City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, November 20, 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 20th day of November 2024. Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:43 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: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Gina McCormack, Associate Planner; Shelly Schafer, Community Relations Manager; and Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. Special Order of Business A. Report on November 20, 2024 Closed Session - Discussion of Annual Performance Review of the City Administrator City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom stated during the November 20, 2024, Council workshop meeting, the Council held a closed meeting in order to conduct a performance review for a City employee. The performance review was for City Administrator, Clinton Gridley. The individuals that were present during the meeting were all five Councilmembers, Mr. Sandstrom, and the City’s consultant from Ethical Leaders in Action, Chad Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein gathered information regarding Mr. Gridley and prepared a draft report. During the session, he reviewed the report with the Councilmembers. Mr. Sandstrom noted that it was the last performance review for Mr. Gridley because Mr. Gridley announced that he would be retiring. Overall, the summary of the feedback was positive toward Mr. Gridley’s performance. There was some constructive feedback given to him that he will focus on during his final six months of employment. During the closed meeting, the Council discussed compensation adjustments for the 2025 calendar year. 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 – November 6, 2024 Item B Approval of Minutes - November 13, 2024 Canvassing Board  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-231 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the issuance of a multifamily housing revenue note by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Woodbury, Minnesota under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462c, as amended, to finance the costs of a multifamily housing development to be located in the City. Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-232 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of the City of Woodbury Water Treatment Plant 2024 Pipelines Construction Grant in the amount of $20,510,822, and approval of budget amendment to the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-233 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the agreement with Washington Conservation District for the East Metro Water Resources Education Program for 2025- 2027. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-234 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute contracts for purchase of furniture, technology, and equipment for the Central Park Renovation Project. Item G To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-235 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Item H To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-236 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice – Office of Justice Programs – Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. Item I Approval of Revisions to Council Directives CD-COUNCIL-2.6 Workshop Protocol Policy, CD-COUNCIL-2.5 City Council Roles and Guidelines, CDCOUNCIL-2.13 Advisory Boards and Commission Roles and Guidelines. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item J 2025 Classification and Compensation Plan for Unrepresented Employees. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item K To adopt a motion designating the St. Paul Pioneer Press as the City’s official newspaper for the year 2025 effective January 1, 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 November 1, 2024, in the amount of $789,617.98, and November 8, 2024, in the amount of $1,283,402.37. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of Items 6I and 6J. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Page 2 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 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 m ake 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. Cherry Meadows Planned Unit Development; Conditional Use Permit; and Preliminary Plat; Project No. 31-2024- 00543 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Community Development Director Janelle Schmitz stated that TCD Land Holdings, LLC has submitted an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Preliminary Plat for a new residential subdivision to be called Cherry Meadows. The residential subdivision creates 27 single-family lots to be provided water and sewer services by the City of Newport. The property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Estate District and guided as Urban Estate on the Land Use Plan. Ms. Schmitz stated the Urban Estate land use designation allows for the clustering of lots up to a density of one unit per acre through the Planned Unit Development process for projects that can be served by municipal utilities from an adjacent community. Using this density calculation, the property can request a maximum of 27 units. One of the Urban Estate goals within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to provide a transition from rural to urban residential. The proposed plan accomplishes this goal by buffering the existing properties from the higher-density properties to the south. The proposed lots would be a similar size as the adjacent lots in Rolling Acres, which have sanitary sewer from Newport but have their own private wells. Ms. Schmitz stated the requested PUD is intended to provide a general site layout, establish subdivision design criteria, and identify permitted uses. The applicant is asking for flexibility from the R-2 zoning standards.in terms of the minimum lot width, the setback on the side of the house, and the setback on the side of the garage. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 160’ and the applicant is proposing a minimum of 89’. The zoning requirement for the setback of the side of the house is a minimum of 25’ and the applicant is proposing a minimum of 15’. The zoning requirement for setback on the side of the garage is a minimum of 20’ and the applicant is proposing a minimum of 10’. In exchange for the PUD flexibility, the applicant is proposing to pave the length of Century Drive to Kalen Drive which would be beyond the scope of the project boundaries. They would also provide stormwater management for the newly paved area. Ms. Schmitz noted the proposed Preliminary Plat creates 27 lots and one outlot for stormwater management. The applicant is also proposing a development across Century Avenue in Newport called Cherrywood. There are two cul-de-sacs that are proposed off of Century Avenue that would serve the Cherry Meadows development and align with streets on the Newport side. Ms. Schmitz reviewed the utility plan and noted that the water is being extended from Cottage Grove to Newport and then to Woodbury. The agreement will be with the city of Newport. There is a current agreement with Newport, so the new development would be an amendment to the current agreement. Ms. Schmitz explained during the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant volunteered to add the sidewalk on the Woodbury