contracts. It is also important to note that if the city decides not to move forward with the county road 12 trail segment uh the entire grant including the connection to the school campus is at risk. So tonight I'm requesting council action on two items. Um the first one is whether whether to approve the final design of the county road 12 trail uh improvements and enter into the cooperative agreement with Washington County. And then secondly uh if the agreement is approved whether or not the city would provide snow removal. So, with that said, I would be more than happy to answer any qu questions that the council or um mayor would have. >> Yeah. Before we open up for discussion, I want to provide a clarification I just received on Friday um at the uh school district's community leaders forum. Um which Barb, you are there. I think you heard that. Correct me if I misstated what I heard from. um one of the uh Madameai council members there is uh he confirmed that the city of Mameidi is currently actually performing the the winter maintenance on that trail section and and he didn't feel like it would be an an issue for the city to continue doing so. Um but I think maybe we would want to have some sort of official agreement with the city of Madameai. Um so just throwing that out there. Um >> um mayor, may I interrupt? You're you're you're referring to the 2025 trail construction that was uh completed as part of the roadway construction project they're doing. They're doing >> that's further east of uh the intersection of uh the campus entrance. >> Yeah. So, uh you're we're talking about the the section that was done previously, right? >> Correct. That's that's what they're maintaining right now. >> Yeah. Um, so I I think we should uh just check with them and and >> mayor, I think I've already reported to the council what happened when I called their city administrator. So I I would suggest we pursue a different option. If we want to do it, we can pursue a contract with our contractor >> or or again continue with past practice. >> There's definitely some confusion on who's doing what there >> and I don't know. We we can uh we can just decide uh to I don't know I guess but I asked the question and you >> I would assume that any cost to provide snow removal on this segment of trail would be minimal whether >> can it or if the city of Monte meet I you know would volunteer to do it for the city of Grant. >> Yeah it doesn't seem like a a big deal. So um okay open up to council discussion. Mayor G question. >> Um, so the funds for construction have been secured as part of the safe routes grant cost. What if it's over the construction amount? Are we on the hook 5050 for that or are you the good engineers got enough contingency in your bids that uh we're going to be happy? >> Yeah. Mayor, member of the council, uh, Ryan Haves on the Western County project manager there. So, the St. school grant was in coordination with the school district. Um so in total we have just over $700,000. Um our scope was about 550,000 to start um in an effort to reduce wetland impacts. The scope is reduced. So we're at 5 450,000 is estimated. So we're already below I guess what a grant is. So I think our contingency is strong. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I appreciate county and and the school coming tonight. Um, I don't know, maybe a future project. I'd like to see you maybe before this. Now, it kind of seems like, well, everyone's coming to the meeting to make sure we make the right vote. Not that I'm saying we won't, but I appreciate you all coming tonight and uh, supporting the project. And, you know, these safe route schools are competitive and tough to get. So, um, I think it's it's good that we got this. It does need some additional pedestrian access. The snow plowing thing, it's probably a minor thing in the scheme of things, Mr. Mayor. But that was my my major concern is where we end up ultimately on our city funds and if the contingencies there for construction and if something comes way off, I'm sure we'll hear from the county before they would award a contract. So that's my questions. >> John online. >> Yeah. Yeah. Do you have any questions, John? >> It it it just seems as though the um you know, as as I read, it seems as though we are um on our doing our fair share for the uh partial funds for the uh construction. Uh, and uh, it seemed as though that we weren't on on uh, uh, agreeing on the snow removal. So, I don't know if the city of Grant uh, should be doing the snow removal or it should be somebody else that is uh, doing the snow removal that is uh, been doing snow removal on on uh, other parts of it. So, I don't know. Uh, but I don't think I don't I don't know. I don't know how much it's going to be. It would be nice to know what it would cost to do snow removal. Uh and uh you know maybe that's something that we can get uh partially reimbured for if we do do it as a city. >> For clarity based on the maintenance based on the cooperative agreement, trail costs are 50/50. So would that include snow removal as well? >> That's a good question. Um Brad. >> Yeah. uh mayor, members of the council, typically um the trail maintenance is not a 50-50 split. It would be the responsibility of the city. >> And just to reclarify what you said earlier, your inclination is that snow will likely be I say nominal, but fairly small costs in the grand scheme of things. >> Yeah. Um talking with Ken Johnson, he thought he could easily remove the snow with his his truck. Um there perhaps might be some damage to the turf uh adjacent to the trail that may need to be fixed um every spring, but um he certainly could do it at a minimal cost. We we didn't, you know, get to the exact number. Um but we could certainly do that. Um but again, we we don't feel like the the cost of removing the the snow um by by the city of Grant Forces is is very expensive. And if we can uh work on an agreement with the city of Mameidi, even better, right? >> I I think that would be best. I think they would be happy to do that. There's a lot of confusion. When I uh spoke to the mayor of Madamea, Dick Brainard, he called his city administrator and his city administrator said um he he didn't know. And when the council member at the meeting I was referencing and said, "Yeah, we do that." Um I'm pretty sure he's he's u being accurate there. So I given that they're doing that section now, I don't think that would be a big deal for them to do another couple hundred feet, but we can we can confirm that with them. Um, I'd also like to thank um, Superintendent Duffren for for coming and speaking and also um, Washington County Commissioner uh, Myron and also the other folks that aren't here from Washington County uh, public works um, director Wayne Sandberg and his crew Kevin Peterson, Andrew Gson, Joe Gustoson, Corey Slaggel