City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening and welcome to the City of Woodbury's City Council Meeting for today, August 12th, 2026. It is 7.31, we are a minute late in starting this meeting. I'll explain it in just a moment. But this meeting is taking place virtually. It's always available to view online and we are here in Council Chambers, as I said. The meetings are recorded by True Lens Community Media. They're the people behind the door. They're all broadcast live. They're replayed on cable channel 799. AND YOU CAN ALSO FIND THEM ON THE CITY'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL. WE ARE JUST SLIGHTLY DELAYED. MANY OF YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT PRIOR TO EVERY MEETING, WE HAVE A WORKSHOP THAT STARTS AT 5 30. AND THERE'S ALWAYS A MYRIAD OF TOPICS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED. YOU'RE WELCOME ANY TIME TO COME AND LISTEN TO THOSE. IT'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION MEETING THAT WE HAVE. BUT WE HAD A LOT GOING ON TONIGHT, INCLUDING city administrator annual review and some other things. So we do our best to be here on time. So thank you for your patience. As is our norm, would you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

All right, Angela, would you please do the roll call?

Council Member Morris? Here. Council Member Santini? Here. Council Member Wilson? Here. Council Member Stafford? Here. Mayor Byrd?

Here. We are all here tonight, so we're able to conduct tonight's business. We've got two special orders of business. I'm going to turn to our city attorney, who's going to report on the closed session that was held on July 22nd.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council. To summarize, the city council held a closed session at your last regular meeting. ON JULY 22, 2026, THAT WAS PURSUANT TO STATUTE 13D.05, SUBDIVISION 3B. THAT'S A CLOSED MEETING FOR PURPOSES OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO DISCUSS LITIGATION MATTERS. THE LITIGATION MATTER THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND LEE VERSUS THE CITY OF WOODBURY, A REAL ESTATE PROPERTY DISPUTE. THAT'S BEEN LONG ONGOING IN THE CITY. AT THAT LAST CLOSED SESSION, THE COUNCIL, WE DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF ONGOING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS IN THAT MATTER. And the city council gave city staff some additional guidance and input on what you thought on ways in which we might get that matter resolved. And so that's the summary of that closed matter. And I will in fact report back to the council in the intervening weeks, in fact just yesterday, we've achieved a tentative settlement on that matter. Because it was just yesterday, it was too new to actually get it on tonight's agenda, but we would anticipate bringing that back for formal council approval in terms of a final settlement agreement at the next council meeting.

Terrific, good. Thank you for that update. And then secondly, I'm going to turn back to our attorney because we had a closed session review of our city administrator, and I'll turn it back to Kevin for an update on that.

Thank you again, Madam Mayor. That closed session was held tonight at your workshop meeting on August 12th. We had a closed session pursuant to Statute 13D.05, Subdivision 3A, which allows for a closed session in relation to a performance evaluation of a city staff member. And tonight's performance evaluation was of City Administrator Jeffrey Dahl. And I will provide a summary of that. CLOSED SESSION EVALUATION WAS LED BY YOUR CONSULTANT, CHAD WEINSTEIN, WHO HAS BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW THE CITY'S CONSULTANT USED FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. SO ALONG WITH CHAD AND MYSELF, WE WENT THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. THERE WAS A REPORT BY MR. WEINSTEIN THAT WAS PREPARED BASED UPON A COLLECTION OF DATA FROM CITY STAFF AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT REPORT WAS REVIEWED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL. There was a discussion of Administrator Dahl's performance for his first year with the city here and pleased to report that the council and staff have both found Mr. Dahl's performance to be very good. And, you know, in particular for our first year of employment with the city where it's a steep learning curve, you know, standard kind of rating on a five scale. I think virtually every ranking he got was three, fours, and fives very, very well. and so kudos to him on his performance. There was also a discussion of his set of strategic goals for him to look to in the next coming year in terms of things that the council wants him to focus on from a big picture. And then finally, talked about compensation for 2027. In particular, the council looked at not only a merit-based increase based upon Mr. Dahl's good performance, but also a review of market comparison of other comparable cities, their city managers and city administrators and what that might warrant. And in light of all of that, the council is going to recommend and has approved a 6.5% and market rate adjustment increase for Administrator Dahl for next year. That's a summary of that matter.

Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate those updates. I'll now move on to the open forum. I have just slightly new language in the open forum. Of course, it's present on the agenda if any of you have that. I'll just read it for clarification here. I don't think you're going to feel any different about, you know, it's kind of the standard. The open forum is an opportunity for the public to share comments, concerns, or input on subjects that are not part of the meeting agenda. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK MUST COMPLETE A SIGN-UP SHEET PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. AND BY THE WAY, RIGHT NOW I HAVE FOUR OF THOSE. ALL SPEAKERS MUST PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND THEIR CITY OF RESIDENCE WITH THEIR QUESTION FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE MIC. EACH SPEAKER IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES WITH A MAXIMUM SET ASIDE OF 20 MINUTES FOR OPEN FORUM. NO MORE THAN THREE SPEAKERS PER TOPIC. IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW I HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT TOPICS. COUNCIL WILL LISTEN TO COMMENTS, BUT TYPICALLY WILL NOT RESPOND DURING THE MEETING. But in most cases, follow-up to concerns raised will be provided by email or phone call within a week. I would just like to point out, too, we have a timer system going. There's a clock over here that Angela will start. It counts down from three minutes. There is a green, yellow, red light. Green means keep talking, and that lasts for two minutes. It turns yellow with one minute left. And when it hits red, your three minutes is up, and you will now have an audio update. some sort of buzzer sound. It's not that obnoxious, but it's a reminder that your three minutes is up, and we'll give time then to the next person. So with that, I would like to invite up Amy Steadman as our first speaker. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Amy Steadman and I am a resident of Woodbury. I'm here tonight with concerns about the street assessment process. When door knocking in Woodbury, we heard consistent and alarming feedback from residents about the cost of assessments whenever road improvements are being made. The amounts are alarming in many cases, running approximately 13,000 per household. For older residents on fixed incomes, this is not a minor inconvenience. This is a fiscal or financial crisis. and yet the information and options residents need to navigate this are nowhere to be found on the city's website. This is unacceptable. So I have three questions. First, regarding commercial properties. Are adjoining commercial properties, including apartment buildings, being assessed for this infrastructure work? Our review suggests they may not be. If this is the case, we need to know why. Residents deserve to know if they are shouldering the cost that commercial property owners are not. Second, regarding partial payments, does Woodbury allow residents to make partial payments on their assessed amount before the 30-day deadline? This would allow a residence to reduce the interest they would otherwise pay on financed assessments. We could not find published policy anywhere on this. The city of Egan allows partial payments, so we know it is doable. If Woodbury does not allow this, we want to know why not. We are asking council to consider adopting a similar policy immediately. Third, regarding deferment policies. Why does Woodbury not publish its assessment deferment policy and applications online? These policies set age and income thresholds that could provide real relief to elderly and fixed income residents facing a $13,000 bill. A letter that can be misplaced is not enough. Every resident deserves easy access to this information, especially before an assessment arrives at their door. These are not complicated asks. Publish your policies, be transparent, and protect your most vulnerable citizens and residents. Whether the issue is a $13,000 assessment hitting a neighborhood on a fixed income or an unanswered question about ICE and our new public safety building, the council owes residents transparency and accountability. We deserve answers. We are paying attention. We are showing up, and we are not going away. Thank you. Thank you.

