City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, June 25, 2025 6A2 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 25th day of June 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. Mayor Burt stated that meetings are recorded through True Lens Community Media and are broadcast live and replayed on cable channel 799. Meetings are also available on the City of Woodbury’s YouTube channel. Members of the public are welcome to join and have an opportunity to speak in person, or can watch virtually. Virtual questions can be submitted online, and the City Clerk will monitor them throughout the meeting. 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; Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator; Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. Special Order of Business Mayor Burt read a statement denouncing acts of violence against elected officials. 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 – June 11, 2025 Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-131 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to award and execute a contract with Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. for the 2025 Well 2 and Well 8 rehabilitation project with a net bid of $242,312.  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 25, 2025 Item C 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 June 6, 2025, in the amount of $15,568,245.96 and June 13, 2025, in the amount of $3,809,436.90. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Public Hearings No items scheduled Discussion A. Continued from June 11, 2025, City Council Meeting; 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project; Approve Preliminary Report; Order Project; Consultant Selection for Preparation Plans and Specifications; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize Preparation, Acquisition and if Necessary, Condemnation of Easements Mayor Burt explained that the two discussion items were from the June 11, 2025, City Council meeting and were Public Hearings. The projects are important to the community. Since the item requires a 4/5 vote and there was an absent Councilmember, it was determined that all Councilmembers should be present. Councilmember Wilson stated that she would like to renew her motion to have an updated feasibility report when the items are brought back to the Council to approve the road rehab projects. She added that she hopes that staff have received an update from Bolton & Menk. She added that she has questions regarding the Afton Road project. Engineer Director Chris Hartzell noted that the public improvement hearing was opened and closed. He mentioned that the Resolutions were tabled until the current meeting. The public improvement hearing was for the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project and the Woodlane Drive, Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive Project. Staff recommend that the Council order the project, approve the preliminary report, authorize professional engineering services, authorize plans and specifications, and authorize the preparation and acquisition of easements. Mr. Hartzell reviewed the history of what is required per Minnesota Statutes 429. A feasibility preliminary report is required, and it is considered a planning-level document that generally has the scope of the project and whether it is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. Typically, it is not updated with tabulated bid awards. The assessment hearing is also required by Minnesota Statutes 429. It shows the total project cost, reflects as-bid scope, and lists funding sources based on the low bid. There is public access to the assessment roll, and an appeal opportunity is available. Mr. Hartzell explained that updating the feasibility and preliminary reports is not required by Minnesota Statutes 429. Staff considers it an operational tabulation and is not policy-based. There is a small cost to update the feasibility report. However, the biggest issue that staff have is that there is a reduction in staff capacity during key periods of the project. There is a short window between bids and the hearing. Staff stopped updating the feasibility and preliminary reports in 2021 because it created more documents to update and errors were created. Mr. Hartzell mentioned that there has been minimal to no public interest in having an updated feasibility report. In the past, updated preliminary reports created public confusion. It is more effective to meet with assessed property owners and explain how their individual assessments were calculated. Staff do not utilize the reports. Without the award of the project, the document is invalid. Staff would recommend not having an updated feasibility and preliminary report. Mayor Burt mentioned that it seems like a redundant process that would cost staff time. She added that the information is available, and the public is not looking for an updated document. She stated it is difficult to justify the need to update the preliminary report. Councilmember Wilson stated that she has been requesting the updated feasibility report. In 2015, the new road assessment policy went into place. She mentioned that she found it valuable when there was an updated feasibility report. She added that the requested the updated feasibility report before she was on the Council. She explained that there has to be a way that staff determines how much the assessments are. She noted that in the past, she had asked for the spreadsheets or graphs, or the updated reports, but none of them had Page 2 of 5  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 25, 2025 been provided because they do not exist. She wondered how