U, Madam DMA, all those guys have been great to work with. So, I appreciate um your guys' um partnership and not only this but other projects. So, um that being said, is there any more um discussion before we entertain a motion? >> Is it appropriate for a public question? >> Not No, not at this time. No. I'm happy to make a motion to um approve the cooperative agreement and that understanding we would assume responsibility for the writer maintenance of the trail um and that given that we would perhaps explore if MMA will do it understanding if their answer is no that the city would then be responsible for the snow maintenance. A second. >> A second. >> Sorry. Um, sir, >> council member Cremona. >> I, Council Member Anderson. >> Hi. >> Council member Cornett. >> Hi. >> Council member Rag. >> I, Mayor >> Ger, I. >> Um, next up for you, Brad. Um consideration of patching and potholeing contract. >> Yes. Um mayor and council, this item is a request to authorize a one-year independent contractor agreement uh for roadway patching and pothole repair services. Uh the city routinely contracts for patunis patching and pothole repair to maintain safe and serviceable roadway conditions on paved streets. These services are essential for public safety, preserving pavement life and responding quickly to worsening roadway conditions. For the past six years, the city has contracted with Arc Paving under a independent contract agreement that establishes responsibilities, insurance requirements, pricing, and service expectations. That agreement expired on December 25th, 2025, and the city requires continued roadway patching and pothole repair services throughout 2026. To ensure competitive pricing, staff requested quotes from two contractors for the 2026 roadway patching and pothole repair services. Um FPI paving contractors submitted a quote of $715 per crew hour with uh batuminous mix priced at $80 per ton. Arc paving submitted a quote of $825 per crew hour with patuminous mix build at cost and invoice directly to the city. So while Arc Paving's hourly rate is higher, uh staff evaluated the proposals based on overall value and total anticipated cost to the city rather than hourly rates alone. Considerations included past performance, service reliability, efficiency, familiar familiarity with city standards, um mobilization practices, travel time, and total annual costs. In 2025, the city spent approximately $114,000 on pothole patching and roadway repairs, which included uh approximately 355 tons of puminous mix. Staff used this historical data to prepare a comparable cost scenario for 2026. Um, for comparison purp purposes, staff assumed uh 355 tons of patuminous mix, approximately 20 trips to the project locations and 120 hours of crew time actively performing work at the project sites. Under this scenario, FBI quoted a rate of, you know, $715 per crew hour, uh, which results in $85,800 for 120 hours of on-site work. While mobilization is included in the quote quoted hourly rate, FBI charges travel time on a port-to-port basis. Um, based on based on a estimated 30 minutes of travel each way, staff anticipates approximately one additional billable hour per trip, resulting in an estimated 20 additional hours of crew time or $14,300. The results in the total estimated crew cost for FBI is $100,100. Uh the pumminous mix under FBI's proposal would be build at $80 per ton at 355 tons. This results in a material cost of $28,400. The total estimated cost for FPI including crew time and materials is approximately $128,500. Now, Arc Paving's quoted rate of $820 $825 per crew hour results in $99,000 for the same 120 hours of site work. Arc Paving is a local contractor and does not charge travel time to and from the project locations. Uh therefore, resulting in no additional billable hours beyond time spent performing the work. Arc Paving purchases batuminous mix at a market price from the same regional suppliers used by most paving contractors in the area. Based on 2025 data, ARK's average mix cost was approximately $81 per ton at 355 tons. This results in a in a material cost of $28,755. So the total cost estimate for arc paving including crew time and materials is approximately $127,755 which is slightly lower than the uh comparable FBI estimate. Arc paving typically operates with a fourperson crew which for this type of patching and pothole rework work repair work. Uh the crew size is is less critical than efficiency and experience and ARC has a consistently demonstrated reliable and efficient performance. The services quoted by both contractors are intended for small area patching and pothole repair and do not include the use of paving machines. Larger area patching or full width paving is not included in this agreement and would be bid separately if needed. Based on total cost comparisons, uh, historical performances and operational considerations, staff believes arc paving provides the best overall value to the city for 2026 roadway patching and pothole repair services. Therefore, staff recommends enter entering into a new one-year independent contractor agreement with Arc Paving, Inc. with an expiration date of December 31st, 2026 to ensure un uninterrupted roadway patching and pothole repair services. So, the action I'm requesting tonight is a motion to authorize um staff to enter into a one-year independent contractor agreement with Arc Paving for roadway patching and pothole repair services through December 31st, 2026. So, with that said, I would be happy to answer any questions that the mayor or council would have. So, Brad, thank you for that was a lot of information. So to sum it up, we're talking ARC paving total all-in cost of $127,755 a year. >> Correct. >> Versus FPI a little bit higher at 128500. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um for for transparency, is it possible um because a lot of this information wasn't in the packet, can we get um Brad's additional details that he shared included as an addendum? It's already on the website. >> It's already on the website. Okay. All right. Awesome. Um and then um let's see. That's um that's all I had. What do you guys Any questions here, Lindsay? >> Um this is more practical. So right now, because the last contract ended at the end of last year, what do we do during the month of January? Typically, is it just because it's winter? >> We don't need a patch, so we don't worry about it because it's cold. >> Correct. There's Yeah, we don't typically the hot mix plants close close in mid November. They don't typically open up again until >> um usually April or or later. So, um none of this work is done during the winter months. Uh Brad or or Christine, who who directs the patching, what roads, or do we just say we have x amount to spend? Use your wides judgment subcontractor and and go patch because I saw them out various times