Anytime we get some comments if there's the need to provide some additional information to clarify some things, I'm going to go ahead and do it where we can. I don't think we can answer all those questions directly tonight, but I would just like to address commercial properties. Yes, commercial properties are assessed. They have their own assessment. In fact, it's important that we assess commercial properties because they do not pay any property taxes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me clarify. Those nonprofits, the churches, the schools and all that do not pay. So they, just as an FYI, those properties are also assessed. But yes, commercial properties are absolutely assessed. And regarding, you mentioned the $13,000, it's really important to know that the assessments differ depending on the project under scope. The most recent Royal Oaks properties and what's happening in Woodbeer Heights is a full reconstruction. It is removing and replacing water, sewer, and the entire street system. In many cases, in most cases, you'll see, I forget the neighborhood that sits right behind us here, BRITTANY DRIVE, AND THOSE ARE BEING DONE. AND THOSE ASSESSANTS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SIMPLE MILL AND OVERLAY, NOT A FULL RECONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT POLICIES AND ALL THAT, SO I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THOSE UP FRONT NOW, AND AS I STATED, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU WITH PHONE CALL OR LETTER WITHIN A WEEK. NOW I'D LIKE TO INVITE UP NIKKI, NIKKA OR NICOLE, And again, if you could just, for the record, state your name and city of residence for the record. Welcome.

So my name is Nicholas Akura. So I and my husband, Andy, we are residing on Crackleberry Trail in Woodbury. And well, actually, it's our anniversary. But we chose to come here to address a topic which is really close to our heart. So it's about speed limits, adhering to them, and also ignoring them, and distracted driving, and well, also the outputs or outcomes of those. So as you can hear, I'm not Minnesotan, not born and raised. We are Austrians. I think I'm here with our children. We love everything about Minnesota except for this one thing. And we find it concerning, we find it disturbing. And it hasn't been just one time that we stopped for children who had been compromised or they're adhering to the legal distance, the legally defined distance that they are supposed to keep. We've been tending to grace knees and other things and soothed them, comforted them. Lucky for us and for the children, there was, was in animals. And that is something, so this is why I like to focus on that because, um, like almost every day when I go out there, I really dread it because I'm taking animals off the streets, be it coyotes, be it turtles. If they're still alive, I take them to a wildlife rehab and release. And this is why also why I'm here because an officer. who I called, he pointed out that this meeting would be here today. And he asked me to particularly address the fact that officers or the law, they can take animals who are injured to that facility because he didn't know it himself. And he asked me to. The other thing, since I'm running out of time, is, well, I know all these people places in Woodbury now where animals cross, for instance. So I would like to put up signs. But once in a while, it's a wild goose chase, because I addressed the city hall, and then I was transferred and transferred. And then I ended up at an engineer who told me, well, we are only responsible for those signs who've been run over or kind of became bent or something. So that is one thing, signs, putting up signs. Just consult with my notes. Thank you. And also, how to fund those signs. I can fund them to some extent, but I would also need help for that. Also, the permission to set them up, especially now during fall season for the turtles and other animals. And also, well, that's me. And yeah, well, the police, I already refer to that information that might be passed on. Well, thanks for your attention.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you.

I would now bring up the third speaker, which is Chris Holbrook.

Hello again, Chris Holbrook, I live here in Woodbury. I was here three weeks ago to talk about flock cameras. I sent forth 20 red flags, I call them, which I submitted and I shared last time. I submitted a Freedom of Information request and I got the information, so I appreciate that very much. What I found, I shared with you guys like a week ago in another email, I shared it with the police. It's equally bothersome, so I'm here to repeat my request for a privacy study. public hearing and a vote on this flock contract. The Transparency portal settings have been false. It has said we don't share information outside of 100 miles. I've found in the 45,957 searches that we've been accessed by La Crosse, 150 miles away, Grand Rapids, 200 miles away, the Paul Bunyan Task Force, which includes the BCA, tribal police departments and federal task forces at the borderline of Canada. Some of the entries are carbon copied Canada. So that setting of 100 miles in 67 departments is not true. Nor are the limitations on search request requirements, saying that immigration searches and traffic enforcement was not allowed. Both of those appear in the database, the log I received. Woodbury has been searched for immigration. Honestly, 35,000 of these entries seem legitimate to me. There are warrants that appear. 10,000 are questionable with purposes including littering, parking tickets, city planning. There's a really extended list. I don't have time to get into any of it, but that's also a false setting on the transparency portal from FLOC that they provide to Woodbury. I question the independence of the audit that was also shared with me that was done in February. On the board of this independent agency is Robert James, the information communication and technology director for this city. There are also three local police chiefs on that board. They state on their website that they know local government because they are local government. So, I don't consider that an independent audit. They also reference Woodbury policy 431, which doesn't exist. I believe they meant 425. Fourth thing, I also found that in addition to the Flock ALPR cameras, we also have purchased Condor cameras, which do facial recognition technology. As described by Flock, they are an AI-powered object tracking technology that includes automatic pan, tilt, zoom, for live and recorded videos of vehicles and humans. So that was the new information. Lastly, I just want to point out, in the last week alone, all the other issues that you guys have seen in the news, yesterday Duluth ended their contract, the day before West St. Paul and North Branch. Last week, a woman in Milwaukee had guns pulled on her, mistakenly accused of being a homicide target. There have been more police fired. There have been in Georgia. And again, I just want to repeat how important I think this is and ask for input session and a vote.

Thank you. Last time we had the chief here to answer a few things. YOU WANT TO MAKE? ADMINISTRATOR DALL, I'LL JUST ADMINISTRATOR DALL, I'LL JUST TURN TO YOU ON THIS. TURN TO YOU ON THIS. OR IF NOT, IT'S GET BACK. OR IF NOT, IT'S GET BACK.

YEAH, MAYOR, JUST WANT TO YEAH, MAYOR, JUST WANT TO REITERATE A COUPLE THINGS. REITERATE A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS WE DID RECENTLY JUST ONE IS WE DID RECENTLY JUST COMPLETELY RESTRICT ACCESS TO COMPLETELY RESTRICT ACCESS TO OUR DATA IN TERMS OF IT OUR DATA IN TERMS OF IT NEEDS TO GO TO OUR POLICE NEEDS TO GO TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GET ACCESS. DEPARTMENT TO GET ACCESS. AND THEN WE REVIEW THE REQUEST AND THEN WE REVIEW THE REQUEST WHO And then in addition, we are looking at a third party audit as well. The BCA did do an audit with a consultant essentially earlier this year to ensure that we were meeting their standards. Well, their standards are one thing, but what's the standards for our community? So we are looking at ways to come, consult with a third-party vendor dude who doesn't have any skin in the game to ensure that we're meeting our standards versus the the state or you know obviously whatever the federal government standards are so we're working on that and I think there'll be more opportunity for engagement and taking in feedback down down the road can you

Can you say the first part of that again, that the change that was just made to the access, because obviously the FOIA request did return some information to that, but the policy change now moving forward, could you just want to restate that again, because you flew through that, but that's an important change.

