City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held virtually and at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 13th day of March 2024. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and she welcomed those attending the meeting both in person and virtually. Mayor Burt explained that members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may also join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone. She stated public comments will be accepted during the meeting both in person and virtually. Virtual questions should be submitted via the online Q&A feature within the virtual meeting link. Questions regarding the meeting will also be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. via email at council@woodburymn.gov or at 651-714-3524. Questions received after 4:30 p.m. will be responded to in the next three to seven business days. Pledge to Flag Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Roll Call Upon roll call the following were present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Andrea Date, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. Absent: None Others Present: Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Dan Moris, Recreation Enterprise Manager; Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director; Mike Hejna, Principal Engineer; Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director and Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director. Special Order of Business No Items Scheduled Open Forum The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address the Council on subjects, which are not a part of the meeting agenda. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up sheet prior to the start of the meeting. Give the sign-up sheet to any staff person. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week. Consent Agenda All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of a majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the Council. Item A Approval of Council Minutes – February 28, 2024 Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-48 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving various carryovers to the 2024 budget. Item C To approve the Copper Ridge 10th Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 28-2024-00541. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the conditions as listed in Council Letter 24-62. Item D Authorizing Amendment Number 1 to METRO Gold Line Subordinate Funding Agreement 7 to the Master Funding Agreement between the City of Woodbury and Metropolitan Council. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting.  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-50 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing applications to the South Washington Watershed District’s Coordinated Capital Improvement Program Grant Solicitation. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-51 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to Q3 Contracting, Inc. for the Subsurface Existing Utility Location Potholing Services Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. Item G 1. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-52 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to McNamara Contracting for the Lake Road Trail Rehabilitation project and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. 2. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-53 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Budget for the Lake Road Trail Rehabilitation Project. Item H Sienna Grove Addition Utility and Street Improvements (Private Construction); Construction Administration Services; Consultant Selection. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item I Approval of Revised City Council’s 2024 Meeting Dates. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item J To adopt a motion to renew the tobacco sales license of the businesses on the list attached to Council Letter 24-69 for the period of April 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025. Item K To adopt a motion to renew the liquor licenses of the businesses on the list attached to Council Letter 24-70 for the period of April 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025. Item L The abstract of bills includes payments made from the operating or project budgets for expenses of the city. The expenditures are from all funds of the city. Any purchased contracts requiring signature of the mayor and City Administrator is hereby approved. Staff recommends approval of the abstract of bills for February 23, 2024 in the amount of $233,626.10 and March 1, 2024 in the amount of $2,510,145.50. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of Items 6D, 6H and 6I. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Mayor Burt reordered the agenda to consider the Consent Agenda items before the Public Hearings. Consent Agenda Item 6D Authorizing Amendment Number 1 to METRO Gold Line Subordinate Funding Agreement 7 to the Master Funding Agreement between the City of Woodbury and Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item from the Consent Agenda and stated that she would be voting differently. Page 2 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-49 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing Amendment Number 1 to the METRO Gold Line Subordinate Funding Agreement 7 to the Master Funding Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Metropolitan Council. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Consent Agenda Item 6H Sienna Grove Addition Utility and Street Improvements (Private Construction); Construction Administration Services; Consultant Selection Councilmember Wilson pulled this item from the Consent Agenda as stated she would be voting differently. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-54 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with Bolton and Menk, Inc., for construction administration services. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Consent Agenda Item 6I Approval of Revised City Council’s 2024 Meeting Dates Mayor Burt pulled this item from the Consent Agenda and stated that staff is recommending that the City Council’s 2024 meeting schedule be revised to add a March 20, 2024 City Council Workshop and a June 26, 2024 City Council Workshop and regular meeting. Mayor Burt asked City Administrator Clinton Gridley to clarify the proposed revisions. Mr. Gridley stated that the March 20th and June 26th meetings are no longer needed. Mayor Burt clarified that since there are no changes to the 2024 meeting schedule, no action is needed. Mr. Gridley agreed. Public Hearings Mayor Burt reviewed the City’s Public Hearing process and stated that in order to allow for a full airing of all speaker comments, individual remarks may not exceed 10 minutes each. If a speaker determines that more time is necessary, they are advised to make a request in writing to the Mayor at least three days prior to the hearing. If there are more than three (3) green sheets submitted to make comments at a public hearing, the Mayor may reduce the individual time allotted to each speaker so that all interested parties have the opportunity to provide their comments within the aggregate thirty-minute (30) public comment period of the public hearing process. Remarks or points already made by someone else should not be repeated, unless simply to state that they are “opposed” to, or “favor” the issue. Remarks should be limited to the subject at hand only. Speakers are encouraged to coordinate presentations to the extent possible. Those in attendance at the Public Hearing will refrain from applause, or other expressions of emotion, whether in favor of, or opposition to, any particular application or argument. Inappropriate language, outbursts or criticisms aimed at individuals or groups are not allowed. A. Adoption of Special Assessments for 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Page 3 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Principal Engineer Mike Hejna explained that the purpose of the assessment hearing is to give residents an opportunity to express concerns about special assessments. He added that the purpose of the meeting was to provide project background, hold the assessment hearing, accept written objections and then approve the Resolutions. The four locations that are a part of the project are Orchard Ridge, Salem Meadows, Boulder Ridge, and Erin Court. Mr. Hejna stated on May 23, 2023 there was a neighborhood open house for the Salem Meadows, Erin Court, and Orchard Ridge neighborhoods. In July 2023, the Boulder Ridge neighborhood had petitions for improvement to be included with the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. On February 29, 2024 there was an additional neighborhood open house. On January 11, 2023, the Council authorized the preparation preliminary reports for Salem Meadows, Erin Court and Orchard Ridge. On august 9, 2023 the Council authorized the preliminary report for the Boulder Ridge area and on September 27, 2023 there was a public improvement hearing. Mr. Hejna reviewed the general scope of the project. For Salem Meadows the general scope is for pavement removal and replacement with spot curb repairs, minor storm water and storm water quality improvements and turf trail from Dorchester Drive to Highcroft Park. The general scope for Erin Court is pavement removal and replacement with spot curb repairs, and storm sewer construction and drainage improvements. Orchard Ridge’s general scope is pavement removal and replacement with spot curb repairs and minor storm water and storm water quality improvements. Mr. Hejna explained that Staff are proposing that the Council awards the construction contract and amend the 2024 budget in March, begin construction in May and complete the construction in October. Bids came in for the project better than what Staff anticipated due to various funding sources. The total project cost is $3,973,502 with assessments being 29% of the total project costs. He reviewed the following proposed assessment costs:  Salem Meadows: $9,485.00/unit  Erin Court: $10,640.00/unit (based on benefit appraisal)  Orchard Ridge: $7,781.62/unit  Boulder Ridge: o Single Family: $3,377.67/unit o Multi-Family: $2,318.00/unit Mayor Burt asked Mr. Hejna to clarify what the benefit appraisal means compares to the straight up assessment. Mr. Hejna explained that there is an assessment policy that is used for residential properties where 33% of the project is assessed for street improvements and storm sewer. A calculated amount is based on the project costs. The Statute does not allow the City to assess more than what the properties benefit. Mayor Burt asked if the assessment costs were divided by property or street frontage. Mr. Hejna replied that it is divided equally between each property. Mr. Hejna stated that special assessments are imposed on properties for certain improvements that benefit the owners of the selected properties. A special assessment is a levy the City uses to finance or partially finance a certain public improvement. The roadway financing is the lesser of the calculated assessment or benefit appraisal amount. The City funds the remaining balance and there is a 15- year assessment term. The assessment hearing is held prior to the project award. There is a 30 day no-interest payment period. Payments can be made over 15 years with the first payment being due with the first half property tax payment in 2024. The interest rate will be 3.45%. Mr. Hejna added that residents can sign up for InTouch at Woodburymn.gov/InTouch in order to receive project updates via email. Mayor Burt stated that the City Council received two assessment objection letters. One is from Dave and Karen Wolterstorff, 9398 Erin Court, and John and Kathy Jorgenson, 9408 and 9418 Erin Court. Kathy and John Jorgenson, 9408 Erin Court, stated they also own an empty lot on 9418 Erin Court. Ms. Jorgenson noted that all six neighbors on Erin Court were present at the meeting. She added that she understands that when new development beings, the City works with the developer to ensure there is planned managed storm water. The 21 Oaks development was developed in 2016 and for the past seven years, there has been an issue with storm water runoff for Erin Court. The City’s easement has proven inadequate to handle the runoff since it causes serious erosion. She explained that they have brought the concern to the City multiple times. The City has come out to investigate multiple times and ensured there would be a remediation but have continued to put that off. There were