--- ## author: Davis, Allison date: D:20260416095829-05'00' --- ## City Council Workshop Meeting ## Ash Conference Rooms April 22, 2026 | 5:30 PM This City Council Workshop meeting is taking place virtually and at Woodbury City Hall in the Ash Conference Rooms. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may also join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone and accessing the virtual meeting link at woodburymn.gov/VirtualMeetings. 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 be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at 651-714-3524 or at council@woodburymn.gov. Questions received after 4:30 p.m. will be responded to in the next three to seven business days. Please note that all agenda times are estimates. Unfinished workshop items will be carried over to the end of the Council meeting. 5:00 p.m.Dinner – Birch Conference Room The intent of the workshop session is to provide a forum for City Council and City staff to discuss more in-depth Council items, exchanging viewpoints and visions prior to the item being set for Council action at a regular meeting of the City Council. Workshop sessions are neither a public hearing nor an open microphone session. No formal votes will be taken and any direction from Council will be in consensus format. The workshop session is not recorded. ## Workshop Agenda ## 1.Workshop Discussion Items 1A.Update on Drinking Water Strategic Initiative: Water Treatment Implementation 26-72 1B.Consideration of Ordinance, Helmet Requirement for E-Bike Users under 18 ## Years of Age 26-73 2.Administrator Comments and Updates* ## 3.Mayor and City Council Comments and Commission Liaison Updates* 4.Adjournment ## Watch the Live Meeting ## Woodbury City Council Workshop Agenda April 22, 2026 | 5:30 PM Items under comments and updates are intended to be informational or of brief inquiry. More substantial discussion of matters under comments and updates should be scheduled for a future agenda. The City of Woodbury is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The City is committed to full implementation of the Act to our services, programs, and activities. Information regarding the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available from the Administration office at 651-714-3500. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 72 hours in advance of an event. Please call the ADA Coordinator at 651-714-3500 (TDD 731-5796) to make arrangements. ## 1A ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Workshop Letter 26-72 April 22, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Update on Drinking Water Strategic Initiative: Water Treatment Implementation ## Summary Water treatment implementation remains on schedule with 61,467 feet of pipelines installed in 2025 and the treatment plant over 32 percent complete. This workshop will provide a general project update, with information on early summer 2026 pipeline phasing and water rate recommendations for 2027. Staff is approaching project decisions with the following project mission statement: Deliver resilient, system-wide treatment of drinking water for PFAS with continued urgency, while being mindful of community impacts. At the workshop, staff will primarily be highlighting the following areas: Pipeline Phasing: An overview of current and upcoming pipeline construction activity will be provided, Phases 1 through 3 of the construction plans (May) will be provided, highlighting anticipated roadway closures and detour routes associated with phases. City staff have been coordinating with Waze, Google Maps and Apple Maps to ensure navigation systems provide accurate closure and detour routing information. Like last year, the project webpage at woodburymn.gov/WaterTreatment, will be updated regularly and will highlight current road closures and future phase maps. Council will also receive monthly transportation updates. 2027 Water Rates: In 2024, the City Council adopted a five-year water and sewer rate plan. The 2027 budget year represents the third year of that plan, which includes annual increases of 8 percent for water rates and 5 percent for sewer rates, along with a 4 percent MCES pass-through, for a total sewer‐related impact of 9 percent. Staff recommends that Council continue following the adopted five-year plan and direct staff to update the rate analysis in early 2027. This timing aligns with the second water bond issuance, which will fund the City’s portion of upcoming water treatment plant expenses. The Co-Trustees remain confident that the consent decree will cover long-term operations and maintenance costs. Woodbury staff are currently working with the Co-Trustees to define which expenses will and will not be included. Until those details are finalized, some uncertainty remains regarding long-term funding responsibilities and the City’s share of ongoing costs. Staff also recognizes the possibility that 3M may challenge the consent decree; however, to date, the Co-Trustees have consistently expressed confidence that it will fund operations and maintenance. ## Council Workshop Letter 26-72 April 22, 2026 Page 2 White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group: The Minnesota legislature provided $2 million in funding for the Metropolitan Council to form a work group to develop a comprehensive plan to ensure communities in the White Bear Lake area have access to sufficient