Happily, so previously our police department had set the sharing radius to 100 miles around Woodbury, similar to almost all the other cities that have these cameras. EARLIER THIS SUMMER, BECAUSE OF HEARING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH ACCESS, WE RESTRICTED IMMEDIATELY ALL UNENCUMBERED ACCESS TO OUR DATA FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE VETTED BY OUR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

OKAY, THANK YOU. BEFORE I BRING UP OUR FOURTH GREEN SHEET SPEAKER, I JUST WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE ASSESSMENT PIECE, BECAUSE JUST TO CLARIFY AS WELL THAT THE ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR ROAD RECONSTRUCTION REHABILITATION IS A POLICY THAT EXISTED SINCE CHRIS WEN, 2014. 2014. So it is a policy that exists and we apply whatever the reconstruction or rehabilitation is to a road, that a policy gets applied to it. So it is a consistent use of how an assessment is determined. It's not arbitrary every single time we do it and we're going to assess these people this much and these people that much and these people that much. IT'S BASED ON POLICY. IT'S BASED ON POLICY. IT'S BASED ON POLICY. SO A POLICY EXISTS. SO A POLICY EXISTS. SO A POLICY EXISTS.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY MORE ABOUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY MORE ABOUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY MORE ABOUT THE TASK FORCE AND HOW THAT WAS THE TASK FORCE AND HOW THAT WAS THE TASK FORCE AND HOW THAT WAS CREATED? CREATED? CREATED? JUST FOR CLARIFICATIONS. JUST FOR CLARIFICATIONS. JUST FOR CLARIFICATIONS. MAYOR, I CAN BRIEFLY MAYOR, I CAN BRIEFLY MAYOR, I CAN BRIEFLY BRING UP. BRING UP. BRING UP. THERE HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY ROAD THERE HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY ROAD THERE HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY ROAD REC The basics of that have been in place for a long time. I know a lot of the questions about partial payments, deferments for age or income restricted, all of that is available on our website. So, yep, so if you, I can, after this meeting, we'll connect and I'll follow up and make sure that we can point you in the right direction. But I would say almost everything that was asked in that is publicly available and we share that pretty frequently.

so we can improve communication on that. Thank you. All right, I'd now like to invite up the fourth speaker, Catherine Wegener.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Catherine Wegener, and I am a resident of Woodbury. This summer, Human Rights Watch released a 180-page report documenting widespread human rights abuses committed by federal agents during Operation Metro Surge. Human Rights Watch is a globally respected... Can I just ask a question? Yes. It says you're talking about elections. I will be talking about that. In addition? Correct. To what you're speaking about now? Correct, yes. I'll be tying it together, I promise you.

Reclaim your time. The green light's still on.

Human Rights Watch is a globally respected international organization. It's relied on by journalists and by governments around the world, including our own. The report details agents surveilling, harassing, and arbitrarily arresting people engaged in lawful activity. It documents ICE destroying property, throwing non-resisting people onto the ground, and deploying chemical irritants at short range without warning. None of this should surprise the council. It corroborates what Woodbury residents told you directly in this chamber back in January. I raised this because the previous deployment of ICE connects directly to our upcoming elections. When Minnesota sued to stop Metro surge, Attorney General Bondi offered to reduce federal agents in our state, not for public safety reasons, but in exchange for access to our voter rolls. ICE agents were operating in our city, not just for immigration enforcement, but as a bargaining chip to obtain protected voter data. And since that time, senior officials, including the president, have repeatedly refused to rule out sending armed off federal agents back into our cities and to our polling places this fall in order to win the election. This threat is serious and state election officials are actively planning for it. Minnesota's Secretary of State is developing protocol if federal agents are near polling places on election day. Counties across the state have updated election judge training in preparation for confrontation at the polls. But civil rights experts warn the greater risk is voter intimidation in the days and weeks before November 3rd. Third, a time when the government may likely deploy ICE simply to create fear and chill voter turnout, much like it did during Operation Metro Surge, when it deterred people from work, school, medical care, and even buying food. This is why our city council needs to prepare as well. You cannot ignore the danger to Woodbury residents if the federal government sends ICE back to Minnesota. You need to start planning. In March, community members pushed for a resolution that would limit the federal government from staging in our parks and public spaces. Ramsey County post signs in their park entrances prohibiting stages staging and the use of public lots as an operation base. Vulcan Heights, Minnesota has adopted a similar resource stewardship resolution. Other communities have built response plans with their police departments preparing for this scenario. I ask you, protecting your constituents against human rights abuses is about public safety, not immigration, and it transcends party lines. There's no downside to planning for election interference and the escalation of ICE. Thank you.

We will now move on to our Consent Agenda. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council, will be enacted by one motion, and an affirmative vote by roll call of the majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or a citizen requests. In which event, the items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the Council. That said, We have consent agenda items 6A through 6G. Would anyone like to put forth a motion? Do you want to say if anybody wants to poll? I'm sorry, what? Oh, poll. Yeah, sorry. Or you can poll now.

Do you want to poll the audience first?

Oh.

Sorry.

I always do when nobody ever says anything.

I got a little distracted with everybody leaving.

Anybody want anything polled? Seeing none. Council members, anything polled?

Yeah, 6D is in David.

PULL 6D. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILMEMBERS? NOT? PUT FORTH A MOTION.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6A THROUGH 6G, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 6D.

YEAH, SECOND.

MOTION IS SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

COUNCILMEMBER SANTINI? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER STAFFORD? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? AYE.

Aye. Those consent agenda items, except for 6D, pass. We have no public hearing. We do have discussion. Council Member Wilson, would your... 60 go quickly, or should we go ahead and do the aiding?

Just do your discussion first, because whenever I say it's quick, then it never is.

All right, they'll move on to item 8A, which is the review and acceptance of the 2025 audit and annual comprehensive financial report. And Jason Schermacher, our CFO, is here to kick us off. Welcome, Jason.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. As you stated tonight, I'm bringing forward the 2025 financial statements and the results of the audit of that, those financial statements. The financial statements and the audit results were brought to Audit and Investment on August 4th, at which point they had voted to accept the audit and the audit results and directed staff to move forward WITH BRINGING HIM TO CITY COUNCIL FOR OFFICIAL ACCEPTANCE. JOINING US TONIGHT FROM THE CITY'S AUDIT FIRM ABDO IS TYLER C. TYLER WAS THE LEAD ON OUR CITY AUDIT. HE HAS A PRESENTATION GOING OVER THE AUDIT RESULTS AND SOME KEY FINANCIAL RESULTS FROM 2025. GREAT. WELCOME BACK, TYLER.

