--- ## author: Davis, Allison date: D:20260512085237-05'00' --- ## City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 | 7:30 PM NOTE: Item 6L has been revised to reflect a change to the polling location for Precinct 1. Please disregard all previous versions of this agenda. This City Council meeting is taking place virtually and at the Woodbury City Hall in the Council Chambers. Meetings are recorded by TrueLens 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 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 also 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. 1.Call to Order 2.Pledge to Flag 3.Roll Call 4.Special Order of Business 4A.Presentation by Metropolitan Council Member Mark Jenkins 26-90 5.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 and give the sign-up sheet to any staff person, or may also submit a question or comment virtually via the Q&A chat feature on the right side of the live event screen. Please provide your name and city of residence with your question for the official record. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The Council will listen attentively to comments but, in most instances, will not respond at ## Watch the Live Meeting ## Woodbury City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 | 7:30 PM the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week. 6.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 Council Member 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. 6A.Approval of Minutes 1. City Council Workshop Meeting - April 22, 2026 2. City Council Meeting - April 22, 2026 3. City Council Workshop Meeting - April 29, 2026 6B.Approval of Edgewater Park Construction 26-91 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-48, a resolution approving the Award of Bid and execution of a contract with Minnesota Roadways Co., in the amount of $354,396.21, for the construction of Edgewater Park site improvements and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. 6C.Approval of Settlers East 4th Addition; Final Plat; Project No. 01-2026-00608 26-92 Staff recommends Council approval of Settlers East 4th Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 01-2026-00608 subject to the following conditions as listed in Council Letter 26-92. 6D.Approval of Submission of the City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan to the ## Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 26-93 Staff recommend the Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-49, a resolution approving the City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. ## 6E.Approval of the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed ## District for Goldfish Management and Removal 26-94 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-50, a resolution approving ## the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed District for goldfish management and removal. 6F.Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program 26-95 ## Woodbury City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 | 7:30 PM Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-51, a resolution authorizing execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program. ## 6G.Approval of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant; Accepting and ## Executing the Grant Agreement and Approving Associated Budget Amendment 26-96 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-52, a resolution accepting ## the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant, executing the grant agreement, and approving the associated budget amendment. ## 6H.Approval of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines ## Construction Grant Amendment #1: Authorize Acceptance; Budget Amendment 26-97 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-53, a resolution authorizing ## acceptance of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines ## Construction Grant Amendment #1, Contract #262247 from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and associated budget amendment. ## 6I.Approval of Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program; Authorizing ## Consultant Selection 26-98 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-54, a resolution authorizing ## the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program Consultant Selection with Stantec. 6J.Approval of Upper Afton Road Fire Station Exhaust System Project; Budget ## Amendment 26-99 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-55, a resolution approving a budget amendment for the Upper Afton Road Fire Station exhaust system project. 6K.Approval of Accepting the Spark Good Community Grant; Budget Amendment 26-100 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-56, a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Spark Good Community Grant and approving the associated budget amendment. 6L.Approval of the Change of Polling Locations in the City of Woodbury for Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 26-101 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-57, a resolution approving the change of polling locations in the City of Woodbury for Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13. ## Woodbury City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 | 7:30 PM 6M.Approval of July 2026 – December 2026 Employee Group Insurance Benefits 26-102 Staff recommends Council adopt: 1. RESOLUTION 26-58, a resolution authorizing the purchase of group medical insurance from Medica and amending the City contribution toward the employee group medical insurance program. 2. RESOLUTION 26-59, a resolution authorizing the City to self-fund dental insurance benefits, hiring HealthPartners as the administrative service organization and amending the City contribution toward the Employee Group Dental Insurance Program. 3. RESOLUTION 26-60, a resolution authorizing the purchase of life and long- term disability insurance from Symetra. 4. RESOLUTION 26-61, a resolution authorizing the purchase of short-term disability advice-to-pay administrative services from Symetra. 5. RESOLUTION 26-62, a resolution authorizing the offering of voluntary supplemental insurance from AFLAC and voluntary vision insurance from EyeMed Vision Care. 6N.Approval of the Abstract of Bills 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 are hereby approved. Staff recommends approval of the abstract of bills for April 10, 2026 in the amount of $1,038,024.09; April 17, 2026 in the amount of $1,428,851.07; April 24, 2026 in the amount of $1,602,215.90; and May 1st in the amount of $6,312,726.98. 7.Public Hearing 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 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. ## Woodbury City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 | 7:30 PM 7A.Consider Approval of Marks Cafe LLC, dba City Walk Cafe and Bar, 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101, On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and ## Patio Sales 26-103 ## 1. Open Hearing ## 2. Close Hearing 3. Staff recommends Council approve an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and Patio Sales to Marks Cafe LLC dba City Walk Cafe & Bar located at 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101. 8.Discussion 8A.Presentation of 2026 Community Survey Results 26-104 Staff recommends Council review the results of the 2026 Community Survey and provide direction to staff related to any follow-up items needed. 8B.Consider Approval of Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan 26-105 At their May 4, 2026, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. At that time, they recommended approval of the plan by a 6-0 vote. Staff concur and recommend Council approve RESOLUTION 26- 63, a resolution adopting the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. 8C.Consider Approval of Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series ## 2026A 26-106 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-64, a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A, in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $41,295,000. 9.Staff Reports ## 9A.City Administrator Update 10.Adjournment 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. ## 4A ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-90 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Presentation from Metropolitan Council Member Mark Jenkins ## Summary Council member Mark Jenkins will be presenting a brief overview of Met Council services. ## Recommendation No action is needed; the presentation is informational only. ## Fiscal Implications ## None ## Policy Not applicable ## Public Process Not applicable ## Background Council member Jenkins represents District 12, which includes roughly two-thirds of the City of Woodbury west of Woodbury Drive and South of Bailey Road (map below). ## Council Letter 26-90 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Written By:Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk ## Approved Through:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachment:None ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Workshop Wednesday, April 22, 2026 ## 6A1 Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a workshop meeting was held at Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 22 nd day of April 2026. Present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Jennifer Santini, Donna Stafford, and Steve Morris. Others Present: Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator; Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator; Mary Van Milligen, Public Works Director; Tony Kutzke, Assistant Engineering Director/City Engineer; Michelle Okada, Parks & Recreation Director; Reed Smidt, Recreation Operations Manager, additional staff in-person and on-line and members of the public in attendance. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. ## Workshop Discussion Items ## 1A.Update on Drinking Water Strategic Initiative: Water Treatment Implementation Presentation provided by staff with Council questions, comments, and discussion throughout. Council provided direction to staff on 2027 water rates to continue implementation of the 5-year plan as previously directed to staff, which includes annual increases of eight percent (8%) for water rates and five percent (5%) for sewer rates, along with a four percent (4%) MCES pass-through, for a total sewer‐related impact of nine percent (9%). Council provided no further direction on the White Bear Lake Work Group, with support of staff actions to date. 1B.Consideration of Ordinance, Helmet Requirement for E-Bike Users under 18 Years of Age Presentation provided by staff with Council questions, comments, and discussion throughout. Council provided direction for staff to present the ordinance proposal potentially at a future workshop. Public Safety was requested to provide further specific details on enforcement concerns as discussed. Council was supportive of first having staff provide a memorandum with further details for Council review. Administrator Comments and updates No comments ## Mayor and City Council Comments and Commission Liaison Updates Councilmember Wilson requested information about a monument that is no longer present behind City Hall, asking if its location was moved. Councilmember Wilson requested a review of flags at City Hall and Central Park for compliance with flag placement standards. Councilmember Morris asked if Council had consensus to take action on the ICE related resolution. A consensus was not provided. ## Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ## Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator Approved by the Woodbury City Council on ________________. ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Wednesday, April 22, 2026 ## 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 22 nd day of April 2026. ## Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:33 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 Cub Scout Pack 601 led the audience, staff, and Council in pledging 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; Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Mike Hejna, Assistant City Engineer; Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator; and Tony Kutzke, City Engineer. ## Special Order of Business A.Proclamation Recognizing Woodbury Resident Mike Madigan's 18-year tenure on the South Washington Watershed District Board Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full recognizing Woodbury resident Mike Madigan’s 18-year tenure on the South Washington Watershed District Board before presenting Mr. Madigan with a framed copy of the proclamation and thanking him for his service. ## B.Proclamation Recognizing Public Service Recognition Week This item was addressed after item C. Proclamation Recognizing Volunteer Recognition Week. ## C.Proclamation Recognizing Volunteer Recognition Week Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full declaring April 19 through April 25, 2026, as Volunteer Recognition Week. She thanked those who had volunteered and mentioned that the City sent out cards to volunteers, which invited them to City Hall to pick up a special gift. Councilmember Wilson asked Mayor Burt where the public could find volunteer opportunities in the City. Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Ashleigh Sullivan replied that opportunities can be found on the City website or by reaching out to City staff. ## B.Proclamation Recognizing Public Service Recognition Week Mayor Burt read a Proclamation in full declaring May 3 through May 9, 2026, as Public Service Recognition Week; May 10 through May 16, 2026, as Police Week; May 15, 2026, as Peace Officers Memorial Day; May 17 through May 23, 2026, as Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week. City Administrator Jeffrey Dahl recognized the public servants and outstanding individuals who serve the community every day. He noted that there are 500 employees in the City. He highlighted the team's dedication, organizational values, professionalism, and leadership, which allow ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 2 of 8 the City to meet expectations and be the best. He thanked the staff for their service in the community every day and mentioned that their work makes an impact. ## Open Forum Christie Denson, Board Chair of Woodbury Community Foundation, thanked the Council for recognizing Volunteer Appreciation Week. She stated the Woodbury Community Foundation’s mission is to connect people in organizations with causes that matter, strengthening the fabric of the community. She added that they want to grow a culture in the community that gives back. Over the past year, there have been over 13,000 volunteer hours through the foundation. She added that the foundation is seeking to strengthen the leaders in the community and has partnered with the City in the past on various objectives. She noted that the barrier to volunteerism is often that people do not know where to go. She asked the City to consider opportunities to increase accessibility to volunteerism. She explained that the City can help support a more centralized approach to community volunteerism and leverage the City’s communication channels that would help amplify volunteer needs and opportunities. She asked the City to consider volunteerism and civic engagement as a priority value in the future strategic plan. She stated Woodbury Community Foundation would like to partner with the City in the work. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, to extend the Open Forum to allow six speakers instead of three speakers. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt ## Absent: None Susan Asplund, City resident, stated that in the past month, community members drafted and presented a resolution affirming the City’s commitment to safety and restricting the use of City property for federal immigration enforcement activities. More than 150 community members signed the petition in support of the resolution. In January, hundreds of people attended the Council meeting because they were deeply concerned about the activities of DHS and ICE in the City. The concern has not gone away. She mentioned that the proclamation in April affirmed the City’s values and outlined steps taken so far. A proclamation is not a policy and does not create meaningful change. She explained that Resolutions establish policy, and the City Attorney confirmed that the Council has the legal authority to restrict the use of City- owned property. She noted that there are examples throughout the metro area of cities taking action and have taken public safety approaches that respect Constitutional rights and support community stability. Effective public safety depends on trust. When residents are afraid to engage with the local government or access services, communities become less safe overall. Currently, there is no policy in the City preventing ICE or DHS from using City-owned spaces. City-owned spaces are meant to serve residents, not to be used for something that puts everyone at risk. The impact of federal police actions falls hardest on the people who are already navigating systems of inequity and fear. The Council has the authority to act, and the community has asked them to act. She asked the Council to place the proposed Resolution restricting DHS and ICE activity on a future agenda for a formal vote. The Proclamation was not enough, and residents deserve a clear, recorded vote. Sumitra Ness, City resident, stated that the City is 20 minutes from Fort Snelling, which is Minnesota’s first concentration camp, where the people native to the land were imprisoned and starved. She noted that she would have hoped that it would have been the last time it was a concentration camp. She mentioned that based on the ages of the Council, the Councilmembers likely have family members who fought in World War II, and possibly participated in the liberation of concentration camps. She urged the Council to familiarize themselves with stories of American soldiers who participated in the liberation of concentration camps, and of accounts of Japanese Americans who were stripped of their belongings and property and put into internment camps in the Country. The Council has given the community verbal assurances, but the City has not disclosed the arrangement regarding the ICE detention center. She explained that it does not provide clarity or assurance of how new locations could be dealt with. She stated there are concentration camps in the Country and elected leaders are routinely denied access. When leaders finally get access, they describe inhumane conditions. She noted Dilley detention center in Texas will someday be as familiar as Dachau. After World War II, many people said that most Germans did not know what was happening. In 2026, everyone knows what is happening in the American concentration camps. The people expect elected leaders to act on the information. She noted the Council has worked hard to advertise the City as a destination City and a place everyone would want to visit. She expressed her understanding of solid legal evidence about why it does not seem possible to win a fight against the federal government. She explained that it does not mean the City should not try. She urged the Council to put the Resolution to a vote, to have the “never again” mindset, and to be on the right side of history. Linda Ji, City resident, stated she is trying to do some remodeling in her home. She noted that she contracted for window replacements and did full-frame window replacements. She explained that during the process, the wood is vulnerable to water intrusion. She mentioned that the contract did not do the replacement properly and explained the process that the contractor did instead. She noted that she immediately had issues with the new windows, and there was water and mold growing on the windows. She stated the building inspectors have a policy that needs to be followed, and they wait until the project is completed instead of doing a mid-point check-in inspection. She noted that other cities have a process where contractors upload photos of the exterior wall before it is placed and covered up. She explained that since there was no mid-point check-in or contractor photos, she is in a situation where there is damage to the home and has to spend money to have the windows redone. Mayor Burt asked Ms. Ji if she was suggesting a different process. Ms. Ji stated that there needs to be a mid-point inspection of the waterproofing portion of the project. Justin Rapella, City resident, stated on April 8 th , the Council issued a Proclamation opposing a federal detention center in the City. While the sentiment is appreciated, it is important to be honest about what a proclamation is. It is a ceremonial statement and does not establish policy, create enforceable rules, or direct City staff to take any specific action. The process has been performative. There is concrete action that is available to the Council. The original draft Resolution was designed to do what a Proclamation does not. It included explicit directives to ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 3 of 8 restrict the use of City-owned or City-controlled property for the purposes of staging or supporting civil immigration enforcement activities. He explained that he has heard concerns that the Resolution is not enforceable or that it risks impeding federal agents. He noted under the 10 th Amendment, the City is not required to voluntarily offer local assets as operational locations for federal agencies. Choosing to withhold a home base for federal agent tactics is a valid and lawful policy choice. The Resolution would empower City staff to evaluate and update the facility use agreements and property permits. He added that it would provide a predictable environment for every resident, which would increase trust. The community has asked for transparency and accountability, and replacing a policy directive with a statement of sentiment intentionally avoids that accountability. He asked the Council to place the full Resolution on the upcoming agenda for a formal recorded vote. He added that if the Council’s position is to continue to allow federal agents on City-owned property, it should be stated and voted on. Jenny Stevens, City resident, stated her daughter was home from college during winter break. Instead, she put her daughter on “house arrest” because she is an East African immigrant. She explained that the first night ICE was in the area, she was paralyzed with fear. She added that she never imagined that her daughter would need to carry proof of her citizenship to go out to dinner in the City. She noted that as the weeks followed, she was emotionally paralyzed. She explained that she sent her daughter back to college with her passport and her certificate of citizenship. She referenced the Proclamation and told the Council that they know the right thing to do. Mayor Burt explained that it has been an agonizing time in the community and noted that the Council agrees with the resident. She added that the question is what to do as a governing body. There are some limitations. She mentioned that there was a comment that the City has not been transparent throughout the process. She explained that the City has been transparent and has things in writing. She stated Operation Metro Surge has gone away in the community and operations have changed format. She expressed her understanding that there are still fears in the community. She added that the City looked into joining the Safe and Stable Coalition with other cities in the metro area, but the coalition has not done anything formal, and none of them have passed a resolution except Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Richfield. The Safe and Stable Coalition is focused on recovery and how to get financial support for any costs that they have incurred. She stated there has not been any federal agent staging on City-owned property. One of the challenges in City government is to look at where to spend time and effort on what needs to be accomplished. She noted that the Council has felt that what they have said and done thus far is working. Councilmember Wilson explained that she made a statement in January and in March and stands by the statements. ## Consent Agenda ## Item A1. Approval of Council Workshop Minutes— April 8, 2026 2. Approval of Council Minutes – April 8, 2026 Item BTo approve the Westwind Fourth Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 33-2026-00605. Staff further recommends Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Development Agreement with all approvals subject to the following conditions as listed in Council Letter 26-76. Item CTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-39 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting grant funds from Washington County for the 2026 Municipal Recycling Grant and approving the associated budget amendment. Item DTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-40 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota accepting the 2026 Municipal Recycling Incentive Funding Grant from Washington County; executing the grant agreement; and approving the associated budget amendment. Item ETo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-41 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota making a Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bailey Development project. Item FTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-42 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing to participate in the Performance Measurement Program established by the State of Minnesota and the Council on Local Results and Innovation. Item GTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-43 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the transfer of funds between certain funds. Item HTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-44 ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 4 of 8 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving various 2025 final budget adjustments. Item ITo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-45 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving various carryovers to the 2026 budget and authorization for use of funds for the Municipal State Aid Roadway Construction Fund. Item JThe abstract of bills includes payments made from the operating or project budgets for expenses of the city. The expenditures are from all funds of the city. Any purchased contracts requiring signature of the mayor and City Administrator is hereby approved. Staff recommends approval of the abstract of bills for March 27, 2026, in the amount of $4,718,610.44 and April 3, 2026, in the amount of $1,010,163.83. Councilmember Stafford moved, seconded by Councilmember Santini, 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 A.Consider Approval of an Amendment to Chapter 9 Franchises, Section 9-6 CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.