City Council

Minutes Woodbury City Council Wednesday, July 16, 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 16th day of July 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; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; and Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. Special Order of Business No items scheduled Open Forum The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address the Council on subjects, which are not a part of the meeting agenda. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up sheet prior to the start of the meeting. Give the sign-up sheet to any staff person. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week. Jay Tophooven, City resident, stated that there is a strip of land in front of his home between Valley Creek and Afton Road, which is part of the Valley Creek watershed and is maintained by Washington County. He explained that he spends two weeks cleaning up litter in the area. The City owns a stretch of land on Steeple View between the Ispiri company and Dunmore on the north side of a pond and related drainage that flows into the area along Valley Creek. There is a well-pumping station there, but the land that it sits on stretches out in either direction. It is infested with a plant called burdock. Burdock is not on Minnesota’s list of noxious weeds, so there is not a lot of attention paid to it. The City property is a wall of burdock plants, and it is attempting to overpower the pine trees that grow under it. He mentioned that he spoke with City staff about a policy to eradicate burdock, but found out that there is no policy in place. He noted that burdock is an aggressive and prolific weed. If it reaches the watershed area on Valley Creek and becomes established, it would be a disaster for the area. He expressed his understanding that the City has many demands on funding and the Council must allocate resources wisely. He respectfully requested that the Council consider adopting a burdock eradication policy that is found on City land and consider finding ways to clear the burdock infestation on the particular parcel of City land that he spoke of. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Tophooven if he would be able to email the request to the Public Works department. Mr. Tophooven replied that he could do that. Consent Agenda  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 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 1. Approval of City Council Workshop Minutes – June 25, 2025 2. Approval of Council Minutes – June 25, 2025 Item B To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-134 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing installation of a two- way stop-controlled intersection with stop signs located on northbound and southbound Arbor Drive at Hargis Parkway. Item C To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-135 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and Deputy City Administrator to award a contract with Peterson Companies Inc. for the M Health Fairview Sports Center Irrigation Project in the amount of $3,639,349 including selected alternates and approving the associated budget adjustment. Item D To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-136 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Mayor and Deputy City Administrator to award and execute a contract with A-1 Excavating, LLC, for Tower Drive Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project; with a net bid of $389,555. Item E To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-137 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota certifying Curb Stop Repair for 1257 Donegal Alcove, 3141 Countryside Avenue #C, and 1149 Schooner Way to the Washington County Auditor. Item F To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-138 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the change of polling location in the City of Woodbury for Precinct 1. Item G To adopt a motion to approve issuing a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license to Woodbury Days Council effective Friday, August 22, 2025 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.; Saturday, August 23, 2025 between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. with the restrictions listed in Council Letter 25-178. Item H 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 20, 2025, in the amount of $2,490,630.38, June 27, 2025 in the amount of $4,190,058.18, and July 03, 2025, in the amount of $9,780,932.25. 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 Mayor Burt reviewed the City’s Public Hearing process and stated that in order to allow for a full airing of all speaker comments, individual remarks may not exceed 10 minutes each. If a speaker determines that more time is necessary, they are advised to make a Page 2 of 7  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 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. Continued Ranch Road Addition; Rezoning and Preliminary Plat; Project No. 28-2025-00574 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner Eric Searles stated that the item would be moved to the August 13 City Council meeting. Mayor Burt mentioned that the public hearing would remain open until the August 13th meeting. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to continue the Public Hearing to August 13, 2025. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None B. Indoor Pickleball Club; Conditional Use Permit; Project No. 03-2025-00581 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Searles stated S&F Corporation has submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use over 5,000 square feet. The Applicant is proposing to install eight (8) indoor pickleball courts within the existing building. The project is located at 390 Commerce Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial District, and is guided as Places to Work on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles noted that the indoor Pickleball Club is proposed to occupy 22,000 square feet for a commercial recreation use. The Applicant is proposing to install eight (8) pickleball courts within an existing suite in the building. The City has identified that commercial recreation space is a supportive use to the Places to Work land uses. However, it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to deliver Places to Work uses within the I-1 zoning district, and therefore, the building shall be capped at 34 percent total tenant space as uses considered commercial recreation. No additional commercial recreation uses shall be permitted above the proposed 22,000 square feet unless an amended Conditional Use Permit is approved by the City Council. Mr. Searles mentioned that a Conditional Use Permit is required for commercial recreation uses over 5,000 square feet located within the I-1, Light Industrial District. City Code Section 24- 43 outlines the guidelines for granting a Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant is proposing to utilize the two (2) existing full access points from Commerce Drive and Rivertown Drive into the site for vehicle access. There are turn lanes for both points of access. The building has 171 parking stalls onsite. The proposed pickleball use is anticipated to take 22,000 square feet of the building, which equates to 73 required stalls for the proposed commercial recreation use, given a one (1) stall per 300 square feet ratio. The Applicant has indicated that they will occupy the remaining building space to be used as an office and warehouse. Based on the uses presented, an additional 89 spaces will be needed for the office and warehouse uses. It is anticipated that the peak times for pickleball will be opposite from the business park uses, and the shared parking field will be available for evening events. Mr. Searles stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their June 30, 2025, meeting. At that time, they recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. He introduced John Jarrett from the Planning Commission to present the liaison report. Commissioner Jarrett shared that the commission did not have a lot of discussion on the item. The building is suitable for a mixed-use building. The back of the building was designed to be a truck warehouse, and the front part was designed to be an office space. There will be a 34% recreational use cap on the building. If there was any additional use, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. He mentioned that there were questions regarding what the rest of the space would be used for. The applicant had mentioned that it would be used as an office suite where people would be able to rent individual offices. There was a question about the definition of what an office space meant. It means that each office space could be rented out individually. There was a question regarding bus parking and drop-off. There will not be tournaments or school use for the courts, so there is not much concern regarding turnarounds for buses. He stated that the pickleball courts are a good use for the building. One commissioner noted that the building security needed to be addressed. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Page 3 of 7  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 Voting in Favor: Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened the opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Morris to explain the 34% cap on the recreation space. Mr. Searles replied that the zoning ordinance identifies commercial recreation spaces over 5,000 square feet as a conditional use permit. Even if there was no cap, it would be back in front of the Planning Commission and Council for a conditional use permit if the space is above 5,000 square feet. There is a possibility for a commercial recreation use under 5,000 feet that would, by code, be identified as a permitted use. By placing the condition of approval or the cap, it would require any future commercial recreation uses to be brought back in front of the Planning Commission and the Council. The conditional use permit process can be a good vehicle for the City to address concerns such as noise and other issues that could arise. Councilmember Santini mentioned that the applicant is SNF corporation, but the permit is getting issued to the indoor pickleball club. Mr. Searles agreed and mentioned that the pickleball club would be leasing the space. He noted conditional use permits run with the land. If the pickleball club left, the conditional use permit could be updated. The actual use is issued with the building or the land instead of the applicant. Mayor Burt asked Mr. Searles if he could clarify the indoor space. She asked if the office space was being used currently. Mr. Searles replied that it is the space that might get leased out. Mayor Burt asked what the open space would be used for. Mr. Searles replied that it would be for warehouse use. Councilmember Wilson asked if the pickleball club would require a membership. Mr. Searles replied that it would be both a membership club and would allow for drop-ins. Councilmember Wilson noted that it would not be staffed if there were a keypad to get into the facility. She asked what the hours of operation were. Mr. Searles replied that it may be open 24 hours a day. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be lights in the parking lot. Mr. Searles replied that the Planning Commission added a staff review of lighting as a part of the condition. There are lights included in the parking lot, but staff will review to ensure that there is sufficient lighting. Councilmember Morris asked if food and beverages were allowed in the space. Mr. Searles replied not at the moment. Councilmember Morris asked if it would require an additional permit or condition to allow food and drinks. Mr. Searles replied that it would not as long as it is not larger than an accessory to the commercial recreation use. A small snack bar would be viewed as an accessory use. There would need to be an amendment to the conditional use permit if the facility wanted to have a restaurant in it. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, To adopt the following resolution Resolution 25-139 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings of fact. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Wilson, to approve the Indoor Pickleball, Project No. 03- 2025-00581 subject to the following conditions as outlined in Council Letter 25-180. 1. The CUP approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted. 2. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed signage. 3. Any ground-mounted and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with materials that match the materials and colors used on the building. 4. The 390 Commerce Drive building shall be limited to no more than 34 percent of gross square footage, or 22,000 square feet, for commercial recreation uses. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff in writing. Councilmember Morris asked the Council what their thoughts were on the pickleball club being open for 24 hours. Councilmember Wilson asked how the other 24-hour clubs in the City have been going. Mr. Searles replied that there have not been any complaints. Mayor Burt mentioned that there is not a large demand for 2:00 a.m. pickleball. Councilmember Morris asked how complaints would be handled. Mr. Searles replied that the noise ordinance would be enforced. If there were any unruly or criminal behavior, Public Safety Page 4 of 7  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 staff would be the agency to take care of it. Mayor Burt noted that there would be cameras in the facility. Councilmember Morris explained that the facility being unstaffed is giving him pause. Councilmember Stafford asked what the staff hours were. Mr. Jarrett replied that the use of the pickleball park would be from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. The office suites would have access 24 hours a day for the renters. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Councilmember Wilson asked when the pickleball court would open. Mr. Searles replied that the purchase agreement was contingent upon the conditional use. It will likely be several months until the pickleball court is underway. C. 4255 Woodlane Drive; Concept Planned Unit Development; Project No. 29-2025-00582 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Mr. Searles stated Land & Resource Consulting (LRC) has submitted an application for a Concept Planned Unit Development on behalf of developer Jed Schmidt for a nine (9) lot subdivision. The property is located at 4255 Woodlane Drive on the southeast corner of Woodlane Drive and Hargis Parkway. The property is zoned R-2 Single Family District and is guided as Rural Estate on the Land Use Plan. Mr. Searles noted that Section. 24-207 of the City code identifies the Concept Planned Unit Development process. The code reads: “The concept PUD plan is optional and provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City, generally illustrating the proposed development without incurring substantial cost. The process is also intended to allow the city and general public to identify potential issues and concerns at an early stage of project development.” Mr. Searles mentioned that the Concept PUD process has been used very infrequently but is an appropriate risk management tool for property owners prior to investing significant resources in civil plans and other professional services. The Code identifies the following process and action steps: “The city council shall, after receipt and placing on file the report of the planning and zoning commission and zoning administrator, hold a public hearing on the application. The city council shall also review the concept PUD plan and provide feedback to the applicant. The council will not take any formal action to approve or deny the application. No comments, suggestions, remarks, or observations made by city staff, the planning and zoning commission, or the city council shall be binding on the city for future stages.” Mr. Searles stated the Applicant is requesting feedback on the following requests: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Estate (1 lor per 3 acres) to Urban Estate (1 lot per 1 acre); reduction of minimum lot size from 3 acres to .77 acres; and reduction in minimum lot depth from 160’ to 135’. Mayor Burt asked if the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be a majority vote or a 4-5 vote. Mr. Searles replied that it would be a 4-5 vote. Mr. Searles noted that access to the property is proposed off of Hargis Parkway, with two (2) cul-de-sacs proposed. It is anticipated that the westernmost cul-de-sac could be extended in the future to provide access to the properties to the south. A trail is proposed on the south side of Hargis Parkway, which would extend the existing trail to connect with Woodlane Drive. The proposed lots are larger than the lots located to the east but smaller than the lots located to the west across Woodlane Drive. Bailey Elementary is located to the north. Mr. Searles stated that the development to the east of the subject parcel is called Arbor Ridge. As part of the development, two (2) significant events occurred that changed the highest and best use for the adjacent land. The first was the extension of Hargis Parkway, which extended city sewer and water to the subject site but also provided a significant traffic benefit to Bailey Road by providing an additional east/west roadway connection from Woodlane Drive to Pioneer Drive. The second change was the construction of a municipal drinking supply well in the location identified below. Due to the close proximity to the city well, allowance of additional private water wells should be greatly minimized to reduce drawdown and contamination risks. The proposed utilization of the City sewer and water would mitigate the risks to the adjacent municipal drinking water supply well. Furthermore, when utilities are present, the city code requires their use versus the utilization of private wells and septic systems. Mr. Searles explained that if a subdivision is not finalized as part of this Concept PUD process, it is important to note that Staff would recommend an evaluation of density be conducted as part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update, which will begin in 2026 and Page 5 of 7  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 conclude in 2029. This evaluation would look at the potential for a higher level of density to be permitted on this site due to the presence of the city utilities. The two (2) most appropriate land use categories to study would be the Urban Estate, which is one unit per acre (10 units maximum), or the Low Density Residential at 3.5 units per acre (35 units maximum). Mr. Searles mentioned that the feedback provided by the Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council is not binding on the City, and future reviews would be needed related to the following, as more information is provided: Stormwater, tree preservation, landscaping, grading, pedestrian infrastructure, sanitary sewer, and water. Mr. Searles noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the application at their June 30, 2025, meeting. The Planning Commission provided generally supportive comments with requests to modify some of the lots to meet lot width and depth requirements to limit the amount of future flexibility requested. Mr. Jarrett mentioned that the Planning Commission had questions about the feedback from the neighborhood meeting regarding the Cherry Meadows development, since it is similar to the proposed project. Staff told the commission that the feedback was positive for the Cherry Meadows development. He explained that it was a close vote for the Cherry Meadows development. He noted that there was a question regarding the number of lots on the site and why not have eight lots that are each one acre. The applicant had explained that nine lots made more sense for the layout, with the pond being on the land, and it would be a good transition between the three-acre development and the smaller lots. One commissioner had concerns regarding the tree preservation on the site. He mentioned that one of the commissioners did math on the lot sizes and was able to provide the applicants with a layout. He added that he believed that the plan could be tweaked to include a path in between lots 4 and 6 and 5 and 7, so that if there was development in the south, it would be able to connect to the development. One commissioner believed the lots were too small. One commissioner had questions about the development to the south and if there was only going to be an access point in the cul-de-sac, but found out there would be two access points. The Planning Commission was in favor of the recommendation. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. Councilmember Wilson asked if residents would still have an opportunity to speak on the item if the public hearing was closed. Mr. Searles explained that the public hearing is only for the concept PUD. If the application moves forward for a preliminary plat and a future comprehensive plan, it would start a new process with a full neighborhood meeting and a public hearing where residents could testify. Voting in Favor: Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt Absent: None Mayor Burt opened the opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Wilson stated she was in favor of the bigger lots because there is a demand for them. She noted that she has been told in the past that it takes a lot of work to change the Comprehensive Plan, but it seems that it has changed many times since she has been on the Council. She asked how much work it is to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Searles explained that it depends on the type of amendment that is being proposed. Many of the proposed amendments have been smaller in nature