Thanks for having me. So, like Jason said, I'm going over the financial statement audit presentation tonight. So, the audit presentation is meant to be essentially a high-level overview of the audit, so giving you the main information that we feel like you should be aware of without getting lost in the details of the full audit report. So, I'll first of all go over the audit results. I'll then go over the results of the general fund, as well as your other governmental funds, so your capital project funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds. We'll then move on to the enterprise funds from there, and then I'll end the presentation with some KPIs. So, our responsibility as auditors is to issue an audit opinion on the city's financial statements. We are issuing what's called an unmodified opinion, which is a clean audit opinion. We also do some testing around state statutes that are relevant to the city during the course of the audit, and we had no instances of noncompliance to note there. And then this year, because of the federal funding that the city received, we performed what's called a single audit. So this was specifically looking at some of your controls and compliance around some federal funding you got for the water treatment plant project. And we also have no instances of noncompliance noted for the single audit portion of the audit. This year we did have to issue one internal control finding for this year's audit. This actually was relating to a error correction from the 2024 audit. So essentially staff, while getting ready for the 2025 audit, realized that a mistake had been made during last year's audit and they made an adjusting entry to fix that mistake essentially. So, because of the size of that mistake for that error correction, we had to report this as a finding, but again, staff corrected it. This is not necessarily an uncommon type of finding that we see, and it shouldn't be an issue moving forward. So then getting into the general fund results, here what we're looking at is your general fund fund balance in comparison to the city's general fund balance policy. So the city's fund balance policy is to maintain an unassigned and assigned fund balance of 20 to 30% of your following year's budget. And what this graph shows is that the city has been meeting or exceeding that fund balance policy over the years, and that year on 2025, you're at about 36.5% of your following year's budget. General fund budget to actual here. So on this slide, what you're looking at is your original and final 2025 general fund budget, the actual results and the variance of that final budget. So for 2025, the general fund did have positive budget variances for both revenues and expenditures. So revenues above that final budget, as well as expenses under that final budget. Revenues mostly due to more development, so more building permit revenue than in that final budget, as well as investment earnings above that final budget. And then expenditures, you're mostly under that final budget due to personal costs, so just a lot of departments with staffing under 100% essentially. So, overall, the fund balance did increase about 3.5 million, and that 26.6 million at the bottom of the slide, that's your total general fund fund balance as of the year end, 2025. Here, just a quick review of your general fund revenues by type over the last three years. So, looking at your property tax levy, license and permits, intergovernmental grant revenues, charges for services, and then other revenues would be things like transfers in from other funds, as well as investment earnings. And then same format to this slide here, but just looking at your general fund expenditures by type, broken out by department over the last three years. So general government, public safety, culture and rec, public works, then other would be things like transfers out to other funds and community development. Now moving on from the general fund, here we're looking at your special revenue funds that the city currently has open. So this slide just shows essentially the fund balance change in all the special revenue funds between 2025 and 2024. For the most part, so your special revenue funds overall increased by about 1.5 million in fund balance this past year. The main reason being more local affordable housing aid received from the state. And then here, just a quick view of your debt service funds. So showing all your current governmental debt service funds open, the cash and investments available in each fund, as well as the outstanding bond liability as of year end 2025. And the next slide here just shows the future 10 year debt service obligation broken out between principal and interest. And again, this is just the governmental debt service portion. Now, similar format here is the special revenue slide, but just looking at your capital project funds. So again, all your current capital project funds open, the change in fund balance between 2025 and 2024. So overall here, you know, your capital project fund balance has largely stayed pretty consistent. Some of the larger changes being that community investment fund decreased a lot due to that Central Park improvement project. And then the Public Safety Expansion Fund increased a lot, and that was where the local option sales tax revenue was reported. So now here we're looking at your enterprise funds. So all the enterprise funds are going to have a format like this, where a top half of the slide, we're looking at your operating activity over the last four years. And then the bottom half of the slide, we're looking at your cash balance compared to what we like to call a minimum target balance. This isn't any kind of requirements, but it's a good operating target. So in this case, in the water sewer fund, that'd be six months of operating costs plus debt service. Um, it's good to be above that operating target, but, um, One thing to also keep in mind is the capital needs in these funds and the fact that they're going to have to, you know, self-fund these capital needs. So, and then another thing to point out for the water sewer fund, so your cash balance did increase significantly this past year, but that's mostly due to the timing of your grant funds and unspent bond proceeds and the timing of when, you know, you're spending those proceeds on your water treatment plant project.

Can I offer just a note there that on the previous slide there, Chris, that is primarily due to the 2026, sorry, 2027 road projects that that balance is gonna be needed in a significant amount due to the road projects, is that right?

I mean, there is going to be a significant amount, but I think the vast majority of this is the water treatment plant.

Okay, so this is more water treatment plant than it is the fact that we've been having to grow for the second largest road rehab project that we've done.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Jason, do you want to add anything to that?

It's water treatment. Okay, thank you.

And then, you know, similar format to these next slides, but here we're just looking at the stormwater fund. So the past four years of operating activity up top and the bottom half shows the cash balance compared to, again, a minimum target balance. I think this is kind of a good illustration of the capital needs point where back in 2022, you know, there was a lot of capital happening in the stormwater fund, which, you know, decreased that cash balance significantly, but you still are above that target balance, that operating target balance. And then just more enterprise funds here. So here's the Streetlight Fund, again, operating activity up top, and then the cash balance for the Streetlight Fund, which has been, you know, meeting and exceeding that target balance. And we're going to see a similar story moving forward here for the rest of the enterprise funds, if you want to just keep going here. So here's the Sports Center Fund, operating activity up top. Then the last few years, the Sports Center Fund has been able to increase that cash balance and be above that target balance. And then we also have the Eagle Valley Golf Course Fund, which again, similar story, meeting and exceeding that target balance of six months of operating costs.

Excuse me, just for clarification, the Sports Center Fund, I believe the naming rights is included in that, which would have bumped up that total, correct? Correct.

And then here, this slide just shows your total cash and investments by fund type over the last three years. So, just your total cash investments on hand as of year-end last three years. Most of your cash currently sits in your enterprise fund and capital project funds. And again, the main reason for the increase in cash balance from last year would be some of those unspent bond and grant proceeds in the water sewer fund. So, this is the key performance indicator section of the presentation. So here what we're doing is we're comparing the city of Woodbury to class two cities, which is cities of a population between 20,000 and 100,000 all across the state, and then as well as other cities in Washington County. As you will see in the presentation, we have some comparison data all the way up until 2024, and then in some categories we don't have comparison data since 2023 actually. So we try to get the most relevant information we can in these presentations. So this tax rate is the first one on the left here, which just shows City of Woodbury's tax rate in comparison to those two peer groups. So a little bit below the tax rate for other cities and county in class two cities statewide. And then the one on the right is a tax rate mix. So this is kind of the tax rates that a taxpayer in the city would see from all different sources, you know, not just the city, but also the county school and special districts over the last four years. And then next slide here, we're just looking at your long-term debt per capita. And again, in comparison to class two cities and cities in Washington County. So kind of similar to that tax rate graph, the city would raise below the averages on those in comparison to those two peer groups. And then the last comparison here is your current expenses per capita and capital expenses per capita. So current expenses being, you know, your typical day-to-day operating costs and then capital expenditures being your big ticket projects and equipment purchases and things like that. So capital expenses per capita, you know, very similar with the county slightly below as well as below the class two city peer group. And then capital expenses per capita, what you're seeing there is a pretty typical trend where THERE IS GOING TO BE VOLATILITY IN THAT CATEGORY, BECAUSE IT DOES DEPEND ON WHEN YOUR BIG PROJECTS TAKE PLACE AND BIG EQUIPMENT PURCHASES TAKE PLACE. SO THE LAST TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN BUSY CAPITAL YEARS IN THE CITY.

AGAIN, DUE TO THE WATER TREMOR PLANT PROJECT, CORRECT, OR MORE? AND CENTRAL PARK. AND CENTRAL PARK, OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY MY LAST SLIDE, SO I'LL OPEN UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AUDIT.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE SOME. So I sit on the Audit and Investment Commission because I like mornings. And they did make some recommendations that it get changed. I see that those recommendations maybe didn't get changed in this report that's presented to us. So how do we go about doing that? Or, you know, they put time and effort into it and we have these meetings, recommend changes, and then they're not coming forth.