that I got no comment or no problem with their performance last year. Um some people don't like the way it looked, but I think in the case of Kimbro, they had to do something a little drastic and what I call maybe a smear patch. But um who directs the roads? Do you give them a list? Uh, how does that work? Just so for us new ones on the council know a little bit. >> Yeah, mayor, members of the council, typically how that that's worked in the past is Ken Johnson has directed um the paving contractor or we may get com uh calls into the the city administrator and then she'll direct um arc paving. That's how it's worked in the past. Um, so we try to do the best we can uh in covering the roads. You know, that smear patch seems to work a lot better than just pothole patching. Um, especially when you've got a bunch of alligator cracks and things like that. Um, so it it may not look the prettiest, but it certainly it holds up better than a than a typical pothole patch where you're just filling in the, you know, cleaning the hole and filling it in with hot mix. John online. John, do you have anything? >> No, Brad did a a good job discussing the uh the details of both quotes. So, I appreciate that, Brad. >> Yeah. Um given that there is a a slight savings with ARC, and I've heard pretty pretty positive feedback from residents, um I'm I'm inclined to stick with ARC. >> I was just gonna have a question. Um, Christine, I know you're new, so I feel like you probably aren't going to be able to maybe there's records, but I'm curious if we've had any um either complaints or compliments regarding ARC specifically to the city just to know that they we've had them for a while and um exclusive um not exclusive absent one situation. Um I haven't heard anything specifically regarding their performance and just curious if we have anything on record. Yeah, Council Member Cremona, I'm sorry, too new and and during the time of the year, I haven't heard anything one way or another. >> I've seen a couple in my time out here different. And I think they do as good as anybody better than some of the other ones we've had. >> Yeah. Where they don't just throw it in there and leave the cars to tamp it down. Mayor, members of the council, I I know Ken Johnson really appreciates um Arc Paving being in town as well. Um they've been super responsive. Um whenever he's asked them to come do a a small patch or whatever, they've been super to work with and super responsive. So, I think that goes a long way as well. >> And another thing, they drive the roads every day. They know our roads like the back of our hand. So they >> um uh they know where to focus and they do uh like you said uh work well with Ken. So, >> and I [clears throat] want to I want to I did talk to Ryan a little bit and I know he's thought that last year was a heavy year, meaning uh they did a little bit more potholeing and patching than um than a typical year. Uh you never know what the spring is going to hold for us, right? it. The the best scenario is that the frost comes out in a week and you you get a good spring, but if you get a long drawn out spring, then that wreck wrecks havoc with our streets. And um so um you know I I I I I I want to say that you know we have $128,000 budgeted um in our pothole uh repair and and roadway patching budget and um hopefully um we don't get to that amount. >> Go ahead. Uh my thought is support the local I mean they're in Grant. I like that they're in Grant that we get to kind of support our local businesses here and given the fact they're also cheaper. Um and sounds like people have had positive experiences working with ARC. I'd move that we uh award the 2026 contract to Arc Paving. Second. >> Sorry, I'm just a little slow. >> Council member Anderson. >> Hi. >> Council member Cornet. >> Hi. >> Council member Rag. >> Hi. >> Council member Cremona. >> I. >> Mayor Gefer. >> I. >> City Planner Jennifer Swanson has no action items. City attorney Amanda Johnson has no action items. We move to new business discussion on the Mccus Road project initiation. Brad, you're up again. >> Yeah. Let me see if I can find my exhibitor. Sorry. Sorry, I should have been prepared here. [snorts] For some reason, it's it's not showing up now. There it is. Sorry, I think I've lost my connection. >> Brad, can you hear us? >> I can hear you, but I I've lost my I've lost my connection to our server, >> our office server. Let me see if I can't get it back here. Doesn't seem to be working. Um, I apologize for that. All right, we'll just um >> go >> start off and we'll we'll follow along. The folks that are >> in the [clears throat] audience won't be able to see anything, but um hopefully people >> You want me to You want me to work on a little bit more? See if I can't get it restarted here. >> We can give you We can give a a fivem minute recess. I guess we'll take a we'll take a five minute recess. >> Okay. Thank you. Is it the same one that's in the packet, Brad? >> Yeah, maybe you can. >> Yeah, you could touch her, >> Christina. >> That's what I was trying to do. >> Yeah, >> that's what uh We'll see. >> Yeah, I guess I didn't think about that. [laughter] Good job. >> Might be a short recess. >> See if I >> Here. I've I've got it. You got open, >> I think. Uh >> oh. >> Oh, there it is. >> Does everybody see that? >> Not yet. Oh, yeah, we do. >> Yeah. All right. Well, the five minute recess turned into [laughter] >> a 30 second recess. We're We're back. >> All right. All right. Thank you, uh, mayor and council members for being patient. Um, so I'm here this evening, I guess, to request a council direction regarding a potential roadway improvement project on Musk Road. Um, as outlined in the staff memo, this segment of Mchusk Road is currently scheduled only for basic city funded pavement maintenance in 2026, based on roadway conditions, available funding, and the underlying pavement structure. Staff believes this segment warrants consideration of a targeted improvement such as a mill and overlay uh rather than con uh continued spot maintenance. Mchusk Road is planned and funded in two primary segments. Uh the segment one is west of 88th Street. The roadway uh this roadway will receive a Milan overlay in 2026 through a development agreement associated with the former golf course property. Uh the second segment which is east of 88th Street to Manning Avenue um which is the segment we're here for tonight does not have uh the same funding source and is currently reliant on city maintenance dollars. Uk road is also different from many local streets in Grant from a structural standpoint. Uh most city streets uh within the city of Grant that are local uh were constructed with relatively thin pavement sections, typically two to two and a half inches of asphalt which limits the rehabilitation options uh once the pavement begins to break down. Uh