some minor fixes that happened a few years ago with no assessments done on the property owners. She explained that some of the costs for the stormwater issues are being rolled into the assessment to repair Erin Court. The City is having the residents bear more of the costs due to lack of attention to known storm water issues. City Staff explained to residents that the cost was increased due to stormwater repairs but residents expect that to be the City’s responsibility. The 2024 Road Rehabilitation project overview states that the cost for storm water quality improvements are not to be assessed since they are considered utility maintenance items. She wondered by 21 Oaks did not bear a part of the cost since the runoff from their stormwater is going into Erin Court. Mr. Jorgenson explained that it is similar to a neighbor having construction done on their home. After the construction, each time it rains, a flood of water goes onto your property and damages the property. He added, it is like calling the City to help and the City replies Page 4 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 that they will get back in three years to fix the issue if the property owners pays $13,500. He noted that that is what they are experiencing. Ms. Jorgenson stated that the City has told residents at Erin Court that the erosion has stabilized and is not an issue which she does not agree with. She added that due to continued damage to their property, she does not see how the benefit appraisal can increase the value of the property. Mr. Jorgenson submitted another letter to Council, which was in addition to the objection letter sent earlier, and he provided photos to the Council. Ms. Jorgenson asked that the City reexamine the road rehabilitation assessment for Erin Court residents in light of storm water remediation caused by the 21 Oaks redevelopment and should not be the responsibility of Erin Court property owners. John Hasselmen, 9378 Erin Court, agreed with the comments made by Mr. and Ms. Jorgenson. He added that there have been drainage issues on his property and six people from the City have come investigate. He noted that residents were told last year that they would be charged for a complete re-do. Today, residents are being told that they were not doing the re-do but would just be doing spot curb repairs but are still being charged the same amount. He explained that he signed a copy of the same letter Mr. and Ms. Jorgenson emailed to the City, handed it to the City secretary, and indicated he was upset that his name was not mentioned for people who sent in objection letters. Mayor Burt asked if Mr. Hasselmen would like his name associated with the document that was provided by Mr. and Ms. Jorgensen. Mr. Hasselmen replied that he would. City Clerk Kimberlee Blaeser suggested that he provide his name and address and submit a letter of objection to the assessment, during hearing, and that the City would accept that. Mr. Hasselman mentioned that he was at the February neighborhood meeting and was told that the residents had to pay for the drainage part of the project. He referenced a letter he received from the City that mentions storm water is not assessed since it is a utility maintenance item which is why the residents had a higher assessment. Salem Meadows has more roadway than Erin Court but they are all paying the same price. Valerie Reinbold, 4429 Dorchester Drive, expressed her concern of the trail to Highcroft was being changed from asphalt to mowed turf. She explained that her four children have been anxiously awaiting access to the playground at Highcroft as well as to be able to bike or walk to friends’ homes in the same area. She added that it is important to connect the trail to the County trails in the area. She explained that right now, when her and her children use the area to cut across they pick up a lot of ticks and the neighbors near the area get grumpy due to desiring privacy. She wonders if an asphalt trail would help the neighbors in the area see that it is a public area that can be used. Since there are no sidewalks on Dorchester, her children have to be supervised. She added that her elderly mother is not able to walk in the area because there are no sidewalks and only areas with grass. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Councilmember Wilson asked if citizens wanted to file an objection, did they have to do that before the public hearing was closed. She asked that City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom provide a quick synopsis on citizen’s right to object to the assessments. Mr. Sandstrom stated that citizens can present objections orally or in writing before or at the time of the public hearing. Anyone who has written in before the public hearing or orally gave an objection on the record during the meeting would classify as an official objection. Councilmember Wilson noted that anyone who wanted to submit an objection would need to do so before the public hearing was closed. Mr. Sandstrom explained that if someone wanted to object after the public hearing was closed, then the objecting people could start a court action to continue to contest the process. Councilmember Morris added that each property owner would need to officially object to the assessments in order to preserve the ability to go through the legal process. He added, even if residents agreed with previous comments, they still are required to submit an official objection. Councilmember Wilson clarified that filing an objection is simply preserving their right. Residents do not have to start a court filing. Mayor Burt acknowledged receipt of letters objecting to the assessments from John and Kathy Jorgenson, Dave and Karen Wolterstorff, John Hasselmen, Bruce and Susan Caulfield, 9388 Erin Court, Karen and Gerald Argo, 9420 Erin Court and Mr. Bradley Berg 9368 Erin Court. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Hejna to address the trail access in the Salem Meadows area. Mr. Hejna replied that there were some trees in the area that could be negatively affected by an asphalt trail. It was decided to have a mowed trail instead of an asphalt trail, with the understanding that it would be readdressed at a later date. Mayor Burt asked who would be mowing the trail. Mr. Hejna replied that the City public works department would be mowing it. Mayor Burt asked if there would be any markings identifying it as a trail. Mr. Hejna Page 5 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 replied that there would be a pedestrian ramp that will delimitate where the trail is so that it will be clear. Mayor Burt asked if there would be a sign indicating the trail. Mr. Hejna replied that there are not typically signs for trails and are trying to be consistent with other trails in the City. Councilmember Date stated she has noticed other trails that have little posts that delineate public property and advocated to include that in this area so that it is clear that it is a public access point. She added that she was only in favor of the mowed trail due to the trees. She explained that a paved trail provides better access for disabilities, children, and elderly. She added that when the trees recover, she asked that it would be a priority to readdress. Councilmember Wilson agreed that there should be marking on the grass path because it helps people understand that it is something that can be used and not someone’s yard. Mayor Burt agreed. Mayor Burt noted that the Council deliberated about the trail and that it was originally going to be a road that provided connection but have come to a consensus that it would be a grass trail with markings and would be looked at again at a later date. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Hejna to address the Erin Court comments. Mr. Hejna explained that one of the concerns that has been brought up many times is the 21 Oak development causing issues due to the additional drainage. Staff reviewed the hydrology report from the project. Prior to the 21 Oaks development there was 13.4 acres that was draining into Bailey Lake. After the development it is 5.9 acres draining into Bailey Lake. He noted that less water is going into Bailey Lake and more is shifting west to ponds that are in 21 Oaks. Councilmember Morris asked if the location of where the water is going has changed. Mr. Hejna displayed a map of where the water originally was coming in and noted that it still going to the same location on Erin Court. City Engineering Director Chris Hartzell added that the existing drainage flow patterns were maintained before and after the 21 Oaks development. The totality of the rain flow shows that in the event prior to construction and after construction, it is reduced. After 21 Oaks was installed there were some record rain falls as well as some drier years after. Mayor Burt asked what has caused the difference. Councilmember Morris asked what Staff were looking for when they visited the properties. Mr. Hartzell replied that it has been an issue for a long time. There has been erosion going down in the site. Staff have looked into what the cost would be to improve it and found that it would be $300,000 or more. Sometimes the cost to repair is not worth the effort and is something to address over time since there are a number of other priorities in the City. Councilmember Wilson asked at year Erin Court was developed. Mr. Hejna replied 1978. Councilmember Wilson asked when 21 Oaks went in. Mr. Hejna replied 2016. Councilmember Wilson asked when Staff went out to the Erin Court properties to look at the storm water drains. Mr. Hejna replied 2016. Councilmember Wilson asked if any calls were received calls prior to 2016 regarding run off. Mr. Hejna replied that he cannot speak to any calls that were received prior to 2015. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern regarding the runoff situation and did not know how to address that. She noted her understanding that by putting in roads, trails and sidewalks, it diminishes the capacity of land that is able to absorb water. She added that in the future she did not know if the City needed to plan for the rainfalls that would occur or the fact that developments diminish the capacity for water to be absorbed. Mayor Burt asked the engineers to clarify that much of the water is not coming to Erin Court but is going to other areas and asked Mr. Hartzell to share more. Mr. Hartzell explained that the City has some of the strictest watershed requirements in the metro. Part of the requirements are understanding that there is a difference between a corn field and adding a development. He added that part of the challenge is developing infiltration basins, stormwater systems and ponds in order to reduce the volume and the rate water is coming off of the site. Mayor Burt clarified that based on what Mr. Hartzell was saying, the addition of 21 Oaks should not have any impact on water flow into Erin Court. Mr. Hartzell replied not for a pre and post condition, but rainfall events can impact the amount of water flowing through the site. Mr. Gridley explained that the actions for the Council are in regards to the assessments. The issue about storm water management is a separate issue. He suggested the Council deliberate about the assessments and then provide Staff with direction they feel appropriate to further investigate the storm water issue. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that the assessment includes storm sewer charges. Mr. Hejna explained that the storm sewer construction is considered assessable. The project includes removing the existing bituminous spillway which would improve the drainage design. A sump would be included to catch sediment before getting into the lake which would not be assessed. A pipe would be extended with rip rap to help control the water a little better. Councilmember Morris asked if the included project items that Mr. Hejna explained was a change of the original plan. Mr. Hejna replied that it was always a part of the plan. Mr. Hartzell added that many of the project costs and assessments have come in lower than anticipated. He explained that the reason the assessment stayed the same for this situation is because it is the lower option. The special assessment analysis is driving the cost. Mayor Burt asked what the difference was for the Erin Court assessments and the other developments that are being assessed. Mr. Hejna replied that the largest difference is the stormwater element since Erin Court is the only neighborhood the City is doing major Page 6 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 storm sewer construction. In addition, there are only seven residents in Erin Court which means that there are less properties to divide the costs with. Mayor Burt added that the City has a policy that is being followed when it comes to assessments. Mr. Hejna agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify that the sewer work that is being done on Erin Court is brand new construction, not something that is being fixed. Mr. Hejna agreed that it is brand new construction. Councilmembers Morris reminded residents that they have the opportunity to take legal action to object to the matter, even if the Council goes forward with the Resolutions. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Mayor Burt, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-55 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the special assessments for the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project; Award Contract; Amend Budget; Consultant Selection for Construction Administration Services (Item is not a public hearing. Council action needed after close of the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Assessment Hearing.) Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-56 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to McNamara Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $3,178,801.40 for the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-57 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending the Street Reconstruction/Maintenance, Storm Water Utility, Park Dedication, and Water and Sewer Utility Fund budgets for the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Page 7 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-58 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with Bolton and Menk, Inc. in the amount of $312,896 for construction administration services for the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye C. Adoption of Special Assessments for Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion and Pavement Management Project Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Hejna explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide the project background, hold the assessment hearing, accept written objections, and approve the Resolutions. This project is a continuation of the Lake Road project that was done a couple of years ago. In 2016, a Lake Road traffic study was conducted, and it was recommended to convert Lake Road from 4 to 3 lanes east of Woodlane Drive. In the summer of 2022, the 4 to 3 lane conversation project was completed on Lake Road between Woodlane Drive and Pioneer Drive. Mr. Hejna explained on October 26, 2022 the Council authorized the preliminary report and on September 27, 2023 there was a public improvement hearing. In addition, on June 12, 2023 there was a neighborhood meeting, on July 17, 2023 there was a meeting with ISD 833 and on February 29, 2024 there was another neighborhood meeting. Mr. Hejna stated the project scope includes pavement mill and overlay, spot curb replacement, pedestrian ramp replacement, restriping to 4-3 lanes between Blue Ridge Drive and Cherry Lane, crosswalk enhancements and implement consistent speed limit on Lake Road (35 mph). The proposed schedule is for the Council to award the construction contract and amend the 2024 budget in March, begin construction in May and complete the construction in October. He reviewed the funding sources and noted that the total costs are $3,010,038 and came in $422,262 lower than anticipated. He explained what special assessments are and the funding policies and guidance. Mr. Hejna mentioned that the proposed assessments for a single family is $2,983/unit (11 units) and for multi-family $187.97/unit (133 units). The school district will be assessed at $102,142.32 and the five commercial properties will be assessed around $1,000. The assessment hearing is held prior to the project award. There is a 30 day no-interest payment period. Payments can be made over 15 years with the first payment being due with the first half property tax payment in 2025. The interest rate will be 3.45%. He encouraged residents to sign up for InTouch to receive additional information. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Mayor Burt asked to clarify the communication method to those who are being assessed. Mr. Hejna replied that everyone effect has been receiving invitations to the neighborhood meetings. The Finance Department sent a separate notice with the separate instructions earlier last month. Councilmember Wilson explained that she had a number of questions. Councilmember Morris noted that the item was in regards to the assessments not to rehash the project that was ordered. Councilmember Wilson explained that she felt like the Council was not allowed to ask questions at various times since the Council was not allowed to ask questions when the project was put out to bid because the contract was not being awarded. She added she is not able to ask questions now because the Council is supposed to just award the contract. She expressed her confusion. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Sandstrom to clarify when it was an appropriate time to talk about the specifics. Mr. Sandstrom replied typically during the feasibility aspect and when the Council is determining how the project is going to be formulated which is prior to bidding. At Page 8 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 this point, the bid specifications have already been set and given to the contractors. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Hejna when it would have been an appropriate time for the Council to have asked questions about the project. Mr. Hejna replied that there was a discussion during the September 27, 2023 Council meeting which was the public improvement hearing. Mr. Hartzell added that Staff introduced the entire scope of the project during that meeting and that there was an in-depth discussion. The Council provided Staff with direction to move forward as ordered during that same meeting. Mayor Burt stated that they would take questions or comments regarding the assessments pertaining to the project. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-59 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the special assessments for the Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion and Pavement Management Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye D. Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion Project; Award Contract; Amend Budget; Consultant Selection for Construction Administration Services (Item is not a public hearing. Council action needed after close of the Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversation Project Assessment Hearing.) Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-60 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to Bituminous Roadways Inc., in the amount of $2,370,108.98 for the Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-61 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending the Municipal State Aid Roadway Construction Fund and associated transfers for the Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Page 9 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-62 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with SEH, Inc. in the amount of $274,500 for construction administration services for the Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Wilson asked to clarify that all questions should be done before the preliminary report. Councilmember Morris replied that questions happen when the project is ordered. Mr. Gridley added when Staff bring to the Council the project design, it is the time to ask questions and make comments. Mr. Sandstrom added that he pulled up the agenda from the September 27, 2023 Council meeting. A preliminary report had been prepared which included the overall scope of the project. The Council was asked to look at the project and feasibility report at that time and provide any feedback. During that time, the Council authorized the preparation of the plans and specifications for the engineering department. Councilmember Wilson asked if the preliminary report was ordered before the September Council meeting. Mr. Sandstrom replied that the feasibility report was prepared prior to the September 27, 2023 Council meeting. Mr. Hartzell agreed with Mr. Sandstrom and Mr. Gridley’s comments and added that there is a process the City has to go through when there are federal dollars involved. Every aspect of the process has to be approved by the federal chain. In addition, there is a construction contract with a certain level of contingency. Any chances to the scope could lead to a delay of the project, or not receiving approval of federal aid. The City is at the mercy of the contractor when it comes to scope changes. He explained that it does not mean that the Council cannot provide changes to the scope, but it would create an incredible burden that could have unintended consequences. E. Adoption of Special Assessments for Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Hejna stated the purpose of the meeting is to hold the assessment hearing, accept written objections and approve the Resolutions. On May 10, 2023 a consultant was selected for the preliminary report. On September 27, 2023 there was a public improvement hearing, the project was ordered and the Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications. There was a neighborhood meeting on May 23, 2023 and February 29, 2024. The general scope of the project is full depth reclamation and repaving and minor culvert repairs. The purposed schedule is for the Council to award the construction contract and amend the 2024 budget in March, begin construction in June and complete the construction in August. The total amount for the project is $565,000 which is $524,000 under the anticipated costs. He reviewed what special assessments are, and the funding policies and guidance. There are three properties that are being assessed at $6,500 for single-family homes. Kathryn Nash, 5999 Cottage Grove Drive, stated that she is objecting to the amount being assessed and the decision to not assess all the property owners on Cottage Grove Drive. As it has been stated, the assessment cannot exceed the special benefit. The special benefit is defined as an increase in the market value of the land based on the improvement. She explained that she does not believe that the property value is being increased by $6,500 due to a paved roadway. She added that when she purchased the home in 2019 she did not consider the condition of the roadway and added that when she recently had an appraisal done on her home, nothing was mentioned about the roadway. She added that she is objecting to the decision of having only the residential properties assessed. Originally all landowners were going to be assessed. She explained that she does not believe it is fair to only assess the residential properties and is not consistent with what the law says about how the benefit is assessed since all of the properties would receive the benefit, not just her property. She asked if there was data to see if there was a benefit appraisal done. Mr. Hejna replied that there has been a benefit appraisal done. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Sandstrom to explain the process of the benefit appraisal. Mr. Sandstrom replied the benefit appraisal is done internally by a professional appraise to make sure that the benefit for the property would at least be the amount that the policy would provide in the assessment. The benefit assessor confirmed that the property would benefit more than $6,500. It is known that roadway projects provide a benefit. Since the benefit appraisal is done internally, it is private data until there is a court proceeding in which the City needs to use it to demonstrate and argue against an appeal process. Ms. Nash asked if the benefit appraisal show no benefit to the non-residential properties. Mr. Sandstrom replied that it was based on policy on how assessments are conducted. Mr. Hejna added that agricultural properties or properties with no development on them Page 10 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 were assessed and determined that there was no benefit. Mayor Burt asked why that was the case. Mr. Hejna replied that agricultural properties do not benefit from having a paved road more than a gravel road. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Santini noted that this was an assessment that was not based on the frontage. Mr. Hejna agreed and noted that the policy states that since it is outside of the MUSA, and it is a collector street, the assessment is based on the parcel size. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-63 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the special assessments for the Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye F. Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project; Award Contract; Amend Budget (Item is not a public hearing. Council action needed after close of the Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project Assessment Hearing.) Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-64 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to McNamara Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $452,853 for the Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-65 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending the 2024 Municipal State Aid Roadway Construction Fund Budget for the Cottage Grove Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Councilmember Wilson asked if Cottage Grove Drive was an MSN roadway. Mr. Hejna replied that it is not considered an MSA roadway. Councilmember Wilson asked why funds would be used for that then. Mr. Hejna replied that the MSA roadway funds are reimbursed by the State account and is used for major roads but is not necessarily used for all MSA roads. Mayor Burt asked if the City was allowed to use money from the budget. Mr. Hartzell replied that MSA revenues are on a reimbursement basis. When there is a fund balance, it becomes unrestricted to use on any part of the system. Page 11 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion A. M Health Fairview Sports Center Outdoor Rink Dasher Board Replacement and Conversion; Approve Memorandum of Understanding, Award Contract; Budget Amendment Recreation Enterprise Manager Dan Moris shared that the recreational facilities have been well received. He added that the City would like to provide access to the facilities. In 2022 the City did a study with HKGi to look at the outdoor fields and courts. The City partnered with Woodbury hockey to join in the study to look at the indoor ice capacity constraints. The item was tabled since the hockey club was in flux with some members looking to split the club due to school boundaries. Mayor Burt asked what population of youth the Woodbury hockey club serves. Mr. Moris replied that the Woodbury Area Hockey Club (WAHC) participants increased 37% in the past eight years and the total teams have increased 24% during the same time period. The number of players per team exceeds USA Hockey maximum recommendation due to the need of having more time on the ice but there is not currently capacity for it. Mr. Moris reviewed the ice capacity challenges such as WAHC contracts approximately 50% of ice needs outside of Woodbury. WFSC is at capacity without the ability to grow based on their current ice allotment. With multiple participants and coaches, it is unrealistic to secure ice outside of Woodbury. High school teams practice prior to school one day per week. High schools games typically happen on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. There is a deficit of weekday evening ice since many teams regularly travel outside of Woodbury for access to weekday ice. Parks and Recreation Director Michelle Okada added that while the majority of the study and use of the ice is the WAHC there are three high school teams and one figure skating club that call the sports center home. Councilmember Morris asked where the WAHC reaches in the area. Mr. Moris replied just Woodbury. President of the WAHC Pat Sondreal explained that the area includes anyone who attends school or lives in Woodbury, Afton or Newport. Mr. Moris explained what has been done so far and added that the solutions they have done so far have helped. The high schools are practicing in the morning two times a week. The WAHC expanded hours to start at 7:00 a.m. on weekends. The mid-term solutions include expanding the use of the Sports Center outdoor rink and repurpose the east rink boards and glass to the outdoor rink for expanded hockey activities. Future mid-term considerations include evaluating and considering supplemental refrigeration system and have an addition of a canopy. Mr. Moris stated WAHC came forward and offered to donate $200,000 toward the process. The City would use that money for the conversion and to get the outdoor space ready to rent. There would be a memorandum of understanding for what the money would be spent for, fees to use the outdoor space, and no guarantee for ice time hours. There will be a preservation of popular public skating times to ensure continued enjoyment for the general community. Mr. Moris mentioned that the City scoped the project with a local vendor and had an estimate of about $400,000. The City received an official quote from two different vendors and it came back at $325,000. With the included donation from WAHC, the City would be responsible for $125,000. The Sports Center Fund pro forma anticipates $300,000 for East Rink board replacement. This would net an approximate savings of $175,000 to the Sports Center Fund. The approximate annual revenue is anticipated to be $34,000 with 275- 300 outdoors hours allocated. Mr. Moris stated despite short and mid-term gains, the future ice shortfalls will continue since there is an approximate current additional demand of 1,350 hours. The long-term facility needs for future discussion such as sharing the topic for consideration in future conversations and having a long-term indoor facility expansion in 7-10 years. Mayor Burt asked what the difference was between the anticipated $300,000 for the East Rink board replacement and the $325,000 for the project. Mr. Moris replied that the $300,000 for the board replacements would be for the inside rink. The City is responsible for $125,000 so the $175,000 is what the City would see in savings in the fund balance. Ms. Okada added that the $300,000 is already in the pro forma which was based off previous estimates. Councilmember Santini asked if the outdoor rink is currently refrigerated. Mr. Moris replied that it was. Councilmember Santini asked how much use the outdoor rink has had this year. Mr. Moris replied very little due to the weather and that it has only been 10-11 days. It’s not a robust refrigeration