THE CHANGES, I MEAN, WE WILL IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES THAT WERE SUGGESTED FOR THE NEXT YEAR, BUT WE'RE SO FAR IN THE PROCESS NOW TO MAKE IMPLEMENTAL CHANGES WITH THE TIMING AND THE WAY EVERYTHING FLOWS. WE HAD AUDIT INVESTMENT ON TUESDAY AT THE SAME TIME I WAS SUBMITTING STUFF FOR THIS MEETING TO GET IT INTO THE PACKET, SO.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I'LL JUST, MAYBE I'LL JUST MAKE SOME OF THOSE JUST SO WE CAN GET INTO THE MINUTES THEN. ON AUGUST 4TH WAS THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION MEETING. And I won't name who, but one member suggested that on page 19 of this report that a footnote be added that Administrator Dahl was actually hired at whatever date that was and that Clint Gridley exited at that time. So that was just a good footnote that they thought would BE BENEFICIAL TO THE READERS OF THIS REPORT. ON PAGE 20, THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART IS UPSIDE DOWN, AND THAT'S PAGE 20 OF THE REPORT, NOT OF OUR PACKET.

CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT?

YEAH.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WE ARE ALL HERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. THE COMMUNITY IS ON TOP, AS OPPOSED TO A LOT OF TIMES ORG CHARTS YOU SEE CEO, PRESIDENT, AND ON DOWN TO CUSTOMERS. HERE WE PUT THE RESIDENTS AT THE TOP AND WORK DOWNWARD.

YES, BUT IN THIS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, IT SHOWS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS ARE REPORTING TO THE CITIZENS, AND THAT IS NOT TRUE. So engineering, public works, public safety all report to the citizens. And that's not how the organizational chart is. And other cities also don't organize it that way. The citizens 100% are at the top. Below them is city council. BELOW CITY COUNCIL IS ADMINISTRATOR, AND BELOW THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE THE DEPARTMENTS. SO THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THIS BE FLIPPED, LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES, AND SO THAT ORG CHART SHOULD BE FLIPPED. PAGE 29, THERE WERE DASH AND SOLID LINES, AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON WHAT THOSE MEANT AND THOUGHT MAYBE A KEY OR AN EXPLANATION ON WHAT EACH OF THOSE LINES MEANT. And there was another suggestion on page 182 of this report, table five. THAT MAYBE IT TALKS ABOUT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MARKET VALUE CHANGES AND MAYBE THE AVAILABLE LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO INCLUDE IN THIS REPORT. AND THAT'S IT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN THE MINUTES, THAT THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND TO BE MADE TO THIS REPORT BEFORE IT WAS PRESENTED.

IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY ONE POINT. THOSE WERE BROUGHT UP AT THOSE WERE BROUGHT UP AT THE COMMISSION MEETING, THE COMMISSION MEETING, BUT I JUST WANT TO READY BUT I JUST WANT TO READY JASON'S, OR CFO'S POINT JASON'S, OR CFO'S POINT THAT I THINK WE TAKE THAT I THINK WE TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION THEM INTO CONSIDERATION FOR NEXT YEAR'S REPORT. FOR NEXT YEAR'S REPORT. THERE WAS NOT A VOTE NECESSARILY THERE WAS NOT A VOTE NECESSARILY OF THE AUDIT INVESTMENT OF THE AUDIT INVESTMENT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. IT WAS RECOMMENDATIONS FROM IT WAS RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THAT WERE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THAT WERE BROUGH

Well, thank you, first of all, for being the representative that goes to those meetings. It's hard to get up for 7.30 meetings. I love it. Talk about dollars, budgets. So thank you, and for grabbing those notes and sharing that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anything else anyone wants to speak? Okay. Well, thank you very much for the overview of the report and for all the work you've done. Thank you, Donna.

Thank you. And everybody, if everybody thought I was angry, I'm not angry.

I just want to make sure. I'll move to adopt a motion accepting the 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the communications letter, and the reports on compliance with government auditing standards and legal compliance.

Second.

Second. MOTION IS SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

I'LL ADD A DISCUSSION POINT IF I COULD. I MEAN, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE FLYING THROUGH THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE NOT NEW NUMBERS TO US. WE'VE SEEN THEM BEFORE. WE'VE SEEN THE PACKET BEFORE. THE WORK OF THE AUDITING GROUP, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT. AND THEN PARTICULARLY, KIM, A, FOR GETTING UP AT O-DARK 30, BUT FOR THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC, THOSE ARE VOLUNTEERS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH FINANCE EXPERIENCE AND INVESTMENT EXPERIENCE AND HAVING I THINK IT'S ANOTHER SET OF PUBLIC EYES ON THE AUDITING EYES I THINK IT'S ANOTHER SET OF PUBLIC EYES ON THE AUDITING EYES THAT ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE THAT ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY'S EYES. FROM THE CITY'S EYES. IT'S JUST LEVELS OF REVIEW. IT'S JUST LEVELS OF REVIEW. I KNOW IT FEELS LIKE WE FLY I KNOW IT FEELS LIKE WE FLY THROUGH THIS THIS EVENING, We've seen these reports before, but there's a ton of work that goes into this, and from a transparency standpoint, I really appreciate all the work that we do, that staff does, and that the commissions do before it ever comes to us for the very quick vote that we make. I don't want to diminish the amount of, significant amount of time that goes into this, and it deserves that significant amount of time, and I know it's your last round, but... ALL THE WORK THAT STAFF DOES ON THE BUDGET ALL YEAR ROUND. ALL THE WORK THAT STAFF DOES ON THE BUDGET ALL YEAR ROUND. ALL THE WORK THAT STAFF DOES ON THE BUDGET ALL YEAR ROUND. THAT'S MY ONLY DISCUSSION THAT'S MY ONLY DISCUSSION THAT'S MY ONLY DISCUSSION POINT.

POINT. POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE THESE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE THESE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE THESE CHANGES OR ADOPT THESE THINGS THAT OR ADOPT THESE THINGS THAT OR ADOPT THESE THINGS THAT THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT THE AUDI THEY KNOW THIS STUFF, THIS IS THE STUFF THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THEY LIVE FOR, IS EARLY MORNING MEETINGS REGARDING NUMBERS.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, IF I MAY, I THINK A GOOD KIND OF WAY FORWARD IS TO, YOU KNOW, REVIEW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS INTERNALLY, TAKE ACTION ON THE ONES THAT WE REALLY THINK ARE IMPORTANT, AND MAKE SURE BETWEEN FOR THE NEXT AUDIT THAT THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO, YOU KNOW, IN BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND THE AUDIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEETING THAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REVIEWED, AND THEN WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IF WE NEED TO BEFORE IT GETS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING.

And then to be able to get consensus then from the investment commission as well.

Can you clarify the last item? Because basically my point was, what page was it? 182.

I have written down, I'm not looking at it, page 182. That's correct, I'm looking at it. Okay, table five. Yep. IT TALKS ABOUT AGRICULTURAL IT TALKS ABOUT AGRICULTURAL LAND MARKET VALUE CHANGE. LAND MARKET VALUE CHANGE. AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, WE GET AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, WE GET THE NUMBERS FROM WASHINGTON THE NUMBERS FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY, BUT POSSIBLY MAYBE COUNTY, BUT POSSIBLY MAYBE HAVING AVAILABLE LAND THAT'S HAVING AVAILABLE LAND THAT'S FOR DEVELOPMENT. FOR DEVELOPMENT. HOW MUCH? THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

YEAH, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A MOVING TARGET, BECAUSE THAT NUMBER IS DIFFERENT EVERY YEAR, SO THAT VALUATION CHANGE WOULD NEED A LARGE ASTERISK AROUND IT.