staff knew how to assess someone if the documents did not exist. Mr. Hartzell explained that staff receive the tabulations and calculate assessments internally. Staff spend a lot of time combing through the documents to ensure that there are no errors. The numbers become available after staff have developed the Council letter. Staff can share the tabulations if a resident requests to see them. Councilmember Wilson asked if Bolton & Menk prepared the feasibility report. Mr. Hartzell replied that the feasibility report is prepared by Bolton & Menk and has been combed through by City staff to ensure that all of the elements in the feasibility report match the intent of the project and follow the assessment policy. Councilmember Wilson stated her motion for an updated feasibility report still stands. She explained that it is transparent and shows citizens how the assessments are justified. She added that something needs to be out there like it was in the past. Mayor Burt clarified that the updated feasibility report was only there in 2015 and was a result of pressure from one resident. Mr. Hartzell agreed and added that there was one resident who was requesting an updated preliminary report. Councilmember Wilson asked if staff had begun providing an updated preliminary report because a resident had asked for it. Mr. Hartzell agreed and mentioned that they continued to do that until 2021, until staff were feeling pressured during the time frame, while being under capacity. He explained that after an error was discovered, he questioned why staff were putting the extra time in updating the report because it was not benefiting staff. Mayor Burt stated that staff cannot keep adding things to their plate. She added that there is little demand for the updated reports, it is not a requirement, and the information is available elsewhere. Councilmember Wilson stated she has asked for the updated reports in the past but understands that she should ask for the bid tabulations. Mr. Hartzell clarified to ask for tabulations that calculate the assessments. It is likely that the numbers are still in motion all the way until the Council letter is written. Councilmember Wilson stated that there must be some sort of formula in place so that staff know how much to assess. She mentioned the 2021 feasibility report lays out the information clearly for citizens to understand what they are responsible for. Councilmember Morris disagreed and noted that the feasibility report does not include the bid and is based on a projected value. Councilmember Wilson disagreed and showed the feasibility report, and pointed out the red text that is based on the low bid. She added that the City gets the bid in February, and then staff put the information into the feasibility report. Mr. Hartzell noted that the report that Councilmember Wilson is referencing is the 2021 report. The calculations are the same. When the bids come in, staff take the numbers and divide the cost by the percentage, and then use a calculation based on the assessment policy. He explained that the red text that Councilmember Wilson was referencing in the information was put back into the preliminary report, while also creating the staff letter that would be part of the Council packet. Now, staff have a spreadsheet. It is not put back into the preliminary report. The preliminary report includes the general scope of the service and the constraints of the project. It is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. It also outlines how the assessment policy would work. During the process of plan development, there are some minor changes made to the plan. Generally, the scope does not increase in terms of the limits, but some elements do change. He explained that if someone wanted the numbers and how each individual assessment is calculated, the request would be to see the spreadsheet tabulations for the assessment. Staff would appreciate that the information is not put online because it is confusing to people, as they do not understand the assessment policy. Councilmember Morris explained that the Council could be put in a position with negative effects on the City Attorney’s ability to defend the City’s position if they went outside of what their role requires. He explained that the City Attorney knows the process of who is communicating with the public. If the Council inserts itself into the process, it could get confusing. Councilmember Wilson asked if the updated feasibility report with text in red was based on the low bid in the past. Mr. Hartzell replied that the red text was based on the low bid results. Councilmember Wilson asked if staff posted the original feasibility reports online. Mr. Hartzell agreed and explained that the key items that community members are seeing are the general scope of the project and assessments. Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed road width for Afton Road would be 24 feet. Mr. Hartzell replied that they would be. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that she had previously heard they would be 28 feet and wondered when it was decided that it would go down to 24 feet, and for what purpose. Mr. Hartzell explained that the entrance to Afton Road is wider, and then it narrows down to 24 feet and opens up to 28 feet again. The City’s typical roadway would be 28 feet wide, but the City has a goal to provide pedestrian access while minimizing impacts. It is not ideal to go down to a 24-foot-wide roadway, but it is acceptable for the lane widths. Going to 24 feet will slow down traffic and minimize the impacts to residents on the north side, where the trail will be constructed. It will not be very expensive, and there will be less maintenance in the long run. He explained that it is not a standard he would like across the City since it is more difficult to plow and is not the typical standard, but it is about context sensitivity while trying to add trails and sidewalks. Councilmember Wilson stated that there were already trails and sidewalks where it is 28-foot-wide roadways. Mr. Hartzell disagreed and said the City does not. He explained that the section on Afton Road between Radio Drive and the section of City Hall loop there is no trail on either side of the roadway, and it is a critical gap in pedestrian connectivity. By shrinking down the roadway, it is minimizing the impacts to the north side. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be sections of Afton Road that would be 24 feet and 28 feet. Mr. Hartzell agreed. Councilmember Wilson moved Page 3 of 5  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 25, 2025 To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-132 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the preliminary report, ordering the project, executing a Letter of Engagement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. in the amount of $293,280 for final design, authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, and authorizing preparation, acquisition and, if necessary, condemnation of easements for the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project with the amendment of providing an updated feasibility report based on the low bid. Councilmember Morris declared that the motion failed for lack of a second. He mentioned that he was absent during the last Council meeting but watched the recording. He noted he supported Councilmember Wilson’s desire to maintain a high level of transparency in City operations. However, he explained that after hearing from Mr. Hartzell, there is no issue with lack of transparency. He further noted that the Council has fiduciary responsibility, and the benefit of ordering the updated report does not outweigh the cost. Councilmember Wilson asked if staff received an estimate on how much it would cost for Bolton & Menk to update a feasibility report. Mr. Hartzell replied that he did not because he did not get the collective will of the Council to direct him to do so. He noted that the cost is a minor issue to him and that the major issue is the staff capacity. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-132 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the preliminary report, ordering the project, executing a Letter of Engagement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. in the amount of $293,280 for final design, authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, and authorizing preparation, acquisition and, if necessary, condemnation of easements for the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B. Continued from June 11, 2025 City Council Meeting; Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation Project; Approve Preliminary Report; Order Project; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Authorize Preparation, Acquisition and if Necessary, Condemnation of Easements Councilmember Morris mentioned that when he watched the previous Council meeting, it seemed that Councilmember Wilson had the same concerns regarding the item. Councilmember Wilson agreed and explained that she would vote in favor of the item if there were an updated feasibility report. She added that she could not vote in favor of it because of her concerns regarding transparency. Mayor Burt stated there is transparency because the information is available and nothing is hidden. Councilmember Morris stated that he objected to the use of Councilmember Wilson’s use of the word lack of transparency because it insinuates that the City is not transparent. All the information is available, but staff simply do not go back and update a report because it is not an efficient use of time and resources. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-133 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the preliminary report, ordering the project, authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, and authorizing preparation, acquisition, and, if necessary, condemnation of easements for the Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Page 4 of 5  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 25, 2025 Anne Burt – aye Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) Mayor Burt mentioned that there would not be a full Transportation Report since there are so many projects occurring. She encouraged residents to see updates on the City’s website and to sign up for InTouch. Councilmember Santini asked if there would be residual from this year’s projects next year. Mr. Hartzell agreed and added that there would also be new construction next year. He mentioned that the worst pain is this year. Mayor Burt mentioned that there was a comment from a community member during the last Council meeting about businesses being impacted by construction. She thanked him for his comments and mentioned that the City has created a video to encourage the community to have patience and to continue to support local businesses. City Administrator’s Report Deputy City Administrator Angela Gorall gave a verbal update on upcoming City meetings. • June 30, 2025 – Planning Commission Meeting • July 16, 2025 – Council Workshop • July 16, 2025 – Public Hearings Mayor Burt mentioned that the City is hosting a Fourth of July celebration at the sports center. There will be food trucks, live music, and fireworks. Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 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 July 16, 2025. Page 5 of 5