Miku Road as a former uh county roadway was built to a higher standard. Pavement cores indicate uh an existing asphalt thickness of approximately 8 to 10 in uh meaning the pavement structure remains sound and the distress observed today is mainly uh surface related. Uh residents along this segment were informed uh of their option to pursue a petition driven improvement project and a neighborhood meeting was held on December 1st to explain the petition process. of the assessment methodology, estimated costs and project timelines. Feedback from that meeting indicated concern that about the difficulty of advancing a project through the petition process given the participation thresholds involved and the varying levels of perceived benefit among properties. Um, under the city's special assessment policy, costs are allocated based on billable lots rather than frontage foot uh footage. While the approach is fair, petition-driven projects uh can be challenging and typically take about a one-year time frame um from initiation to the end of construction. uh to to accelerate uh this project, additional special councils may be needed to complete all the required hearings and resolutions under Minnesota State Statute 429. So planning ahead helps keep the project on track uh for 2026 and minimizes disruption. So a council initiated project allows for a holistic evaluation of MCHusk road, coordination with the ad adjacent segments already planned for construction and application of city maintenance funds and potential grant opportunities to reduce the cost and disruption. So the 2026 um represents a cost-effective uh opportunity with available funds and potential grant support further reducing the assessment impacts. So with that context, uh staff is seeking council direction on whether the city should initiate a roadway improvement project for Musk Road between 88th Street North and Manning Avenue uh for the 2026 construction season and whether that project should proceed as a cons council initiated improvement project rather than uh through a resident petition process. Um, so with that said, I would be happy to answer any questions. >> Greg, you want to go? >> Sure. U, so at the December public meeting, Brad, you really didn't have costs. It was more the assessment process and how to move forward and it was kind of left at the residents, similar to past practices, would have to petition to get the rest of MCU done. >> Yeah. Council, Council Member Anderson, I did share some highle cost estimates um with the with the neighbors uh at the meeting. Um I did break it down between the segments and and and showed uh an estimate or estimated cost for uh the segment between 88th Street and Manning Avenue. and then um what the developer was uh escrow the escrow amount for what the developer was responsible for. So they have seen some preliminary costs um but a more detailed cost would happen during a feasibility report >> and the developer plans to do his portion this year. Is there a way we could meet with him staff meet with him and get a little better handle on his schedule? Um, I think as you mentioned, if we moved ahead as a city project, it'd be a bit of a lift to get this built yet this year. Um, not saying it can't be done, but um, I, you know, I'd like to, um, my thoughts, council, is is to pursue this as a city project, at least to the point of the improvement hearing, get the get some real costs, some real funding scenarios, get the public input, and then make a decision. This is an opportunity where we've got some money to do a portion of the road, maybe some more grant funds. I don't know. I see I see u Kevin snuck out on us. I don't know what the year maybe Brad knows that the potential Mikus work would be on the county side, but I think it I think it's incumbent on us to at least look at maybe as Brad said, a holistic approach to this road. Um as part of your typical process, Brad, do you have another neighborhood meeting once you start the report? because I'd really like to get have the residents have more opportunity to get back to us. You know, maybe if if we moved ahead with a report after it's presented to council, we have a neighborhood meeting prior to the improvement hearing just so we give every opportunity to get full feedback from everybody to chip in uh what they thought. And at the end of the day, if they say nope, we like it the way it is, that's fine. But I think we at least need to consider that um process. And I think I think we should cast a broader net. You know, look at the entire road as far as assessments and maybe even the side streets of Loftton and a portion of 88th because of, you know, on in Loftton's case, you don't get there but for Musk and let's look at everybody that benefits from this project and maybe everybody chips in. That might include the city a little extra too, but I think if we moved ahead with the report, Brad could lay out some different potential assessment options, some funding options. I'm glad you had some info on the cores. I was curious about the road thickness because we this year's project we're doing a reclaim and pave just because there's not enough mat there. But since that was a county road and I'd assume we're doing at least a 2in mill or the developer is so we can get through all the patches and get to a decent surface to put a new work course on. Um I'll stop rambling if there wants to. [laughter] >> You can tell what he does for his day job. >> Yeah. I appreciate that, Council Member Anderson. So, as far as the neighborhood meetings, um I typically would prepare a draft report and then I would uh meet the neighborhood before I would present it to council because sometimes I I get comments from the residents and I would include those as part of the report. And so then you would have a comprehensive uh feasibility report that would include comments from the neighborhood. Um but I'm open to either way. >> Yeah. Uh Brad, it seemed I was at that last meeting um that neighborhood meeting because we had it here. It seemed like the at that time it was a general favorability um of the residents or was I just totally misinterpreting that? Yeah, I I I think generally there is uh [snorts] you know the neighbors or the residents are in favor of the project. They're you know obviously they're in favor of improving the QC, right? >> Yeah. Um but they're just they they weren't sure how the assessments would um come into play and and how other things would um you know the construction of that segment between 88th and 96 would happen. And I certainly would um like to engage the developer on the schedule on that project. Maybe, you know, maybe we can push it off to 2027. um you know, he's been really good to work with so far and that he may be, you know, amendable to to pushing it out. That would give us give us more time and um at