because it is not evaluating the system. It takes significant time if an entire development approach needs to be revaluated and amended. For this application, the risk of not changing the Comprehensive Plan would be that there would be a risk to the aquifer because the applicant has a right to pursue a subdivision that meets the zoning, which is a three-acre minimum lot size. Councilmember Morris mentioned that he initially had the same concern as Councilmember Wilson, but instead had the perspective on how the parcels and lot sizes would burden the area and systems. He mentioned that it is not a significant change because it is not a large plot. Councilmember Wilson asked what the width of the streets was. Mr. Searles replied that they would be 26 feet. Councilmember Wilson asked if a trail would be put on the potential through the cul-de-sac now. Mr. Searles replied that the policy indicates that the cul-de-sac length requires pedestrian infrastructure of 900 feet. Staff looked at the surrounding properties and noted that multiple properties would need to be subdivided in order to require a trail connection. The Planning Commission discussed whether it should be a trail or a sidewalk, or if there is a trail connection that could be appropriate behind the lots. Staff have not weighed in on the options yet. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that pedestrians would be walking to Bailey Elementary school, and it would be more difficult to go back and add the connection instead of putting it in the development right away. Mayor Burt wondered if there should be thought given to whether or not the parcel to the south would have sidewalks on it or not. She asked if Lot One would have access to Woodlane Drive. Mr. Searles agreed that there would be access to Woodlane Drive and that it is the original home and would remain on the development. Mayor Burt asked if it would be a stipulation that the access remains on Woodland Drive if the original home was torn down. Mr. Searles agreed. Councilmember Santini asked if it would be possible to have one access point between lots 4 and 6 and 5 and 7 instead of having two access points into the development. Councilmember Wilson agreed and added that Hargis Parkway would continue to get busier with more traffic. Mr. Searles replied that there would be an ability to modify, but it would likely change the lot sizes to a more consistent R-4 lot size. Engineering Director Chris Hartzell explained that it is a long linear parcel, so by putting in one road, it could create long, skinny parcels. Page 6 of 7  City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 16, 2025 Mayor Burt stated she was in favor of the concept plan and liked that it merged the larger lots with the smaller lots. Councilmember Morris asked why the streets had to be cul-de-sacs and wondered if the Public Works department would struggle with plowing. Mr. Hartzell replied that there are cul-de-sacs to store the snow, and for fire trucks to get in and out of the site. Councilmember Wilson asked if Woodlane Drive would expand south of Bailey Road. She asked what the plan was for it and how lot one would be affected. Mr. Hartzell replied that it would not happen within the next five years. Councilmember Wilson expressed her concern that she does not want driveway access on main roads like Woodland Drive. Councilmember Morris explained that the Comprehensive Plan has everything southof the development zoned as R-2, which are larger lots. Mr. Hartzell added that the section of roadway width is appropriate for the ultimate roadway section. Councilmember Wilson asked if the private wells went as deep as City wells. Mr. Searles replied that they do not. Councilmember Stafford asked if the applicant had a timeframe on when they would like to move forward. Mr. Searles replied that following the public hearing, the applicant would make a business decision and finalize all their purchase agreements for the properties and begin an application process for the subdivision. Construction would most likely begin in 2026. If the project moved quickly, it could be possible that construction would begin in the fall. Councilmember Wilson asked if that violated the order that the Council put in to pause development. Mr. Searles replied that the properties are not within the phasing plan, so the Council would have discretion and not be inconsistent with the phasing discussions. Councilmember Wilson mentioned she thought that the Council had agreed that there would be a pause on anything within the Musa. Mr. Searles clarified that the Council agreed that there would be a pause on development on anything outside of the phasing plan. Councilmember Wilson stated she was in favor of the project, but not in favor of the timing of the project. She mentioned that nine lots would not have a huge impact on the infrastructure and water usage. Councilmember Santini suggested that staff provide the Council with an update on the timing of development and compare the Council’s original expectations. Discussion No items scheduled Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) No items scheduled City Administrator’s Report Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Asleigh Sullivan gave a verbal update of upcoming City meetings. • July 21, 2025 – Neighborhood Meeting, Council Chambers • July 30, 2025 – Council Workshop Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 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 30, 2025. Page 7 of 7