side of Century Avenue. She noted the development will be within a half mile from four different parks and that staff are suggesting park dedication in the form of cash instead of land. Ms. Schmitz stated the Applicant is required to provide three trees per lot which is identified on the plan. The Applicant is proposing to remove a number of trees from the existing site due to tree health. In order to meet PUD's findings of providing a natural environment, the Applicant is proposing to plant 75 additional trees on the perimeter of the site which exceeds the tree replacement ordinance. These plantings were reviewed with residents at the neighborhood meeting where they identified additional tree health concerns and areas where tree plantings would be beneficial to their property. Ms. Schmitz noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the application during the November 4, 2024 meeting and introduced Planning Commission member John Kollm. Mr. Kollm stated the Planning Commission discussed City water access and the collaboration with Newport and Cottage Grove, the lot sizes, the neighborhood that would be created, the trail and sidewalks that would be provide connectivity to parks and surrounding neighborhoods, and environmental wildlife and drainage concerns. Ultimately the Planning Commission made a number of recommendations which include, a sidewalk on the east side of Century Avenue to enhance connectivity for Woodbury residents. In addition, there was a recommendation to have a trail crossing for safety across Century Avenue, and some type of easement along the southern side of the project to allow for wildlife movement. Finally, there was a request for City Page 3 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 staff to review any impacts and potential mitigation for the endangered rusty patch bumblebee before any tree removal. He said that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 4-3 vote. 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 if the water that was coming from Cottage Grove would be treated. City Engineer Director Hartzell replied th at it would be treated. Mayor Burt asked if the HOA would maintain the sidewalk. Ms. Schmitz replied that they would. Mayor Burt commented that the sidewalk is a nice addition to the existing homes. She thanked the developer for the extra trees. Councilmember Morris added that the three trees per lot is a standard for R-4 zoning and suggested relooking at the requirements for trees in the R-2 zoning since the lots are larger. Ms. Schmitz replied that staff could look into that. Councilmember Date noted that some trees would be removed and that typically it is required for trees to be replaced. She asked how that was being handled. Associate Planner Gina McCormack replied that the trigger of the 30 percent requirement for the removals is not met for the project. Councilmember Morris noted that the Planning Commission report mentioned that there would be 53 trees removed and 75 trees added. He asked if those trees were in the Cherry Meadows development or if it was the overall project. Ms. McCormack replied that it was just for Cherry Meadows and added that many of the trees were dead or in poor health so it would not trigger the 30 percent requirement. The 75 new trees would be to meet the PUD requirements. Councilmember Wilson asked if the 53 trees removed and 75 trees put in were on the Woodbury side. Ms. McCormack replied yes. Councilmember Date asked about the sidewalk on the Newport side which switched sides of the street and required crossing the street. Ms. Schmitz asked the applicant to explain. The Applicant, Ben Schmit, stated the north side sidewalk could not fit based on how the road connected and the setbacks from the bluff. Councilmember Date explained she was thinking about Woodbury residents who want to go on a walk and have to cross the street twice. She encouraged the developer or Newport to reconsider the usability of the sidewalk for the residents. Councilmember Morris asked if Newport had already approved the project. Ms. Schmitz replied yes. Councilmember Wilson noted that when she thinks of PUDs she envisions a larger neighborhood and asked whether the project meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. Ms. Schmitz replied that a PUD has to be a minimum of 10 acres and has to be under single ownership. The Urban Estate land use requires the use of the PUD in order to get flexibility in density. Councilmember Wilson noted that the property is 27 acres and there are 27 homes, and that the density of one unit per acre is not taking into account holding ponds and streets. She would like to see density calculated on a net basis instead. She explained she does not like how the proposal takes estate lots and puts in deep lots instead of wide lots. Councilmember Wilson asked if a traffic study has been conducted on Century Avenue since there are hundreds of trips that will be generated. Mr. Hartzel replied that the project did not meet the threshold for a traffic study. The volumes that would be generated are well within what can be handled on the road. Councilmember Santini noted that she was the Council liaison for the Planning Commission meeting and explained that it was difficult for the Commission Members to figure out what they could control and what was within the purview of Newport. She applauded the Commission for being thorough. She noted that she was uneasy about the water coming from another community but realized that she would feel comfortable with the fact that residents would receive treated water. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that this feels like two developments, one on each cul-de-sac, and they are not really connected since residents would need to go to the main road in order to get to the other development. She expressed her gratitude that there will be a sidewalk but added that it feels like two cul-de-sacs instead of one neighborhood. Councilmember Date mentioned that some people may want that as a housing/neighborhood choice. Councilmember Wilson noted that the lots are smaller than what she would like to see in the area, considering they back up to acreage lots. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-239 Page 4 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to approve the Cherry Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat, Project No. 31-2024-00543, all subject to the conditions as outlined in Council Letter 24-295. 1. The PUD and CUP approval shall expire one (1) year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval shall expire six (6) months from the date of the City Council approval unless a Final Plat has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. This approval shall be contingent upon the ability to receive municipal services from the City of Newport. 4. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the agreement between the City of Woodbury and the City of Newport to service the site with public water and sanitary sewer service shall be recorded. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs incurred with the preparation and execution of said agreement. All area and connection utility charges shall be paid to the City of Woodbury as part of the Development Agreement. 5. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the agreement between the City of Woodbury and the City of Newport regarding stormwater maintenance, cost, easements, and the like shall be recorded. The Developer shall be financially responsible for all applicable storm sewer area charges. Rates applied shall be those in effect at the time of Final Plat approval and shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 6. A Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall record the Final Plat. 8. Final park dedication shall be satisfied via cash dedication. Final dedication shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 9. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, all required findings of Chapter 21-16 shall be met. This includes participation for public infrastructure including storm sewer, water, sanitary and transportation infrastructure. Approval of the Preliminary Plat is conditional upon satisfactory compliance with Chapter 21-16 of the Woodbury City Code. 10. To cure the prematurity of the roadway network and to meet PUD findings, the Applicant shall improve Century Avenue to a paved roadway with designs approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall privately construct these improvements. The construction shall be memorialized within the Development Agreement. 11. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to add additional landscaping to Block 1, Lot 7 and Block 2, Lots 7 and 8. 12. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, Staff shall review and approve final landscaping and seeding plan for Outlot A. Said plan shall include a minimum of three (3) years of maintenance to establish native areas within the Outlot. 13. The future HOA shall provide maintenance, including mowing, snow removal and landscaping care, along the pedestrian connection on the southwest corner of Block 1, Lot 1 on the preliminary plat. The HOA shall also own and maintain any private signage. 14. Prior to tree removal and issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Developer shall conduct a site walk with city staff to review habitat impacts to rusty patched bumble bees. Identified mitigation strategies shall be implemented by the Developer. 15. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, all City required trail crossings shall be identified on the construction plans. 16. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall incorporate a sidewalk on the east side of Century Avenue from Cottage Grove to the south side of the northern cul-de-sac. i. A HOA shall be formed and shall provide maintenance of the sidewalk along Century Avenue including mowing to the edge of the roadway, snow removal and landscape care adjacent to the sidewalk. 17. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall execute recordable encumbrances upon the southern lot lines of Block 1, Lots 1-7 to limit the construction of fencing that would block drainage and animal movements between natural areas. Engineering Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer area and connection charges. Rates applied shall be those in effect at the time of Final Plat approval and will be memorialized in a feasibility/preliminary report for the project. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, the proposed stormwater facility designs shall meet the City’s stormwater design standards including infiltration/ filtration, quality and quantity ponding. The grading contours of all basins shall be modified to deliver a more natural aesthetic. 3. The Applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and must obtain a Land Disturbance Permit along with any necessary right-of-way permits from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any site activities or site disturbance. The Developer will also be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other applicable agencies such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit for Construction Activities permit prior to commencing any site activities. Page 5 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 4. The Applicant shall provide approved street lighting at every intersection and/or every 300 feet. 5. Where public utilities and/or overland emergency overflows run adjacent to side or rear lot lines, easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide on each side of the lot line. If the utilities are deeper than 10 feet the easement width for each lot is calculated at a 1:1 depth to width ratio from the centerline of the utility. The easement width shall then be adjusted to the nearest five (5) foot increment. 6. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting all on- or off-site storm sewer basins and components and adjacent storm sewer facilities from exposure to stormwater runoff, sediment and debris during construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities may be necessary to protect the aforementioned improvements during all construction activities. Construction and maintenance of any temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Developer. A SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the Land Disturbance Permit process. 7. Temporary sediment basins shall be identified on the grading plan that are sufficient in size to address stormwater management during construction. These basins shall be located out of the right-of-way and be maintained throughout housing construction. 8. Outlots and easements that contain public structures and utilities shall be kept free of landscaping and retaining walls. All pond accesses and maintenance benches shall be kept free of planting, retaining walls, etc. 9. Prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, the Applicant shall provide updated plans that provide conduit crossings for irrigation lines to avoid utility conflicts. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Performance Standards, Gold Line Ordinance; Project No. 2024-00568 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Ms. McCormack stated the City of Woodbury is proposing amendments to Chapter 24 – Zoning, Article I.— In General, Section 24-4. Definitions. And Chapter 24 – Zoning, Article VI. – Supplemental Performance Standards., Division 3.—Specific Land Use Performance Standards, Section 24-306—24-307. Reserved. The intent of these amendments is to provide performance standards for developing properties in close proximity to the Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor. It will also memorialize the vision adopted in Gold Line Station area master plan to create unique development or redevelopment opportunities, increase ridership potential, and provide enhanced pedestrian connections. Ms. McCormack mentioned the METRO Gold Line is a planned ten-mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), much of which is in a dedicated guideway, that will connect Woodbury to Saint Paul and other eastern suburbs. The Gold Line is planned to open in 2025. In Woodbury, the Gold Line would run north-south following Bielenberg Drive then turning onto Guider Drive, where the corridor ends. Ms. McCormack noted the City adopted a master plan for the Gold Line Station Areas in April of 2022. The purpose of the City’s master plan was to determine the appropriate land uses around each of the three stations and establish potential design guidelines for each of the studied sites. The three stations