least to get through the special assessment process. >> Yeah, Brad, I had thought that that was kind of the plan all along. I remember when we talked about moving MCHusk from 2027 to 26 was the spe uh specific reason of collaborating with the developer on the project you know getting the economies of scale you know doing it in one in one project so was that what was the what was the intent on that was it >> no I I I think you're right mayor um the small detail that we didn't anticipate was the schedule right typically um from initiation to fully constructed is it it takes a year um to get everything done for for a specially assessed project. Now, in this case, since it's a Millan overlay, we may not need to to do any cores on the segments of, you know, between 88th and Manning, we could maybe assume that the cores the developer took um on Mc Musk west of 88th Street would suffice and so we wouldn't have to spend that extra money to do cores. Uh typically we would do a survey um on some of the road re reclamation projects and that's really just to get a good uh idea where the existing edge of roads are and a good cost estimate knowing the limits of the the roadway pavement. Um and I'm not sure that we would need a full topo survey of this road either. So I think we could speed up a little bit on preparing the feasibility report. um maybe even perhaps a month uh to get that back to the council. Um I think the next steps here uh if council decides to move forward with the project would we would bring back a resolution um at the next meeting just to kickstart the project. Um and um so the council would uh I guess the resolution would state that the council council is initiate initiating the project and ordering the feasibility report. >> Uh >> Brad, if I may ask a question. >> Yeah. >> Um where do we stand on the on the grants for this section? Uh so the grant announcements uh and it's really between Loftton and Manning. Um the grant announcements won't be made until uh April or so. >> Okay. And and so would that be, you know, would that be the entire amount from Loftton to Manning or would that be a portion? >> Pretty close. I mean, it doesn't quite get us there, but it's most of it. >> Okay. Okay. But that that would cover that paving then or or or mill and >> Yeah, it would. Yep. It would Yeah, it would cover the construction costs. >> And so then how many feet would be left over to do? >> You know, I want to say it's like 800 ft >> between 88th and Loftton. >> And what would and and and what would be a cost typically that you would see for 800 feet of roadway for what we'd be doing? Yeah, I I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head, but I want to say my overall estimate for the entire roadway between um Delwood Road to Manning was $900,000. And I think >> again, if you break this into segments, um yeah, >> the developer has got half of that. >> Right. >> Right. And a grant would pay >> whatever's left of that half would almost pay for the other >> pay for half of the half. Right. So, we're we might be talking $250 or $300,000 >> by the time it's all said and done for that middle section between Loftton and 88th Street. >> Okay. >> And those are all just rough numbers, right? They're right. >> Don't hold me to them. >> Yeah. I don't I don't know if we can count on that grant money. I mean, it's nice that we try, but it's it seems like the success rate. >> Well, I was just wondering what it would be, [clears throat] you know, and where it would come from. Um, you know, again, we time will tell. >> Yeah. So, >> you never know. I mean, they could surprise us hopefully. >> Brad, can we back up a little bit? Um, >> Sure. >> I know you're talking about like the the core measurements and all that stuff that Greg probably understands as, you know, an engineer. Um but it seems like that road road is so deteriorated and um so are you confident that a mill overlay would be adequate for that project? >> Yeah. So the cores that we looked at um that were part of the developer project, the the pavement is intact and it's really just the surface that's been um you know beat beat so badly. So, like like council member Anderson said, I think if we do a two or two and a half inch mill and overlay, um you know, get get below those existing patches, you know, some of them are probably 3 in deep just just because they've been worked over over the years, right? Um, but but looking at the cores, the so the cores they take through the pavement and through the underlying gravel and if you've got a bad core, it'll it'll break apart when they pull it out. And and we had evidence of that on the 66th Street project. I think I shared that information with council in September or October of last year. Uh because I think that comment came up. Why? Well, why why don't we do uh a millon overlay of 66th Street? And it was because of the core, the pavement core. It it didn't hold together when you pulled it out. >> And so, as soon as the the pavement doesn't bind together or or it falls apart, then a mill and overlay uh is not a good candidate for that roadway. And a reclamation project is is the best solution. So you're you're saying that the entire stretch the developer portion and ours would uh would work with the mill overlay. >> Yeah. The so the the portion that the developer is doing they took cores of that portion um and the the the cores were intact and so the stability uh of the roadway is intact >> for the developer portion. What about the >> Well, I I guess that's what I'm saying is we could assume that the the roadway was constructed all in the same year, right? Whenever that was 20, 30, 40 years ago. >> You don't think? I'm just assuming the cores for our section that we would be responsible for would be similar to the ones that the uh the the developer took and we wouldn't necessarily need to spend the extra money to do corores on the section that we want to do. >> Well, I I think it's a risk though if we don't do a core sampling assuming that it's going to be the same. And what do we find out? >> Um >> it could I mean taking cores is very cheap. I mean, I I I think the last time we did it for 66 Street was >> What are your thoughts? >> $3,000 to do the course. >> Well, I think >> and we don't have to decide that tonight, right? >> Can Can I help maybe redirect because I feel like we're going down a little tangent here. So I want to >> for us non-engineers and folks [laughter] in the room >> maybe it would help if you first started with the overall policy question that's in front of you which is I think significant from the little bit that I know of Grant and that is do you want to start a road project that's not petition oriented? Yeah, >> right. That's really I think that's the first question you want to a ask an answer for yourselves and then let's start going down it. If