City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, April 02, 2025 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 2nd day of April 2025. 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, Donna Stafford, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. Absent: None Others Present: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Jamie Fritts, Housing and Economic Development Coordinator; Jason Schirmacher, Chief Financial Officer/Controller; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; and Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. Special Order of Business A. Swearing in of New Police Officer(s) Trevor Johnson and Anthony Pieper. 1. Introduction – Public Safety Director Jason Posel Public Safety Director Jason Posel stated the mission of Woodbury Public Safety is to serve all people with compassion and courage. It is possible to accomplish the mission by hiring people who share the same values of integrity, trust, respect, and excellence. He explained that he is proud to introduce the new officers to the community. He mentioned that Anothy Pieper, and Trevor Johnson would be sworn in. 2. Meaning of Police Officer Badge – Assistant Public Safety Director Omar Maklad Assistant Public Safety Director Omar Maklad shared the meaning of the badge and called Trevor Johnson and Anthony Pieper forward. 3. Oath (Police)– Mayor and New Officer(s) Trevor Johnson and Anthony Pieper Mayor Burt presided over the swearing in of Police Officers Trevor Johnson and Anthony Pieper, after which they each had their badges pinned on by a family member or other important person in their life. B. Proclaiming April 20-26, 2025, as Volunteer Appreciation Week Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full declaring April 20-26 as Volunteer Appreciation Week. C. Proclamation Recognizing Woodbury Resident Brian Johnson’s 21-year tenure on the South Washington Watershed District Board Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full declaring April 8, 2025, as Brian Johnson Day. Brian Johnson thanked the Council and mentioned that he has had the honor to serve on the South Washington Watershed District Board. He noted that a small group is on the board, and everyone is dedicated and happy to serve.  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Mayor Burt asked Mr. Johnson when the celebration would be. Mr. Johnson replied that it would be on April 8 th at 5:00 p.m. at the Public Works building. 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. Craig Baumann, 3625 Williamsburg Court, stated he was there to discuss the plans for Wedgewood Park to be converted to a stormwater drainage area. He expressed his concerns regarding the lack of communication and community involvement for the project. He explained that he built his house 32 years ago because of the park and all that it offers. Woodbury is known for its beautiful bike trails and parks. He mentioned that he learned a week ago that there were plans to convert the park into a stormwater drainage area. The City sent letters only to the families whose homes are on the park, but he did not receive a letter. The letter mentioned an opportunity to attend an open house, but he did not attend the open house since he did not receive the letter. He contacted the City and spoke with one of the engineers, who admitted that the park would no longer be usable for recreational purposes once it is converted into a stormwater drainage area. He added that he contacted the mayor and several council members and was surprised that none of the City leaders were aware of the project. It appears that the Engineering Department is driving the project without giving notice to the Mayor, Councilmembers, the Homeowners Association, or the residents of the City. He explained that he does not know what process was used to identify the site and wondered if there were other alternatives. He added that the process is flawed when no one from the City leadership or the residents is notified before such a drastic change to the park. He asked the Council to put the project on hold until the residents are given a chance to collaborate with the City to look at alternative options. He noted that one of the objectives of the City is to reduce the costs of maintaining the parks. If it is an issue, there are other options to reduce the costs of mowing and maintenance. The City currently has a stormwater drainage area by the ball parks and wondered if it was underutilized. Brad Johnson, 3695 Williamsburg Parkway, stated he is an original resident of the Wedgewood Park development. He explained that he paid a premium to have the parcel on the park and has enjoyed the open space for 32 years. He mentioned that he has heard that the City feels as if the park is underutilized. He attested that he frequently sees community members utilizing the park. He supported the idea of putting a pause on the project and agreed with Mr. Bowman’s comments regarding poor communication regarding the project. Mayor Burt asked for staff to provide more information regarding the complexity of the project. She added that it is related to the installation of the water treatment plant and the associated pipeline work. Engineering Director Chris Hartzell explained that the decision stems from the pipeline distribution project related to the water treatment plant. The City has a required water quality treatment for pipelines, which is part of State and national standards. The 17 miles of piping go between two watershed districts. There is limited room to treat the water quality. There was a comprehensive study conducted. The study aimed to find a cost-effective and feasible site that would meet State and local rules. Staff looked at the location of existing stormwater BMPs, the hydrologic soil group, existing storm sewer, existing land uses, groundwater elevations, and the contributing drainage area. Many people from Public Works, the Engineering Department, and consultants look at the City collectively. They looked at 36 sites and identified 12 that were feasible, and 7 were selected. Mr. Hartzell explained that there were four sites for Best Management Practices (BMP) maintenance. The project was approved through the community engagement plan. He mentioned that they have been limited in being able to find feasible sites, and the seven sites that were identified are the only ones that meet the requirements. He noted that the open house was intended to inform the community, and it did not give the community options on where the project would be, since it was so limited. There was an open house on February 21st, and about 58 mailers were sent out. Community members who attended the open house asked if there were other locations the project could go. Mr. Hartzell reviewed the infiltration basin at Wedgewood Park. Infiltration ponds require a drawdown within 48-72 hours. Staff are proposing to restore native landscaping around the existing pond. Wedgewood Park includes two different open space areas with a walking trail in between. Mayor Burt