SURE, BUT DON'T, BUT ISN'T THIS REPORT DONE EVERY YEAR?

BUT THE AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE THAT'S OPEN FOR DEVELOPMENT CHANGES EVERY YEAR. AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. CORRECT. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A POINT IN TIME.

CORRECT, BUT SO WOULD ALL THE NUMBERS IN THIS REPORT WOULD CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR? BECAUSE WE DON'T SIT ON THESE NUMBERS FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR.

WHAT WOULD BE THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF DOING THAT?

YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD...

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TAX DRIVERS HAVE AN OPEN FOR DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY, SO THAT IS PROBABLY A BIG ASK TO TRY TO... THIS IS DATA JUST PULLED FROM THE COUNTY. CORRECT, WE GET THE NUMBERS FROM THE COUNTY, YEAH. AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY A BIG ASK AND A BIG CHALLENGE TO TRY TO CREATE A NEW CATEGORY IN THAT TABLE. THAT'S FINE.

SO MY POINT IS, THE FEW ITEMS, WELL, I THINK THE FEW ITEMS, WELL, I THINK THEY ARE GOOD NOTES. THEY ARE GOOD NOTES. FOR ME, IT DOESN'T IMPACT FOR ME, IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIT REPORT. REPORT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS OKAY AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS OKAY APPROVING IT AS IT IS. APPROVING IT AS IT IS. THE ORG CHART, WHATEVER THE THE ORG CHART, WHATEVER THE OPINION IS, WHETHER IT'S PROPER OPINION IS, WHETHER IT'S PROPER OR NOT, THAT TO ME DOESN'T OR NOT, THAT TO ME DOESN'T IMPACT THE ACTUAL AUDIT, YOU IMPACT THE ACTUAL AUDIT, YOU KNOW, IN THE REPORT OF THE KNOW, IN THE REPORT OF THE

And we've had discussion. Is there any further discussion? Because again, the proposal before us, can you just restate the motion so that we're clear on what we're voting on?

It was as is, correct?

As, okay, yeah.

As presented.

As presented, okay.

As presented.

Any further?

Yeah, I just, yeah, I didn't modify it.

And I appreciate that. I appreciate that, Council Member Santini, because you're 100% right, so thank you for bringing that perspective forward. I just am hoping that going forward, if the Audit Investment Commission puts this much time into a report like this, that we could take their recommendations. A little more time. and make those changes. They felt it was that important and next year I feel like we're gonna, I think it happened last year too where they made recommendations and then they don't get done and every report is different and so we need to make sure that we have enough time because their work is valuable, extremely.

Give it more time. Okay. So any further discussion? Hearing none, the roll call please.

Council Member Wilson.

Aye.

Council Member Stafford. Aye. Council Member Morris. Aye. Council Member Santini. Aye. Mayor Byrd.

Aye. That passes. Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll turn to staff reports. City Administrators. Oh yeah, thank you. This is why I have help. 6D.

6D was pulled. 6D, I pulled 6D. It's the approval of joint powers agreement between City of Woodbury and the City of Maplewood for water and sanitary sewer services. I'M GOING TO CAUTION THE COUNCIL THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION THAT WE JUST PULLED OUT OF OR WE GOT INTO OR HOWEVER IT IS THAT WE'RE TANGLING OURSELVES UP INTO SERVICES THAT WE ARE PROVIDING OR ARE BEING PROVIDED BY OTHER CITIES. TO RESIDENTS WITHIN WOODBURY TO RESIDENTS WITHIN WOODBURY TO RESIDENTS WITHIN WOODBURY OR OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY. OR OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY. OR OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE RESIDENTS IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE RESIDENTS IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY LOOKING TO OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY LOOKING TO OUTSIDE OF WOODBURY LOOKING TO CONNECT UP INTO OUR WOODBURY CONNECT UP INTO OUR WOODBURY CONNECT UP INTO OUR WOODBURY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. AND ALTHOUGH THAT MAY BE AND ALTHOUGH THAT MAY BE AND ALTHOUGH THAT MAY BE BENE That's not really up to us. We have the situation for residents in Woodbury that are hooked up to Newport, and we just untangled from that. We had been, I don't want to use the term, and I'm sure everybody's going to harp on me, subsidizing the water bill because the water rates in Newport are higher. We pulled out of that, so now the Woodbury residents who are hooked up to Newport water have to now pay Newport prices. Okay. And they have no voting rights. They have nothing that they can go back on. And I do think we are also entangled up in something else in another development. border of Cottage Grove, Woodbury, where those residents are receiving Cottage Grove water. And so I just, I'm going to caution council, I am not in favor of this at all because I don't think it is beneficial to Woodbury. And actually I think it does those residents a tad bit of disservice to have them hooked up to our system and not have any rights.

I would like to turn to Director of Engineering to see, can you just provide some clarification around why does this practice exist?

Yeah, so Mayor, members of the council, it's a fairly typical practice when you have two communities that abut each other. We have Water Main that goes up Century Avenue. We do have longstanding connections to Maplewood residents on that water that's been there for decades. This is, we don't want to subsidize another community. It's usually memorialing the roles and responsibilities of How do the payments begin? How do we prevent subsidizing? Who has plan review authority? Who has indemnifications? And all the things that come with those agreements. And in the instance where this is in particular benefiting a Maplewood development for Santa, but somebody has to address the stormwater component. So that's an instance where this works in the opposite, where Newport's having to take care of some of the efforts from ours, but that's generally what happens when you have a border. You don't build double the amount of utilities and other things. You find a way to collaborate.

So Chris, just, and I need to drill down because some of this is new for me, but so these Maplewood residents that are hooked into our sanitary sewer are paying the same Woodbury rates as Woodbury residents?

That would be correct.

Okay, and then we bill them administratively, or does Maplewood do that and then reimburse us?

It's in this agreement, but this guy would know even better.

We'll be doing the billing. So they'll pay us directly.

Okay.

And they're subject not to store, but administration fee, all the fees that we're discussing in the budget, they're subject to like, just as if they were a Woodbury resident. Right. Correct.

Okay.

And if there's non-payment, we are allowed to assist them as well, just like we do our residents.

So would they be responsible then for street lighting?

No. They don't have a shared system there.

But they're on our utility bill.

JUST FOR SEWER. JUST FOR SEWER. JUST FOR SEWER. BUT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BUT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BUT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE STREET LIGHTING.

THE STREET LIGHTING.

THE STREET LIGHTING. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. JUST LIKE THEY WANT TO WATER. JUST LIKE THEY WANT TO WATER. JUST LIKE THEY WANT TO WATER.

IT'S ONLY FOR THE IT'S ONLY FOR THE IT'S ONLY FOR THE UTILITIES THAT THEY USE, UTILITIES THAT THEY USE, UTILITIES THAT THEY USE, THAT THEY CONSUME.