it's yes, then do you want to start that now or do you want to do it later and then get into all these little details. I think you might get be getting a little lost in the weeds. To me, you you should really first be answering that question of do you want to stray from that past practice, which you can do per your policy per state statute. Do you want to do that? And I would also then also include option A of that was what Greg brought up. >> It's not options, it's it's steps. I I'm trying to help walk you through this process of it. >> Yeah. So along >> because if a majority of the council says no, we're not going to do this unless we get petitioned. None of that other stuff matters. >> That's why I'm trying to help guide you through the discussion. >> We would need four fifths. >> Four fifths. Correct. >> Go ahead, Lindsay. >> So yeah. So to that end, I know you mentioned that you had a neighborhood meeting. How many people attend this? Is this 100% participation, which I doubt is the case. I mean, how many people are showing up from the neighborhood? >> Yeah, I I want to say we had 20 to 25 people show up. >> What percentage is that? >> You know, there there were husbands and wives, right? So, it wasn't >> um about 30%. >> It wasn't more than half of the parcels uh representing uh the project show up. But um it was over 20 people showed up. >> Okay. So, I mean, would you say that's roughly 50% of the neighborhood or are we looking less under 50%. >> Based on your assessment, I >> trying to understand the percentage of how many people showed up on this. [clears throat] >> Well, again, I'm not, you know, even even if council decides to move forward with this process rather than using the petition process, we still have to follow uh the city's policy, right? meaning we would give the residents the opportunity to weigh in at a second neighborhood meeting uh either before the the uh the council meeting where we present the feasibility report or after. It doesn't make any difference. I guess the only question is whether the council wants to initiate the project or they want to wait for a petition. Now, the only difference the cost of the feasibility report has always been borne by the city regardless. And so, we've always given the residents once we do the feasibility report, we always give the residents the opportunity to come to the public hearings um to come to the neighborhood meetings to voice their opinion whether they're in favor of a project or not. if if if we have that neighborhood meeting um you know after we get the draft report done and and we have more than 50% of the people still in favor of the project well then I think we keep moving forward or you know once we get to the public hearing if we get overwhelmingly amount of people that are not in favor of the project then we could decide to to cancel the project right there right Um, so there's a lot of opportunities where you're not you shouldn't feel like you're being trapped by having the council initiate the project or the project is initiated by petition. There is a few differences like um Christina said, you need four fifths of the the council to move the project um or order the project, but um again those those are things that we can work past. Absolutely. I understand we have a couple off offramps if we're starting to go on this. >> Correct. >> Um I just want to kind of get an understanding of, you know, how we're starting this process possibly if when the people are at this neighborhood meeting and it sounded like they were kind of driving of saying we'd prefer we our preference is having a city initiated project. I'm trying to understand is it 50% of the people of the neighborhood are kind of pushing that way. they just don't want to go through the the resident petition process or was it closer to 20 10%. That's where I'm trying to >> No, I think I think a lot of a lot of the people that were at that meeting were in favor of a project, right? They just didn't want to go through again the the >> position of putting a champion of the neighborhood in charge of getting this petition, right? >> It can be awkward time consuming. Well, well, Brad, do you think it was um potentially uh the thinking that if the city initiated then the city would pay for everything and they wouldn't be assessed anything? Do you think that's >> No, no, no, no. That was never never the thought at the meeting. Um it's but it's always been that the city pays for the feasibility report, but then those costs if a project does move forward, right, all those costs for the feasibility report and the process of getting to the end are rolled back into the assessment um at the end of the project. But if if the project doesn't move beyond, you know, after the feasibility report, then the the risk or the the city takes on the risk of losing the opportunity to recoup the cost of doing the feasibility report is all. >> So we essentially the cost >> part of the project, >> right? So the city like eats it if we don't do it, but otherwise refund it and advance the cost if they do. >> Yeah. And that's Brad talking about the $60,000 that would be used for that. >> No, no, no. The feasibility reports it it would be somewhere between 12 and 15,000. I'm guessing probably even less than that depending on how much topo survey we do and if we want to do um cores on the roadway segment that we're proposing. So, >> well, in your report you mentioned that the city has um $60,952 available to use for the project. So, what specifically then were you suggesting? >> Well, yeah. So, that that's that was what allot was allotted for uh maintenance for the the patching of Musk Road. >> Okay. That Okay, got it. >> Based on our pavement management plan. >> So, go ahead. So, I I have to cuz I know the budget's important and you know that finance is a passion of mine. So, I've been trying to unravel your budget. You heard earlier when we were talking talking about the patching budget that there's 128,000 in there, right? And I met with Sharon today. So, there's that 128,000. There's 80,000 in seal coding. You also asked some really good questions about who's responsible for spending this money. So that 128,000 and that 80,000 for seal coating is basically what Brad gets to use for this 60,000 for the 37,000 that you heard for the um Great Oak and 66 Street. I forget the um it's also what you that what ARC paving will get to use. It will also be the pot of money for whatever other steel coding projects might come forward. Um the pavement management plan that came to you was dated um September 30th. That was after the preliminary levy was set. So there there wasn't this extra 60,000. Um so I want to be very careful that there it's maybe in your 10-year plan, but it's not in your 2026 budget. So, this is something that will have to come out of fund balance if you decide