explained that she would allow a few questions, but the time is not meant to be a back-and-forth discussion. She reinforced that the City Council is not aware of every detail that happens with City staff. There are items that the Council gets involved with on a policy level. She added that the water pipeline is the largest project the Public Works Department has done, and there are many details involved. Mayor Burt asked how many pages were included in the study that was conducted. Mr. Hartzell replied 78 pages. Mayor Burt encouraged Mr. Baumann to review the report. She added that the Council has emphasized the importance of providing the City with ample drinking water. She noted that it is unfortunate that other things are affected. She explained that the parkland is City-owned and the City can determine what can be done with the land. The City does not have a choice on location at this point and does not want to delay the project. The number one priority is to have safe drinking water for the City. Wedgewood Park will still have open space. She apologized that the community members felt that the communication to residents was poor. She explained that it was not the Page 2 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Engineering Department's fault because they followed the policy that the Council put in place. She mentioned that the City would be interested in collaborating with the neighbors regarding getting input on what kind of plantings they would like to see there. Emer Scheibner, 3694 Williamsburg Parkway, stated she did not receive a mailer and added that many of her neighbors did not receive a mailer from the City. She expressed her disappointment in the communication. She explained that the other area of Wedgewood Park is used for t-ball and has a different purpose than the other portion of Wedgewood Park. She added that the residents do not really understand the water treatment project. Mayor Burt explained that the project at Wedgewood Park is not PFAS removal. PFAS removal is happening at the water treatment plant. The Wedgewood Park infiltration basin would be in place because of the watershed requirements to do water quality improvements when additional impervious surfaces are created or you disturb existing impervious surfaces. Mr. Hartzell explained that the South Washington Watershed District requires 1 inch of volume over the impervious surface that is disturbed. Once it is below the pavement surface, it triggers the rules. As pavement is removed, the acreage is multiplied by one inch and converted into acre-feet, which equals the volume of water that needs to be treated. Councilmember Morris noted that the 17 miles of piping that are being put in are disturbing other pavement in other areas. Because of that, it was required that the City find a location to meet the rules of the 1-inch of volume requirement. Mayor Burt added that there are six other locations that are getting the same basin. Mayor Burt mentioned that the engineering staff is available to answer questions and provide clarity on the project. City Administrator Clinton Gridley explained that the decision was not a casual endeavor and expressed his understanding that the residents' way of life would be affected due to the project. He added that it is not something that the City wanted to do, but it was a requirement in order to have safe water. He noted that he would make copies of the report for residents who were interested in having a copy. Mayor Burt explained that there are going to be major impacts on the City due to the water treatment plant, and it is unfortunate. She emphasized the importance of providing the City with safe drinking water and that the City must meet the requirements in order to make it happen. She apologized that the residents are being impacted. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be native plantings in the whole green area. Mr. Hartzell replied that there would be. Councilmember Wilson asked if the City would maintain there were no obnoxious weeds growing. Mr. Hartzell replied that the City would maintain the area. There will be a five-year maintenance period. The contractor that is hired is responsible for getting the native plants to an acceptable nature that is well established. After that, the City does spot sprays. Once the native plants are established, they do a good job of keeping out invasives. 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 – March 12, 2025. This item was removed the Consent Agenda and moved to the Discussion portion of the meeting. Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-58 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing staff to submit an application to the National Endowment for the Arts – Grants for Arts Project Program Planning requesting $75,000. Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-59 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the Cooperative Agreement with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for enhanced street sweeping program in 2025 and amending the 2025 budget. Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-60 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota: 1. Awarding the construction contract for the Woodlane Drive Trail Project (Valley Creek to Guider Drive) and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. Page 3 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 2. Amending the 2025 Municipal State Aid Roadway Construction Fund and Tax Abatement Plan I- 94 Region Fund budgets. 3. Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with Bolton and Menk, Inc. for construction administration services. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-61 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an engineering consulting services contract with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for construction administration services. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-62 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the installation of an all-way stop-controlled intersection with stop signs located on northbound and southbound Weir Drive at Costco’s middle access. Item G To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-63 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract for the 09-G Epoxy Terrazzo Flooring work scope package to Concrete Arts, Inc. for the Central Park Renovation Project and authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said awarded contract. Item H To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-64 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the acceptance of the Spark Good Local Community Grant through Woodbury Sam’s Club and approving the associated budget amendment. Item I To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-65 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the acceptance of the Spark Good Local Community Grant through Woodbury Walmart and approving the associated budget amendment. Item J To adopt a motion to renew the liquor license of the business on the attached list for the period of April 3, 2025 through March 31, 2026. Item K 1. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-66 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the purchase of group medical insurance from Medica and amending the City contribution toward the employee group medical insurance program. 2. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-67 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the City to self-fund dental insurance benefits, hiring HealthPartners as the administrative service organization and amending the City contribution toward the Employee Group Dental Insurance Program. 3. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-68 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the purchase of life and long-term disability insurance from Symetra. 4. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-69 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the purchase of short-term disability advice-to-pay administrative services from Symetra. 5. To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-70 Page 4 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the offering of voluntary supplemental insurance from AFLAC and voluntary vision insurance from EyeMed Vision Care. Item L To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-71 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota a revised resolution approving the application for Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG214 Premises Permit and Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG215 Lease for Lawful Gambling Activity for Merrick, Inc. to be conducted at Carmine’s Restaurant and Bar, located at 9900 Valley Creek Road., Suite 175 in Woodbury, MN. Item M To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-72 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving various carryovers to the 2025 budget. Item N 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 March 7, 2025, in the amount of $4,799,785.75, March 14, 2025, in the amount of $1,776,914.95 and March 21, 2025 in the amount of $1,847,329.60. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exemption of Item 6A. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye 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. Authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended, to finance and refinance school facilities for the benefit of MSA Building Company and Math & Science Academy; approving related documents; and taking certain other actions with respect thereto. Housing and Economic Development Coordinator Jamie Fritts stated MSA Building Company and Math & Science Academy (MSA) have requested that the City of Woodbury issue approximately $69 million in conduit revenue bonds. Council initially approved an issuance for MSA on February 26, 2025, in the principal amount not to exceed $60 million. The additional $9 million in conduit bonds is being requested to be used by MSA to redeem and prepay the City’s outstanding Charter School Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds , Series 2020A issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $8,400,000, which was used by MSA to refinance its existing schoolhouse in 2020. In order to close on the deal for the new schoolhouse and renovation of the existing schoolhouse, the current bondholders of the 2020A series bonds are requesting MSA to refinance those bonds. Changes to increase a bonding request that has already been authorized, and the addition of the refinancing component, require a new public hearing to be held. Mr. Fritts reviewed the proposed use of funds, which include refinancing series 2020A bonds for the existing school building, acquiring the site for the new MSA school facility located at 9025 Bailey Road, construction of the new MSA Upper Campus facility, and renovations to the existing MSA facilities located at 8430 and 8460 Woodbury Crossing. The bonds will be special, limited obligations of the City. There are no general or moral obligations of the City. It is not secured by the taxing powers of the City or any assets or Page 5 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 property of the City. The MSA Building Company will pay all costs associated with the issuance of the bonds. He noted that representatives from MSA and the project management team, and the City’s bond council were in attendance. Mr. Fritts stated staff recommend Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended, to finance and refinance school facilities for the benefit of MSA Building Company and Math & Science Academy; approving related documents; and taking certain other actions with respect thereto. Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. 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 an opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Santini explained that the Math & Science Academy is a charter school and does not receive funding from property taxes. Kutak Rock Representative Sophia Lykke explained that a public hearing is required under the federal tax rules because the City is being asked to issue an additional $9 million to refinance bonds that were issued in 2020, and the term of the original bonds is being extended. The City has already issued bonds in the not-to-exceed principal amount of $60 million for the construction of the new facility and renovation of the existing facility. There is no liability on the City’s part. The bonds will be paid from the revenues generated by the project, which are lease revenues to be paid by the school to the conduit borrower. Councilmember Wilson asked if the additional $9 million would go towards the existing MSA Academy. Mr. Fritts replied that the $9 million would be to refinance the principal amount that is still outstanding on the existing school. The $60 would go towards the new building and renovations of the existing school. Ms. Lykke explained that the financing relates to the new money portion of the bonds and includes the $60 million to finance the renovations to the existing facility, the acquisition of the land for the new property, and the construction of the new facility. The $9 million will be used to repay the existing bonds that were issued by the City in 2020. Resolution 25-73 essentially amends the original resolution that was previously adopted by the Council. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be information regarding the MSA parking situation and how it would impact neighborhoods and the surrounding businesses. Community Development Director Janelle Schmitz replied that staff will have the information by the end of April. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-73 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended, to finance and refinance school facilities for the benefit of MSA Building Company and Math & Science Academy; approving related documents; and taking certain other actions with respect thereto. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025 Annual Action Plan Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Fritts stated the purpose of the public hearing is to review the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and its 2025 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and open a 30-day public comment period. The Consolidated Plan and AAP guide the use of federal funds received by the City from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership programs. These HUD plans are not the principal planning documents for the City’s housing and redevelopment policies; rather, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan serve in this capacity. The consolidated plan is essentially a very long grant application to HUD that every entitlement community needs to submit every five years. The plan serves as Page 6 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 an umbrella for the next five years and the annual action plan that is approved each year. The five-year consolidation plan determines the needs, sets priorities, determines resources, and sets goals. The five-year cycle ended last year. The new cycle will begin this year. Mr. Fritts noted that on February 26th, the Council adopted a motion to establish the 2025-2029 funding priorities for CDBG and HOME. The priorities included affordable housing rental and ownership 30% to 80% of AMI, park and public facility improvements, public services, commercial/industrial rehabilitation, and program administration. Mr. Fritts reviewed the City’s anticipated resources that would come in. It is anticipated that an $250,000 annual CDBG would be awarded, $11,250 would come in for the CDBG program, $35,000 unexpended prior year CDBG funds, and $5,000 would come in for the HOME program. There would not be any HOME funds being awarded. The amounts are not final and are subject to increases or decreases, which could impact the project funding. Mr. Fritts noted the draft 2025 AAP allocates CDBG funds to the following activities: • $198,000 of the CDBG funds for a visitor building improvement project at the City’s Shawnee Park. • $48,250 of the CDBG funds for a rehabilitation project at a group home owned and operated by Hammer and NER that serves four low-income disabled adults located in Woodbury. • $50,000 of the CDBG funds for program administration. Mayor Burt mentioned that there are many group homes in the community and asked why the group home operated by Hammer and NER was getting so much money, and if other group homes had the opportunity to receive funds. Mr. Fritts replied that projects are decided by collaborating with City staff. Some community members will approach City staff if there is a need in the community. Staff will determine if the project qualifies and fits within the City’s goals. This year, Hammer and NER reached out to the City. Staff decided that it would be a great project and fit into the goals and priorities. Mayor Burt asked if others had equal opportunity for the funds. She added that she wanted to ensure that there was equity in the process. Councilmember Morris added that there are only certain areas in the City that are eligible to receive the funds. Mr. Fritts agreed and explained that there are other eligibility criteria that include being able to directly benefit households or individuals who are income eligible. Councilmember Morris asked if the criteria would include outside of the typical zone. Mr. Fritts agreed. Mayor Burt asked if the process was equitable. Mr. Fritts replied that staff would need to put more thought into it because typically the funds are used for parks, and they have touched just about all of the parks in the City. He added that they will be looking to find ways to find more projects and have a standardized approach and process. Mr. Fritts noted that Hammer and NER is a local 501(c) 3 non-profit disability service provider. They provide community-based services to people with intellectual and other disabilities. They operate one project in Woodbury and serve four adults. The funds will be provided as a grant to renovate the Woodbury property. Mr. Fritts stated the Shawnee Park project would focus on the visitor facility/warming house. The project would include updates to the restrooms, an exterior building remodel, window replacement, interior finishes (new carpet, LED light fixtures), an addition of an outdoor picnic patio area, and a walking path to better connect the area. The improvements will allow more accessibility. Mr. Fritts reviewed the next steps, which include a 30-day public comment period (April 3, 2025-May 2, 2025), adoption of the Consolidation Plan and AAP (May 14, 2025), and submission of the plans to HUD (May 15, 2025). Nate Reed, 5979 Egg Lake Road North, Hugo, stated he was the representative of Hammer and NER. He explained that Hammer and NER is a merger of two organizations that happened in 2023. The organization NER started in 1973 in White Bear Lake as a convent. As things changed, NER became a group home. Hammer operated on the west side of the metro area, and in 2023, the two organizations merged. Hammer has been working with different communities and CDBG funds for a while. The funds that come in for group homes only cover the services provided, but not enough money to retain staff or any home maintenance. Group homes often rely on the generosity of the community to be able to cover the funds for home maintenance. HUD and CDBG funds help allow group homes to be able to cover the necessary funds for home maintenance. Home improvements help care for the individuals who live in the group home. He added that they want to be the best neighbors that they can be by ensuring that the exterior of the home is presentable. Hammer and NER is the largest non-profit provider of the service in the State. There will be another merger within the next year in the organization. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened an opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Page 7 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Councilmember Santini explained that she was excited for the opportunity to provide funds for Hammer and NER. She added that it would be worth exploring opportunities to use the funds in other ways for the community. Councilmember Morris asked if staff know how many group homes are in the City through the rental license process. Ms. Schmitz replied that group homes are exempt from the rental license process. Councilmember Morris wondered how the City could communicate with group homes that the funds were available if they did not have a record of them in the City. Councilmember Morris asked if the Parks and Natural Resources Commission would review the Shawnee Park plans. Ms. Schmitz replied that she did not know and that the park plans were recommended by the Parks and Recreation staff. Councilmember Morris explained that he understood the proposed upgrades. He wondered if the Parks and Natural Resources Commission should review Shawnee Park since it was not going to be reviewed for a while. Mr. Gridley noted if the Council wanted to have the Parks and Natural Resources Commission review the proposed plans, they could provide staff with direction for that. Ms. Schmitz explained that the Council would not be approving the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan during the meeting. The Council would simply be adopting a motion to open the public comment period. Staff would be returning in May, where there would be an opportunity for things to change. Councilmember Wilson noted that Shawnee Park has had a lot of CBDG dollars over the last few years. Ms. Schmitz replied that Shawnee Park received funding in 2022. Councilmember Wilson asked how there could be a verification process to ensure that the money is being used for what it was meant to be used for. Mr. Fritts replied that in the case of Hammer and NER, they would enter into a subrecipient agreement with the City. In order to be reimbursed for the project, they would have to give the City the invoices to show that they were paid. Records would also be submitted to HUD. In addition, there is labor reporting that is required so the City will be able to have the labor records to show that the work is being done. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, to adopt a motion opening a public comment period regarding the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and its 2025 Annual Action Plan opening on April 3, 2025, and closing on May 2, 2025, as listed in Council letter 25-101. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Discussion A. Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025A Chief Financial Officer/Controller Jason Schirmacher stated Staff are recommending the City Council approve the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025A, for the following three bond sales. Combining the three proposed purposes into one issuance creates a larger market for the bonds and reduces interest costs. Mr. Schirmacher explained that the City’s finance division has worked with the financial adviser, Ehlers, to prepare for the bond issuance. He mentioned that Jason Aarsvold from Ehlers would be joining the meeting to go over the pre-sale report for the issuance. Mr. Aarsvold reviewed the proposed bond issue report. There is an opportunity to make changes to the proposal. He noted that the total General obligation bonds that are being proposed are $16,175,000. The proposed issue includes multiple purposes, such as the water treatment plant and piping project, the Southeast Water Tower, and the 2025 Street Improvement Project. $8,150,000 of the issue is for the Water Treatment Plant and Piping Project. The portion of the bonds would be issued for a 20-year term to finance the City’s costs related to the project. The debt service will be paid from utility revenues. The projected true interest cost is 4.37%. $6,110,000 of the issue is for the Southeast Water Tower Project. The portion of the bonds will be issued for a 20-year term to finance project costs. The debt service will be paid from utility revenues, and the projected true interest cost is 4.37%. $1,915,000 of the issue is financing the assessment portion of the 2025 Street Improvement Project. The portion of the bond will be issued for a 15-year term to finance the assessment portion of project costs. Debt service will be paid from special assessments and a tax levy (if necessary). The projected true interest cost is 4.05%. Mr. Aarsvold explained that the issue will be rated by S&P, which is customary in the City. Woodbury has the highest rating assigned by S&P and will help with interest costs on the bonds. The bonds will be sold competitively. Ehlers will help solicit bids for the bonds. The sale will be awarded to the lowest True Interest Cost. Bonds may be “called” or prepaid after 10 years. Page 8 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Mr. Aarsvold reviewed the steps that would happen after the bonds were issued. The continuing disclosure requirements include the City providing annual financial information and providing notice of any reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board. Ehlers prepares and files reports on the City’s behalf. Arbitrage monitoring ensures that there is compliance with IRS requirements. Ehlers provides the services for the City. Investment of the bond proceeds to maximize interest earnings during the project spend-down period. Mr. Aarsvold mentioned that the action for the Council is to approve the resolution providing for the sale of the bonds. There is an opportunity for the Council to modify the proposed bond issue. The next steps include preparing and distributing the Official Statement (the City’s offering document for the bonds), having a conference with the rating agency, and accepting the bids on May 14, 2025. Mayor Burt asked what percentage of the True Interest Cost the residents are paying for the 2025 Street Improvement Project. Mr. Gridley replied that he would send a response to the Council. Mr. Schirmacher noted that as of Friday, the City has received $350,000 of prepayments on the assessments. The amount of the issuance would be reduced based on the amount of prepayments. He added he would lean toward pulling the bond issuance altogether if the prepayments are below $1 million. Mr. Hartzell read the Council directive on special assessments. “Assessments shall be levied at an interest rate of 2% over the interest rate of any bond sold to finance the improvements. The rate is provided by the financial adviser at the time of the assessment role being prepared, which may be different from the rate on the bonds at the time of sale.” Councilmember Santini asked if the bonds were bank-qualified. Mr. Aarsvold explained that the bonds exceed their $10 million limitation for bank-qualified bonds, so they will not be bank-qualified. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-74 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025A, in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $16,175,000.Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Approval of the Agreement between the City of Woodbury and South Washington County School District 833 for School Resource Officer Services Mr. Posel explained that they have been in contract negotiations with District 833 on a new SRO contract since June 2024. He added that Public Safety works closely with the city of Cottage Grove to work through the contract and has been negotiating alongside them since their contract was up as well. He mentioned that City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom was a part of the negotiations. Mr. Posel reviewed the contract highlights. Public Safety provides SROs for both Woodbury High School and East Ridge High School. The officers work 40 hours each week during the school year. The contract does not address special event staffing because it will allow more flexibility for changes in the future. The SRO legislation and contract language is specific to the role of the SRO program. There will be a separate contract for staffing special events. Mr. Posel mentioned that in the past, 75% of the actual in-school time was charged financially. Now, 75% of the annual full burden rate will be charged to the school district. Previously, training was paid for by the City. Now, $2,250 per SRO will be paid to the City of Woodbury annually for equipment and training. Previously, there was a set contract with an annual renewal date. Now, there will be a 60-day notice of contract termination. Mr. Posel noted that if an SRO is absent from school, the Public Safety department is required to provide a substitute. Per State statute, the Public Safety department is allowed to use a substitute for up to 60 days before they would be required to attend specialized SRO training. If there is a staffing emergency, an SRO is allowed to be removed at any time, but they would not receive payment for the duration of the time they were absent. Councilmember Wilson asked if that would include an extended period of time. Mr. Posel agreed. Mr. Sandstrom added that any time an SRO is not working in the school, the school district does not have to pay for those hours. Mr. Posel noted that the SROs would be developing trust and relationships to keep the students safe. Public Safety will continue to partner with the district and the schools to provide the SRO service. Page 9 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Mr. Sandstrom noted that the Agenda Packet does not have the updated version of the contract, specifically the “whereas” section. The school district had provided some word-smithing that is in the updated version, but it would not change the content of the contract. He mentioned the third “whereas” talks about the Council Resolution from the fall of 2023. In an effort to renegotiate the contract, the school district wanted it reworded a bit. He read what the district wanted for the “whereas” clause. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Sandstrom to read the previous “whereas” statement and the updated version. Mr. Sandstrom read the previous “whereas” statement. “WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution 23-155, the City sent a notice of nonrenewal of the 2008 Agreement to the District in the Fall of 2023, with termination of the 2008 Agreement effective on December 31, 2024”. He read the language the school district proposed. “WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Resolution 23-155, the City sent a notice of its intent and desire to review and renegotiate the terms of the 2008 Agreement and end term.” He noted another change to the next “whereas” clause was to add a statement that says “this new agreement which will be effective January 1, 2025 which shall supersede the 2008 Agreement.” The addition would make it clear that the 2008 Agreement is over, and the new contract would replace it. Mayor Burt asked if the School Board had approved the new agreement yet. Mr. Sandstrom replied that he did not know, but he believed they did approve it with the new language. Councilmember Wilson asked if Resolution 23-155 was a non-renewal or a renegotiation letter. Mr. Sandstrom replied that the Resolution said that the Council was directing staff to have authorization to cancel the 2008 Agreement. Councilmember Wilson explained the importance of having SROs in the schools and wondered why the letter that the Council sent was not being followed. Mr. Gridley explained that the contract process has been a big process. He added that the substance and intent of the agreement is unchanged. The contract does everything the Council wants it to do. Councilmember Wilson stated that the letter memorializes exactly what the history is of the contract. Councilmember Santini asked Councilmember Wilson what her concern was. Councilmember Wilson explained that there is a reason that the school district has asked the City for the change in the contract. Mr. Sandstrom explained that it was news to him that the school district wanted to word-smith the language. He added that they have been working under the belief that the City sent the school district a notice of non-renewal and that the agreement came to an end at the end of December 2024. He mentioned he has been pushing the school district attorney to finalize the contract since they have been working in good faith without an effective contract since January 1. He noted that he wants to get the contract finalized, which is why he did not push back on the word-smithing from the school district. Mr. Gridley added that the terms and conditions of the agreement are not negatively impacted. Councilmember Wilson stated that she did not understand how the Council could approve something that was not factual since the City approved Resolution 23-155, and wondered if it should be removed from the “whereas” clause. Councilmember Santini asked that the proposed language be read again. Councilmember Wilson commented that it was not what the City did and was not Resolution 23-155. Mr. Gridley explained that it is a “whereas” clause and not the contract. Councilmember Morris requested to remove the section and simply say that the City adopted Resolution 23-155. He added that the school district is proposing a change that is factually incorrect. Mr. Gridley explained that the Cottage Grove and school district agreements are also included and would be affected. Councilmember Morris noted that Cottage Grove was not referenced in the “whereas” clause. Mr. Gridley expressed his understanding and noted that the process has been slow. Councilmember Morris noted that he understood that it did not change the nature of the contract, but the school district is changing a version of history. He added that the school district was not acting in good faith. He stated he is a no vote because the school district is changing a version of history that is not correct at the final hour. He added he loves the contract and that the staff involved did a great job. Councilmember Wilson wondered if Resolution 23-155 needed to be looked at again to see if it says the City wants to renegotiate or if it says the City is terminating the contract. Mr. Sandstrom replied that the Resolution says it is directing City staff to terminate the agreement. Mr. Gridley noted that there are times to rise above the situation. Councilmember Morris replied that the City has done that the entire time. Mr. Gridley mentioned that it is a good agreement for the City. Councilmember Wilson agreed and mentioned that she loved the agreement. She added that what she does not love is that history is being rewritten. She stated that Mr. Sandstrom noted that Resolution 23-155 says the City terminated the contract, but the school district wants to say that the City wanted to renegotiate it. Mr. Sandstrom advised and recommended to the Council to move on and approve the contract. Councilmember Wilson stated that she felt like staff put the Council in a hard situation. Councilmember Morris noted that the school district put the Council in a hard situation. Mayor Burt asked what version the school board approved. Mr. Sandstrom replied that he did not watch the school board meeting or review their agenda packet, but assumed that they approved the version with the revised “whereas” clause language. Councilmember Wilson clarified that the school board has the same “whereas” clauses as the City. She asked if the City could take out the “whereas” section. Mr. Sandstrom explained that the “whereas” clauses are a part of the agreement. He added that there cannot be two versions of the contract with two different languages. The “whereas” clause does not actually affect the outcome of the obligations on either party. Mr. Gridley mentioned that the City pursued negotiations after the contract was terminated. He added that there is no gain for the City to fight the school district on the language. Councilmember Wilson disagreed and mentioned that the school district would not have asked for it then. Page 10 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Councilmember Wilson requested that Resolution 23-155 be read. Councilmember Morris stated that he did not like history to be rewritten. Mr. Sandstrom replied that the reality is that history is what it is. The resolution was passed by the Council, and the resolution is a matter of fact. The resolution is referenced in the “whereas” clause. It is a distinction without a difference. Councilmember Morris asked if the school district had the same school board attorney. Mr. Sandstrom replied that it was the same attorney. He added that the school district communicated about the word smithing more than the attorney. He noted that Mr. Gridley sent a copy of the resolution to the school district shortly after it was passed and signed. Councilmember Wilson noted that the “whereas” clause changes the history and changes the fact that the City Council took a stand for something. She added by passing the contract, it would be agreeing to something that the Council did not do. She asked if the school boards “whereas” clause referenced that the City terminated the contract. Councilmember Santini replied that it says it supersedes the 2008 contract. Councilmember Morris explained that it simply says that the terms of the current agreement are going to supersede the terms of the previous agreement. Councilmember Wilson asked when Resolution 23-155 was authored and put into the Council Agenda Packet. Mr. Sandstrom replied September of 2023. Mr. Gridley suggested transmitting the agreement, where the language can be referenced, and it could affirm that the original language is the language the City prefers. Mayor Burt wondered if there could be a combination of language where it is clear that the City terminated the agreement and negotiated. Mr. Gridley explained that it is an adopted agreement by the school. Councilmember Morris asked if it was because they met before the Council did. Mr. Gridley agreed. Councilmember Morris stated that it was not the City’s problem. Mr. Gridley explained that if the City did not approve the agreement, then the school would need to bring the agreement back to be voted on. Councilmember Morris asked when the school district had asked for the change. Mr. Sandstrom replied in late March. He added that it was his fault because he sent version 84c instead of 84d in for the Council Agenda Packet. Mayor Burt mentioned that she was on the fence with the issue because she likes facts to be facts. She added that she feels like there has been some gamesmanship going on and does not want to continue to allow it. She mentioned that she would also like to put it to bed. Mr. Gridley noted that City staff would be meeting with the school district on Friday. Councilmember Morris noted that they have been operating without a contract for five months. Mr. Sandstrom stated it has been three months. Councilmember Morris wondered what another two and a half weeks would cost if they held off. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that they have been operating without a contract. Councilmember Morris agreed and agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s comments regarding the school district requesting the change for a reason. Councilmember Wilson suggested that staff send the Council Resolution 23-155. She mentioned that she likes the contract but will not say yes to something that was not factual. She mentioned that the school district has a different “whereas” clause for Cottage Grove since it is not referenced in Woodbury’s letter. She added that the contracts are the same but different. She noted that the City needs to negotiate the “whereas” clauses. Mr. Gridley suggested that staff send the Council Resolution 23-155, and the transmittal of the termination of the agreement so they could see what the Council had said and what staff communicated to the school district. He noted that he would be meeting with the school district on Friday with Mayor Burt, and they could discuss the concerns with them. After that, staff and Mayor Burt could bring to the Council the information from the meeting with the school district for the Council to consider. He added that he could provide the Council with a redline version of what was received in the packet. Councilmember Santini noted that she found Resolution 23-155 and that it was from September 27, 2023. Councilmember Morris suggested tabling the item. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to table Resolution 25-75 and direct staff to send the Council a copy of Resolution 23-155, the transmittal of the termination of the agreement, and a summary of the outcome of the City’s meeting with the School District on Friday, April 4. Mr. Sandstrom asked if the third “whereas” clause was removed, there was no reference to the resolution, it simply said that the City and the school district renegotiated, and have come to a new agreement that supersedes the 2008 agreement. Councilmember Morris and Mayor Burt agreed. Councilmember Wilson stated she was not sure. Councilmember Santini asked if she could read two of the “whereas” sections in Resolution 23-155. She read “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota based on the new direction provided by Page 11 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 the Attorney General and Minnesota POST Board, directs the City Administrator, Public Safety Director, and with the input from City Attorney and ISD 833, to continue to evaluate and make appropriate decisions on behalf of the City of Woodbury on either resuming contracted services, or continuing with suspension of the contract; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Safety Director and City Administrator, are authorized to review the efficacy of SRO services as currently constructed, and engage with ISD 833, as well as with other community stakeholders as may be appropriate, on updates to the 2008 contract for policing services for the 2024-2025 school year and beyond.” Mr. Sandstrom noted that the final resolution did not say that. The final resolution that was passed said to direct staff to terminate the agreement. He added that Mr. Gridley had sent the school district the final copy of the resolution. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Consent Agenda Item 6A Approval of Council Minutes – March 12, 2025. Councilmember Wilson pulled this item for discussion and explained that typically she is supposed to bring the item to the Council before the meeting if she is going to pull the item from the Consent Agenda. She reiterated that the Council or members of the public can pull a Consent Agenda item at any time until it is passed. She mentioned the last time she pulled minutes from the Consent Agenda, she was told that the Council cannot know beforehand what the proposed changes are because then it would be considered a violation of open meeting law because someone would know what she is thinking beforehand. She stated that she would be voting differently because she believed there were items that were not included that were important facts. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to approve the Council Minutes – March 12, 2025. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) Mayor Burt noted that it is not May yet, but construction is underway and traffic has been impacted. She asked to hear an update. Mr. Hartzell noted that construction is beginning earlier then past years. Many contractors have moved their equipment on-site before road restrictions. The projects that are finishing up are the Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit and associated projects, the 2024 Roadway Rehabilitation Project, and the Bielenberg Drive and Currell Boulevard Rehabilitation Project. The Gold Line is open. Major Projects that are scheduled for 2025 include the Water Treatment Pipeline Projects, Dale Road (from Radio Drive to Copper Ridge Drive), 2025 Roadway Rehabilitation Project, Woodlane Drive Trail (from Valley Creek Road to Guider Drive), and Tamarack Road (from Weir Drive to Radio Drive). Mr. Hartzell explained that construction is going to be heavy and intense this year mostly due to the water treatment plant pipelines. The first area that will be affected is Pioneer Drive and Interlachen Parkway. Construction has begun in the area and traffic control is in place. The contractor will begin removals early in April depending on the weather. Grubbing will be cleared on Valley Creek Road in the next few weeks. Staff is still working on phasing and scheduling for the project because the contractor came to City staff and mentioned that they believed they could do the project more efficiently with fewer traffic issues. Staff are hoping for some positive results that will help motorists and pedestrians in the City. Mr. Hartzell stated that construction work on Valley Creek Road is going to impact people’s schedules this year. There will be big closures at Radio Drive and Valley Creek Road, and will be shut down for two weeks for installation of casing pipes. There are going to lane closures along Valley Creek Road east and westbound during the course of the project. Radio Drive and Valley Creek Drive will not be shut down at the same time. Construction on Bailey Road and Hargis Parkway will begin next Monday. Traffic controls have already been placed. Settlers Ridge Parkway is tentatively scheduled to begin in May, and have not had contracts settled yet. The Dale Road project is scheduled to begin in early April. Dale Road will be closed to through traffic from April through October. Phase one will include closing Dale Road between Radio Drive and Chestnut Drive. The project includes constructing a roundabout at Dale Road and Chestnut Drive, water main installation, trail construction on both sides, and construction of a two-lane divided road. The 2025 Roadway Rehabilitation Project is scheduled to begin phase one in mid to late April. Tamarack Road between Weir Drive and Radio Page 12 of 13  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 02, 2025 Drive will be rehabilitated starting in August. Work includes resurfacing the road and existing trail, and constructing a trail on the north side of Tamarack Road between Bielenberg Drive and Radio Drive. Some of the closures will need to be coordinated with work on the water treatment plant project. Mr. Hartell noted that there would be a 10-foot trail on the west side of Woodlane Drive between Valley Creek Road and Guider Drive. No road closures are expected, but some lane closures will happen. There is a portion on the east side where the new service center is going to be that will include construction of a trail that will connect to Guider Drive and to the shopping center. Information about projects can be found at woodburymn.gov/intouch. He encouraged community members to sign up for updates on the water treatment plant pipeline distribution, since there are so many individual projects that are having impacts. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be a schedule for the roadways being closed. Mr. Hartzell replied that there would be more concrete timing, but they are still working through it right now. He added that everything has been well coordinated. He noted that he was not aware of any MnDOT projects that would affect the City. Mayor Burt asked for more information regarding Valley Creek Road and east of Settlers Ridge Parkway, and what the County would be doing with the roadway. Mr. Hartzell mentioned that the County conducted a study through the corridor from Settlers Ridge Parkway to Manning Avenue. The County was looking at different options to move people through the corridor. They considered a long-term approach to the corridor. One of the options would be to realign Valley Creek Road at the end of Manning Avenue in order to connect a roundabout at Manning Avenue. The County is interested in doing some short-term improvements since it is a high-accident area. There are no formalized plans. City Administrator’s Report Mr. Gridley highlighted the water treatment pipe construction and the successful open house. He encouraged members of the public to direct questions and concerns regarding the project to the hotline number at 651-448-7127 or the project email address at watertreatment@woodburymn.gov. He explained that the City desires to communicate with the public well during the construction over the next three years. He expressed his understanding that the project would disrupt the residents and explained that the City is working hard to bring safe drinking water to the City as soon as they possibly can. He mentioned that when the project is complete, the City will be an example for other communities to see how to treat water and deal with PFAS. Mr. Gridley gave a verbal update on upcoming City meetings. • April 3, 2025 – State of the City, 6:30 p.m., Eagle Valley Golf Course • April 10, 2025 – Neighborhood Meeting for 2025 Roadway Rehabilitation Pre-Construction Meeting, 6:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers • April 16, 2025 – Council Workshop Meeting Mayor Burt mentioned the community expo would be on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. at Woodbury High School. Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on April 16, 2025. Page 13 of 13