-Gas Franchise Fee, ## Schedule A Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Deputy City Administrator Angela Gorall stated in July 2025 that the City was contacted with a request from property owners at 3160 Manning Ave. to be exempted from our CenterPoint Energy franchise fee for their grain dryer operation. Due to changes implemented by CenterPoint Energy, their fees would increase from $90/year to approximately over $1,000/year. The grain dryer is only used in the month of October (sometimes in November) to dry field corn, according to the property owners. Ms. Gorall noted that staff reviewed the details of the request, evaluated legal options, confirmed this is the only such operation in the City, and met with CenterPoint Energy. Consideration of the exemption before Council was delayed due to the staff’s need to evaluate the overall financial condition of the Parks & Trails Replacement Fund and franchise fees. Essentially, if an ordinance change was to be considered, staff wanted to review that no other changes to fees would be recommended. At the conclusion of such review, as part of our development of the 2027-2031 CIP, staff does not recommend any changes to franchise fees and is therefore recommending to Council consideration of this specific exemption. Ms. Gorall mentioned that property owners have been updated regarding the City’s process since their original request. Staff has worked with CenterPoint Energy on this process, and they have provided their concurrence on the proposed changes. Similar exemptions have been provided by other cities due to this change. Due to notification requirements, an amended ordinance would not be effective until August 1, 2026. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt ## Absent: None Mayor Burt opened an opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. ## Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, To adopt the following ordinanceOrdinance 2077 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending Chapter 9 Franchises, Section 9-6 CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.-Gas Franchise Fee, Schedule A. Voting via voice: ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 5 of 8 Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye B.Consider Approval of Special Assessments for 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project – Woodlane Drive Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Assistant City Engineer Mike Hejna provided the Council with a presentation regarding the project. The purpose of the meeting was to share the project background, hold the assessment hearing, accept written objections, certify the assessment roll, and approve the associated Resolutions. He showed a photo of the project location. He reviewed the public process and public engagement. There have been four neighborhood meetings, which occurred in July 2024, October 2024, May 2025, and March 2026. Resident feedback has included 5,000 letters sent to residents, 170 neighborhood meeting attendees, and 139 questionnaire responses. Mr. Hejna noted that there have been several meeting actions. On March 27, 2025, the corridor study was authorized. There was a Council workshop regarding the trail/sidewalk improvements on January 8, 2025. The Council authorized the preparation of the Preliminary Report on June 25, 2025, and the assessment hearing was held on April 22, 2026. Mr. Hejna stated the general project scope includes a three-to-four lane conversion, pavement and curb replacement, pedestrian crossing enhancements, trail replacement, trail extensions, water main replacement, and minor storm/sanitary sewer improvements. He reviewed the City funding sources. The project costs based on the lowest bid are $7,106,683. The 2026 adopted budget was for $7,440,000, which creates a $333,317 difference. The funding sources include an Intergovernmental Grant (Federal), the Street Reconstruction/Maintenance Fund, Storm Water Utility Fund, Parks and Trails Replacement Fund, Water and Sewer Utility Fund, and Special Assessments. Mr. Hejna reviewed the proposed assessments. Single-family properties would be assessed between $5,071 and $11,875 per parcel. Multi- Family properties would be assessed between $1,907 and $30,020 per parcel. Commercial properties would be assessed between $4,228 and $37,414 per parcel, and public/semi-public properties would be assessed between $31,825 and $141,075. Mr. Hejna explained that special assessments are a charge imposed on properties for a certain improvement. There are benefits for the owners of the selected properties. It is a levy that is used by the City to finance or partially finance a certain public improvement. He noted that there are existing policies in place that are used in the development of the assessment role for the project. He added that the City does benefit appraisals to ensure that they are not assessing more than the benefit of the improvement is. The assessment hearing is held prior to awarding the project. There is a 30-day no-interest payment period. Payments can be made over 15 years. The first payment would be due with the first half of the property tax payment in 2027. The interest rate will be 4.50%. He encouraged the community to sign up for inTouch to get weekly updates about construction in the community. Kevin Shoeberg, stated he had four objections filed: one on behalf of KRS Properties LLC, two on behalf of CTS3 Properties LLC, and one on behalf of LWK-2 LLC. Mr. Shoeberg explained that he is an attorney in the City who has provided written objects for the Council to review. He reviewed his client's concerns and noted that the scope of the project had changed from what was originally proposed and is now being assessed. When the process began, KRS LLC was being assessed for a full assessment of 22 feet of frontage. Under the new proposal, the road is going on the other side because the City does not have a record of where the water is. It is difficult to understand how the assessments were calculated. The numbers in the feasibility report do not match up with the assessments that are being proposed against the parcels. He added that his clients have concerns that Woodlane Drive is a major arterial road under the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This is a project that the City paid for, and there should be no special assessments. There is a car count of about 9,000 cars that travel on Woodlane Drive, and it would not benefit any of his clients. He noted that the properties would decrease in value due to the proposed lane conversion. He added that the City has not done anything about the Chick-fil-A issue. He noted that it is a maintenance project and there are no aspects of the project that are going to add special benefits to any of the clients. KRS Properties pays property taxes of $21,166, LWK-2 pays $57,094, CTS3 Properties pays $24,592 for one property, and $3,674. This means that $50,523.89 is paid to the City every year. He noted that his clients are concerned that since 2023, the assessed values have increased by 23%, which means taxes have increased too. He noted that his clients are paying taxes at a much higher rate than residential properties. The proposed project would benefit all of the residential properties in the area, but it does not benefit commercial properties. Mr. Shoeberg noted that his clients believe the City’s policies are unfair. He pointed out that his clients paid for the Tamarack project through special assessments even though the properties are not near the project. Calculating the assessments based on square footage does not take into consideration what the improvement is doing. The City received the highway safety improvement program grant and took the $1,000,000 and allocated it to the City’s responsibility, not the entire project, which is unfair. In addition, the City has a history of not properly determining the benefit from projects attempting to collect fees that are not owed. The project should have been funded by the City because it benefits everyone. He noted that his clients are requesting that the Council not adopt the assessment role as it is proposed. He noted that the school district will need to pay assessments, which means that his clients will need to pay that through taxes. The project does not add special benefits to any of the clients' properties. The taxes that are already being collected and the City should pay for the project. He noted he has filed the objections and is urging the Council not to go forward with the assessments. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 6 of 8 Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt ## Absent: None Mayor Burt opened an opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Mayor Burt asked City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom to share what the process is now that there are objections that have been provided to the City. Mr. Sandstrom replied that City staff disagree with Mr. Shoeberg’s objections, and he can choose to continue to appeal the matter to the court system. Mayor Burt stated the City has had a policy for years and has been following it consistently. Councilmember Morris expressed his understanding of the argument. He explained that the assessment policy cannot be changed individually by project because it is not fair. If the policy were to be changed, it would need to get feedback from taxpayers because it would completely change how roadway repair is done. He added that it would negatively impact taxpayers because everyone is going to have to pay more if there are no assessments. He noted that there is an established policy in place, and the City Attorney and Engineering Department work together to consistently maintain the policy. He added that the numbers are included in the Agenda Packet that reflect the policy. Councilmember Wilson explained that she ran for City Council because of road assessments and finding herself questioning the feasibility report and the assessments. She noted that there is a policy in place and was approved in 2015. It was supposed to be relooked at in 2024 to be implemented in 2025. She agreed that she is not a fan of special assessments and noted that while there is a policy in place, the City has deviated from the policy on some occasions based on the feasibility reports. Councilmember Wilson asked where the multi-family properties were located in the project. Mr. Hejna showed where the multi-family properties were located on a map. Councilmember Wilson expressed her confusion regarding the trial issue. She wondered if there would be a trail on the west side from Bailey Road to Lydia Lane. Mr. Hejna replied that there is a trail between Lydia Lane and Newberry Road on the west side. The project will extend the trail from Bailey Road to Lydia Lane. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that the project received federal funding. She asked if the funding had changed from what was proposed. She asked if the City sent in the feasibility report and the plans and received federal funding for it, and if anything deviated from it. Mr. Hejna replied that the City applied for federal funding before it had a feasibility report. The federal funding was approved in 2024, and nothing has deviated from what was approved. City Engineer Tony Kutzke added that the funding is for the four-to-three lane conversion portion of the project. Councilmember Wilson asked if the scope of the project had changed since the City received the federal funding. Mr. Kutzke replied that it has not, and it is the same as what was approved by the Council at the public improvement hearing. He explained that if the Council wanted to include a trial, it would cause significant impacts to properties and the project. The project would need to go out for bid again, and staff would need about a year and a half to get the project approved again, since it would significantly change the scope of the project. Councilmember Wilson explained that there are many students who are crossing the street where there is no sidewalk on the west side. She noted that there is a light signal for crossing, but there is a significant gap for students who are trying to cross Woodlane Drive. She asked what would be put in the area to increase safety for students. Mr. Hejna replied that the trail would be extended a little bit by Copper Cliff Trail, so it would align more with the school's driveway improvements. He added that staff is proposing to put in refuge islands similar to those on Lake Road for the portions of the road that do not have a trail on the west side. Staff is not proposing rapid flashing beacons at this time. Mr. Kutzke added that staff have received positive feedback regarding the refuge island and residents requested to have them included in the project during open houses. Mayor Burt referenced Mr. Shoeberg’s comments regarding his clients paying taxes. She noted that the City does not collect the full portion of the taxes that are paid. She explained that a lot of the tax bill goes to the County, the school districts, etc. She added that the appraisals are done by the County. Councilmember Morris added that the State determines the property classifications. ## Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-46 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the special assessments for the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project – Woodlane Drive. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 7 of 8 ## Discussion A.Consider Approval of Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation Project; Award Contract; Amend Budget; Consultant Selection for Construction Administration Services (This action is follow-up to Item 7B Special Assessments for 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project – Woodlane Drive). ## Councilmember Stafford moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-47 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota awarding the construction contract to McNamara Contracting in the amount of $5,687,344.06 for the Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract, amending the 2026 Adopted Annual Budget, and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute a professional engineering services agreement with SEH, Inc., in the amount of $662,900 for construction administration services for the Woodlane Drive (Bailey Road to Wooddale Drive) Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) Mr. Kutzke reviewed the active construction projects, which include: Water Treatment Pipeline Project, Valley Creek Road Trail Project (Colby Lake Park Underpass to Dancing Waters Parkway), Bailey Road and Fairway Drive Traffic Signal, and the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. The upcoming construction projects include the Woodlane Drive Rehabilitation, Bailey Road and Settlers Ridge Parkway Intersection Improvement, and Intrepid Fiber. Mr. Kutzke provided an update regarding the Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline project. Water pipelines are being installed along Valley Creek Road. There is a single-lane closure going westbound and eastbound on Valley Creek Road between Woodbury Drive and where the old intersection of Cottage Grove Drive is. The work is to install water treatment pipelines under the roadway. After that, a trail will be added to the north side of Valley Creek Road. Along Bailey Road, there is a significant number of pipe crews working and have made a lot of progress. The work is mostly underneath the trail, but there is a road closure between Radio Drive and Salem Drive until mid-May. The contractor is currently working south on Pioneer Drive. Mr. Kutzke noted the Valley Creek Road Trail Project and explained that there is a trail being constructed on the north side of Valley Creek Road from the Colby Lake Park underpass to east of Dancing Waters Parkway. There will not be many traffic impacts, and it is being coordinated with the water treatment work. He mentioned that there is a traffic signal that is being constructed for the Math and Science Academy at Fairway Drive and Bailey Road. The signal is planned to be operational before school begins in the fall. Mr. Kutzke reviewed the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project and noted that the first phase is Afton Road. The contractor has mobilized into phase two and has utility work with sewer and water improvements. He noted that they have removed the pavement and installed temporary water lines. The Woodlane Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Project is a future project and will provide an update during the next Transportation Report. Mr. Kutzke noted that starting May 4 th , Washington County has reported that they will begin construction at the Bailey Road and Settler’s Ridge Parkway intersection. Private utility projects are moving out of the way so that on May 4 th , the road contractor can move in and mobilize. Staff anticipates road closures or intersection closures beginning May 4 th . Staff is working with Intrepid Fiber on permits. The anticipated construction schedule is May 2026 through December 2028. Staff is continuing to refine schedules with Intrepid Fiber. Mayor Burt asked how community members would know when fiber is coming to their area. Mr. Kutzke replied that a notice will be sent out ahead of the work beginning. He added that there is a website with updated information at woodburymn.gov/fiber. Councilmember Stafford asked if East View Road would be completed. Mr. Kutzke replied that the Metropolitan Council is working on some sewer force mains in the area, which caused delays in construction. The Met Council is working to get under contract to do some excavations of the sewer pipe and anticipates that it will last a few months throughout the summer. The City’s contractor agreed to allow a change order to allow the Met Council to do its work. Staff has recommended to the contractor to wait until the Met Council has completed its work to resume construction. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Kutzke reminded the community that woodburymn.gov/WaterTreatment is the City’s full road closure and traffic impact map and is updated regularly. Councilmember Wilson referenced the Valley Creek Road Trail Project and asked why the trail did not continue past Spinaker Drive. Mr. Kutzke replied that there was a study conducted in cooperation with the County and the City. There is a tunnel at Colby Lake Park, and it will connect to the existing trail network. Past the tunnel, there are significant grades that do not accommodate the trail very well. He noted that it would be possible to propose extending the network, but it would require further investigation and planning into the Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was anything that could be done in the meantime to help people cross. She noted that there are no controlled intersections between Jewel Drive and Colby Lake Drive. Mr. Kutzke replied that the recommendation would be to encourage pedestrians to move through Colby Lake Drive and cross at a signalized intersection. He added that City staff and the County are looking at extending the trail further west, but not at this time. ## City Administrator’s Report Mr. Dahl stated there will be an Electrify Everything Workshop on April 27 th at Central Park from 6:00-8:00 p.m. It is a free event, and residents will be able to explore how they can make energy-efficient changes. He noted that there would be a joint meeting with Cottage Grove on April 29 th at Central Park. He provided an update regarding the Lower Afton Fire Station and noted that it is being recommissioned in order to be updated to accommodate the new 24-hour shifts for the Fire Department. There will be an open house on May 14 th from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Wilson asked where people would park for the event since it is on Afton Road. Mr. Dahl replied that staff would get information out to the community. ## Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 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 May 13, 2026. ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Workshop Wednesday, April 29, 2026 ## 6A3 Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a workshop meeting was held at Central Park, 8595 Central Park Place, on the 29 th day of April 2026. Workshop meeting was a joint meeting conducted with elected officials and staff from the City of Cottage Grove. This was an in-person only workshop meeting. Present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Jennifer Santini, Donna Stafford, and Steve Morris. City Staff Present: Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator; Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator; Jim Westerman, Assistant Public Works Director; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Jason Posel, Public Safety Director/Police Chief; and additional staff in-person. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. ## Workshop Discussion Items ## Welcome/New Faces, Trivia, Awarding of Trivia Trophy Introductions were completed and a trivia competition between City Councils with facilitation by the Woodbury City Administrator was completed. A meal was then provided and the trivia trophy award was presented to the winning City of Cottage Grove. ## Partnership Updates A series of update PowerPoints were presented from listed partners. Council’s provided questions and comments throughout with no direction provided on future actions or discussions. ## South Washington County Schools Update (Julie Nielsen, Superintendent) True Lens Media Annual Report (Ann Schweisguth, Executive Director and Lonnie Garland) ## HERO Cetner Annual Report (Dan Anselment, Manager) ## South Washington Watershed District Update (John Loomis, Administrator) ## City Updates A series of update PowerPoints were presented from respective City staff. Council’s provided questions and comments throughout with no direction provided on future actions or discussions. Water Treatment Update (Jim Westerman and Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Asst. Director and Director) Public Safety Update (Jason Posel and Brad Petersen, Directors of Public Safety/Police Chiefs) ## Development/Planning Update (Janelle Schmitz and Emily Schmitz, Community Development Directors) ## Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ## Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator Approved by the Woodbury City Council on ________________. ## 6B ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-91 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Edgewater Park Construction ## Summary As part of the City’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing park facilities, the Edgewater Park parking lot, tennis court, and basketball court, with the addition of a single pickleball court are scheduled for replacement and related site improvements. Design development, additional discussions with the Parks and Natural Resources Commission (PNRC) and public engagement were completed in 2025, allowing for refinement of the project scope and preparation for construction. Work is anticipated to begin in spring 2026, with completion expected by late 2026. During construction, portions of the site will be inaccessible, with nearby park and on-street parking options available for community use. Bid documents were prepared, and the project was competitively advertised for three weeks, with seven (7) bids received on April 30, 2026. The base bid from the lowest responsible bidder, Minnesota Roadways Co., totaled $354,396.21. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Award of Bid and execution of a contract with Minnesota Roadways Co., in the amount of $354,396.21, for the construction of Edgewater Park site improvements and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said contract. ## Fiscal Implications The 2026 Adjusted Annual Budget includes sufficient funds for the Edgewater Park project in the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund. ## Policy ## AD-ADMFIN-1.17 Purchasing ## Council Letter 26-91 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Public Process February 4, 2025PNRC project preview April 1, 2025PNRC early concept design and feedback June 2, 2025Resident letter – initial project awareness June 2 – 30, 2025Public comment period – initial feedback June 24, 2025Public open house August 1 – 22, 2025Public comment period - concept design September 9, 2025PNRC concept refinement (based on public input received) November 4, 2025Resident letter – project update November 10, 2025PNRC concept approval April 9, 2026Project posted for public bid April 30, 2026Bids received ## Background As part of the City’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing park facilities, the Edgewater Park parking lot, tennis court, and basketball court are scheduled for replacement and related site improvements. The project scope initially included consideration of up to four (4) pickleball courts. Public engagement for this project has focused on 128 properties located near the park. Feedback received through the June open-house and email was minimal, reflecting a mix of support and concern. While a few respondents expressed interest in, or no objection to, the inclusion of pickleball courts, others raised concerns related to noise impacts, tree loss, and neighborhood compatibility. Overall, feedback has included both supportive and opposing viewpoints related to the inclusion of pickleball. This mixed response, combined with the presence of nearby pickleball facilities and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, guided recent Commission discussion and recommendation to include one (1) pickleball court as part of the overall replacement and improvement project. ## Written By:Josh Kinney, Parks Planner ## Approved Through:Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-48 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving the Award of Bid and Execution of a Contract with Minnesota Roadways Co., in the Amount of $354,396.21, for the Construction of Edgewater Park Site Improvements, and ## Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to Sign Said Contract WHEREAS, as part of the City’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing park facilities, the Edgewater Park parking lot, tennis court, and basketball court along with the addition of one pickleball court are scheduled for replacement and related site improvements; and WHEREAS, design development, additional discussions with the Parks and Natural Resources Commission (PNRC) and public engagement were completed in 2025, allowing for refinement of the project scope and preparation for construction; and WHEREAS, the project is anticipated to begin in spring 2026, with completion expected by late 2026; and WHEREAS, during construction, portions of the site will be inaccessible, with nearby park and on-street parking options available for community use; and WHEREAS, the project was competitively advertised for three weeks, with seven (7) bids received on April 30, 2026, with the base bid from the lowest responsible bidder, Minnesota Roadways Co., totaled $354,396.21; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the Council approve the contract with Minnesota Roadways Co., for construction of the Edgewater Park improvements project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1.That the bid of Minnesota Roadways Co., total base bid price for the Edgewater Park construction project is the lowest responsive bid. 2.That a contract to perform said work is awarded to Minnesota Roadways Co., and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder. 3.The City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the deposit made for said bids, except the deposit of the successful bidder which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6C ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-92 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Settlers East 4 th ## Addition; Final Plat; Project No. 01-2026-00608 ## Summary MSP Commercial has requested Final Plat approval to create one additional commercial lot. The current Settlers East plat, which was completed to facilitate the approved mini storage use, would be split to create a future commercial development lot. The property is located east of Diamond Drive and north of Eastview Road. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council approval of Settlers East 4 th ## Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 01-2026- 00608 subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Final Plat shall include all necessary easements and ROW to match the street and utility plans being prepared by the City’s consultant engineer. 3. Plat approval and release shall be conditional on adherence to all requirements of the City attorney, including, but not necessarily limited to, any express requirements contained in the City attorney’s plat opinion. 4. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing and proposed street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost or paid for by the Developer. 5. All standard front, rear and side yard lot easements shall be shown on the plat. Standard front and rear yard easements are 10 feet and side yard easements are five (5) feet. Where public utilities are adjacent to side or rear lot lines, easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide on each side of the lot line. If the utilities are deeper than 10 feet, the easement width for each lot is calculated at a 1:1 depth-to-width ratio from the centerline of the utility. The easement width must then be adjusted to the nearest five-foot increment. If additional easements are not provided, then the layout of the watermain shall be adjusted. 6. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. ## Fiscal Implications All necessary improvements will be funded and constructed by the applicant. ## Council Letter 26-92 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Policy ## Chapter 21, Subdivision ## Chapter 24, Zoning ## Public Process Black Diamond PUD City Council review and approval – April 27, 2022 ## Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting – February 6, 2023 Preliminary and Final Plat City Council Meeting – February 22, 2023 ## Settlers East 2 nd ## Addition Final Plat City Council Meeting – April 26, 2023 ## Settlers East 3 rd ## Addition Final Plat City Council Meeting – October 22, 2025 ## Background At the April 27, 2022 meeting, City Council approved the Black Diamond Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD), which included the review of uses, access points, screening, and landscaping, stormwater management and the like. At the April 26, 2023 meeting, City Council approved the ## Settler’s East 2 nd Addition, which created one commercial lot and one outlot (Outlot A) for future development. The absorption of the approved mini storage use has been slower than anticipated and the property owner is requesting to subdivide the existing property to allow for alternate commercial use. This future use would be required to be reviewed and approved under, at a minimum, a site and building plan process via the Planning Commission and City Council. ## Written By:Dan Krumwiede, Planner 1 ## Approved Through:Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner ## Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director Attachments:11 x 17 Plans ## Council Letter 26-92 May 13, 2026 Page 3 ## 6D ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-93 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Submission of the City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan to the Department of ## Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ## Summary The drafting of the 2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and the required resident engagement process have been completed. No public comments were received during the 30-day public comment period. Any edits made to the plan documents were either to reflect the actual grant funding amount confirmed by City staff or grammatical edits and did not substantially change the planned activities, funding amounts, or overall content of the plan. The plan is now ready for submission and final review by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Submission of the plan requires adoption of a resolution by Council approving the final draft of the plan. City staff anticipated a lower grant award for 2026 and based the estimate on recent award amounts. However, the City recently confirmed it will be receiving $17,859 more than anticipated by the draft AAP. The draft AAP and public hearing notice stated if the grant award amount is less or more than what was estimated, grant funds would be adjusted pro-rata (80 percent to Two Rivers Community Land Trust and 20 percent to Program Administration). The increased amount ensures that no planned projects will need adjustments and will allow for flexibility throughout the 2026 program year. The 2026 AAP allocates CDBG funds to the following activities: $59,572 of the 2026 annual entitlement grant award will fund program administration activities. $238,287 of the 2026 annual entitlement grant award will fund an activity by Two Rivers Community Land Trust (TRCLT). Approximately $121,639 of PY23 and PY24 unexpended prior year grant dollars will fund a private ash tree removal (PATRA) activity administered by the City’s Parks and Forestry Division. HOME funds shall be allocated on a pro rata basis, with 75 percent reserved for rental housing activities and 25 percent reserved for homeownership activities, to be identified at a future time in accordance with HOME eligibility requirements. ## Council Letter 26-93 May 13, 2026 Page 2 In addition, staff proposed a substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. The amendment will add “Cleanup of Contaminated Sites” as a goal of the plan. The amendment is needed to fund the PATRA activity with 2026 grant award dollars. Substantial amendments require a public hearing, 30-day public comment period, and resolution adopting the amendment. The public hearing and comment period were completed concurrently with the 2026 AAP public process and the resolution attached with this letter will adopt the amendment. ## Recommendation Staff recommend the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. ## Fiscal Implications The adoption of the 2026 AAP establishes how HUD funds will be invested by the City between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2027, and lays the groundwork for the Housing and Urban Development Fund 2027 budget. The Housing and Urban Development Fund (Fund 220) is a special revenue fund and as such, none of these costs impact the City’s General Fund. Administrative costs of the HUD programs are paid for with CDBG dollars. ## Policy At the federal level, CDBG is governed by 24 CFR 570 and HOME is governed by 24 CFR 92. At the local level, in addition to the City’s federal grants and awards compliance policy, six council directives provide guidance regarding the operation and management of HUD funds including CD- COMDEV-3.12 through 3.16, inclusive, and CD-COMDEV-3.21. ## Public Process 1. February 25, 2026 City Council motion establishing affordable housing and cleanup of contaminated sites as 2026 AAP high funding priorities; 2. April 8, 2026 public hearing on the draft 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025- ## 2029 Consolidated Plan; 3. Public comment period regarding the 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025- 2029 Consolidate Plan opened from April 9, 2026 through May 8, 2026 (no comments received); and 4. May 13, 2026 adoption of the 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. ## Background Every year HUD requires the City to create an annual action plan (AAP). The 2026 AAP identifies specific investment strategies of the funds on a July-to-June program year basis. CDBG and HOME may be invested in a variety of ways including activities such as economic development, housing, public facilities or public services. More specifically, all expenditures of CDBG funds must meet one of three national objectives: ## Council Letter 26-93 May 13, 2026 Page 3 1. Benefit low- and/or moderate-income persons; 2. Prevent or eliminate blight; 3. Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. All HOME funds must be used for housing purposes and the incomes of households receiving HOME assistance must not exceed 80 percent of the area median income, as defined by HUD. Given the length and technical nature of the 2026 AAP, the draft copy of the plan is available to view online https://www.woodburymn.gov/535/Annual-Action-Plan. Attached with this Council Letter is the 2026 AAP Executive Summary. ## Substantial Amendment to 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan HUD classifies the PATRA activity as “Cleanup of Contaminated Sites,” which is not currently identified as a goal within the City’s 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan. Accordingly, staff is proposing a substantial amendment to the 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan to add Cleanup of Contaminated Sites as a goal for the remainder of the planning period in order to carry out the proposed PY26 PATRA activity. Substantial amendments to an AAP or Consolidated plan must be adopted in accordance with the City’s HUD approved Resident Participation Plan. Therefore, a 30-day public comment period is required, as well as the adoption of a resolution by Council approving the amendment. The substantial amendment will be presented for adoption on May 13, 2026 concurrently with the 2026 ## AAP. ## Written By:Jamie Fritts, Housing and Economic Development Coordinator ## Approved Through:Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director ## Attachment:1. Resolution ## 2. 2026 AAP Executive Summary Resolution 26-49 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving the City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendment to the 2025- ## 2029 Consolidated Plan WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2010, the City of Woodbury is a direct recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds via the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and a subrecipient of HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) dollars ## through the Dakota County HOME Consortium; and WHEREAS, HUD requires recipients of CDBG and HOME to adopt an Annual Action Plan (AAP) that identifies the specific activities that will be funded; and WHEREAS, Woodbury’s Program Year 2026 for CDBG and HOME funds as funded within Federal Fiscal Year 2026 will run from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury held a public hearing on April 8, 2026 to discuss the proposed 2026 AAP; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury opened a public comment period from April 9, 2026 to May 8, 2026 regarding the 2026 AAP and received no comments; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury also held a public hearing on April 8, 2026 to discuss the proposed substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan to add cleanup of contaminated sites as a goal; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury opened a public comment period from April 9, 2026 to May 8, 2026 regarding the substantial amendment and received no comments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury that the City of Woodbury’s 2026 AAP is hereby adopted and approved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury that the substantial amendment to the City of Woodbury’s 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan is hereby adopted and approved; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury that the City Administrator or designee is authorized to update the 2026 AAP for formatting and grammatical purposes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury that the City Administrator or designee is authorized to update the 2026 AAP in the event that HUD staff require any clarifications or technical updates; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury that the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to sign compliance certifications and related submittal forms and paperwork as required by HUD. Resolution 26-49 May 13, 2026 Page 2 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## City of Woodbury 2026 Annual Action Plan ## May 13, 2026 Final Version ## Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1.Introduction The City of Woodbury became a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement jurisdiction and a HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) participating jurisdiction via the Dakota County HOME Consortium in Federal Fiscal Year 2010. This Annual Action Plan (AAP) governs Woodbury’s use of CDBG and HOME during Program Year 2026 (PY26) which spans from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. CDBG funds are allocated to the City directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City will access HOME funds through its membership in the Dakota County HOME Consortium. The City of Woodbury is not a direct recipient of other HUD funds such as the Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS or the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Additionally, the City of Woodbury does not administer any public housing programs. To meet the timelines established by HUD for accessing the funds on July 1, 2026, this AAP must be approved not later than May 15, 2026 with a public hearing held on April 8, 2026, a subsequent 30- day comment period and a potential City Council approval of the AAP on May 13, 2026. The amounts identified below constitute the potential sources of funds for the PY26 activities: $297,859 annual CDBG award; $5,000 in projected CDBG program income; $121,639 in estimated unexpended prior year CDBG funds $95,000 annual HOME allocation; and $4,000 in projected HOME program income Program income is available based on re-payments of previously issued loans which used either CDBG or HOME as a funding source. The City Council adopted a motion at its February 25, 2026 meeting identifying the following priorities for the use of its CDBG and HOME funds. Housing serving small- and large-related households at or below 80 percent of area median income; and Cleanup of contaminated sites. CDBG funds are allocated to the City directly by HUD. The City accesses HOME funds through its membership in the Dakota County HOME Consortium. Given the nature of HUD's digital interface with grantees, this plan is specific to CDBG alone. The information herein about HOME is for reference purposes only, as the plans submitted to HUD by Dakota County are the official planning documents for the use of HOME within Woodbury. (For purposes of clarity, Woodbury is subject to a joint powers agreement that establishes the Dakota County HOME Consortium as well as annual sub-recipient agreements that memorialize how HOME funds are used). 2.Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This could be a restatement of items or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs assessment, the housing market analysis or the strategic plan. The executive summary of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan discusses the housing needs assessment (NA-10), disproportionately greater needs (NA-15, NA-20, NA-25 and NA-30), public housing (NA-35), homeless needs (NA-40), non-homeless special needs (NA-45) and non-housing community development needs (NA-50). The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan identifies both the community development needs and the methods to address them as being focused on housing affordability, public services, public facility improvements and commercial/industrial rehabilitation in areas that are home to higher proportions of low- and moderate-income households than other areas of the City. Specific to this 2026 AAP, housing affordability and program administration were identified as a priority for PY26 entitlement funds. Additionally, cleanup of contaminated sites was also identified as a priority for PY26. Cleanup of contaminated sites was not initially adopted as a goal in the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, therefore, a substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan will be required. The substantial amendment will be recommended to Council for adoption concurrently with this 2026 AAP to amend the Consolidated Plan to include cleanup of contaminated sites in its list of goals within the current five-year planning period. This 2026 AAP proposes to invest $59,572 of PY26 entitlement grant award funds for program administration including but not limited to oversight, program audit, training, affirmatively furthering fair housing, small area studies, affordable housing research, coordination and monitoring of the program and coordination and oversight of HOME expenditures. CDBG program administrative expenses during PY26 shall not exceed twenty percent of the sum of the annual CDBG grant award and CDBG program income received during the program year. This 2026 AAP also proposes paying a total of $3,305 of the annual HOME allocation to the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) for program administration given that Woodbury accesses HOME as a member of the Dakota County HOME Consortium. In addition to CDA program administration, the City proposes investing $4,000 in HOME grant funds to pay Affordable Housing Connections, Inc. to facilitate income- and related monitoring activities at the HOME-funded rental projects per the terms of a previously approved five-year contract. Separate from the use of CDBG and HOME administrative dollars referenced above, the City will invest in projects funded by CDBG in the following amounts: Approximately $238,287 of PY26 entitlement grant award funds will fund an activity by Two Rivers Community Land Trust (TRCLT) which will include the acquisition and rehabilitation of three single family homes to be resold to income qualified homebuyers at or below 80 percent AMI. Approximately $121,639 of PY23 and PY24 unexpended prior year grant dollars will fund a private ash tree removal activity administered by the City’s Parks and Forestry Division. The activity will assist income-eligible homeowners by covering the full cost of the removal of infested or dead ash trees from their property. The City anticipates assisting approximately fifty income eligible households at or below 80 percent AMI with ash tree removal. If the actual PY26 CDBG entitlement grant award amount differs from the projected amount stated in this PY26 AAP, funds shall be adjusted on a pro rata basis, with 20 percent allocated to CDBG program administration and 80 percent allocated to the TRCLT activity. In addition, if anticipated unexpended prior year CDBG funds differ from the amount stated in this PY26 AAP, one hundred percent of available prior year funds shall be allocated to the PATRA activity. Principal and interest repayments from prior CDBG and HOME-funded activities will generate program income, which will be reinvested in eligible community development and affordable housing activities as funds become available. As identified within the Dakota County HOME Consortium's Citizen Participation Plan (attached within module AD-25), amendments to activities in an amount less than $100,000 are not considered to be substantial amendments and as such can be processed administratively according to local Woodbury policies and procedures. ## Two Rivers Community Land Trust (TRCLT) Activity TRCLT is proposing the acquisition and rehabilitation of three (3) homes in Woodbury to be resold to households earning between 60 and 80 percent of area median income (AMI). The estimated acquisition cost is $350,000 per home, with rehabilitation costs averaging $40,000 depending on condition of the property. The anticipated resale price of the homes is approximately $270,000, depending on the income levels of the available pool of buyers. TRCLT is requesting a one-time investment of $238,287 in CDBG funds, or approximately $79,429 per home. Actual funding amounts will depend on the final 2026 award amount to which the 80 percent pro rata adjustment stated in this AAP will be applied. TRCLT utilizes the community land trust (CLT) model, which separates ownership of the land from the home. Under this model, the trust retains ownership of the land while income-qualified buyers purchase homes at below-market prices and pay a nominal monthly ground lease fee. Homes are subject to a 99-year deed restriction to ensure long-term affordability and resale to income-eligible households. Staff selected this activity proposal for recommendation because it supports the housing priorities of the 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan for households at or below 80 percent AMI. Furthermore, the proposal also aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan Guiding Principle of providing a variety of housing types, sizes, and price points to meet the needs of residents of all ages and incomes. ## Private Ash Tree Assessment and Removal Activity (PATRA) Woodbury’s Parks and Forestry Division is proposing an expansion of its Private Ash Tree Assessment and Removal program (PATRA) to fully assist low- and moderate-income homeowners with the removal of dead or infested ash trees. These households often experience greater hardship when faced with unplanned expenses, even when low-interest financing programs are available. Under the proposed expansion of the program, the City would cover 100 percent of removal costs for income-eligible homeowners earning no more than 80 percent of AMI, with no repayment required. Funds would be paid directly to contractors on behalf of the homeowner upon completion of the work. The funding request is for $121,639, which is estimated to serve approximately 50 homeowners based on the program’s prior-year average cost per household. Actual funding amounts will depend on the amount of available unexpended prior year funds to which the 100 percent allocation stated in this AAP will be applied to. Staff selected this proposal for recommendation because it supports the 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan priorities for households at or below 80 percent AMI and aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Guiding Principles related to environmental stewardship and reinvestment. While HUD classifies this activity as “cleanup of contaminated sites,” staff believes the program will also directly support housing affordability and reduce cost burdens for participating households. As stated previously, implementing the PATRA activity in PY26 requires a substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. The substantial amendment will be adopted concurrently with this PY26 AAP and follow the public process required by the Citizen Participation Plan. 3.Evaluation of past performance This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or projects. Each year, not later than September 30th, the City submits to HUD a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) which captures progress toward meeting needs and achieving strategies established in the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plans. Each of the CAPERs that Woodbury has submitted to HUD since 2010 has been accepted and approved by HUD. Woodbury's most recent CAPER, covering the activities of PY24, was approved by HUD January 21, 2026. In the past, Woodbury has been successful in achieving affordable housing goals as well as public facility improvements using CDBG and HOME. The following projects have been funded since 2010 using these HUD funds: ## 2010-present: 48 First-time Homeownership and Foreclosure Purchase Program loans 2010-present: fair housing investments via the Fair Housing Implementation Council ## 2010: Expansion of Cree Park ## 2010: Rehab project at Garbe Well Site Park 2011: Development subsidy to Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity’s affordable homeownership units constructed in Garden Gate 2 nd ## Addition ## 2016: Rehab project at Carver Lake Park ## 2017: Rehab project at Evergreen West Park 2017-2019: Development subsidy to the Washington County CDA’s Glen at Valley Creek redevelopment ## 2018: Rehab project at Windwood Passage Park 2019: Rehab project at Potawatomi Park 2020: Exterior repair project at Cobble Hill Apartments 2020: Rehab project at Ojibway Park 2021: Rehab project at Menomini Park 2021-2023: Development subsidy to Dominium’s Orville Commons project 2022: Rehab project at Shawnee Park 2022: Rehab project at Pondview Park 2022: Rehab project at Westview Park ## 2023: Rehab project at Evergreen East Park ## 2024: Rehab project at Carver Lake Park ## 2025: Rehab at Shawnee Park* ## 2025: Rehab Hammer and NER Group Home* *This 2026 AAP notes that the funds allocated to the Shawnee Park and Hammer and NER activities are in progress and will be completed after adoption of the 2026 AAP. 4.Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process In addition to conversations with key housing stakeholders such as the Washington County CDA and a variety of community organizations and housing developers, formal citizen participation process occurred on the following dates: 1. October 16, 2025 Request for CDBG funding proposal released to the public; 2. February 25, 2026 Council meeting establishing cleanup of contaminated sites and affordable housing as PY26 AAP high funding priorities; 3. April 8, 2026 Public hearing on draft 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025- ## 2029 Consolidated Plan; 4. Public comment period regarding draft 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025- 2029 Consolidated Plan open from April 9, 2026 to May 8, 2026; 5. April 21, 2026 Dakota County HOME Consortium FY 2026 public hearing; and 6. May 13, 2026 Council Meeting adopting of 2026 AAP and substantial amendment to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. Items 3 and 4 were noticed within the Saint Paul Pioneer Press and items 2 and 6 occurred during regularly scheduled City Council meetings. Dakota County provided notice to the public for item 5 in the Star Tribune. The request for proposal was circulated among various community groups and collectives, non-profits and industry associations for responses. 5.Summary of public comments This could be a brief narrative summary or reference an attached document from the Citizen Participation section of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. No comments were received at the public hearing or during the 30-day comment period. 6.Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them No comments were received at the public hearing or during the 30-day comment period. 7.Summary All CDBG funds will be invested according to the terms of this PY26 AAP with the two core programmatic areas of investment being affordable housing and cleanup of contaminated site investments. ## 6E ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-94 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed District ## for Goldfish Management and Removal ## Summary The City and South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) have a shared interest in water quality. The City is proposing to partner with SWWD for aquatic invasive species management and removal to protect water resources of significant value by removing goldfish, which pose a significant water quality and ecological threat. A long-term cooperative agreement is necessary to define roles, responsibilities, and cost sharing for each agency. The City will serve as the project manager and will manage public outreach and communication for the project. In accordance with the cost sharing agreement, the City shall initially pay all costs associated with goldfish management and removal activities. SWWD shall reimburse the City for 50 percent of all costs, with each party’s total contribution not to exceed the amount of funding in the adopted annual budgets. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed District for goldfish management and removal. ## Fiscal Implications The 2026 Adopted Storm Water Utility Fund Budget includes sufficient funds for activities related to goldfish management and removal. The proposed cooperative agreement facilitating these activities will require SWWD to reimburse the City 50 percent of the associated expenses. Funds will be included in the annual budgeting process for future years if additional goldfish management and removal is needed beyond 2026. ## Policy ## Critical Success Factor – Environmental Stewardship ## Council Letter 26-94 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background Goldfish have been released by residents into stormwater ponds throughout the City. Due to the highly urbanized nature of Woodbury, surface waters—including ponds, wetlands, streams, and lakes—are interconnected through an extensive network of pipes and related infrastructure. City staff have confirmed the presence of goldfish in multiple ponds around Woodbury. Goldfish are considered a highly invasive species in Minnesota. When introduced into surface water systems, such as stormwater ponds and wetlands, they can grow to large sizes and cause significant ecological damage. The City and South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) plan to remove goldfish from stormwater ponds that pose the largest threat to adjacent lakes. ## Written By:Ben Guell, Environmental Resources Specialist ## Approved Through:Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-50 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed District for Goldfish ## Management and Removal WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury and South Washington Watershed District have a mutual interest in the protection and management of water resources; and WHEREAS, Goldfish have been found in multiple Woodbury stormwater ponds and wetlands and pose a significant threat to water quality and ecological health; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury and South Washington Watershed District are interested in mitigating aquatic invasive species through this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota approving the Cooperative Agreement with South Washington ## Watershed District for Goldfish Management and Removal BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. Approval is hereby given to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with South Washington Watershed District for goldfish removal. 2. The Engineering Director is authorized to amend the scope of the Agreement as necessary to effectuate and implement the approvals contemplated by this Resolution with a not to exceed contractual cost in the amounts as set forth and approved in the annual adopted budget. 3. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute said Agreement. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6F ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-95 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the ## Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program ## Summary The City of Woodbury recognizes the importance of natural resources in maintaining a high quality of life and is committed to their sustainable management. To support this commitment, the City adopted the Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP), which includes a Water Sector goal of maintaining flat total annual water usage through 2030 by advancing water efficiency programs. The ESP also sets a Greenspace and Ecosystems goal of converting five acres of turf to native vegetation annually. To advance these goals, staff has developed a Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program as part of the Woodbury Water Wise Implementation Plan (WWWIP) for Council consideration. The program is designed to encourage residents to install water-efficient landscapes by offering rebates of up to $500 for eligible expenses, including native plants, materials, labor, and equipment. The program includes a pre-approval site visit by the Washington Conservation District (WCD) to assess existing conditions and make recommendations, followed by a post-installation inspection to verify compliance with program requirements. Upon verification, the WCD will issue rebates up to $500 to eligible residents. The City will develop and approve program terms, conditions, and eligibility criteria; promote the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program and associated technical services; and provide $50,000 in upfront funding for rebates of up to $500 to eligible residents over the two-year pilot period. The WCD will administer and implement the program, conduct site visits, issue rebate payments to approved participants, and provide monthly reporting on rebate activity along with supporting documentation. WCD will also submit intermittent reports summarizing participation and project outcomes and return any unused funds to the City within 60 days of the agreement’s termination. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program. ## Council Letter 26-95 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Fiscal Implications The 2026 Adopted Water and Sewer Utility Fund Budget includes sufficient funds for Water Wise Implementation Programs, including the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program. Annually, expenses for the program will be recorded out of the WCD deposit account established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund based on the required participation reporting from the WCD. ## Policy This project aligns with CD-ENGPW-4.11 Water Efficiency Incentive Program and Critical Success Factor – Environmental Stewardship. ## Public Process The WCD Board of Managers approved the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and WCD for Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program at their May 12, 2026 Board meeting. ## Background In 2021, staff evaluated the City’s water efficiency programs, including a review of past conservation initiatives, analysis of program effectiveness, and community input. This work informed the development of the WWWIP, which identified eight water efficiency programs for Council consideration through 2030, including a low water use landscaping program. In 2024, the City Council adopted the ESP, and staff subsequently developed the ESP Two-Year Road Map (2025–2026). The Road Map includes Action W-1, which advances implementation of the WWWIP with a goal of reducing residential water use by 10 percent, and Action GE 5-1, which aims to expand pollinator habitat through the annual conversion of five acres of turfgrass to native vegetation. Replacing turfgrass with native plantings, rain garden vegetation, or pollinator habitat, supports multiple climate and sustainability goals, including reduced maintenance emissions, improved stormwater management, enhanced soil health, mitigation of urban heat impacts, and increased pollinator habitat. The proposed Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program will provide measurable progress toward the actions and goals outlined in the ESP, while creating administrative and technical service efficiencies through partnership with the WCD for program implementation. Additionally, this program aligns with the Metropolitan Council Local Planning Handbook as a climate strategy for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update and satisfies Climate Requirement 6. ## Written By:Heidi Quinn, Environmental Resources Specialist ## Approved Through:Jennifer McLoughlin, Environmental Resources Manager ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-51 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing Execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the ## Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury and the Washington Conservation District (WCD) share a common interest in assisting landowners to restore and enhance land on private property; and ## WHEREAS, the City developed the Woodbury Water Wise Implementation Plan (WWWIP) that identified eight water efficiency programs for the Woodbury City Council to consider implementing through 2030; and WHEREAS, a Native Plant Rebate Program is a water efficiency program identified in the WWWIP for the City Council to consider implementing and has the potential to save an estimated 31 million gallons of water annually at full implementation; and ## WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP); and WHEREAS, the ESP includes implementing the WWWIP and expanding pollinator habitat with a goal of 5 acres of turf to native vegetation conversion annually; and WHEREAS, the City has requested assistance from the WCD to implement a Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program 2026-2027 in the City of Woodbury by providing $50,000 in upfront funding to then provide an up to $500 rebate to residents within the City; and WHEREAS, the WCD is authorized to enter agreements to provide such assistance pursuant to MINN. STAT. § I 03C.331, SUBD. 3 and 7; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement is effective upon signature of the parties and will remain in effect until December 31, 2027, unless terminated earlier in writing; and WHEREAS, a resolution from City Council authorizing the City of Woodbury to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement is required by City policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Washington Conservation District for the Native Plant Rebate Pilot Program. Resolution 26-51 May 13, 2026 Page 2 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6G ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-96 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant; Accepting and ## Executing the Grant Agreement and Approving Associated Budget Amendment ## Summary The Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant Program funds conservation projects that restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota. The CPL grant program is funded from the Outdoor Heritage Fund and administered through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR released a request for proposals for grant applications to be submitted by September 16, 2025. The DNR has selected the City of Woodbury to receive $230,000 through the CPL Grant Program for the 2026-2029 grant cycle for the Powers Lake Shoreline Restoration Project. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant, executing the grant agreement, and approving the associated budget amendment. ## Fiscal Implications The City has been awarded grant funding in the amount of $230,000 from the DNR CPL Grant Program with a required match of $23,000 (10 percent), for a total project cost of $253,000. The 2026 Adopted Storm Water Utility Fund Budget includes sufficient funds for the required match in the Vegetation Management Projects. A budget amendment in the amount of $230,000 is necessary to account for the additional revenue and expense. ## Policy This project aligns with AD-ADMFIN-1.11 - Grant Application and Management Policy and Critical Success Factor – Environmental Stewardship. ## Council Letter 26-96 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Public Process Council authorized submitting a grant application for the Powers Lake Shoreline Native Vegetation Restoration Project, Phase I at the August 27, 2025, Council meeting. ## Background The CPL Grant Program funds projects completed by government entities within the seven-county metro area on public lands that protect, restore, or enhance forests, wetlands, prairies and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. The grants are between $5,000 and $500,000 and require a 10 percent minimum non-state match. Staff has completed the System-wide Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP). The System- wide NRMP is used in planning, prioritizing and budgeting for future natural resources restoration and maintenance with a holistic approach. The Powers Lake Shoreline Restoration Project will implement Phase I of the project identified in the plan and includes removal of the existing sand blanket/beach located on City property and invasive species removal with native vegetation restoration of areas adjacent to the existing trail around the lake. Since 2022, the City, in partnership with the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD), has implemented native vegetation restoration and stormwater improvements in Hasenbank Park and Fish Lake to enhance wildlife habitat, increase native species diversity, and reduce nutrient loading to downstream surface waters, including Powers Lake. The Powers Lake Shoreline Restoration Project represents the next phase of these efforts to continue protecting the water quality of Powers Lake. At the February 26, 2025 Council meeting, Council amended an agreement with the South Washington Watershed District to shift funds previously intended for trail and boardwalk implementation toward shoreline restoration in advance of any trail development and amended the City’s budget accordingly. ## Written By:Heidi Quinn, Environmental Resources Specialist ## Approved Through:Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director ## Jennifer McLoughlin, Environmental Resources Manager ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-52 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Accepting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant, ## Executing the Grant Agreement, and Approving the Associated Budget Amendment WHEREAS, the City and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) share the goal to restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City owns land that surrounds Powers Lake which is an opportunity to protect and enhance native habitat; and WHEREAS, community feedback during the Environmental Stewardship Plan process identified conserving natural resources and creating more native vegetation and tree cover as a top priority; and ## WHEREAS, Staff has completed the System-wide Natural Resources Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Staff has identified the Powers Lake Shoreline Restoration Project, Phase I, at a total estimated cost of $253,000; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury has prepared a grant proposal for the purpose of restoring and enhancing the native vegetation of Powers Lake Shoreline; and WHEREAS, the DNR Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant selected the City of Woodbury to receive grant funding in the amount of $230,000 for the Powers Lake Shoreline ## Restoration Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury is required to provide a match of $23,000 (10 percent); and WHEREAS, the DNR CPL Grant Program will support the City in providing assistance with the cost of the project through reimbursement of partial project cost; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 465.03 requires a City to accept grants by resolution expressing the terms prescribed by the donor in full; and WHEREAS, a resolution from the City Council authorizing the City of Woodbury to accept grants is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, that acceptance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Conservation Partners Legacy Grant to the City of Woodbury is hereby authorized in accordance with the terms set forth herein. Resolution 26-52 May 13, 2026 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that the following revenue increase be made to the 2026 Storm Water Utility ## Fund Budget: ## Account Amount ## State Grants & Aids 625-60-000-00000-432010-000-$230,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following expense increase be made to the 2026 ## Storm Water Utility Fund Budget: ## Account Amount ## Vegetation Management Projects 625-60-339-00000-550015-999-$230,000 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6H ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-97 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction ## Grant Amendment #1: Authorize Acceptance; Budget Amendment ## Summary In 2018, the State of Minnesota settled its lawsuit against the 3M Company in return for a grant of $850 million to address Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in drinking water. Following the 2021 release of the State of Minnesota conceptual drinking water supply plan, which includes a long-term water treatment plant (Woodbury WTP) for the City of Woodbury, staff submitted and received a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Council approved said grant on January 8, 2025, for the construction of the Woodbury WTP 2025-27 pipelines projects. The authorized grant amount was based on final engineer’s estimates for the project costs and were identified to be updated by Amendment following the project award based on low bid. This amendment, grant Amendment #1 modifies the total grant obligation to $71,051,252 which includes the addition of $25,000 for the addition of associated water treatment infrastructure into the Waterly asset management system, authorization to work on the Saint John Luthern Stormwater BMP project and provides for a $5 million advancement for project funding under the 3M and State of Minnesota Settlement Agreement. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing acceptance of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction Grant Amendment #1, Contract #262247 from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and associated budget amendment. ## Fiscal Implications The total grant obligation is updated from $79,476,000 to $71,051,252, consistent with the awarded contract amounts for the eligible pipeline projects that have been awarded under the grant. Authorization of a $5 million advanced payment will assist with cash flow while the City provides payments to contractors and requests reimbursement from the 3M and State of Minnesota Settlement Agreement funds. A budget amendment is necessary to reduce grant revenues and related grant eligible expenses in the Water and Sewer Utility Fund for the Water Treatment 2025- 2027 Pipelines Construction Project. ## Council Letter 26-97 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Policy PFAS water treatment aligns with the 2019-2021 Strategic Initiative 19-01, Ensuring Long-term Drinking Water Sustainability; and 2022-2024 and 2025-2028 Strategic Initiatives Drinking Water Treatment Implementation. ## Public Process January 8, 2025, Authorizing Acceptance of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction Grant and Approval of Budget Amendment to the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. ## Background Following the 2021 release of the State of Minnesota conceptual drinking water supply plan, which includes the long-term water treatment for the City of Woodbury, staff developed, submitted to, and received approval from the MPCA for the implementation of a Woodbury WTP design to support the 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. Following approval of the project design, construction grant agreements have been prepared to authorize and fund the construction of the Woodbury Water Treatment Plant and Pipelines project. ## Written By:Tony Kutzke, City Engineer ## Jim Westerman, Assistant Public Works Director ## Approved Through:Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-53 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing Acceptance of City of Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction Grant Amendment #1, Contract #262247 From the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and ## Associated Budget Amendment WHEREAS, the City is a beneficiary to the settlement agreement and order between the State of Minnesota and 3M Company for the company’s production of chemicals known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and resultant impact to the City’s potable water supply; and ## WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Department of Natural Resources, co-trustees of the settlement agreement, have completed a conceptual drinking water supply plan (CDWSP) for communities impacted by the settlement agreement; and ## WHEREAS, a Woodbury Water Treatment Plant (Woodbury WTP) and associated infrastructure for the City of Woodbury is included within the final CDWSP and modifications made thereto; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2025, the City Council accepted the grant in the amount of $79,476,000 between the City of Woodbury and the MPCA executing the Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction grant to support construction activities; and WHEREAS, the total grant amount based on construction contracts awarded to date is $71,051,252; and ## WHEREAS, the Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction grant Amendment #1 includes authorization and allocation of $25,000 to add water treatment infrastructure into the Waterly asset management system, authorization to begin work on the Saint John Lutheran Stormwater BMP project and advance of grant funds in the amount of $5 million; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 465.03 requires a City to accept grants by resolution expressing the terms prescribed by the donor in full; and WHEREAS, a resolution from the City Council authorizing the City of Woodbury Deputy City Administrator to execute the MPCA Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction Grant Amendment #1 electronically through the State’s SWIFT process is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That acceptance of the Woodbury Water Treatment 2025-2027 Pipelines Construction Grant Amendment #1 to SWIFT Contract #262247 amending the total obligation to $71,051,252, including $25,000 for Waterly asset management system additions, authorization to begin work on Saint John Stormwater BMP and authorizing a fund advancement of $5 million is hereby authorized accordance with the terms set forth herein. Resolution 26-53 May 13, 2026 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota to approve the following revenue decrease to the 2026 Water and Sewer Utility ## Fund Budget: ## Revenue CategoryAmount ## Capital Contributions-State$(8,424,748) 601-60-675-00000-432035-000- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following expense decrease be made to the 2026 ## Water and Sewer Utility Fund Budget: ## Expense CategoryAmount ## Capital Outlay-Buildings & Structures$(8,424,748) 601-60-675-00000-550030-999- This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator on the 13 th day of May 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6I ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-98 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program; Authorizing Consultant ## Selection ## Summary Over many years, the City has restored native vegetation and habitat across hundreds of acres of City-managed, public land. These lands require specific maintenance such as mowing, spraying, and prescribed burns. The technical expertise and workload capacity outweighs availability of City staff. Therefore, staff requested proposals, carefully reviewed and considered, and is recommending Stantec Engineering be contracted for 2026-2029 to be the City’s consultant on the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program. Stantec Engineering has successfully implemented the previous Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Contract (2023-2026) which involved their team gaining access to and learning how to use the City-asset management software. They collaborated with staff on priorities and tasks to accomplishing the work identified. Their staff are knowledgeable of our restored sites and remain cost competitive. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program Consultant Selection with Stantec. ## Fiscal Implications The 2026 Adopted Annual Budget includes funds in the General Fund-Parks & Forestry Division and Storm Water Utility Fund for the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program. Sufficient funds are available in the amount of $45,000 in 2026. Future budgets will include proposals of $70,000 for 2027, $80,000 for 2028, and $40,000 for 2029. The total contract value covering the necessary work with Stantec Engineering for the budget years of 2026-2029 is $235,000. ## Policy This program aligns with Strategic Initiative – Environmental Stewardship and Critical Success Factor – Environmental Stewardship. ## Council Letter 26-98 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background This project prioritizes ecosystem restoration, including long-term maintenance of native vegetation and habitat of City-managed public land. Forests, prairies, savannas, and wetlands provide diverse habitats for a multitude of species. These areas are increasingly lost to human development and activity, making those that remain especially valuable to ecosystem stability. If a native habitat is degraded and overrun with invasive species, it is unable to provide adequate habitat for native species. ## Written By:Kristin Seaman, Senior Environmental Resources Coordinator ## Approved Through:Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director ## Attachments:Resolution Resolution 26-54 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota ## Authorizing the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program Consultant Selection with Stantec WHEREAS, the City owns and maintains public lands that include native forests, prairies, savannas, and wetlands; and WHEREAS, the City has a strong history of receiving grants and acquiring conservation easements to protect native vegetation and habitat; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to retain engineering consulting services and contractual services to assist with inspections and maintenance activities of identified areas; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed qualifications and solicited proposals from leading vegetation restoration companies in the region; and WHEREAS, Stantec has been determined to best meet the City’s needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Stantec is hereby selected for professional consulting services and contractual services to assist with inspections and maintenance activities of identified areas. 2. Authorization is hereby given to enter into an engineering consulting services contract with Stantec, to perform the aforementioned scope of services. 3. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute the above consultant contract. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator on the 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6J ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-99 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Upper Afton Road Fire Station Exhaust System Project; Budget ## Amendment ## Summary The Public Safety Department is seeking authorization for a budget amendment to facilitate the installation of an exhaust system at the Upper Afton Road Fire Station. Currently, the facility lacks a suitable system for the effective removal of exhaust emissions, which poses health and safety risks to personnel. The project is estimated to cost $49,972. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving a budget amendment for the Upper Afton Road Fire Station exhaust system project. ## Fiscal Implications The 2026 Adopted City Budget does not include this project, and a budget amendment is necessary to provide appropriation for the project. The 2026 Capital Improvement Fund has sufficient funds in the amount of $50,000 from the Use of Fund Balance for the purchase and installation of the Upper Afton Road Fire Station exhaust system. ## Policy Not applicable. ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background The Upper Afton Road Fire Station is currently without a dedicated vehicle exhaust extraction system to effectively remove fumes produced by fire apparatuses. This can lead to the accumulation of hazardous airborne contaminants within the apparatus bay, sleeping quarters, meal preparation and dining areas, and throughout the station. ## Council Letter 26-99 May 13, 2026 Page 2 Exhaust systems are considered a standard component of modern fire station construction and remodels, as they play a critical role in maintaining safe indoor air quality and supporting best practices for firefighter health. Industry expectations have evolved significantly since the station was originally built, and these systems are now routinely included in both new facility designs and renovation projects to meet modern safety standards. Recently, the Upper Afton Road Fire Station has been reactivated with 24/7 staffing, meaning EMS Fire personnel now work, sleep, and respond from this station around the clock. With full-time personnel occupying the building, the need for appropriate exhaust mitigation measures has become even more essential to protect staff from prolonged exposure to diesel emissions and other hazardous particles. While other City fire stations, such as Thames and Fox Run, have already implemented exhaust extraction systems utilizing grant funding, the grant resources secured were insufficient to cover installation at the Upper Afton Road station. As a result, securing additional funding and approving a budget amendment are necessary steps to ensure that this station receives the same level of safety infrastructure as our other fire facilities. Additionally, the main Public Safety facility will include a modern exhaust system as part of its upcoming remodel. Once installed at the Upper Afton Road station, this upgrade will align all staffed fire stations and the primary public safety campus with consistent, department-wide safety and operational standards, which enhance air quality, protect firefighter health, and promote safe operations. ## Written By:Nicole Pontrelli, Public Safety Manager ## Approved Through:Chris Klein, Assistant Public Safety Director/Fire Chief ## Jason Posel, Public Safety Director/Police Chief ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-55 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving a Budget Amendment for the Upper Afton Road Fire Station Exhaust System Project WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury is committed to providing a safe and healthy working environment for its employees, including EMS Fire personnel; and WHEREAS, fire station exhaust systems are a critical component designed to remove harmful exhaust emissions from the apparatus bay; and WHEREAS, installation of an exhaust system at the Upper Afton Road Fire Station is necessary to ensure safe operations and to protect the health and well-being of personnel; and WHEREAS, the cost of purchasing and installing a new exhaust system is estimated at $49,972; and WHEREAS, a budget amendment is required to authorize the expenditure of funds for this purpose; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota to approve the following revenue increase to the 2026 Capital ## Improvement Fund Budget: ## AccountAmount ## Use of Fund Balance $50,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following expenditure increase be made to the ## 2026 Capital Improvement Fund Budget: ## Account/DivisionAmount ## Capital Outlay – Buildings and Structures ## Municipal Buildings (EMS Fire) 421-10-119-00000-550030-000-$50,000 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6K ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-100 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Accepting the Spark Good Community Grant; Budget Amendment ## Summary The Woodbury Sam’s Club has graciously awarded a Spark Good Community Grant of $1,000 to the City of Woodbury to cover the expenditures associated with Woodbury Public Safety’s 55+ Safety Seminar. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Spark Good Community Grant and approving the associated budget amendment. ## Fiscal Implications The City was awarded funds in the amount of $1,000 from the Woodbury Sam’s Club Spark Good Community Grant. It is necessary to amend the 2026 Adopted Budget to reflect this increase in revenue and associated expenditures in the General Fund - Police Division–Miscellaneous Community Projects. ## Policy This program aligns with AD-ADMFIN-1.11 Grant Application and Management Policy and Minn. Stat. § 465.03. ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background Spark Good Community Grants provide funding to strengthen local communities and address the unique needs of the communities where Walmart and/or Sam’s Club stores operate. Woodbury Public Safety’s awarded grant dollars will assist with expenditures associated with the 55+ Safety Seminar. The 55+ Safety Seminar is a one-day educational seminar geared towards community members 55 years and older. The seminar consists of safety and crime prevention presentations ## Council Letter 26-100 May 13, 2026 Page 2 from Woodbury first responders and other local experts. These grant funds will be utilized to provide breakfast and lunch for participants. ## Written By:Elizabeth Owens, Community Relations Specialist-Public Safety ## Approved Through:Tom Ehrenberg, Patrol Commander ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-56 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the Acceptance of the Spark Good Community Grant and Approving the Associated ## Budget Amendment WHEREAS, Woodbury Sam’s Club has awarded the City of Woodbury a Spark Good Community Grant in the amount of $1,000; and WHEREAS, the grant is used to support the expenditures associated with Woodbury ## Public Safety’s 55+ Safety Seminar; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 465.03 requires a City to accept grants by resolution expressed in the terms prescribed by the donor in full; and WHEREAS, a resolution from the City Council authorizing the City of Woodbury Public Safety Department to accept grants is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, that acceptance of the Spark Good Community Grant of $1,000 is hereby authorized in accordance with the terms set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota to approve the following revenue increase to the 2026 General Fund Budget: ## Account/DivisionAmount ## Miscellaneous Revenue-Police Division 101-20-225-00000-485015-000-$1,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following expenditure increase be made to the 2026 ## General Fund Budget: ## Account/DivisionAmount ## Miscellaneous Community Projects-Police Division 101-20-225-00000-543020-000-$1,000 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6L ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Supplemental Council Letter 26-101 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of the Change of Polling Locations in the City of Woodbury for Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 ## Summary Minnesota Statute Section 204B.16 requires the governing body of a municipality to designate polling places for each election precinct. Washington County Elections has notified staff of several polling place changes that are needed ahead of elections in 2026. As noted, some polling place changes are permanent, while others are temporary either through 2026 or just for the August 2026 primary election. The polling place changes are listed below; Washington County Elections will notify voters of the change via USPS, per the Election Services JPA. ## PrecinctOld Polling LocationNew Polling LocationPermanent/Temporary ## Precinct 1Washington County License & Service Center – 1261 Woodlane Dr. ## Woodbury Elementary School – 1251 School Dr. ## Woodbury Middle School – 1425 School Dr. ## Permanent Precinct 2Woodbury City Hall – 8301 Valley Creek Rd. ## Woodbury Central Park – 8595 Central Park Pl. ## Permanent ## Precinct 3Woodbury High School – 2665 Woodlane Dr. ## Woodbury Central Park – 8595 Central Park Pl. Temporary (2026 only) ## Precinct 5Woodbury High School – 2665 Woodlane Dr. ## New Life Academy – 6758 Bailey Rd. ## Permanent ## Precinct 6Gordon Bailey Elementary School – 4125 Woodlane Dr. ## New Life Academy – 6758 Bailey Rd. Temporary (2026 only) ## Precinct 13Liberty Ridge Elementary ## School – 11395 Eagle View Blvd. ## Lake Middle School – 3133 Pioneer Dr. Temporary (August 2026 only) ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the change of polling locations in the City of Woodbury for Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13. ## Supplemental Council Letter 26-101 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Fiscal Implications Per the JPA, the City will cover the material and postage costs for notices mailed to voters. ## Policy ## Minnesota Statute Section 204B.16 – Polling Places; Designation; Authority; Location ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background Not applicable. ## Written By:Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk ## Approved Through:Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator ## Attachment:Resolution ## Supplemental Resolution 26-57 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving the Change of Polling Locations in the City of Woodbury for Precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 204B.16, requires the governing body of a municipality to designate polling places for each election precinct; and WHEREAS, the previously designated polling locations for Precincts 1, 2, and 5, are no longer available for elections and will be permanently moved to new locations; and WHEREAS, the previously designated polling locations for Precincts 3 and 6 are temporarily unavailable for elections through December 31, 2026 and will be temporarily moved to new locations; and WHEREAS, the previously designated polling location for Precinct 13 is temporarily unavailable for elections through August 31, 2026, and will be temporarily moved to a new location; and WHEREAS, per the Joint Powers Agreement for Election Services, Washington County will notify voters in each precinct of the change in polling location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota hereby changes the polling locations for precincts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 as follows: ## PrecinctOld Polling LocationNew Polling LocationPermanent/Temporary ## Precinct 1Washington County License & Service Center – 1261 Woodlane Dr. ## Woodbury Elementary School – 1251 School Dr. ## Woodbury Middle School – 1425 School Dr. ## Permanent Precinct 2Woodbury City Hall – 8301 Valley Creek Rd. ## Woodbury Central Park – 8595 Central Park Pl. ## Permanent ## Precinct 3Woodbury High School – 2665 Woodlane Dr. ## Woodbury Central Park – 8595 Central Park Pl. Temporary (2026 only) ## Precinct 5Woodbury High School – 2665 Woodlane Dr. ## New Life Academy – 6758 Bailey Rd. ## Permanent ## Precinct 6Gordon Bailey Elementary School – 4125 Woodlane Dr. ## New Life Academy – 6758 Bailey Rd. Temporary (2026 only) ## Precinct 13Liberty Ridge Elementary ## School – 11395 Eagle View Blvd. ## Lake Middle School – 3133 Pioneer Dr. Temporary (August 2026 only) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this change of polling locations shall remain in effect for the time periods designated above, or until such time that the City Council may take action to make further changes. ## Supplemental Resolution 26-57 May 13, 2026 Page 2 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13th day of May 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6M ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-102 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of July 2026 – December 2026 Employee Group Insurance Benefits ## Summary The City of Woodbury’s employee benefit program year ends on June 30, 2026. The City Council authorizes contracts and the City’s contribution to benefits for upcoming benefit terms. It was determined in the best interest of the City and our employees to revert back to a calendar year renewal term, thus coverages are recommended for consideration on a six month term. Council will be presented with benefit recommendations again later in 2026 for effective 1/1/2027 to complete this process. The recommended July 2026 through December 2026 employee group benefits and associated administrative services are summarized as follows: 1.Medical Insurance – In 2024, the City transitioned to Medica Insurance for the July 2024 through June 2025 Plan Year. July 2025 through June 2026 premium rates decreased by five percent and Council authorized a zero percent change to the employee contributions with the plan to utilize the City savings from the premium rate reductions toward expenditures starting in July 2026. The City received a 42 percent premium increase for the July 2026 renewal which was reduced to 40.5 percent with the addition of a new offering for Kavira. The City recommends rate adjustments include a 10 percent increase to employees for the $1,700 deductible plan and an 8 percent increase to employees for the increased deductible plan of $5,000. The remainder of the increase would be covered by the City within the appropriate funds recording labor reimbursements and employee benefits. No changes are proposed to annual HSA/HRA contributions from the City and the waiver paid to employees for not taking coverage will remain at the current amount through December 31, 2026. Staff are currently recommending that the waiver cease for 2027. Contributions to employee medical insurance premiums, Health Reimbursement ## Arrangement/Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (HRA/VEBA) and Health Savings Account (HSA) contributions are detailed as listed Appendix A. ## Council Letter 26-102 May 13, 2026 Page 2 2.Dental Insurance – The Dental Insurance will remain self-insured with HealthPartners as the Administrator. The dental insurance premiums and employer contribution are recommended to remain the same. The contribution details for July 2026 through December 2026 are as listed on Appendix B. 3.Life and Long-Term Disability – It is recommended that the City purchase $25,000 life insurance and 60 percent of monthly earnings to a maximum of $1,500/month long- term disability benefits from Symetra Insurance for eligible employees. The rates remain unchanged for July 2026 through December 2026. 4.Short-Term Disability Administration – It is recommended that the City continue self- insuring the short-term disability benefits and contract with Symetra for advice-to-pay administrative services for $1 per employee/month. The rates remain unchanged for July 2026 through December 2026. 5.Supplemental Insurance – It is recommended that the City continue to offer voluntary supplemental insurance products through AFLAC and EyeMed at 100 percent cost to employees. The City contracts with benefits insurance specialist, CBIZ Inc., to facilitate these efforts on behalf of the City. All proposals were reviewed prior to this recommendation. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt: 1.A resolution authorizing the purchase of group medical insurance from Medica and amending the City contribution toward the employee group medical insurance program. 2.A resolution authorizing the City to self-fund dental insurance benefits, hiring HealthPartners as the administrative service organization and amending the City contribution toward the Employee Group Dental Insurance Program. 3.A resolution authorizing the purchase of life and long-term disability insurance from Symetra. 4.A resolution authorizing the purchase of short-term disability advice-to-pay administrative services from Symetra. 5.A resolution authorizing the offering of voluntary supplemental insurance from AFLAC and voluntary vision insurance from EyeMed Vision Care. ## Fiscal Implications For the July 2026 through December 2026 renewal, the total premium increase is approximately 40 percent from Medica. The last renewal included a five percent decrease in overall premium. The City offered a zero percent change in the employee contribution. Premium savings to the City were proposed to be used to mitigate anticipated premium increases with the health insurance renewal. ## Council Letter 26-102 May 13, 2026 Page 3 There are no anticipated additional cost impacts to the City for employer premium contributions for dental, life, and long-term disability benefits through the end of 2026. City staff has adequately budgeted for the group dental, life and long-term disability benefit programs in the 2026 budget. The group medical increase does exceed budgeted amounts; however, sufficient fund balance is available within all employee benefited funds to account for additional appropriation if necessary. Any premium savings from the prior year six month period of 2025 went into fund/reserve balances and the same will be available for the first six months of 2026. The proposed 2027 budget will incorporate any rate adjustments as necessary for any of the insurance programs. Any impacts to the enterprise funds are incorporated into the operational performance of the fund and are offset by user rates and fees and/or operating expense decreases. The exact dollar changes for any of the benefit plans is dependent on employee enrollment choices during Open Enrollment and throughout the year. ## Policy There are no corresponding City of Woodbury policies for this Council Item. ## Public Process The Council meeting will be the first public process for this item. The City’s internal Employee Benefits Committee was consulted as time allowed on recommendations. ## Background As a local government, the City of Woodbury’s mission is accomplished largely by human resources. In order to retain and recruit talented municipal employees to accomplish the City’s mission successfully, the City provides a competitive wage and benefits compensation package. The benefits portion of this overall package includes employer provision and participation to group medical insurance, dental insurance, employee assistance services, life, short-term and long-term disability insurance. City staff consistently monitor wages and benefits to ensure that they are both competitive and balanced with overall City budget objectives. Staff also review results of the employee survey regarding benefits and anecdotally take into consideration feedback received during recruitments processes in making recommendations to City Council. Woodbury continues to sit above median for Single HSA and at the top end for +One and Family HSA premiums relative to peers, even with strong annual HSA/HRA contributions. Therefore, limiting the percentage increase impact to employees with this renewal was deemed necessary and appropriate. Staff are requesting approval of the annual employee benefits renewal, which includes a significant increase in medical premiums driven primarily by higher-than-expected claims experience. While this increase is substantial, it reflects the actual cost of care utilization within our group over the past year and aligns with updates provided to the Benefits Committee throughout the renewal process. City staff have worked closely with our benefits consultant, CBIZ, to analyze renewal options, evaluate cost impacts, and identify opportunities to help mitigate the financial effect on both the City and its employees. This work included exploring alternative renewal periods, reviewing plan design adjustments, and modeling contribution strategies to ensure responsible stewardship of City resources while supporting employees’ access to quality health coverage. ## Council Letter 26-102 May 13, 2026 Page 4 Looking ahead, staff will continue partnering with our benefits consultant and the Benefits Committee to conduct a more comprehensive, long-term analysis of the City’s benefits strategy. This work will include evaluating cost trends, plan design sustainability, market competitiveness, and employee affordability. Our goal is to ensure the City can continue offering high-quality, competitive benefits that support employee well-being while also balancing fiscal responsibility for the organization and our taxpayers. Approval of this renewal will allow us to maintain continuity of coverage for employees while continuing the strategic work already underway to shape a more predictable, sustainable benefits structure in future years. ## Written By:Tammy Funk, Human Resources Manager ## Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator ## Approved Through:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachments:1. Resolution – Group Medical Insurance ## 2. Resolution – Group Dental Insurance ## 3. Resolution – Life and Long-Term Disability ## 4. Resolution – Short-Term Disability Advice to Pay ## 5. Resolution – Voluntary Supplemental and Vision Insurance 6. Appendix A – City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 Medical ## Insurance Plan Costs and Contributions 7. Appendix B - City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 Dental ## Insurance Plan Costs and Contributions Resolution 26-58 ## Resolution of the City Of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the Purchase of Group Medical Insurance from Medica and Amending the City ## Contribution toward the Employee Group Medical Insurance Program WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the purchase of group medical insurance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1.That the proposal of Medica for July 2026 through December 2026 group medical insurance is acceptable. 2.That effective July 1, 2026, the City shall implement Appendix A - City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 Medical Insurance Plan Costs and Contributions. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) Resolution 26-59 ## Resolution of the City Of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the City to Self-Fund Dental Insurance Benefits, Hiring HealthPartners as the Administrative Service Organization and Amending the City Contribution toward the Employee ## Group Dental Insurance Program WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the offering of group dental insurance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City continue to self-fund dental insurance benefits. 2. The proposal of HealthPartners to be the administrative service organization for group dental insurance from July 2026 through December 2026 is acceptable. 3. The contract to provide administrative service organization services is accepted with HealthPartners and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign the necessary contract documents and implement the coverage. 4. Effective July 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026 the City shall implement Appendix B - City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 Dental Insurance Plan Costs and Contributions. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) Resolution 26-60 ## Resolution of the City Of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the Purchase of Life and Long-Term Disability Insurance from Symetra WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the purchase of $25,000 life insurance benefits and 60 percent monthly earnings to a maximum of $1,500 long-term disability insurance for eligible employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposal of Symetra for $25,000 in life insurance benefits and 60 percent monthly earnings to a maximum of $1,500/month long-term disability insurance from July 2026 through December 2026 is acceptable. 2. That the contract to provide life and long-term disability insurance is accepted with Symetra and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign the necessary contract documents and implement the coverage. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) Resolution 26-61 ## Resolution of the City Of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota ## Authorizing the Purchase of Short-Term Disability Advice-To-Pay Administrative Services from ## Symetra WHEREAS, the City self-funds short-term disability insurance; and WHEREAS, the City has a need for advice-to-pay administrative services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City continue to self-fund short-term disability benefits. 2. The proposal of Symetra to provide advice-to-pay administrative services is acceptable. 3. The contract to provide advice-to-pay administrative services is accepted with Symetra and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign the necessary contract documents and implement the coverage. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) Resolution 26-62 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the Offering of Voluntary Supplemental Insurance from AFLAC and Voluntary Vision ## Insurance from EyeMed Vision Care WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the offering of voluntary supplemental insurance and voluntary vision insurance to be 100 percent paid by eligible and interested employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposals for voluntary supplemental insurance from AFLAC and voluntary vision insurance from EyeMed Vision Care are acceptable. 2. That these voluntary insurances shall be paid 100 percent by eligible and interested employees. 2. That the contracts to provide the insurance offerings are acceptable and that the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign the necessary contract documents and implement the coverage. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## APPENDIX A City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 ## Medical Insurance Costs and Contributions $1,700 - 20% Plan - Open Access $5,000 - 0% Plan - Open Access ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Monthly ## Monthly ## EE Only 1,397.21 $ 1,222.31 $ 174.90 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE Only 1,293.76 $ 1,124.98 $ 168.78 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 3,213.57 $ 2,730.83 $ 482.74 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 2,975.65 $ 2,509.81 $ 465.84 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 2,361.25 $ 2,065.67 $ 295.58 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 2,186.43 $ 1,901.19 $ 285.24 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 5,197.40 $ 4,329.90 $ 867.50 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 4,812.61 $ 3,975.47 $ 837.14 $ 3,200.00 $ Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 $1,700 - 20% Plan - Narrow Network $5,000 - 0% Plan - Narrow Network ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Monthly ## Monthly ## EE Only 1,222.55 $ 1,069.53 $ 153.02 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE Only 1,132.04 $ 984.36 $ 147.68 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 2,811.87 $ 2,389.47 $ 422.40 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 2,603.69 $ 2,196.09 $ 407.60 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 2,066.09 $ 1,807.47 $ 258.62 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 1,913.12 $ 1,663.54 $ 249.58 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 4,547.73 $ 3,788.67 $ 759.06 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 4,211.03 $ 3,478.53 $ 732.50 $ 3,200.00 $ Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 $1,700 - 20% Plan - ACOs $5,000 - 0% Plan - ACOs ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## Annual HSA/HRA Contribution ## Monthly ## Monthly ## EE Only 1,187.62 $ 1,038.94 $ 148.68 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE Only 1,099.70 $ 986.00 $ 113.70 $ 1,500.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 2,731.53 $ 2,321.21 $ 410.32 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Spouse 2,529.30 $ 2,133.34 $ 395.96 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 2,007.06 $ 1,755.82 $ 251.24 $ 3,200.00 $ ## EE + Child(ren) 1,858.46 $ 1,616.00 $ 242.46 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 4,417.79 $ 3,680.43 $ 737.36 $ 3,200.00 $ ## Family 4,090.72 $ 3,379.16 $ 711.56 $ 3,200.00 $ Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 Note: Non-Wellness Employee Rates are an additional $240.90 ## 7/1/26-12/30/26 Other Coverage Waiver Amount 301.12 $ ## 2027 Other Coverage Waiver Amount - $ ## APPENDIX B City of Woodbury July 2026 through December 2026 ## Dental Insurance Costs and Contributions ## Total Rates ER Cost ## EE Cost ## MonthlyEE Only 52.08 $ 52.08 $ - $ ## Family 130.19 $ 52.08 $ 78.11 $ ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota7A ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-103 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Consider Approval of Marks Cafe LLC, dba City Walk Cafe and Bar, 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101, On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and Patio ## Sales ## Summary Marks Cafe LLC dba City Walk Cafe & Bar has submitted an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and Patio Sales for their business located at 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and Patio Sales to Marks Cafe LLC dba City Walk Cafe & Bar located at 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101. ## Fiscal Implications ## Background Investigation Fee $500 ## On Sale Intoxicating Fee$8,500 ## Policy Minnesota Statute 304A Liquor and Woodbury City Code Chapter 4 Alcoholic Beverages regulates liquor licensing. ## Public Process A hearing notice was published in the City’s official newspaper and hearing notices were mailed to the property owner within 500 feet of the establishment. ## Background Marks Cafe LLC dba City Walk Cafe & Bar has submitted an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday and Patio Sales for their business located at 10060 City Walk Drive Suite 101. ## Council Letter 26-103 May 13, 2026 Page 2 Marks Cafe LLC has two owners: Kimberley Marks 50 percent Alex Meyer 50 percent As required by City Code, a criminal history check as it pertains to liquor licensing was conducted on each owner with financial interest and no violations that would preclude the owners from obtaining a liquor license were found. The applicant has submitted the license fee and background investigation fee. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and has found it to be in order. ## Written By:Jen Torning, Administrative Technician II/Deputy Clerk ## Approved Through:Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk ## Attachment:None ## 8A ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-104 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Presentation of 2026 Community Survey Results ## Summary The City of Woodbury has conducted a community survey on a biennial basis since 1993. The community survey is used as a tool to measure resident opinions on the quality of City services and to receive input on relevant issues. Many questions remain the same over time, allowing viewers to track progress and make comparisons from year to year. Several questions are also standardized to match those asked in cities across the nation, allowing comparisons from place to place. The City began partnering with the National Research Center (NRC) in 2015, which has since been acquired by Polco. The results of the 2026 City of Woodbury Resident Survey will be presented by Jason Neumeyer, Director of Survey Research at Polco. Following the presentation, there will be time for the Council to ask questions of the consultant about the survey. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council review the results of the 2026 Community Survey and provide direction to staff related to any follow-up items needed. ## Fiscal Implications There are no fiscal implications. ## Policy The community survey is used as a tool to measure the City’s critical success factors, provide performance measures, as well as prioritizing resources. ## Public Process The draft survey questions were reviewed by the Council on October 22, 2025. The results of the Resident Survey will be posted on the City website following the Council’s review. Survey results will also be highlighted in a future City Update newsletter, through InTouch, and on the City’s social media platforms. ## Council Letter 26-104 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Background The 2026 survey was conducted from January 7 to February 23, 2026. In January, a postcard was mailed to 5,000 Woodbury households, selected at random, notifying residents that they had been chosen to participate in the survey. Households initially received a postcard invitation with an individualized link to take the survey online. All households were then mailed a hard copy survey to complete and return if they did not choose the online option. This year, there were 969 survey respondents, yielding a response rate of 20 percent (margin of error +/- 3 percentage points). Survey results were weighted so that respondent gender, age, race, ethnicity, housing, unit type and housing tenure (rent or own) were represented in proportions reflective of the entire City. The appendices in the report provided details on where Woodbury compared to national and Minnesota communities. There was also an opportunity for all residents to complete an open participation online survey, even if their household was not randomly selected by Polco. Those results are included in the full report but are kept separate from the statistically valid survey results. There were 585 people who responded to that survey. ## Written By:Shelly Schafer, Community Relations Manager ## Approved Through:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachment:2026 Woodbury Resident Survey Report of Results ## 1241 John Q. Hammons Dr, Suite #203 ## Madison, WI 53717 info.polco.us • 608-709-8683 ## City of Woodbury ## Resident Survey 2026 ## Report of Results March 2026 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 2 - ## Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 Summary of Survey Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Survey Background ............................................................................................................................ 7 Quality of Life and Community .................................................................................................... 10 City Services ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Government and Employee Performance ............................................................................... 30 Code Enforcement ............................................................................................................................. 34 Public Safety ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Parks and Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 40 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Public Communication ..................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................ 47 Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies ........................................................................... 55 ## Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions ......................................... 84 ## Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics .................................................................................................................................. 162 Comparisons by Length of Residency, Age and Gender. ...................................................................... 163 Comparisons by Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Household Income ...................... 183 Comparisons by Ethnicity and Race .................................................................................................................... 203 Comparisons by Geographical Area .................................................................................................................... 218 Appendix E: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons ................................................................. 243 National Benchmark Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 244 Minnesota Benchmark Comparisons ................................................................................................................... 248 Population Benchmark Comparisons .................................................................................................................. 252 Appendix F: Survey Methodology ............................................................................................. 256 Appendix G: Open Participation Survey Results ................................................................ 262 Open Participation Survey Responses ............................................................................................................... 263 Open Participation Verbatim Responses .......................................................................................................... 274 Appendix H: Survey Materials .................................................................................................... 333 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 3 - ## Figures Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Woodbury, 2026 ...................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Aspects of Quality of Life Compared by Year ................................................................................ 12 Figure 4: Aspects of Quality of Life Benchmarks .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 5: Sense of Community, 2026....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Sense of Community by Year .................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 7: Neighborhoods and Community by Year .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Openness and Acceptance toward Diverse Backgrounds by Year .................................. 16 Figure 9: Community Diversity and Inclusivity by Year ............................................................................... 17 Figure 10: Ratings of Overall Community Characteristics by Year ....................................................... 19 Figure 11: Overall Community Characteristics Benchmarks ..................................................................... 20 Figure 12: Feelings of Safety by Year ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 13: Most Serious Issues Facing Woodbury by Year ........................................................................ 22 Figure 14: Overall Quality of Services, 2026 ....................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15: Overall Quality of City Services by Year ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 16: Quality of City Services by Year .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 17: City Services Benchmarks ....................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 18: Value of City Services, 2026 ................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 19: Value of City Services by Year ............................................................................................................. 27 Figure 20: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Year ............................................................. 28 Figure 21: Property Tax Level by Year .................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 22: Approval of Mayor and City Council by Year............................................................................... 30 Figure 23: Aspects of Government Performance by Year ........................................................................... 31 Figure 24: Job Performance of City Staff by Year ............................................................................................ 32 Figure 25: Contact with a City Employee by Year ............................................................................................ 33 Figure 26: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Year ......................................................... 33 Figure 27: Familiarity with Residential Code Enforcement by Year ..................................................... 34 Figure 28: Level of Residential Code Enforcement by Year ....................................................................... 35 Figure 29: Level of Approval of Backyard Chickens, 2026 ......................................................................... 35 Figure 30: Contact with Woodbury Police by Year ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 31: Impressions of Contact with Woodbury Police by Year ....................................................... 37 Figure 32: Police Relations with Community and Marginalized Communities by Year ............ 38 Figure 33: Top Priority for Woodbury Police by Year ..................................................................................... 39 Figure 34: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs/Activities by Year ............................ 40 Figure 35: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs/Activities by Year ........................................ 41 Figure 36: Amount of Parks and Recreation Facilities by Year ................................................................ 42 Figure 37: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts, 2026 ............................................ 43 Figure 38: Quality of Public Information and City Communications by Year ................................. 44 Figure 39: Communication of Key Issues by Year ........................................................................................... 44 Figure 40: Use of Information Sources by Year ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 41: Quality of Information Sources by Year......................................................................................... 46 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 4 - ## Executive Summary ## Summary of Survey Methods The 2026 City of Woodbury Resident Survey offered residents the opportunity to rate the overall quality of life in Woodbury, as well as the quality of service delivery and the performance of local government. Surveys were mailed to 5,000 randomly selected households in January 2026. A total of 969 surveys were completed, yielding a response rate of 20%. In addition to the scientific survey of randomly selected households, a community-wide, open-participation survey was also conducted. The key findings and body of this report focus on the responses to the scientific survey; the results to the open-participation survey have been provided separately in Appendix G: Open Participation Survey Results. Survey results were weighted so that respondent demographics were represented in proportions reflective of the entire adult population of the City. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points around any given percentage point reported for all survey respondents. ## Key Findings Community life in Woodbury remains strong, connected, and highly rated. • In 2026, Woodbury residents continue to rate their quality of life highly, with roughly 9 in 10 residents providing excellent or good marks. The rating for overall quality of life in 2026 was on par with previous years. Moreover, the rating was similar to national, Minnesota, and population (communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000) benchmarks. • Residents also assessed other aspects related to quality of life in the City. Among the higher rated items were: Woodbury as a place to live, Woodbury as a place to raise children, their neighborhood as a place to live, and shopping opportunities in Woodbury. • It is noteworthy that dining opportunities received higher ratings in 2026 compared to 2024, continuing an upward trend since 2022 (61% in 2022, 68% in 2024, and 73% in 2026). Meanwhile, shopping opportunities in Woodbury were rated much higher than the national, Minnesota, and population benchmarks. • About 9 in 10 Woodbury residents strongly or somewhat agreed that they have good relationships with their neighbors. Around 8 in 10 respondents agreed that they can rely on their neighbors when they need help and feel connected to their neighborhood, while three- fourths said they feel connected to the overall Woodbury community. All ratings were similar to those reported in 2024. • When asked about several broad aspects of the community, roughly 9 in 10 respondents gave high marks to the overall feeling of safety, health and wellness opportunities, the overall image or reputation of the City, and the overall economic health of Woodbury. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 5 - City services remain a strength for Woodbury, with many ratings exceeding national norms. • Roughly 9 in 10 survey respondents rated the overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury as excellent or good. This rating is on par with previous years, similar to peer communities in Minnesota, and higher than comparison communities with similar populations and across the nation. • Around 9 and 10 residents positively rated fire services, ambulance or emergency medical services, Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities, the M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities, and the condition of City parks. About 9 in 10 respondents also gave high marks to Central Park, sanitary sewer services, police services, Lookout Ridge, overall customer service provided by City employees (including police, receptionists, and planners), and the condition of trails. • Most City services were consistent with previous years, except for Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities and snow removal on City trails, which were lower in 2026 than in 2024, and Lookout Ridge and drinking water, which were higher in 2026 than in 2024. • Seven of fifteen City services were ranked higher than comparison communities across the country: ambulance/EMS, pavement repair, police services, code enforcement, public information, recreation programs and street sweeping). Seven services were on par with national averages and one (drinking water) was ranked lower than the national benchmark. Residents continue to see strong value in city services, though support for tax increases has leveled off. • Roughly 7 in 10 respondents rated the value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury as either excellent or good. This rating is on par with previous years, higher than the national benchmark, and similar to the Minnesota and population benchmark comparisons. • About half of Woodbury residents supported an increase in property taxes to maintain City services at their current level. This rating was slightly below the 2024 rating and marked a pause in the moderate upward trend for tax increases observed since 2015. Residents appreciate many aspects of the City’s leadership and staff performance. • Similar to previous years, more than 8 in 10 survey participants strongly or somewhat approved of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing and rated the job performance of City staff as excellent or good. • About three-quarters of the respondents positively rated the City for treating all residents fairly, while about 7 in 10 highly rated the job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement, the City acting in the best interest of the community, and the overall confidence in Woodbury government. Finally, about two-thirds of respondents rated the overall direction that Woodbury is taking as excellent or good. All ratings were similar to 2024. • Woodbury ranked higher than the national benchmarks for the first four aspects of government performance and similar to it for the overall direction that Woodbury is taking. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 6 - Woodbury maintains high marks for inclusivity and respect for all residents. • Approximately three‑quarters of respondents rated Woodbury’s openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds as excellent or good—a rating similar to 2024 and higher than in earlier years. This rating exceeded the national benchmark and was similar to ratings in other Minnesota communities and in communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000. • Around 8 in 10 respondents positively rated Woodbury for providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds. A similar proportion of residents gave excellent or good ratings for treating all residents fairly, demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems, valuing residents from diverse backgrounds, and making all residents feel welcome. Around 6 in 10 positively rated the community for helping new residents feel connected and integrated. All ratings were similar to those of 2024. Residents hold steady views on code enforcement as opinions split on backyard chickens. • Roughly three-quarters of respondents reported being very or somewhat familiar with Woodbury’s residential ordinance requirements, similar to previous years. • Survey respondents were then asked if the current level of code enforcement was acceptable, excessive, or not enough. Over half of respondents indicated that they thought code enforcement in residential areas was acceptable. Fewer than 1 in 10 respondents felt that code enforcement was excessive, while another 1 in 10 residents felt that there was not enough code enforcement. Around 3 in 10 respondents indicated that they were unfamiliar with code enforcement. Proportions of respondents in each category were similar to previous years. • In 2026, residents were asked how much they would approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot. Around half of the residents somewhat or strongly approved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single- family city lot. Conversely, the remaining half strongly or somewhat disapproved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single-family city lot. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 7 - ## Survey Background The City of Woodbury contracted with Polco to conduct a community-wide resident survey. The primary goal of the survey was to assess the attitudes and opinions of residents by: • Evaluating City programs and services. • Determining general perceptions of the quality of life in the City. • Identifying issues facing the City. • Comparing survey results to other communities across the nation. • Establishing trendlines to measure government performance over time. The Woodbury Resident Survey serves as a consumer report card for Woodbury by providing residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the City, as well as the community’s amenities, service delivery, and their satisfaction with local government. Residents also provide feedback on what is working well and what is not, and communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. The survey’s focus on the quality of service delivery helps council, staff, and the public to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking community opinions about the core responsibilities of Woodbury City government, helping to assure maximum service quality over time. This type of survey focuses on the key services that local government controls to create a quality community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before customers defect to competition or before other problems from dissatisfied customers arise. This is the 13 th iteration of the Woodbury Resident Survey since the baseline study conducted in 2001. The 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2024 and 2026 surveys were conducted by mail and online; all iterations prior to the 2015 survey were conducted by phone. ## Survey Administration A total of 5,000 Woodbury households were randomly selected to participate in the 2026 Woodbury Resident Survey. The 5,000 households selected to participate in the survey were contacted two times. First, an invitation postcard informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the City of Woodbury Community Survey was sent on January 7, 2026. The postcard included a URL and a QR code to take the survey online. Approximately one week after mailing the postcard, these households were mailed a paper survey containing a cover letter enlisting participation. The cover letter also included a URL and QR code where respondents could go to complete the survey online, if desired. The packet also contained a postage-paid return envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire to Polco. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks, with the survey closing on February 23, 2026. There were 969 respondents to the mailed questionnaire (with 156 undeliverable addresses), yielding a response rate of 20%. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points around any given percentage for all respondents. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 8 - Survey results were weighted so that respondent gender, age, housing unit type (attached or detached), housing tenure (rent or own), race, and ethnicity were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire City. More information about the survey methodology can be found in Appendix F: Survey Methodology. ## How the Results Are Reported For the most part, the full set of frequencies, or the “percent positive,” are presented in the body and narrative of the report. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good;” “very safe” and “somewhat safe;” “strongly support” and “somewhat support”). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies and is discussed in the body of this report if it is 30% or greater. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in multiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted, a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice rounding values to the nearest whole number. ## Precision of Estimates It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). The margin of error for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (N=969). ## Comparison of Results Over Time and By Subgroups Results from previous surveys are presented when comparisons to 2026 were available. Where differences in ratings from 2024 to 2026 are five percentage points or greater, they can be considered statistically significant. When reviewing comparisons to data prior to 2015, differences that surfaced may or may not be meaningful, as wording changes between survey versions and the switch in methodology to a self- administered survey from a telephone survey may account, at least in part, for any shift in ratings. Polco adjusted the findings from 2015 and prior in order to maximize the comparability of results over time. This way, the reported trend line data are not influenced by the decline that is attributable to the change in data collection mode from phone to mail. For more information on comparing results over time, see Appendix F: Survey Methodology. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 9 - Selected survey results were compared by geographic location of a respondent’s home, respondent length of residency, age, gender, housing unit type (attached or detached), housing unit tenure (rent or own), income, race, and ethnicity. These crosstabulations are summarized and presented in tabular form in Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics. For each pair of subgroups that has a statistically significant difference, an upper-case letter denoting significance is shown in the category with the larger column proportion. ## Comparing Survey Results to Other Communities Polco’s database of comparative resident opinion comprises resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 400 communities whose residents evaluated their services. National benchmark comparisons, Minnesota benchmark comparisons, and comparisons to communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000 have been provided when similar questions on the Woodbury survey are included in Polco’s database, and where there were at least five communities in which the question was asked. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, Woodbury’s results were generally noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark. In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of “much,” (for example, “much lower” or “much higher”). These labels come from a comparison of Woodbury’s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered “similar” if it is within the standard margin of error (10 points or less on the 100-point scale); “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Woodbury’s rating and the benchmark is greater than 10 points, but 20 points or less; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Woodbury’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the standard margin of error (greater than 20 points). Comparisons for a number of items on the survey are not available in the benchmark database. These items are excluded from the benchmark tables. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 10 - ## Quality of Life and Community The City of Woodbury Resident Survey included a series of questions assessing various dimensions of community quality of life, ranging from overall quality of life to perceptions of Woodbury as a place to work, visit, and retire. Respondents were also asked to rate several aspects of community connectedness and sense of belonging. ## Quality of Life In 2026, Woodbury residents continue to rate their quality of life highly, with roughly 9 in 10 residents awarding excellent or good marks. The rating for overall quality of life in 2026 was on par with those given in previous years. Moreover, the rating was similar to national, Minnesota, and population (communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000) benchmarks (see Appendix E: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons for detailed information on benchmark comparisons). Survey results were compared by geographic area of residence and by select respondent demographic characteristics. Residents living in households with an annual income above $50,000 were more likely than those in lower‑income households to give positive ratings to quality of life in Woodbury (for additional comparisons by respondent demographics, see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life in Woodbury, 2026 Percent of respondents ## Excellent 37% ## Good 55% ## Fair 8% ## Poor 1% Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: The overall quality of life in Woodbury ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 11 - ## Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year Residents also assessed other aspects related to quality of life in the City. About 9 in 10 residents positively rated Woodbury as a place to live, as a place to raise children, their neighborhood as a place to live, and the shopping opportunities in Woodbury. More than three-quarters of respondents gave high marks to the overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury and Woodbury as a place to work. Finally, more than two-thirds of residents rated dining opportunities, Woodbury as a place to retire, and Woodbury as a place to visit as either excellent or good. Ratings were generally consistent with previous years, with one exception: dining opportunities received higher ratings in 2026 compared to 2024. All ratings were either similar to or higher than the national, Minnesota, and population benchmark comparisons (see Figure 4 on page 13). When comparing differences in ratings by respondent subgroups: • Women were more likely than men to positively rate several aspects, including Woodbury as a place to raise children, as a place to work, as a place to retire, and the sense of community. • Residents who have lived in Woodbury for 20 year or less were more likely than longer-term residents to positively rate several aspects, including the overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury, the shopping and dining opportunities in Woodbury, and Woodbury as a place to visit and retire. • Renters and those living in attached housing units were more likely than homeowners and those living in detached housing units to positively rate shopping and dining opportunities in Woodbury. • Residents with household incomes of $50,000 or less were less likely than higher‑income households to give positive ratings of the overall quality of life in Woodbury. • Residents identified as White were more likely than not-white residents to positively rate the overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury and the shopping opportunities in Woodbury. • Residents living in precincts 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 were more likely than residents in precincts 2, 4, 5, and 6 to give high marks to their neighborhood as a place to live. See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics for more information. 97% 95% 93% 96% 98% 99% 97% 94% 92%92% 94% 90% 91% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 Percent excellent or good Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: The overall quality of life in Woodbury ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 12 - ## Figure 3: Aspects of Quality of Life Compared by Year Percent excellent or good When asked about Woodbury as a place to work, 39% of residents said, “don’t know.” When asked about Woodbury as a place to retire, 24% of residents said, “don’t know.” The responses presented in the body of the report are of those who had an opinion. The full set of responses, including “don’t know,” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. 70% 72% 70% 75% 87% 93% 91% 97% 96% 65% 68% 61% 82% 84% 89% 94% 93% 95% 68% 66% 68% 78% 86% 88% 92% 94% 95% 66% 67% 73% 77% 85% 90% 92% 94% 95% Woodbury as a place to retire Woodbury as a place to visit Dining opportunities in ## Woodbury Woodbury as a place to work Overall quality of business and service establishments in ## Woodbury Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury Your neighborhood as a place to live Woodbury as a place to raise children Woodbury as a place to live 2026 2024 2022 2019 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 13 - ## Figure 4: Aspects of Quality of Life Benchmarks Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: ## National benchmark ## Minnesota benchmark ## Population benchmark (65,000 - 90,000) Woodbury as a place to live Similar Similar Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live ## Similar Similar Similar Woodbury as a place to raise children ## Higher Similar Higher Woodbury as a place to work Higher Similar Similar Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury ## Much Higher Much Higher Much Higher Overall quality of business and service establishments in ## Woodbury ## Higher Higher Similar Woodbury as a place to visit Similar Similar Similar Woodbury as a place to retire Similar Similar Similar ## Overall quality of life in Woodbury Similar Similar Similar ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 14 - ## Sense of Community and Connectedness About two-thirds of respondents rated the sense of community in Woodbury as either excellent or good, while close to one-third rated it as fair or poor. This rating was on par with previous years and similar to all three sets of benchmark comparisons. Residents living in precincts 1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15, and 16 were more likely than their counterparts in precincts 5, 6, 10, and 11 to positively rate the sense of community in Woodbury (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Figure 5: Sense of Community, 2026 ## Figure 6: Sense of Community by Year Please note that Woodbury’s survey data were collected by phone in 2013 and prior. In 2015, the City switched data collection from phone to mail. Research is clear that a change in the method of survey data collection, by itself, will result in a change in results if the shift is from telephone administration to self-administration or vice versa. Please see Appendix F: Survey Methodology for more information on how to interpret changes over time. ## Excellent 20% ## Good 44% ## Fair 28% ## Poor 7% 70% 73% 69% 82%82% 83% 82% 65%65% 62% 63% 61% 64% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 Percent excellent or good Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: Sense of community Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: Sense of community ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 15 - Respondents were asked to rate several aspects of their neighborhood and community (see Figure 7 below). About 9 in 10 Woodbury residents strongly or somewhat agreed that they have good relationships with their neighbors. Around 8 in 10 respondents agreed that they can rely on their neighbors when they need help and feel connected to their neighborhood, while three-fourths said they feel connected to the overall Woodbury community. All ratings were similar to those reported in 2024. When comparing differences in ratings by respondent subgroups: • Residents living in attached housing, renters, those who had lived in Woodbury for 5 years or less, and those between the ages of 18-34 were less likely than their counterparts to agree that they feel connected to their neighborhood and the overall Woodbury community, that they have good relationships with their neighbors, and that they can rely on their neighbors when they need help. • Respondents living in precincts 2 and 4 were more likely than those living in precincts 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and16 to agree that they feel connected to their neighborhood. See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics for more information. ## Figure 7: Neighborhoods and Community by Year Percent strongly agree or somewhat agree 78% 84% 84% 91% 79% 81% 80% 86% 75% 81% 83% 90% I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community I can rely on my neighbors when I need help I feel connected to my neighborhood I have good relationships with my neighbors 2026 2024 2022 Please rate your agreement with the following statements: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 16 - Approximately three‑quarters of respondents rated Woodbury’s openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds as excellent or good—a rating similar to 2024 and higher than in earlier years. This rating exceeded the national benchmark and was similar to ratings in other Minnesota communities and in communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000. Homeowners were more likely than renters to positively rate Woodbury’s openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 8: Openness and Acceptance toward Diverse Backgrounds by Year Woodbury residents were also asked to give their opinions about the job the community does at welcoming and valuing residents. Around 8 in 10 respondents positively rated Woodbury for providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds. About three-fourths of residents gave excellent or good ratings for treating all residents fairly, demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems, valuing residents from diverse backgrounds, and making all residents feel welcome. Around 6 in 10 positively rated the community for helping new residents feel connected and integrated. All ratings were similar to those of 2024. Making all residents feel welcome and valuing residents from diverse backgrounds scored similarly to all three sets of benchmark comparisons. Respondents were able to write in a comment in their own words in relation to these diversity and inclusion questions; these comments can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open- Ended Questions. Homeowners and those living in detached housing units were generally more likely than their counterparts to positively rate Woodbury for aspects related to diversity and inclusivity. On the other hand, those living in precincts 9, 10, 11, and 13 were generally less likely than those living in other parts of the city to positively rate the community for helping new residents feel connected and integrated (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). 66%66% 65% 66% 76% 74% 201520172019202220242026 Percent excellent or good Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 17 - ## Figure 9: Community Diversity and Inclusivity by Year Percent excellent or good 54% 71% 62% 67% 70% 82% 56% 71% 64% 66% 70% 72% 59% 72% 74% 75% 77% 83% 62% 73% 75% 77% 77% 81% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated Making all residents feel welcome Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems Treating all residents fairly Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 2026 2024 2022 2019 Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 18 - Characteristics of the Community When asked about several broad aspects of the community, roughly 9 in 10 survey participants gave high marks to the overall feeling of safety, health and wellness opportunities, the overall image or reputation of the City, and the overall economic health of Woodbury. Meanwhile, about 8 in 10 respondents rated fitness and exercise opportunities, the variety of housing types in Woodbury, and the overall ease of traveling to locations as either excellent or good. All ratings were similar to previous years except for the fitness and exercise opportunities, which decreased when compared to 2024. Nearly all ratings exceeded all three benchmark comparisons (see Figure 11 on page 20), with the variety of housing types standing out in particular. This measure was rated higher than the Minnesota benchmark and much higher than both the National and Similar Population benchmarks. When comparing differences in ratings by respondent subgroups: • Women were more likely than men to give positive ratings of the overall feeling of safety in Woodbury, as well as the health, wellness, fitness, and exercise opportunities • Residents aged 34 and younger were more likely than their older counterparts to positively rate the overall ease of traveling to locations, the overall economic health, and the overall image or reputation of Woodbury. • Renters and those living in attached housing units were more likely than their counterparts to positively rate the overall ease of traveling to locations and the overall image or reputation. • Those living in households making $50,000 or less per year were less likely than residents living in households with higher incomes to positively rate the overall economic health and the overall image or reputation of Woodbury. • Respondents living in precincts 9 and 13 were more likely than their counterparts in precincts 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 to give high marks to the overall ease of traveling to locations. See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics for more information. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 19 - ## Figure 10: Ratings of Overall Community Characteristics by Year Percent excellent or good 74% 76% 93% 91% 91% 93% 96% 77% 76% 88% 91% 91% 88% 78% 77% 76% 89% 85% 90% 91% 92% 77% 80% 84% 86% 89% 89% 90% Overall ease of traveling to locations Variety of housing types Fitness and exercise opportunities Overall economic health Overall image or reputation Health and wellness opportunities Overall feeling of safety 2026 2024 2022 2019 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 20 - ## Figure 11: Overall Community Characteristics Benchmarks Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: ## National benchmark ## Minnesota benchmark ## Population benchmark (65,000 - 90,000) ## Overall feeling of safety Higher Similar Higher Overall ease of traveling to locations Higher Higher Higher ## Health and wellness opportunities Higher Higher Higher ## Fitness and exercise opportunities Higher Similar Similar ## Overall economic health Higher Similar Higher ## Variety of housing types Much Higher Higher Much Higher ## Overall image or reputation Higher Higher Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 21 - As in previous years, respondent ratings for feelings of safety in Woodbury remained strong (see Figure 12 below). Virtually all residents indicated that they feel very or somewhat safe walking alone in their neighborhood during the day. About 9 in 10 respondents indicated that they feel at least somewhat safe in commercial areas and in City parks and recreation facilities. Two items were available for benchmark comparisons: “walking alone in your neighborhood during the day” and “in commercial areas.” Both items ranked similarly to the national, Minnesota, and population benchmark comparisons. When comparing differences in ratings by respondent subgroups: • Respondents aged 55 and more were less likely than their younger counterparts to feel very or somewhat safe in city parks and recreation facilities. • White and not-Hispanic residents were more likely than their counterparts to feel very or somewhat safe while walking alone in your neighborhood during the day. See Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics for more information. ## Figure 12: Feelings of Safety by Year Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel (percent very or somewhat safe): 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% 97% 94% 98% 95% 94% 94% 93% 94% 95% 91% 89% 93% In commercial areas ## 91% 92% 85% 97% 93% 93% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA In city parks and recreation facilities 91% 92% 85% 95% 92% 90% 98% 96% 92% 97% 95% 98% 96% Prior to 2017, “walking alone in your neighborhood during the day” excluded “during the day.” NA refers to questions not asked that year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 22 - When asked about the most serious issues facing Woodbury, respondents identified taxes, water quality, traffic congestion, affordable housing, and growth and development as the top concerns. These same five issues also ranked highest in 2024. Compared to 2024, a larger share of respondents selected taxes, affordable housing, and traffic congestion, while fewer identified water quality as a most serious issue. Survey participants were able to write in an “other” issue; these responses can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions. ## Figure 13: Most Serious Issues Facing Woodbury by Year 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 Taxes 45% 32% 30% 17% 15% 17% 11% 8% 14% 11% 11% 11% 8% Water quality 44% 49% 45% 17% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ## Traffic congestion 40% 34% 33% 16% 16% 15% 11% 14% 19% 20% 13% 18% 14% ## Affordable housing 35% 30% 34% 17% 22% 15% 0% 4% 0% 4% 2% 0% 3% Growth and development 26% 24% 29% 12% 10% 8% 32% 27% 27% 43% 59% 51% 52% Speeding traffic 19% 17% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Condition of roads 16% 19% 14% 3% 7% 15% 2% 8% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Livable wage jobs 12% 9% 13% 4% 7% 5% 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Education 9% 13% 17% 4% 5% 8% 6% 5% 0% 8% 3% 4% 5% Crime 7% 14% 43% 2% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 0% 2% 2% Water efficiency 7% 9% 7% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ## Environmental stewardship ## 7% 9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fair and just policing ## 2% 3% 7% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other 11% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 30% 24% 25% 12% 11% 15% 15% Prior to 2024, “fair and just policing” was “equitable policing.” Prior to 2022, “water quality” was “drinking water sustainability." Prior to 2015, “education” was “quality of schools,” “economic development” was “poor economy,” “condition of roads” was “poor roads or street maintenance,” “growth and development” was “growth,” “livable wage jobs” was “lack of jobs,” and “taxes” was “high taxes.” Prior to 2022, residents were only able to select one response. NA refers to questions not asked that year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 23 - ## City Services Woodbury residents provided feedback on the overall quality of City services and their experience with specific offerings. Approximately 9 in 10 survey respondents rated the overall quality of services provided by the City as either excellent or good. This rating is on par with previous years, higher than comparison communities with similar populations and across the nation, and similar to peer communities in Minnesota. Residents living in households with annual incomes above $50,000, those who have lived in Woodbury for up to 20 years, and respondents who identified as White or non‑Hispanic were more likely than their counterparts to give positive ratings of the overall quality of City services (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 14: Overall Quality of Services, 2026 Percent of respondents ## Figure 15: Overall Quality of City Services by Year ## Excellent 35% ## Good 53% ## Fair 10% ## Poor 1% 87% 89% 86% 88% 89% 88% 201520172019202220242026 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury Percent excellent or good Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 24 - