Woodbury City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, August 12, 2026
Closed Session Reports: Litigation and City Administrator Review
Open Forum: Street Assessment Process Concerns
Open Forum: Traffic Safety, Speed Limits, and Animal Crossings
Open Forum: Flock Cameras and Surveillance Technology
Open Forum: Federal Agents, ICE, and Election Interference
Review and Acceptance of 2025 Audit and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Joint Powers Agreement with Maplewood for Water and Sanitary Sewer Services
City Administrator Update: Angel of Hope Remembrance Ceremony
Votes (3)
Consent Agenda Items 6A through 6G (excluding 6D)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Morris [0:57:08] · Seconded by Unknown [0:57:24]
Routine approval of several consent agenda items. Item 6D was pulled for separate discussion by Council Member Wilson.
Review and Acceptance of the 2025 Audit and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Dissent: Council Member Wilson voiced strong opposition to the report being adopted without incorporating specific recommendations from the Audit and Investment Commission, particularly regarding the organizational chart, but ultimately voted 'Aye'.
Moved by Council member Morris [1:12:03] · Seconded by Council member Stafford [1:12:12]
The audit firm ABDO presented a 'clean' unmodified opinion on the city's 2025 financial statements, noting the general fund's healthy balance and positive variances in revenues and expenditures. One internal control finding from a 2024 error correction was reported but addressed. Key performance indicators showed Woodbury's tax rate and debt per capita were below peer averages. Council Member Wilson raised concerns about several recommendations from the Audit and Investment Commission not being incorporated into the presented report, including changing the organizational chart's orientation and adding specific land development data. Staff committed to reviewing these recommendations for the next year's report, stating they do not impact the audit's substance.
Approval of Joint Powers Agreement between City of Woodbury and the City of Maplewood for Water and Sanitary Sewer Services (6D)
Dissent: Council Member Wilson voted 'No' due to concerns about providing services to non-Woodbury residents and the agreement's terms.
Moved by Council member Morris [1:23:44] · Seconded by Council member Santini [1:23:55]
Council Member Wilson expressed strong opposition to the joint powers agreement with Maplewood, citing concerns about Woodbury providing services to non-residents who lack voting rights in Woodbury, past issues with similar agreements (e.g., Newport water), and the agreement's 'in perpetuity' term. The Engineering Director clarified that these agreements are a common and practical necessity for bordering communities, formalizing existing services and ensuring fair payment and coordination without subsidizing. He confirmed that the new Maplewood golf course development would only connect to Woodbury's sanitary sewer, not water, due to physical constraints, and that Woodbury's needs would take priority. The agreement also allows for termination by either party with notice, providing flexibility.
Notable Quotes (6)
So our responsibility as auditors is to issue an audit opinion on the city's financial statements. We are issuing what's called an unmodified opinion which is a clean audit opinion.
But in this organizational chart, it shows that the departments are reporting to the citizens and that is not true. So engineering, public works, public safety all report to the citizens and that's not how the organizational chart is.
I think a good kind of way forward is to, you know, review those recommendations internally. Uh take action on the ones that we really think are important. Um and make sure between for the next audit that there's enough time to you know in between this meeting and and uh the audit investment committee meeting that those recommendations are reviewed and then we have enough time to make any changes if we need to uh before it gets to the council meeting
I am not in favor of this at all because I don't think it is beneficial to Woodbury. Um, and actually I think it does th those residents a tad bit of disservice to have them hooked up to our system and not have any rights.
So, mayor, members of the council, it's a fairly typical practice when you have two communities that abut each other. And typically what happens is one of the communities develops before the others and provides the sewer and water services. But when you're on a border, it's best to coordinate all of those activities with the other agencies.
I mean I don't know. It was it was that was something that I I don't feel as passionately about that as I do about the other things which of course the organizational chart if you look at that that's just kind of like that should just yes I see a finger by the so if I'm looking at the right table five here what I would note is this is data classifications on what the tax roles show for these categories of properties and I don't know that the tax roles have an open for development category so that is probably a big ask to try This is data just pulled from the county. Correct. We get the numbers from the county. Yeah.
Ordinances & Resolutions (9)
Statute allowing closed meetings for attorney-client privilege to discuss litigation matters.
Statute allowing closed sessions for performance evaluation of city staff members.
Non-existent policy incorrectly referenced in a Flock camera audit report.
Believed to be the correct policy that should have been referenced in the Flock camera audit report.
Resolution approving the joint powers agreement between the city of Woodbury and the city of Maplewood for utility services.
Official financial document reviewing the city's 2025 financial performance and audit results.
Group that established the foundational assessment policy for road work.
Type of resolution adopted by Fulcon Heights to limit federal agent staging.
State legislative proposals with implications for inter-city utility agreements.