drinking water to allow for municipal growth while ensuring the sustainability of surface and groundwater resources to supply the needs of future generations. Workgroup members include: Commissioners or designees from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), representatives from Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC), St. Paul Regional Water Services, Stillwater, Mahtomedi, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Lino Lakes, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, Shoreview, Woodbury, New Brighton, White Bear Lake, White Bear Lake Township and North Oaks. The meetings kicked off in January 2024. A final report with recommendations is due to be submitted to the House of Representatives and Senate Committees in June 2027. Staff have concerns about the direction of this group and potential outcomes. A letter was issued to the working group members on April 3, 2026, to begin to formalize the concerns which have previously been expressed at workgroup meetings. The April 10, 2026, council memo on the workgroup is attached, as well as the letter referenced. ## Recommendation The meeting is scheduled as an update. Staff requests City Council provide feedback, indicate if there are unanswered questions, and affirm past direction on water rates. ## Governance Mode 1 Fiduciary - Stewardship of tangible assets, oversees operations and ensures efficient and appropriate use of resources, legal compliance, and fiscal accountability. Generative - identifying key questions, anticipating future challenges, framing of issues, and development of options. ## Fiscal Implications The City funded cost for the water treatment plant and pipeline project continues to be approximately $20 million. These costs are beginning to be clearer, as the project moves through bidding and implementation. The remaining unknowns are related to the 2027 Radio Drive pipeline project, decommissioning of temporary plants and O&M long-term coverage, which is being worked through with the State over this year and next. The 2027 water rate recommendation meets the updated rate model and Council approved Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Capital Asset Funding Reserve Policy requirements. Cost impacts of water treatment plant and associated infrastructure operation and maintenance and capitalization were not taken into consideration; beyond the estimated $20M of initial city capital costs. Staff will update the next rate model using the most up-to-date information on these possible costs, 1 Items marked “fiduciary” are primarily business-oriented topics; “strategic” items are primarily related to long- term strategies or goals; and “generative” items are primarily meant to produce new thoughts or ideas. ## Council Workshop Letter 26-72 April 22, 2026 Page 3 before the next bond issuance. The current increase recommendation is designed to meet ‘business as usual’ needs. ## Policy Aligns with the 2019-2021 Strategic Initiative 19-01, Ensure Long-term Drinking Water ## Sustainability, 2022-2024 Strategic Initiative 22-01 Drinking Water Treatment Implementation and Environmental Stewardship. ## Public Process Due to the extensive length of public process items associated with these topics, only recent process is noted below. A list of previous public process can be found in past year’s Council Workshop letters. ## August 27, 2025Council Workshop and Treatment Plant Tour ## December 5, 2025Council Memo: Strategic Initiative – Water Treatment ## January 21, 2026Commission Kick Off Event February 26, 2026Mayor 2026 State of the City ## March 24, 2026Water Treatment Plant and Pipelines Open House ## Background Following the August 2021 release of the State of Minesota conceptual drinking water supply plan, which includes a long-term water treatment plant for the City of Woodbury, staff developed, submitted to, and received approval from the MPCA for the implementation of a Woodbury WTP design scope to support the ultimate construction of the Woodbury WTP. This effort has been and continues to receive funding under grant agreements between the City of Woodbury and the MPCA through the 3M and State of Minnesota Settlement Agreement. ## Written By:Mary Van Milligen, Public Works Director ## Approved Through:Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachments:April 10, 2026 Council Memo: White Bear Lake Comprehensive Planning ## Office of the City Administrator ## Council Memorandum 2026-03 Date: April 10, 2026 ## To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From: Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject: White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Legislatively Directed Workgroup The Minnesota Legislature appropriated $2 million for the Metropolitan Council to convene a work group charged with developing a comprehensive plan to ensure communities in the White Bear Lake area have long-term access to sufficient, sustainable drinking water to support municipal growth. As part of this effort, the group is also evaluating potential funding solutions. Recent discussions have raised concerns — including the possibility that the fourteen participating cities could be asked to finance future water-supply infrastructure. Woodbury has expressed strong opposition to this approach and has proposed several alternative funding mechanisms that better align costs with the recreational users and beneficiaries of White Bear Lake. These concerns have been previously expressed via email and in work group meeting; on April 3 a letter was sent to work group leads and is attached to this memo. This item has been added for discussion to the City Council April 22 workshop discussion during the water strategic initiative item. ## Background Work group members include commissioners or designees from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and representatives from the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee (MAWSAC), St. Paul Regional Water Services, Stillwater, Mahtomedi, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Lino Lakes, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, Shoreview, Woodbury, New Brighton, White Bear Lake, White Bear Lake Township, and North Oaks. The work group website and a link to the authorizing legislation can be found here: White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group – Metropolitan Council. The group began meeting in January 2024 and has now held eight meetings. A final report with recommendations is due to the House and Senate committees in June 2027. ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Water Planning The work group will be developing a comprehensive plan to ensure communities in the White Bear Lake area have access to sufficient safe drinking water to allow for municipal growth while simultaneously ensuring the sustainability of surface water and groundwater resources to supply the needs of future generations. The comprehensive plan must: 1. Evaluate methods for conserving and recharging groundwater in the area including: 1. Converting water supplies that are groundwater dependent to total or partial supplies from surface water sources 2. Reusing water, including water discharged from contaminated wells 3. Projects designed to increase groundwater recharge 4. Other methods for reducing groundwater use 2. Based on this evaluation, determine which existing groundwater supply wells, if converted to surface water sources, would be most effective and efficient in ensuring future water sustainability in the area. ## Council Memorandum 2026-03 April 10, 2026 Page 2 3. Identify a long-term plan for converting the identified groundwater wells to surface water sources, including recommendations on water supply governance and concept-level engineering that addresses preliminary design considerations, including supply source, treatment, distribution, operation, and financing needed to complete any changes to water supply infrastructure. 4. Include any policy and funding recommendations for converting groundwater supply wells to surface water sources, recommendations for treating and reusing wastewater, and any other recommendations for additional measures that reduce groundwater use, promote water reuse, and increase groundwater recharge. 5. Include any policy and funding recommendations for local wastewater treatment and recharge. 6. Be submitted to the chairs and ranking minority members of the house of representatives and senate committees and divisions with jurisdiction over environment and natural resources finance and policy by June 30, 2027. ## Current Status of Work Group Discussions The work group has compiled several past studies that will inform future recommendations, along with a list of new studies to be commissioned. A PDF summarizing all studies and their status is attached. ## Woodbury – Possible Local Impacts Until the January 15 work group meeting, the concepts under discussion had minimal potential impact on the City of Woodbury. Prior to that point, the only conclusion relevant to Woodbury came from the February 4, 2024, Project 1007 Feasibility Study update presented by the MPCA East Metro ## Unit: • Current pumping conditions decrease plume mitigation in some areas; reductions in pumping would likely increase PFAS migration. • Source-zone control at the Washington County Landfill and Oakdale Disposal Site is necessary to limit continued migration of highly impacted groundwater. • Groundwater pumping is required for hydraulic control and PFAS extraction to reduce plume migration. At the January meeting, however, funding concepts were introduced. The Metropolitan Council project leads and consultants focused on two potential approaches: State bonding or cost-sharing among the fourteen participating cities. Representing Woodbury, I (Mary Van Milligen) strongly opposed city-financed funding—both in writing and verbally during the meeting—and offered several alternative funding options aligned with recreation-based beneficiaries of White Bear Lake. Nearly all cities expressed support for Woodbury’s position. Despite this, the April 2, 2026, meeting confirmed that cost-sharing among the cities remains under consideration. As a result, the attached letter was sent to the work group leaders on April 3, 2026, and will be included on the agenda for discussion at the April 22 City Council workshop on the Water Strategic Initiative. ## Written By: Mary Van Milligen, Public Works Director ## Approved Through: Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator Attachments: April 3, 2026, Letter to White Bear Lake Workgroup Leads ## White Bear Lake Area Workgroup Summary of Studies 3/23/2026 2301 Tower Drive • Woodbury, MN 55125-1642 • woodburymn.gov ## 651-714-3720 • FAX 651-714-3721 April 3, 2026 ## Judy Sventek and Greg Johnson ## Water Resource Manager ## Environmental Services ## 500 Lafayette Road ## St. Paul, MN 55155 ## Greg Johnson ## Principal Engineer, Water Resources ## Environmental Services ## 500 Lafayette Road ## St. Paul, MN 55155 ## RE: White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group ## Dear Work Group Leaders and Agency Partners, Thank you for the continued collaboration on the White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group. Woodbury continues to engage in good faith as a regional partner and as a city is deeply committed to water quality, conservation, and long-term sustainability. That said, Woodbury wants to clearly document both our original confusion with being included in this group and our concerns about recent suggestions that the member communities could be expected to fund potential infrastructure solutions. As you know, the Legislature appropriated funds to the Metropolitan Council in fiscal year 2024 to convene a work group and develop a comprehensive plan for ensuring communities in the White Bear Lake area have sufficient, safe drinking water to enable municipal growth while protecting sustainability of surface and groundwater resources. The statute outlines tasks related to evaluation of water conservation and aquifer recharge, potential conversion of certain groundwater supplies to surface water, water reuse, policy and funding recommendations, and submission of the comprehensive plan by June 30, 2027. Notably, nowhere does the legislation state that the fourteen communities included in the work group are intended to bear the costs of recommended infrastructure or other measures. Woodbury’s understanding is that the work group’s charge is to evaluate options and provide recommendations, not to assign costs to communities that may not directly benefit from the proposed solutions. April 3, 2026 ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group Page 2 ## Woodbury’s Inclusion in the Work Group The City of Woodbury staff and Council initially questioned Woodbury’s inclusion in the White Bear Lake (WBL) work group because the city is neither part of the related court cases nor located within the commonly mentioned five-mile radius established in litigation. Although Woodbury was not directly implicated, the City chose not to object to its legislative inclusion at the time, given our strong regional commitment to addressing groundwater sustainability, managing long-term aquifer challenges, and our substantial involvement in East Metro water initiatives driven by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) impacts. Since the formation of the work group, Woodbury has actively participated in discussions and contributed strategic perspectives on long-term, sustainable solutions. However, one of our original concerns remains: it is atypical—and inappropriate—to include communities outside the scope of the litigation and outside the area directly affected, particularly when those communities may not benefit from potential infrastructure or operational changes resulting from this work. It is also important to clarify that Woodbury’s inclusion appears to stem not from disproportionate groundwater use or any demonstrated contribution to the conditions affecting White Bear Lake, but simply from the size of our community. Woodbury’s per-capita water use is consistent with regional norms, and the city has long been recognized for proactive conservation and aquifer stewardship. Population alone should not serve as a proxy for impact, and its use as a selection criterion has contributed to ongoing confusion regarding the rationale for our participation in this process. ## Concerns Over Funding Suggestions Recent discussions suggesting that the fourteen work group communities might fund solutions raise significant policy, equity, and legal concerns: • It would be unprecedented, to our knowledge, for municipalities to fund infrastructure that does not directly benefit their residents or their water systems. • The equity implications are troubling, costs could be shifted to residents across a broad region who may have no nexus to the issue and, in some cases, limited ability to pay. • The selection process for the fourteen communities was not clearly communicated to Woodbury, and our inclusion occurred without consultation or consent. • The apparent shift in scope appears to go beyond the bounds of the legislative request, which does not contemplate cost allocation to member communities. ## Substantive Focus: Solving the Right Problem White Bear Lake’s water levels are being managed primarily for recreational purposes, and recent rebounds have been driven largely by increased precipitation. As Woodbury has consistently noted, April 3, 2026 ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group Page 3 using lake levels as a proxy for aquifer health is akin to using short-term weather patterns to understand long-term climate trends—one does not accurately measure the other. From our perspective, the core issue extends well beyond lake levels. The region’s long-term challenge is ensuring sustainable, durable groundwater appropriations that protect the health of the aquifer while supporting continued community growth. Woodbury supports policy decisions that safeguard aquifer sustainability, including conservation measures implemented at the city level to promote long-term resource stewardship. At the same time, we also support the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) ability to responsibly appropriate water so communities can continue to meet urgent housing needs. Sustainable aquifer management and continued housing development are not mutually exclusive; both are essential to the long-term vitality of the East Metro and the broader region. For these reasons, we urge the work group to maintain focus not solely on engineering solutions tied to lake levels, but also on policy tools, appropriation governance, source water identification, groundwater recharge investments, and water reuse strategies—the approaches most likely to create meaningful, long-term regional sustainability. ## Funding Alternatives with Clear Connection Should the comprehensive plan ultimately recommend actions requiring funding, we encourage approaches that directly connect costs to beneficiaries and drivers of the issue: • Local option sales tax limited to jurisdictions that clearly benefit economically from White Bear Lake’s recreation and tourism draw. • User-based fees (e.g., boat storage, launch permits, lake recreation passes) tied to actual lake usage. • State appropriations or bonding for water sustainability and recharge projects, recognizing the statewide public interest in sustainable water resources. • Targeted watershed funding or environmental trust mechanisms where benefit and responsibility are aligned. • Phased, benefit-based special assessments only where direct service conversion (e.g., to surface water) is adopted for specific systems. ## Request for Action • Please confirm the work group will refrain from recommending cost allocations to communities without direct benefit and outside the litigation scope. • Provide a transparent explanation of the community selection process. • Identify how dissenting positions will be captured and published in the final comprehensive plan. April 3, 2026 ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Work Group Page 4 We appreciate the complexity of this legislative assignment. Our comments are intended to ensure the group’s work product aligns with the legislative mandate, sound public policy, and equitable regional outcomes. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. ## Sincerely, ## Mary Van Milligen ## Public Works Director ## cc: Woodbury Mayor and Council Members ## Jeff Dahl, Woodbury City Administrator ## Chris Hartzell, Woodbury Engineering Director ## Jim Westerman, Woodbury Assistant Public Works Director ## Sam Paske, Metropolitan Council ## Kodi Verhalen, Taft ## Ann Lenczewski, Lockridge Grindal Nauen ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Work Group Members 1 ## Metropolitan ## Council ## Study Summaries ## White Bear Lake Area Comprehensive Plan ## Study Status Description Amount of water saved Estimated cost Study 1 – Redirect stormwater to augment ## White Bear Lake In Progress Study 1 by Kimley-Horn explores redirecting water that is collected in nearby stormwater ponds to augment White Bear Lake. April 2025 Update: Work group members collectively agreed they do not want to move forward with studying this method further due to its lack of effectiveness. Instead, they proposed to evaluate pumping ## reuse water from Bald Eagle Lake, Ramsey/Washington Counties Ditch 1, Centerville Lake, and areas of Grant that are known to have excess surface water. July 2025 Update: Met Council presented a proposal to amend Study 1 to evaluate additional surface water sources for augmentation. The amended Study 1 includes evaluating pumping ## surface water from Bald Eagle Lake, Ramsey/Washington Counties Ditch 1, Centerville Lake, and areas of Grant that are known to have excess surface water. Amended Study 1 will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. Not applicable for Study 1 since base evaluation was determined not feasible. To be determined for Amended for Study 1. Not applicable for Study 1 since base evaluation was determined not feasible. To be determined for Amended for Study 1. Study 2 – Convey treated surface water from St. Paul ## Regional Water Services In Progress Study 2 by SEH evaluates conveying treated surface water from either St. Paul Regional Water Services or a new regional surface water treatment plant to select White Bear Lake area communities in the north and east metro area. The results of this study will be presented at the July 16, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 3 – Reuse of treated wastewater for industrial and agricultural users Completed Study 3 by SEH evaluated reusing treated wastewater from nearby Met Council interceptors for industrial and agricultural users in the White Bear Lake area. July 2025 Update: Due to the very minimal estimated improvement to White Bear Lake water levels (less than 0.1 feet), the work group members collectively agreed to not move forward with further studying this method and to use the project funds for other studies for now but can come back to it later. 123.3 million gallons per year Capital cost - $296,000,000 Annual O&M cost - $1,350,000 Study 4 – Stormwater reuse for irrigation In Progress Study 4 by Barr Engineering will evaluate using stormwater reuse for irrigation to reduce groundwater pumping from the acquired. The results of this study will be presented at the July 16, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 5 – Reuse water discharged from contaminated wells In Progress Study 5 by MPCA evaluates constructing multiple extraction and injection remediation wells in Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and other areas located near PFAS plumes and treating this water for municipal water use in Oakdale and Lake Elmo. The purpose of this method is to prevent the migration of PFAS to neighboring communities and private wells if Oakdale and Lake Elmo pumped significantly less To be determined To be determined 2 ## Metropolitan ## Council groundwater from its existing municipal wells to supply its drinking water systems. The results of this study will be presented at the July 16, 2026 work group meeting. Study 6 – Treat wastewater and inject into the aquifer to raise groundwater elevations In Progress Study 6 by SEH evaluated reusing treated wastewater from a Met Council interceptor and injecting it into the aquifer through injection wells or by direct lake augmentation into White Bear Lake. July 2025 Update: Met Council worked with the DNR to complete additional groundwater modeling analysis and sent those results to the work group for their review. October 2025 Update: Work group suggested additionally comparing current and projected wastewater volumes to existing water use scenarios. January 2026 Update: The study concluded that aquifer injection and augmentation with treated wastewater reuse is expensive with regulatory challenges and the additional need to also treat chloride with advanced treatment, but the estimated lake level improvements to White Bear Lake would be significant and especially with direct augmentation. The work group decided to keep this study open for comparing to other completed studies at the end of the project. 486 to 924 million gallons per year Capital costs - $201,200,000 to $329,300,000 Annual O&M costs – $1,450,000 to $2,360,000 Study 7A – Water quality study as it relates to lake augmentation study In Progress Study 7A by Barr Engineering evaluates potential water quality impacts to White Bear Lake and the underlying aquifer that supplies drinking water for the 14 White Bear Lake area communities if White Bear Lake was augmented using treated water from the Mississippi River and chain of lakes, which is the primary source of drinking water for Saint Paul Regional Water Services. July 2025 Update: New scope of work for the third and final phase of Study 7A will focus on modelling the lakes and watersheds by Barr Engineering. The results of this study will be presented at the July 16, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 7B – Lake augmentation from the chain of lakes into White Bear Lake In Progress Study 7B by SEH evaluates the infrastructure costs to pump and treat surface water from the chain of lakes to augment White Bear Lake. The study is using the recommended mitigation methods for the chain of lakes water from Study 7A to study the water treatment requirements and estimate the costs. The results of this study will be presented at the July 16, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 8 – Stormwater collection and infiltration to raise groundwater elevations Completed Study 8 examined collecting stormwater and raising groundwater elevations through infiltration of stormwater into the aquifer. This method would need to bring in significant amounts of water and from outside the watershed to be impactful. April 2025 Update: The work group collectively agreed not to move forward with studying this method further due to its lack of effectiveness and the high vulnerability of the aquifer with respect to non-treated stormwater being infiltrated into the aquifer. Unknown due to termination of additional study Unknown due to termination of additional study 3 ## Metropolitan ## Council Study 9A – Raise outlet ## elevation of White Bear Lake (Initial evaluation) Completed Study 9A by Kimley-Horn evaluated raising the outlet elevation of White Bear Lake to increase water storage in the lake and determining how it could impact flooding to property owners around and near the lake. ## July 2025 Updat e: Work group members collectively agreed to continue studying this method and proceed to Study 9B to study the infrastructure requirements to raise the lake outlet elevation. 400 to 800 million gallons per year Costs not evaluated for Study 9A (see Study 9B) Study 9B – Raise outlet ## elevation of White Bear Lake (modeling and infrastructure evaluation) In Progress Study 9B by Kimley-Horn evaluates potential impacts from raising the outlet elevation of White Bear Lake including impacts to infrastructure, properties, flood risk, and cost. ## Oct ober 2025 Update: Work group collectively agreed to continue studying this method and reviewing a secondary outlet option. ## January 2026 U pdate: Due to challenges with increasing discharge rates, it was not recommended to continue to pursue outlet modifications due to the high level of potential impacts from flooding to property owners around and near White Bear Lake. However, the work group advised Met Council and Kimley-Horn to continue studying this option by estimating the costs to purchase existing properties around and near the lake that are located within 4 feet from the flood plain. The results of this additional analysis will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. 400 to 800 million gallons per year Full costs to be determined Study 10 – Lawn watering restrictions (day of week and time) In Progress Study 10 by Kimley-Horns estimates potential water savings from implementing lawn watering restrictions and enhancing existing watering restrictions based on days of the week and implementing irrigation system controllers. The results of this study will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 11 – ## Implement/require/encourage water reuse for irrigation and process water In Progress Study 11 by Kimley-Horn evaluates reusing and treating surface water from East Vadnais Lakes for irrigation and process water in ## White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, and Gem Lake (via Vadnais ## Heights).] ## January 2026 U pdate: Additional data will be gathered from users to better inform the study and will be shared with the work group at a future meeting. The results from this study will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 12 – Tiered increasing block water utility rates In Progress Study 12 by Kimley-Horn evaluates potential water savings from tiered increasing block water utility rates. The results from this study will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 13 – Potential water savings from alternative low input turf grasses In Progress Study 13 by Kimley-Horn evaluate potential water savings from implementing alternative low input turf grasses that require significantly less irrigation water for the 14 White Bear Lake area communities. The results from this study will be presented at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. To be determined To be determined Study 14A – White Bear Lake Completed Study 14A by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) evaluated Not applicable Not applicable 4 ## Metropolitan ## Council ## Area Groundwater Flow ## Pathline Analysis for PFAS and modeled groundwater flow path lines for future groundwater pumping conditions for PFAS contamination and how PFAS could travel over 50 years in the White Bear Lake area communities if select communities stopped pumping groundwater and switched to a surface water supply source. ## Oct ober 2025 Update: The MDH study determined that most areas induce minor changes to the direction of flow and areas near altered, added, or removed wells showed the greatest impact although minor. Based on the groundwater modeling results, it was determined not necessary to proceed with Study 14B to evaluate the infrastructure and estimate the costs to implement drinking water treatment for PFAS. Study 14B – Infrastructure to ## Treat PFAS Cancelled Study 14B would have evaluated the infrastructure and potential costs to treat PFAS in municipal wells that were predicted by MDH groundwater modeling to become significantly contaminated from the migration of PFAS if upgradient municipal wells stopped pumping groundwater in communities that switched to a surface water source. The results from Study 14A did not warrant the need to proceed with Study 14B. Not applicable Not applicable ## Study 15 – Serve North Oaks from Shoreview Upcoming – April 2026 Study 15 by Kimley-Horn will evaluate constructing two additional wells in Shoreview and expand the city’s existing water treatment plant capacity to serve North Oaks’ projected ultimate development with treated groundwater. To be determined To be determined Financial Analyses Study In Progress The financial analyses study by Hazen and Sawyer includes developing a financial water rate model to estimate potential water utility rates to implement each of the potential solutions being evaluated by the technical consultants as an alternative funding method. ## January 2026 U pdate: Hazen and Sawyer presented the preliminary rate model to the work group and summarized water affordability for each of the work group member communities. Certain work group members objected to evaluating potential rate impacts to communities as an option to finance a potential solution. This topic will be discussed again at the April 2, 2026 work group meeting. Not applicable To be determined ## 1B ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Workshop Letter 26-73 April 22, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Consideration of Ordinance, Helmet Requirement for E-Bike Users under 18 Years of Age ## Summary At its March 25, 2026, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to return to a workshop for further discussion and consideration of a potential helmet ordinance. The City’s review of e-transportation regulations began in 2025 as staff, and the Parks and Natural Resources Commission (PNRC) responded to the rapid growth of electric-assisted bicycles and other emerging e-transportation modes throughout the community. Initial discussions focused on updating Chapter 16 to better define e-bike classifications, clarify permitted and prohibited e-transportation uses, and improve overall safety on trails and in parks and open spaces. Through this process, PNRC also identified youth e-bike use as an area of concern and recommended exploring a helmet requirement for riders under 18 as a proactive safety measure. As the ordinance review progressed, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2076 on March 25, 2026, which reorganized these regulations by relocating bicycling and e-transportation provisions into Chapter 14 and establishing updated operational standards. While these changes addressed how bicycles and e-bikes are used within public spaces, they did not include personal safety requirements such as helmet use. The proposed recommendation builds on that work by incorporating a helmet requirement for youth under 18 years old, enhancing the City’s broader effort to improve safety, and respond to evolving trends in e-transportation. This ordinance would ensure consistency between electric-assisted bicycle and electric foot scooter regulations by aligning helmet requirements for youth users across both. ## Recommendation The following ordinance update introduces new language only in subsection (d). All other provisions reflect existing ordinance language and definitions. 1. Section 14-35. Definitions - Electric-assisted bicycle as defined by M.S.A. § 169.011, subd.27. ## 2. Section 14-38. Public Site or Open Space a) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle or an electric-assisted bicycle in any public sites or open space except in a prudent and careful manner, and maintaining effective control ## Council Workshop Letter 26-73 April 22, 2026 Page 2 and operation of the vehicle. Pedestrians and bicyclists shall have the right-of-way where a trail or sidewalk intersects a roadway. b) No person shall operate a Motor Vehicle including, but not limited to, all-terrain vehicles, e-motos, go-karts, golf carts, motorcycles, and motorized bicycles within any public site or open space except on roadways or in such areas specifically designated and posted for such use. c) Motorized Foot Scooters are exempt from Sec. 14-38 (b). d) (New) No person under the age of 18 shall operate or ride upon an electric-assisted bicycle in any public sites or open space without wearing a properly fitted and fastened protective headgear approved for bicycle riding by the United States Department of Transportation or American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Staff recommends that the City Council review and consider future adoption of the ordinance update recommended by the PNRC. ## Governance Mode 1 Generative - Identifying key questions, anticipating future challenges, framing of issues, development of options. Problem-framing. What to pay attention to, what it means, and what to do about it. How does it fit with our mission, vision and values? ## Fiscal Implications There are no fiscal implications at this time. ## Policy Section 14-35: Definitions – Electric-assisted Bicycle ## Section 14-38: Public Sites or Open Space ## Public Process The PNRC reviewed e-transportation modes and related ordinances during its fall 2025 monthly meetings and has provided recommendations for Council review and consideration. Council reviewed the PNRC recommendations during the February 25, 2026 Council Workshop meeting. Additional discussion took place during the March 25 City Council meeting at which time Council requested the helmet discussion is brought back for further review at a Council Workshop. The PNRC and Council reviewed e-transportation modes and related ordinances during the following meetings: September 9, 2025 PNRC discussed ordinance language and enforcement with Public Safety October 7, 2025: PNRC continued discussion of ordinance concepts and safety considerations November 10, 2025: PNRC consensus reached on recommended ordinance updates. December 2, 2025 PNRC affirmed recommendations for City Council review and consideration 1 Items marked “fiduciary” are primarily business-oriented topics; “strategic” items are primarily related to long- term strategies or goals; and “generative” items are primarily meant to produce new thoughts or ideas. ## Council Workshop Letter 26-73 April 22, 2026 Page 3 February 25, 2025: Council workshop reviewed and discussed ordinances updates recommended by the PNRC. March 25, 2025: Council adopted the recommended ordinance updates, except the helmet requirement for e-bike users under the age of 18. Council directed staff to bring the topic back for further consideration. ## Background Beginning in spring 2025, staff and Council experienced a growing number of resident concerns related to e-transportation use, including speed, safety, age-appropriateness, and unfamiliarity with City ordinances. In response, City Council directed staff and the PNRC to review existing regulations, evaluate enforceability, and consider whether ordinance updates were warranted. Staff initiated a cross-department collaboration, consulted peer communities, and focused on education as the primary short-term response. A community-wide educational campaign was launched in summer 2025, while ordinances were being reviewed. Public education and outreach efforts implemented in 2025 included: Educational yard signs placed throughout the community Newsletter articles and InTouch notifications Education at community events (e.g. Woodbury Days) Social media messaging and a staff-led educational video Updated website content Public Safety outreach and guidance when contacts were made Key discussion topics during PNRC meetings included alignment with state statutes, helmet requirements, enforcement challenges, age restrictions, paved trail and sidewalk definitions, and balancing safety with accessibility. ## Written By: Reed Smidt, Recreation Operations manager ## Approved Through:Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director ## Attachment:None