within Woodbury are located on Bielenberg Drive, north of Tamarack Road; near the Woodbury Theater on the corner of Queens Drive and Guider Drive; and at the corner of Guider Drive and Woodlane Drive near the park and ride. In addition, the master plan determined four specific sections which include existing conditions, engagement feedback, specific site land use recommendations, and corridor design. Staff used the recommendations and community input to develop performance standards that will apply to sites within the designated TOD area. Ms. McCormack stated the new Ordinance would apply within a quarter mile of the BRT route and on the east side of I-494. A quarter mile was identified as the walkshed within the master plan. The new Ordinance will apply to projects requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, planned unit development preliminary plat, and site and building plan. It will not apply to properties with a change of business or tenant. The Ordinance separates into seven different sections for regulation which include height, setbacks, site design, building orientation, architecture, landscaping, and parking. Staff worked to specifically address feedback heard from residents regarding the seven sections. Building height was discussed in relation to adjacent residential uses and the Ordinance describes additional height allowances based on sufficient setback from low-density residential uses. The Ordinance also discusses building orientation and setbacks and seeks to establish buildings creating a street presence in close proximity to the BRT alignment. The Ordinance discusses landscaping themes based on the established design for the BRT corridor that was memorialized by the Council in the master plan along with pedestrian lighting requirements within the right-of-way and the interior of each site. Ms. McCormack mentioned the Planning Commission reviewed the project at their October 21 st meeting. They recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. Mr. Kollm stated the Planning Commission had questions about the housing density standards in the area and the diversity of opportunities for housing along the transit corridor. The Commission Members spent time reviewing the design standards Page 6 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 between the residential development, the commercial development, and the public-use plaza spaces. They also reviewed the prohibited uses that are identified in the Ordinance. The commissioners agreed that the Ordinance is consistent with the Gold Line master plan. 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 the opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Date expressed her understanding of having a quarter mile for a walkshed and she noted there are areas on the map outside of this radius that make sense to include such as the corner of Valley Creek and 494. Ms. McCormack replied that it may be possible to do a master plan for these additional areas and tie it back to the proposed Ordinance. Mayor Burt asked for an explanation of the difference between a master plan and an Ordinance and how it ties together. Ms. Schmitz explained that the Council directed staff to prepare a Council directive on master plans. Staff are proposing to bring that to the Council in December. Mayor Burt agreed with Councilmember Date’s concern and wants to make sure there is a clean boundary. Councilmember Date said the quarter mile radius makes sense in theory, but when shown on the map, it raises the question of what other boundaries such as streets and development limits already exist. She added that she would like to see the boundary be practical in its application. Councilmember Morris agreed and added that it is important to be thoughtful about what could be in the area in the future. Mayor Burt asked how drive-throughs were addressed in the performance standards and if businesses with drive-throughs would be impacted. Ms. McCormack replied that existing drive-throughs would not be impacted but new drive-throughs would be prohibited. Mayor Burt noted that this could restrict new businesses in the commercial corridor. Councilmember Morris agreed and wondered if the Council would want to restrict future uses by restricting drive-throughs in the area. Councilmember Date asked what the logic would be in prohibiting the various uses such as Class II restaurants with a drive-through, motor vehicle fuel station, motor vehicle wash, repair garage, and drive-through facilities. Ms. McCormack replied that the best practices for transit-oriented development is to restrict or prohibit auto-dependent uses in order to encourage transit. Councilmember Morris described the tension between supporting the intention of Transit Orient Development (TOD) and his belief that the market will decide what the market’s going to decide based on the existing zoning. Councilmember Wilson added that the Council recently approved a TopGolf in this TOD area. Councilmember Morris asked if the Ordinance was in place at the time TopGolf was reviewed, would it have been an allowed use. Ms. McCormack replied that staff reviewed the entire TopGolf site as a PUD. She added that the developers worked with staff to meet many of the draft requirements, and that TopGolf would have been a permitted use with the Ordinance in place. However, they would have needed to seek flexibility with the building orientation. Councilmember Date agreed with Councilmember Morris’ comments regarding feeling torn. She mentioned that she supports TOD. However, her focus was more in regard to providing residential walking access. She expressed feeling uncomfortable with the use restrictions that are proposed. She asked what the impact would be if the prohibited uses were taken out of the Ordinance. Ms. McCormack replied that the Ordinance would still be solid, and it is possible to strike a portion of the prohibited uses such as drive- through facilities or remove that portion of the Ordinance entirely. She mentioned it was also possible to extend the quarter mile boundary as well. Councilmember Morris stated he would be in favor of deleting the drive-through facilities and Class II restaurants with a drive-through under the prohibited uses section. Mayor Burt agreed. Councilmember Morris asked if there would be a conditional use permit option within the Ordinance. Ms. McCormack replied that there is a CUP recorded against the property that would allow for the use. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that she has not been a fan of the Gold Line. She asked if there would be a setback for residential units from the interstate highway. Ms. McCormack replied that there was a setback of 700 feet. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were projects currently being proposed along the corridor. Ms. McCormack replied that there were not. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern about protecting the residents that are already in the area and having big, tall buildings in the neighborhoods. She added her concern about putting the TOD in place. Councilmember Morris mentioned that within 150 feet of a residential property, there could be a two-story building. Ms. McCormack showed the Council a site plan example from the Gold Line Master Plan. The intent of the Ordinance is to codify what staff have heard from neighbors. Staff spent a lot of time with residents to Page 7 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 determine how to create the separation and keep some of the existing vegetation. Councilmember Morris mentioned that he feels comfortable with the concerns regarding the adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Wilson asked if five stories was the maximum. Ms. McCormack said yes. Councilmember Santini asked if Aspire at City Place is a five-story project. Ms. McCormack replied that it is five stories. She added that staff heard from the Council that increased height was desired along this corridor, and based on best practices, putting buildings close to the street helps slow down speeds. Ms. McCormack further explained that the building height is measured by the average of the grades, therefore, the building height at the average grade would need to be a maximum of 55 feet. Councilmember Wilson asked if the high-density area shown on the example site plan met the 350-foot setback from the adjacent residential area. Ms. McCormack replied that she believed it was 350 feet. Councilmember Wilson stated she would reluctantly move forward with the ordinance but expressed her disappointment that TopGolf and Main Event got approved in this location because it will change the feel of the corridor. She added that she would like the existing homes east of Bielenberg Drive to be protected from sight lines. Mayor Burt mentioned that the Ordinance would protect existing homes in that regard. Councilmember Date noted the quarter mile boundaries should not cut through property lines. Councilmember Wilson agreed. Ms. McCormack explained that the intent of showing the Council the location map was to show the quarter-mile boundary. The Ordinance states that it includes all properties within a quarter mile and would apply to anything the line is touching. The entire property would be applied to the quarter-mile boundary. Councilmember Morris mentioned that extending the boundary to Valley Creek Road would include the intent of the zone and encourage certain types of businesses. He added that the natural boundaries of the roadways make more sense to use. Councilmember Wilson added that Currell Boulevard could also be the southern boundary to the south. Councilmember Date mentioned that with that information, expanding the boundary wouldn’t be necessary so long as a master plan for the other areas could be considered, as long as the Ordinance does not preclude TOD along Valley Creek Road. Councilmember Morris asked if a development application came to the City that may be out of the standard for the area but follows TOD would it be allowed. Ms. McCormack replied it depends on the Ordinance section the standard falls in. She added that staff could encourage developers to apply the standards from TOD to properties outside of the boundary. Councilmember Morris stated he would be fine leaving the boundary as proposed. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2063 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 24 Zoning, Article I. In General, Section 24-4. Definitions; and Chapter 24 Zoning, Article VI Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 3 Specific Land Use Performance Standards, Section 24-306—24- 307 Reserved with the modification to remove prohibited uses of Class II restaurants with a drive- through and drive-through facilities. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to authorize staff to publish the Summary of the Ordinance amending Chapter 24 Zoning, Article I. In General, Section 24-4. Definitions; and Chapter 24 Zoning, Article VI Supplemental Performance Standards, Division 3 Specific Land Use Performance Standards, Section 24-306—24-307. Reserved. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Discussion Consent Agenda Item 6J. 2025 Classification and Compensation Plan for Unrepresented Employees Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and stated she would be voting differently. Page 8 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-238 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota establishing the 2025 Classification and Compensation Plan for Unrepresented Employees. These items are contingent upon the City Council’s approval of the 2025 Budget. Councilmember Morris asked Councilmember Wilson to give an explanation on why she would be voting differently. Councilmember Wilson explained that there are many new positions within the Resolution and she did not agree with all of the created positions. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Consent Agenda Item 6I. Approval of Revisions to Council Directives CD-COUNCIL-2.6 Workshop Protocol Policy, CD-COUNCIL-2.5 City Council Roles and Guidelines, CDCOUNCIL-2.13 Advisory Boards and Commission Roles and Guidelines. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and mentioned when Council direction is given, it should be followed through with. She added she expressed her concern during a Council workshop that a Council directive that is lenient or subjective could mean that one Councilmember is at the mercy of the other four. One Councilmember may deem it right to do something or maintain notes for a longer period of time. She explained that when the document references “elected officials” it should be consistent instead of having “officials” or “representatives”. One Ordinance mentions that the City Administrator sets the Agenda while a different Ordinance mentions that the City Administrator sets the Agenda with the Council's direction. She asked that the Directives remain consistent. Councilmember Morris asked to direct staff to review the Directive again in order to clean up the “elected official” language in order for there to be consistency. Mr. Gridley replied that the Council could still pass the Resolution with the request that staff review and correct the language in the Directives for consistency. Mayor Burt pointed out page 63 of the Agenda Packet, under item A “Preparing for a meeting” it reads “The City Administrator will create an agenda that will estimate length of meeting, determine topics to be covered, and assign roles and responsibilities to staff for the meeting.” Councilmember Santini pointed out page 54 of the Agenda Packet and referenced section 6, 6.01 which reads “Council agendas shall be established by the City Administrator or designee. Future agenda items requested by a Council Member shall be discussed during a regular and/or workshop meeting and will be determined by the majority of the Council.” Councilmember Wilson confirmed that those were the two sections she was referencing. Councilmember Morris stated that one of them references Council meetings and the other Council workshops. Mr. Gridley added that if a Councilmember had a request to add something to the Agenda, it would go through the Council and the majority would agree to the item being for the Council meeting or Council workshop. Councilmember Wilson asked if the record retention policy was determined. Mr. Gridley replied that the City Attorney would be providing that at the kickoff meeting and staff will also provide an accompanying document that will support it. A staff memo will be shared with the Councilmembers and Commissioners. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Council was fine with it without knowing what it was. Mayor Burt replied that the retention schedule already exists. Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the revisions to Council Directives CD-COUNCIL-2.6 Workshop Protocol Policy, CD-COUNCIL-2.5 City Council Roles and Guidelines, CDCOUNCIL-2.13 Advisory Boards and Commission Roles and Guidelines with the request that Staff prior to final completion ensures that the same language of “elected officials” is used throughout all three directives. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Date moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, Page 9 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 To adopt the following resolution Resolution 24-237 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota revising Council Directive CD- COUNCIL-2.6 Workshop Protocol Policy, Council Directive CD-COUNCIL-2.5 City Council Roles and Guidelines and CD-COUNCIL-2.13 Advisory Boards and Commission Roles and Guidelines Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye A. 2025 Advisory Commission Appointments and City Council Liaison Assignments Mayor Burt commented that there was an error made in terms of appointing the Planning Commission. Previously, the City mentioned there needed to be four new Planning Commission members, but instead there only needs to be two. However, the Council already appointed four. She asked the Council how they would like to move forward to address this. There are several options which include discussing and selecting during the meeting, referring to the Planning Commission appointments, waiting on the Planning Commission workshop on December 11th, to table the appointments and reviewing the resumes over Thanksgiving and do a vote, re-interview all the applicants during a Council meeting and delegate the decision to the Mayor, or choose one person from each group. She mentioned that both groups had selected their top contender. The Council could simply pick the number one option from each group. Mr. Gridley added that there are openings next year so the Council could choose the 2025 and 2026 Planning Commissioners. Mayor Burt advocated for taking the top two from each group. Councilmember Date mentioned that it would be difficult to rank all four since the Council only interviewed two. She suggested the Council email the top two choices in hopes that the names line up. Councilmember Morris mentioned that his notes have the names of the two groups and asked if he would be able to get his notes back. Councilmember Santini asked for her notes back as well. Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Ashleigh Sullivan left the meeting to retrieve the notes. Councilmember Morris asked if the Council could come back to the item once the notes were available. Mayor Burt agreed and moved to the next agenda item. B. 2025 Legislative Priorities Community Relations Manager Shelly Schafer presented the 2025 legislative priorities. She reviewed the agenda which included a recap of the July Council workshop, State legislative priorities, federal legislative priorities, and a request for the Council to adopt the 2025 legislative priorities. Ms. Schafer mentioned the priorities that were identified in July included bonding for the water tower, sales tax exemption of the water treatment plant, housing diversity, and public art. Since the July workshop, the water tower bonding request was removed, the water tower was added to the sales tax exemption bill, La Lake was identified as a new bonding request, and there was a recommendation to seek federal funding to conduct an arts planning process. Ms. Schafer noted that the 2025 State legislative priorities include a $2 million bonding request for La Lake Park restoration and development project, a sales tax exemption for the water treatment plant and water tower, and housing. The $2 million bonding request would be for the north part of the park. It is a good candidate for bonding because it has regional benefits since it is right along the lines of Newport and is supported by Newport and Washington County. It has a focus on connectivity with the trails and accessibility. If the funding comes through then the project will move forward, but if it project does not receive the funding it will be tabled for future consideration. Some renderings are available already. The project will include a large open-air shelter with permanent restrooms, picnic opportunities, multi-generational gathers, and newly paved entry drive parking lots and trails. There would be a natural playground made of natural materials. Ms. Schafer explained the sales tax exemption bill included the water treatment plant and water tower. The bill will be effective on any project pipeline materials and construction and will go from January 1, 2024, until December 1, 2028. Ms. Schafer stated the Comprehensive Plan notes that the City is committed to 50% of single-family homes and 50% of multi-family units to be affordable housing. The City put forth four identified areas that are important to consider when developing housing legislation which include an increase in State financing for affordable housing, aligning local control changes with housing affordability, preserving comprehensive planning and community input, and supporting community input in planning decisions. Page 10 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Mayor Burt mentioned she was at a housing meeting and a frustration discussed was that developers spend a lot of money understanding all of the City guidelines and then the last step is to do the public hearing to gather public input. The developers feel like they have done all the work to follow the guidelines and then the public complains. She asked if it would be possible to move the public hearing portion to earlier in the process. Ms. Schmitz mentioned that in Woodbury, there is a neighborhood policy. After the application is submitted, there are neighborhood meetings. Councilmember Wilson mentioned the neighborhood meetings are appreciated and added that she would like to see the boundary extended to 1,000 feet from the project instead of 500 feet. Ms. Schmitz explained that State law requires public hearing notices to be sent to residents 350 feet away from a project, and the City’s Ordinance is 500 feet away but the Council could consider extending the boundary. Councilmember Morris explained that part of the process is to communicate with the public about what the priorities are. He encouraged staff to consider how to engage the community so they understand what the Council is working on their behalf. Ms. Schafer stated after the priorities are approved, staff will work on graphics to show the overall policy and priorities. Ms. Schafer noted that the congressionally directed spending requests in the FY2025 budget include infrastructure improvements along Weir Drive for $850,000, and a technology grant for a new emergency operation center for $1,184,000. The City also made a request for the solar panels for the fleet services building, but the solar panels did not make it through into the bill. The bill has not passed for the other two requests. The continuing Resolution goes through December 20 th. She mentioned that staff has identified two areas they would like to focus on which are asking for funding for the public safety management system, and the National Endowment for the Arts grant for public art planning. Councilmember Morris mentioned that the City is capitalizing on the project for the federal RMS system assistant and asked if the funds coming in would reduce the overall project costs, or would only apply for the 2025-2026 budget appropriation. Mr. Gridley replied that the City budgeted for the annual maintenance fee and the employees. If the City is successful in receiving the funds it would probably affect the maintenance fee structure. In the subsequent budget, after it is adopted, it is possible to reduce the levy for it. Ms. Schafer added that the request is for 2026. Councilmember Morris clarified that just because something is in a bill, it does not mean that it passes. Therefore, the City did not receive the water tower money or the sales tax exemption. Ms. Schafer agreed and added that there is some initial support for the draft bill for the sale tax exemption bill. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was possible to ask for something regarding the Public Safety Department. Mr. Gridley replied that the staff discussed it. Since the City got permission to go to the voters for the sales tax it was not very salable to ask for a sales tax exemption and a bonding request. Councilmember Santini asked if the public safety building construction already gets a sales tax exemption. Mr. Gridley replied that it did. Mayor Burt asked what is the value of the sales tax exemption for the water tower and the water treatment plant. Ms. Schafer replied that in the bill last year, it was identified that it would be a sales tax exemption for the City portion of construction materials which was estimated at $690,000 per year. Councilmember Morris asked if there could be a larger conversation with the 3M settlement group and all the communities affected. He mentioned that it was likely that the City could get all of those communities to agree that they should be exempt. Councilmember Santini added that it would be nice if someone saw what the value would be, especially the two trustees. Mr. Gridley explained that the smaller the number, the more likely there will be success in receiving the funds. By advocating for all the communities on the City’s dime, there is less of a likelihood of succeeding. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to adopt a motion to adopt the proposed legislative priorities. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None C. Cannabis and Hemp Retailer Registration; Adoption of Ordinance and Approval of Summary Ordinance Mr. Sandstrom explained that registration is the statutory process by which the City gives its final stamp of approval on a cannabis or hemp business after it has been licensed by the Office of Cannabis Management. Registration is required in relation to retail sales such as selling cannabis plants, cannabis flowers, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, and/or hemp-derived consumer products to customers. Registration is not required for microbusiness or mezzobusiness that does not conduct sales to customers. Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the proposed options to regulate registrations, which include having a minimum of one registration per every 12,500 residents (the current minimum is 7 cannabis businesses). Staff are looking for businesses to be current on taxes and Page 11 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 assessments, in compliance with Ordinances, or fees are paid when looking to register a business. Staff have received input from the Council to be as restrictive as possible so the one registration per every 12,500 residents has already been enacted. There is an understanding that the restrictions can lessen over time. Mr. Sandstrom showed the Council a graphic of the proposed feeds. The City renewal registration maximum fees include: • Cannabis Microbusiness – $1,000 • Cannabis Mezzobusiness – $1,000 • Cannabis Retailer – $1,000 • Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Retailer – $125 • Medical Cannabis Combination – $1,000 Mr. Sandstrom stated the proposed registration process would be: 1. Apply to City Clerk/designee accompanied by a fee 2. City conducts compliant checks (not required to be law enforcement) 3. If the application meets the Ordinance requirements, the City Clerk/designee issues registration (registrations issued administratively and do not go to the Council. There is no discretion to deny) 4. Annual Renewal Councilmember Wilson asked if the Ordinance indicated there was a maximum of seven businesses. Mr. Sandstrom replied that the ordinance it did state that “There shall be a total of one registration available for every 12,500 residents.” This allows the ordinance to remain compliant with State Statute as the city’s population grows. Councilmember Santini asked if the population was based on the census. Mr. Sandstrom replied that it was under the official census count. She asked what would need to be triggered for the Council to have to approve a business. Ms. Schmitz replied that there are some districts that would require a CUP. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, To adopt the following ordinance Ordinance 2064 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota providing that the City Code be Amended by Amending Chapter 11 to require the registration of Cannabis Retailers and Lower- Potency Hemp Edible Retailers. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, to authorize staff to publish the Summary of the Ordinance amending Chapter 11 to require the registration of cannabis retailers and lower-potency hemp edible retailers. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None A. 2025 Advisory Commission Appointments and City Council Liaison Assignments (continued) The Council compared their notes on who was the number one selected from each group. Mayor Burt proposed that the Council appoint the top two people. Mr. Sandstrom suggested that the Council share the notes that they were comparing since it was not a part of the official Agenda Packet. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adopt a motion approving the appointments for the advisory commissions with the amendment of the Planning Commission appointments to Marsha Kennedy and Saurin Shah and all other appointments in Council letter 24-297. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Page 12 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to adopt a motion approving the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission appointment as listed in Council letter 24-297. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Morris, Santini, Burt Abstained: Date Absent: None Mayor Burt mentioned that Councilmember Date wrote a letter to the Council regarding the Watershed District. Councilmember Date asked if she was required to read the entire letter for the record or if she could paraphrase. Mr. Sandstrom replied that she could paraphrase and if someone wanted a copy of the letter, they could request a copy. Councilmember Date stated there are two important components to consider for the Watershed District appointment. It is different from the advisory commissions because of the levy responsibility and should be treated differently. She asked the Council to reconsider since it has levy responsibilities. She suggested interviewing all applicants in January. She added that the person who is appointed should have a lot of experience and have shown a commitment to the City through their volunteer efforts. She stated that it is not appropriate to have a new resident who has not served on any other commissions to be put in this role. Mayor Burt asked why the Watershed District does not offer some of the guidance that Councilmember Date had provided. Councilmember Morris expressed his support for tabling the appointment until January. Mayor Burt mentioned that the information has already been made public and feels uncomfortable pulling back on it. Councilmember Date explained that the Council had made some errors and just made a correction for the Planning Commission and asked what the right thing was to do. She mentioned the right thing to do is to make the process transparent and to use all of the information available. Mayor Burt added that she met with the Watershed District Manager and when she told him what they were thinking of an appointment it seemed like he was fine with it. Mr. Gridley mentioned that he had a different interpretation. He explained that there were inquiries about the person selected and their involvement and knowledge. Mayor Burt asked if the inquiries were from the members of the Watershed District. Mr. Gridley replied to the staff. He stated that the emphasis was that it was a nomination and ultimately it would go to the County. Councilmember Wilson asked how someone could be on a commission for 20 years. Councilmember Date explained that the City has a two-term limit, but the policy does not exist in the State Statute so someone can serve on a commission outside of the City for longer. Mayor Burt asked who was responsible for the reappointment. Mr. Gridley replied that the City would go through the same process. Councilmember Date explained that there is not much of an incentive for those who have served on a Planning Commission for years and volunteer hours and were told they would not get the appointment and instead, someone with little experience would. Councilmember Santini replied that was not how the Council arrived at the decision. Councilmember Date explained that the Council has to recognize the perception and that it is a board that people aspire to be on after they have done volunteer work. Councilmember Morris advocated to table this item in order to look at all of the new information and review the candidates again. He mentioned it was new information to him regarding the roles and responsibilities of the position. He added that he would like to table the discussion at a Council workshop. Mayor Burt mentioned that with the new information, a 15-minute interview seems too short for such an important role. She added that the application should be more extensive, and the Watershed District should outline what type of person they want. Mr. Gridley added that Mayor Burt had asked the Watershed District for their plan for the next year and did not receive the plan. The plan could help form what skillsets they are looking for in a commissioner. Councilmember Morris stated he would like to table the appointment in order to have a longer interview process. Mayor Burt asked that the five Councilmembers be present for the interview and asked for the full plan qualifications and criteria from the Watershed District. Councilmember Wilson noted that all of the applicants had water-related experience in their background and asked if waiting until December or January, what would the Council do differently. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to adopt a motion to give staff direction to amend the process to include a revised application that would consider qualifications for the position, instruct the Watershed District to give the Council a work plan outline, re-interview the candidates after their revised applications are submitted, have a more extensive interview, and require the full Council to be present. Councilmember Wilson noted that the Telecommunication Commission is the other Commission that needs an individual to be appointed to the position. She asked how people are going to replace someone on that Commission. Councilmember Santini agreed and mentioned that she thinks the process could be changed in the future. She also agreed that the Council chose someone for the Page 13 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Watershed District who has the qualifications and experience. She mentioned that the process needs to be amended but struggles to make the change now. Councilmember Morris asked how fair it was that only three Councilmembers were present at the interview. He explained if it is a more elevated position, then the entire Council should be there. Councilmember Santini agreed with the concept for the future, but noted that was not the process while the interviews were being conducted. Councilmember Morris agreed and pointed out that there was new information. Councilmember Wilson replied that it is not new information, the Council just has not done anything about it. The Council has known it is a voting position with no term limits. Mr. Gridley mentioned that the City did not know if the incumbent would apply, or who would apply. He mentioned that the Council can decide if they would like to stick with the process or take a step back and redo it in a new format. Councilmember Morris renewed his motion. Mayor Burt agreed and mentioned she would like to do the process right. She explained that the Council would need to decide when to conduct the interviews. Mr. Gridley replied that they could do it in a special Council workshop meeting. Councilmember Date suggested that the Council conduct the interviews in 2025 so there is no potential perception that she has any bias by interviewing candidates. Councilmember Wilson added that the Watershed District needs some time to get back to the Council. Councilmember Date stated all watershed districts are required to have a 10-year strategic plan. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Andrea Date – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – no Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Date, to adopt a motion approving the remainder of Council letter 24-297 items 4 and 5 chair and vice chair as well as 2025 Council liaison assignments. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report City Administrator Clinton Gridley gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings. • November 26, 2024 – Economic Development Commission, 7:30 a.m., Ash North and South City Hall • December 2, 2024 – Planning Commission Meeting • December 3, 2024 – Parks and Natural Resources Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m., M Health Fairview Sports Center • December 10, 2024 – Economic Development Commission Workshop, 8:00 a.m., Ash North and South City Hall • December 11, 2024 – Council Workshop Meeting • December 11, 2-24 – Public Hearing o Math and Science Academy Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, 27-2024-00563 Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Date, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 _________________________________________ Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on December 11, 2024. Page 15 of 15