to do it in 2026 >> or depending on the timing of um of some things. It might be something we spend and we have to levy and pay ourselves back in 2027 or it's part of our 2027 stuff. There's not this 12,000 even if it's just the feasibility stuff. There's [clears throat] not that funding in the 2026 budget. So, again, we can pay ourselves back by increasing the levy next year to cover it. Um we'll do better time on our budget [laughter] >> if if I may. Um you know that that's maintenance dollars, right? If if we don't move forward with a project and MHuskich needs maintenance dollars, uh pothole patching or whatever, um that money would would be used, right? But if we move forward with a road reconstruction project, that $66,000 would just be leveraged against the uh special assessments. meaning it would offset some of the costs of the project >> um leveraged against the special assessments. But so if that's the city's contribution, we're not we're subtracting that from the special assessments, right? And so for the city to have that money, >> again, we're not letting Arc Paving spend 128,000 this year. We're taking that 60,000 and also the 37,000 that we're saying the city's contributing for the other 2026 streets. So really, what is that six? It's it's 90. It's about 98,000 of that 128,000 if these two street projects go forward. I can't do the math quick. So, what is that? 30,000 that's left there plus the 80,000 in seal coding, >> right? >> For everywhere else >> for Yeah. is what is how Sharon explained it to me today. So, I I think I just want to be careful that we're not double counting >> Yeah. >> funds twice. That's that's a good clarification. Go ahead, Lindsay. >> Um, so I'm newer on council. Have we ever done a city initi initiative project for road construction? I know Christina, you're new. Brad, you've been around for a while. Have you ever seen that in grant? >> No, we've [clears throat] never done that. >> And if we do that, um, the assessment process is still the same, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And then the city policy is intact and we have to follow state statute 429. And Brad, from your perspective, why is Mikusk why should we treat Mikus different? >> Well, so you've got this segment that's being done by the developer, correct? And we got another segment that's potentially being um improved with grant money. Uh this LRIP grant money. So what you have left is this middle section. You would you wouldn't get people that are living on the segment that's being completed by the developer and you wouldn't get people that would be living on the piece that was completed uh using grant money to participate in a petition for the middle piece. Right? there would be no reason for them to sign a petition because they already know that their road is being improved >> with other funding. >> So, it's a a unique situation essentially that we're dealing with. >> It is a unique situation. And then if we decide to uh do a city initiated order, um could we at some point talk about um the points that Greg brought up with Lafrren and some of these other streets or would that be a complete separate overhaul of our road maintenance policy that we would have to do? >> Yeah, that would that would be something that we've never done um in the past. Now, at some point, I think that's going to have to happen. Some of those conversations are going to have to occur. >> Um, Kimberl Avenue is another example, right? Where you've got very low density >> and you may have to expand the assessments um to the adjoining gravel roads to make to make those costs reasonable for the residents that that do live on Kimbro. Um, and I think, you know, MCHusk is one of the city's most heavily traveled roadways as well. And, you know, it's not just the residents that are living on this this roadway that use it. Um, so I mean at some point when you don't have the density and you've got more of a a collector local collector roadway, you may have to look at alternative ways of assessing those projects. >> But for now, we would be locked into our if we were to um move forward with this, we would be locked into our current policy. And what Greg would go ahead, Greg. Actually, the policy says unless otherwise directed by the city council, lots to be assessed are either addressed on the road to be improved or fronted on the road to reproved. So, the way I read that is the council could direct otherwise from the policy. And that's what I'd like to see in the report is maybe three or four options to assess this. >> Again, everybody benefits. Everybody should pay a little bit. It's different. They haven't done it for a while or quite a while. Are you looking for a motion? Are you going to come back with a resolution? >> Well, I think we come back with a resolution to initiate the project, but tonight I'm just >> again [clears throat] I think like Christina said, we're just looking for direction whether the council wants to initiate the project or or not. >> I'd like to hear from four of you individually, Nick. It doesn't have to be a formal vote, but you know, at least a head nod or a hand raise that >> finish so you know what you're raising your hand on [laughter] >> that that you want to move forward with the city initiated process and then we can do that. >> Don't let people talk. I want right cuz some people >> No, I just you asked me what I was looking for and I'm trying to answer. >> I want to summarize everything that I've heard here real quick. From what it sounds like to me, they were in favor. They wanted more information and if we go ahead with the council order, we can provide more information and we have offramps should we need to should the residents not like that. Is that correct? >> Correct. We still have the same offramps we we do with a a petition uh project. Nothing changes. >> That's what >> And we have the flexibility that Greg just mentioned in terms of assessment. >> Yeah. If we look at the entire road, we're we're leveraging the developers money. >> I think so. Go ahead, John. Oh, sorry. John's >> I was just gonna say if are we looking to do a feasibility report first? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, is that is that what we're looking for as a motion to start with a feasibility? >> The first Yep. The >> Tonight, tonight we're just looking for direction whether or not you want to initiate the project by council. And then uh next month we would bring back the resolution, the formal resolution saying that the council is initiating this project um and to move forward into the feasibility report. >> Go ahead. >> And just to summarize, jumping off what Ben said, the cost towards the city would likely be between 15 20 I mean 12 to 15,000 if we don't move ahead at this point. So that's the most that we're going in on. Yeah. Some cost. Exactly. >> Yep. Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. I think I got everything I need. Sorry, it was a little bit more um painful of a discussion than you would have liked, but >> All right, >> ready for a motion. >> Do you want us to bring back a resolution at the next meeting to have a city initiated project? Just nod your head, >> John? >> Yes. >> All right, we I think we got our direction that we'll bring back a resolution for a city initiated project. >> That's all we need, right, Brad? Thank you. Thank you. >> And and then can we also um Brad if the council agrees with Gre [laughter] um and maybe maybe this is too early but going forward we'd like to uh explore some of the the different options and uh assessing some of the other side streets and stuff. So >> yeah, we certainly could do that. Mayor >> options. Okay. All right. Good on that one then. I think so. >> All right. That was all right. Ah, Christina, now you're >> This is going to be another head nod, and I hope this one's going to be easier. Would you like us to make our variance ordinance consistent with state law that passed in 2011, it'll cost us about uh $1,100 with Jennifer Amanda's time and publication costs. >> Yeah. >> John, does that sound good to you? >> Yeah. Have the fun in that. >> Okay, that's what we will I will give Jennifer the direction to do that. >> Okay. Well, I didn't even get to call her name and she wrapped it up. Okay. Unfinished business. Nothing. Discussion items, staff updates. Anything to share? >> Um, you see Jack's report um in the packet. Again, as always, I won't go over that unless there's any questions you'd like me to follow up with him on. Um, we're continuing to work on code enforcement issues. Um, continue to have some repeat um requesters. uh they're getting the same answers back to from me. Uh so if you hear from folks that they feel like they're not getting answers, please reach out to me. I'll tell you that and show you they're getting the same answers back. Uh also, uh just for the public's benefit, I know at the last council meeting, council had talked about a couple of policies that you had started looking at back in November and December, and we had talked about bringing them back. Um I'd like to kind of just scrap what you did last fall and start fresh if that's okay. um we'll kind of start with some best practices and maybe identifying comparable cities. So that's going to always be easiest for us then to know who we're going to and seeing um who we should be looking to when we're looking for policy updates and stuff. Council member Cremona had mentioned stuff about uh roles and responsibilities. I think the League of Minnesota Cities has some really good resources that we could talk about at a at a future council meeting and um what the mayor's role and just how much extra he's allowed to do than than the rest of you. And uh in case anybody has weed complaints, the mayor is the weed inspector under state statute. So all of those complaints can go to him. Um just so that so the public knows. Um >> and then uh what was the the other one was about performance evaluations. I know that in April the council will need to make a decision about whether or not council and myself will need to make a decision about whether or not this becomes a a longer term uh relationship. Um I don't know if one thought that I had is perhaps you do an informal performance evaluation at the March meeting could be as simple as um us having a close session. It's close session under statute as you learned last time and it's feedback on what's Christina doing well. What what could Christina do different? What are some goals? Um, if that's something that council is interested in doing, we could schedule that for the end of our our March meeting. Is that something folks are interested in? >> Yeah, I think that's good. >> Okay. >> I think that was all the updates I had. >> Okay. Um, city council reports, future agenda items, anything? >> No, I just like to thank Christina for the updates. >> Yeah. I mean, the updates for those of you that are listening, Christina has been providing really um detailed updates like every two weeks, I think. Um, you know, since we're talking about, I'll throw in one specific item that she shared with us as she uh shared, excuse me, saved us $6,000 for next year and the year after in the form of uh not having to pay Washington County property taxes for where we're sitting right now. So, thank you for for seeing that. and um and you know the office hours. I I've heard a couple people saying that they're really jazzed about that. Um and one thing I I wanted to to ask you uh Christina in relation to your your updates, the whole um legislative initiative to uh preemptively take zoning rights away from the city. um that seems like a a really um important topic for our community. Would that be something that um we could post on the website just to give people information on where where to find this legislation? >> That changes so frequently, mayor, that I um just be honest, I would be hesitant. Okay. Um, I, you know, I'm going to, like I told that one resident that reached out to you that you shared with me, you know, we'll watch for the League of Minnesota cities updates. Um, in previous years, I know they've sent resolutions asking cities to pass in in support of that. Um, but even the the Senate file and House file number that that resident sent us was from bienium ago. So, I I would worry about having out ofd information. Not that I don't want to share it with folks, but it's just going to move so fast. >> I did. Yeah, I noticed a change now from >> it was 2229 and 3418. So, yeah, it changes. Okay. But you're you're keeping an eye on that. So, that's that's good because that would definitely um impact uh grant significantly if we were forced to put in duplexes and all that kind of stuff. Um yeah, that's that's all I had. Who would like to read the community calendar? Greg raised his hand. >> I'll do. >> Mamedai school board meetings Monday, February 9th and February 23rd, 7 p.m. at the Mamedi District Education Center. Stillwater Public School Board Meetings Tuesdays. February 17th at the Oak Park Learning Center, 5:30 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesdays at the Government Center. Can watch Commissioner Myron at work. Thank you for attending at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesdays, President's Day, Monday, February 16th, 2026. >> And then you say motion to adjourn. >> I would make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Mayor, >> I'll second. >> Well, we got >> everyone seconded. Liz's voice first. We >> need to do the roll call. >> Council member Cornet. Hi. >> Council member Og. Hi. >> Council member Cremona. Hi. >> Council member Anderson. Hi. >> Mayor Ger. Hi. Man, that was a painful road discussion.