THAT THEY CONSUME. THAT THEY CONSUME. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO NOT THE FRANCHISE FEE? SO NOT THE FRANCHISE FEE? SO NOT THE FRANCHISE FEE? OR IS THAT TRUE EXCEL? OR IS THAT TRUE EXCEL? OR IS THAT TRUE EXCEL

OKAY, WELL, I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, WELL, I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, WELL, I APPRECIATE IT. I DO, I LOVE HAVING I DO, I LOVE HAVING I DO, I LOVE HAVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. I KNOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE I KNOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE I KNOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEEDED IT FOR POLICE FIRE, NEEDED IT FOR POLICE FIRE, NEEDED IT FOR POLICE FIRE, YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW. MUTUAL AID. MUTUAL AID. MUTUAL AID. YEAH, MUTUAL AID, THANK YOU. YEAH, MUTUAL AID, THANK YOU.

WELL, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT STAFF DOESN'T REALLY LIKE THIS EITHER. EITHER. IT ADDS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY TO IT ADDS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY TO BILLING AND TO NEGOTIATIONS AND BILLING AND TO NEGOTIATIONS AND TO FIGURING OUT AGREEMENTS AND TO FIGURING OUT AGREEMENTS AND ALL THAT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL THAT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S LIKE A MATTER OF NO CHOICE. IT'S LIKE A MATTER OF NO CHOICE. THIS IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. THIS IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. WELL, WE DO HAVE A CHOICE.

WELL, WE DO HAVE A CHOICE. NOW, WAIT A MINUTE. NOW, WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WAIT, WAIT. THERE IS A CHOICE. THERE IS FOR APPROVAL, OKAY? FOR APPROVAL, OKAY? FOR APPROVAL, OKAY? SO COUNCIL DOES HAVE A CHOICE. SO COUNCIL DOES HAVE A CHOICE. SO COUNCIL DOES HAVE A CHOICE. THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT WOODBURY RESIDENTS. WOODBURY RESIDENTS. WOODBURY RESIDENTS.

THESE ARE MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTS. THESE ARE MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTS. THESE ARE MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTS. SO COUNCIL HAS A CHOICE. SO COUNCIL HAS A CHOICE. SO COUNCIL HAS A CHOICE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE. MY POINT IS THE BIGGER MATTER. MY POINT IS THE BIGGER MATTER. MY POINT IS THE BIG SO I APPRECIATE YOUR USE OF SO I APPRECIATE YOUR USE OF WORDS, BUT THAT WAS THE POINT WORDS, BUT THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T NOTICE HERE.

NOTICE HERE. CHRIS, HOW MANY PROPERTIES CHRIS, HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

FOR WATER, IT'S MAYBE TWO FOR WATER, IT'S MAYBE TWO DOZEN AT MOST. DOZEN AT MOST.

SEWER. SEWER.

OH, FOR SEWER? OH, FOR SEWER? I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S A LOT.

IT'S A LOT. IT'S A LOT. IT'S UNDER 100. IT'S UNDER 100

Okay. What I didn't see here in council letter was a term of the agreement.

It's in perpetuity.

Yeah, I thought we hated doing that.

We love it. We don't have to go back to council unless there's a major change in the agreement. So the way it's written is if something changes substantial to the agreement, we would go back to council to rectify that. Otherwise, we'd be coming back to council every time somebody I mean we have decades of existing water services we didn't have an agreement in place it's not like we would shut it off and wait for the agreement to come back into to place and again this is really protecting both agencies and providing clarity on who's doing what I'm not I'm not opposing the purpose of the agreement I'm not opposing any of that what I would consider is that I mean we got in this problem where we had

We had agreements in perpetuity, and they weren't addressed. We started not necessarily following all elements of the agreement, and it just kind of got out of control until we looked at it and said we're not even close to the agreement. And that's part of the problem, I would think, in agreements in perpetuity, that if there would be a consensus to perhaps ensure a review at some point without having to renegotiate all of the terms. I get that there's gonna be constant changes to it, but for the general terms of the agreement, the general understanding of who's responsible for what is that we would at least consider a change. What's the trigger for a change if we decided we wanted to change it?

SO THE WAY THE AGREEMENT IS WRITTEN, THE ENGINEERING DIRECTOR OR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO THE AGREEMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL. SO IF THERE'S A MINOR CLARIFICATION, IT DIDN'T ADD TO THE FORM OF WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THERE, THEN IT COULD GO BACK TO COUNCIL. I don't have the exact agreement in front of me, but almost all agreements allow either agency to cancel with a certain amount of notice. So if we found the agreement was untenable at some point, we could just say, we're gonna give you notice, we need to get into a new agreement, let's go ahead and- So, okay, so it doesn't require a mutual agreement for that, for termination? No.

One party can with notice?

No, and I don't have it in front of me, but that would be a typical form of agreement.

Then I'm fine. How could we terminate sewer services

We would terminate the agreement in practicality. We would not terminate sewer services. Okay, I'm just trying to make sure.

Agreement, but it would force.

We would say, we need to address this agreement. Let's work together. We think it's lopsided, whatever the thing is.

Isn't that what you're just sort of, I guess that's what I thought you were advocating, is not to approve this, and therefore we would have to terminate sewers.

I don't anticipate without, unless laws changed about, that we would ever change this agreement ever again.

Isn't that what you were trying to say?

Let's say that again, Jen.

I thought, I guess that's how I took the fact that you weren't wanting, you were opposed to this item and therefore not entering into providing these services. Right. But then you just seem shocked by him saying we might terminate sewer services.

Well, because it's like we can approve this, but then we have the right to terminate any time we want. It's like you can't terminate. How do you terminate sewer services once it's been approved and we go through forward?

And so what I'm saying is those sewer services are already happening. So wouldn't you want a better agreement to govern those services that we're already providing?

Just so you know, this is also encompassing new? Is this also encompassing new services?

This would be for new sanitary sewer services and new water services, which in this corridor you would not anticipate anything at this time. But it allows purview from each agency to make sure that we have served our capacity needs first before we approve. So it requires both agencies. So if Maplewood wanted to develop, AND THEY NEEDED TO USE ONE OF OUR SERVICES. OF OUR SERVICES. THEY CAN'T GO AHEAD AND PERMIT THEY CAN'T GO AHEAD AND PERMIT THOSE AND GO THROUGH THE PLATTING THOSE AND GO THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS AND DEVELOP WITHOUT PROCESS AND DEVELOP WITHOUT GETTING CONCURRENCE FROM OUR CITY GETTING CONCURRENCE FROM OUR CITY THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE AND CAN HAPPEN. AND CAN HAPPEN. THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE HOUSING BILL, TOO. THE HOUSING BILL, TOO.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE, OKAY, I JUST WANT TO HAVE, OKAY, LET ME JUST SHOOT STRAIGHT. LET ME JUST SHOOT STRAIGHT. READY? READY? I HAD A CONVERSATION E and that this would be hooking up or providing water and sewer services to that new development. That's the information that was shared with me. Is that not true?

That is not true. It's providing sanitary sewer services only. The water services that are there have already been there for a long time, and they're connected along Century Avenue. NOT THERE.

NOT THERE IN THE NEW NOT THERE IN THE NEW NOT THERE IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, JUST THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, JUST THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, JUST THE EXISTING PARCELS THAT HAVE HAD THIS PARCELS THAT HAVE HAD THIS PARCELS THAT HAVE HAD THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THERE'S A FEW LARGER THERE'S A FEW LARGER THERE'S A FEW LARGER NON-DEVELOPED PARCELS NON-DEVELOPED PARCELS NON-DEVELOPED PARCELS THAT ABUT ALONG CENTURY AVENUE THAT ABUT ALONG CENTURY AVENUE THAT ABUT ALONG CENTURY AVENUE AND WE HAVE WATER MAIN THERE AND WE HAVE WATER MAIN THERE AND WE HAVE WATER MAIN THERE AND THEY PROBABLY, I GUESS I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THEIR REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY CAN SUBDIVIDE.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEIR ORDINANCES AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO US FOR APPROVAL BEFORE THEY CAN DO THAT DEVELOPMENT IF THEY WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE.