system. Councilmember Santini asked when the prime hours were for recreational skating. Mr. Moris replied that it is during the day on days school is out, Friday and Saturday nights, or afternoon on weekends. Page 12 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Councilmember Date noted that this is a great opportunity for partnership and added her excitement that they were preserving the recreational skating time and providing more time for the hockey team. Councilmember Morris asked if the project was on the five-year CIP. Mr. Moris replied that it was on the pro forma. Ms. Okada added that it has moved around in the past, but it would have been in this year’s CIP scheduled for 2026. Councilmember Morris asked with the $125,000 being pulled from the fund, what would be delayed because of it. Mr. Moris replied nothing would be delayed. Councilmember Morris asked if this project would interfere with the need for the turf replacement. Mr. Moris replied that it would not due to the savings on the project. Councilmember Morris asked if the outdoor rink would be able to get resurfaced with the Zamboni. Mr. Moris replied that it would. Councilmember Morris asked if there would be a score board outside. Mr. Moris replied that they have not discussed that but in the past they have purchased used score boards. Councilmember Morris asked if there was any seating for the outdoor rink and if there were plans to do so in the future. Mr. Moris replied that there is no outdoor seating and added that it could be a discussion in the future. Councilmember Morris noted that it would be uncomfortable for people watching the game to have to stand the entire time. Mr. Moris replied that for now the plan is to have just practice outside. Councilmember Wilson noted that the East Rink boards were going to be replaced in 2026 and asked how long they would last outside. Mr. Moris replied that they are steel frames which will last a long time but there may need to be some refacing needed. Ms. Okada added that the contractor mentioned that they could get 7 years out of the replacement boards. Councilmember Wilson asked if the hockey team was utilizing the outdoor rinks in the City. Mr. Moris replied that this year is not a good example but typically they get allocated out to the teams where it is the coach’s decision on if they will utilize the outdoor rink or not. He added that it is less of a formal practice setting and typically was more of a fun practice when done in the outdoor rinks. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that a community amenity is being taken away in order to schedule time for the hockey team. She noted her understanding that ice time is needed for the hockey teams. She added that the old boards and glass can be moved to the outdoor rink along with a trailer for a locker room and bleachers but questioned if that was the route the City truly wanted to take. Mayor Burt stated that it was a discussion to continue in the future. She added that what is before Council is to decide if they wanted to authorize the change to provide more ice time to the hockey club. Mr. Moris stated that there will be specific times reserved for recreational skating. Mr. Gridley asked Mr. Moris to reference the Parks and Natural Resource Commission’s discussion. Mr. Moris explained that Staff presented the information to the Parks and Natural Resources Commission and asked them if they were in support of the item. The Commission unanimously agreed that it was a good idea to try to create more capacity. Ms. Okada added that she does not disagree with Councilmember Wilson’s comments regarding the future of the facility. Considering the current facility priorities, it is best to utilize what is available now and to continue to look at the future potential of the facility. Councilmember Morris asked what a new enclosed rink would potentially cost. Ms. Okada replied about $13 million. Councilmember Morris agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments about what kind of facility the City wants to build for people to come to and imagining what that could look like in the future. He encouraged the Council to envision what the facility could look like as a long-term solution in order to better serve the City and those who come and visit. Councilmember Wilson asked if the boards and glass could be used somewhere else on the facility and leave the outdoor rink refrigerated for the community members to use. Mr. Moris replied that it is an opportunity, but the issue is that there would not be the refrigeration to provide a consistent product. Councilmember Wilson noted that the outdoor rink was originally intended for the recreational skating for the community and provides the opportunity for people to be able to rent skates while the other outdoor rinks do not provide the same services. Mr. Moris agreed and noted that the ability to rent skates will still be an option but during the peak skating times. Councilmember Date added that this is a good compromise. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-66 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the Memorandum of Understanding with Woodbury Area Hockey Club, accepting the $200,000 donation and corresponding budget amendment of $325,000 for the project, authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said Memorandum of Understanding, awarding a contract to All American Arena Products in the amount of $298,750 and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. Page 13 of 14  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 13, 2024 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – nay Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report Mayor Burt noted that the State of the City address would be tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall in Ash North and South Conference rooms. Mr. Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings:  March 18, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting  March 20, 2024 – Council Workshop is cancelled  March 26, 2024 – Economic Development Commission, 7:30 a.m., Public Works Building, Carver Conference Room, 2301 Tower Drive  March 27, 2024 – Council Workshop  March 27, 2024 – Public Hearings Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on March 27, 2024. Page 14 of 14