SO THEN WE WOULD HAVE, SO RIGHT NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF CENTURY. THAT ARE HOOKED UP TO A CITY OF WOODBURY WATER AND SEWER.

WATER AND SEWER, CORRECT.

AND THAT THERE ARE LARGER PARCELS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DEVELOPED INTO APARTMENT COMPLEXES OR HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING THAT WOULD THEN BE DRAWING FROM WOODBURY WATER SYSTEM

I don't know that you're asking a very specific question. I'd have to look at all of the different parcels and their ability to subdivide according to their zoning. For Maplewood, not necessarily us, but in any situation, they would have to come to us and say, we'd like to have this development. And then we would have to approve that before that could go forward as part of this agreement.

And just one other point of clarification. This is for sewer services on a portion of this new development site. It's not the entire site. IS THAT CORRECT?

IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T HAVE IT I DON'T HAVE IT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, IN FRONT OF ME, IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY BUT I BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY BUT I BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY WHATEVER THEY PHYSICALLY HAVE WHATEVER THEY PHYSICALLY HAVE WHATEVER THEY PHYSICALLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWERS.

TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWERS. TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWERS. I BELIEVE IT'S JUST I BELIEVE IT'S JUST I BELIEVE IT'S JUST THE SOUTHERN PORTION.

THE SOUTHERN PORTION. THE SOUTHERN PORTION They don't want to use our sewer. They like to control their own destiny. They're doing this because of grade issues and other utility infrastructure that makes it impossible for that to develop without connecting to our system.

So from their standpoint, this could be temporary?

It would be in perpetuity. If they could build it permanently, they would. St. Paul Regional Water would absolutely extend it out. And to remind everyone here, these agreements are already in place. This cleans up a lot of those existing agreements. I do, I don't know if it adds to it, but Maplewood City Council approved this on Monday.

That's great. But this agreement isn't already in place because we don't have an agreement to provide sewer to that southern part of the ponds, do we?

Not to the southern part of the ponds. We have it for the other existing parcels.

But this would include that southern part of the ponds?

It would basically be everything along our border of Maplewood.

SO IT'S NOT AN AGREEMENT THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.

THERE IS MULTIPLE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

AND IT'S ADDING.

IT'S ADDING THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S CORRECT.

To sanitary sewer.

To sanitary sewer only. Not water.

I would note, because she's in the audience, the camera can't see her, but our Senator is here, and this is a conversation that certainly has implications in the housing bills that have been heard. Yes. That this would have significant implications because, and this is an area where we don't control, we have some control, but there's just some nuances here that I think need to be completely understood of what those bills has written as last IT'S THE LAST I'VE SEEN ANYWAY, IT'S THE LAST I'VE SEEN ANYWAY, IT'S THE LAST I'VE SEEN ANYWAY, THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT WE'RE VERY TAXPAYERS WHAT WE'RE VERY TAXPAYERS WHAT WE'RE VERY TAXPAYERS MAYBE SITTING ON A NUMBER MAYBE SITTING ON A NUMBER MAYBE SITTING ON A NUMBER OR SITTING ON OR SITTING ON OR SITTING ON INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES.

INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES. INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES. I AM CONCERNED. I AM CONCERNED. I AM CONCERNED. I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW You know, I'm Woodbury City Council, which means I'm looking out for the best of Woodbury. And not to say I don't love Maplewood or the residents that abut up to us and the fact that they come and shop here and enjoy Woodbury also. But I don't know that it's up to us to start providing services to a city that, I don't know... Our neighboring cities and and and I will also want to say I had concerns about that when we did our our development in Southern Woodbury and Hooked up to Cottage Grove I had extreme concerns about that also and I maybe even voted no on that because of that those concerns I just think that you know if we're developing someplace that you can't get services to then you just don't get services to it and I understand this is cleaning up, but it's also adding, and so we need to be clear on that.

Is there any further discussion? We've already got a motion and a second. We've had a very long discussion. No, I don't think we did any of that for this one.

but I will.

I thought we did.

Not this one.

Okay. We haven't even gotten to discussion yet. Okay.

Oh, yeah. I'll move to adopt Resolution 26-90, a resolution approving the joint powers agreement between the City of Woodbury and the City of Maplewood for the provision of water and sanitary sewer utility services to specific Maplewood properties identified in the agreement.

I'll second.

Motion to second.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, the roll call, please.

Councilmember Stafford.

Aye.

Council Member Morris.

Aye.

Laura Santini.

I didn't know if you need clarification.

I didn't quite hear that. That was aye. Thank you. Aye. Council Member Wilson. No. Mayor Burt. Aye. That resolution passes.

RIGHT, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. RIGHT, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. RIGHT, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT. AM I CAUGHT UP ON EVERYTHING? AM I CAUGHT UP ON EVERYTHING? AM I CAUGHT UP ON EVERYTHING?

AM I MISSING ANYTHING OTHER THAN AM I MISSING ANYTHING OTHER THAN AM I MISSING ANYTHING OTHER THAN I'M NOW GOING TO TURN TO CITY I'M NOW GOING TO TURN TO CITY I'M NOW GOING TO TURN TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR DALL FOR THE UPDATE. ADMINISTRATOR DALL FOR THE UPDATE. ADMINISTRATOR DALL FOR THE UPDATE. THANK YOU, MAYOR BURT. THANK YOU, MAYOR BURT. THANK YOU, MAYOR BURT. I JUST HAVE ONE UPDATE TONIGHT, I JUST HAVE ONE UPDATE BUT WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL THIS PUBLIC INTERSECTION, OUR CIVIC CAMPUS, HOW ABOUT THAT, RIGHT ON THE CORNER WHERE THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK IS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A COMMUNITY-LED OUTDOOR MEMORIAL ON OUR CAMPUS TO HONOR AND REMEMBER CHILDREN WHO HAVE DIED WAY TOO SOON. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL EVENT. I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO GO. IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, HEARTWARMING, BUT OBVIOUSLY PRETTY EMOTIONAL, TOO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KUDOS TO EVERYBODY THAT'S KUDOS TO EVERYBODY THAT'S KUDOS TO EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED, OUR PUBLIC WORK BEEN INVOLVED, OUR PUBLIC WORK BEEN INVOLVED, OUR PUBLIC WORK STAFF, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEEN, THE AREA IS KEPT IT'S BEEN, THE AREA IS KEPT IT'S BEEN, THE AREA IS KEPT UP VERY WELL. UP VERY WELL. UP VERY WELL.

AND THANK YOU TO THE REGUTH AND THANK YOU TO THE REGUTH AND THANK YOU TO THE REGUTH FAMILY AND EVERYBODY ELSE FAMILY AND EVERYBODY ELSE FAMILY AND EVERYBODY ELSE Well, we need to get back to workshops, so I now make a motion that we adjourn and resume the workshop meeting at the conclusion of this meeting.

Second.

Motion to second. Any further discussion? All right, none. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.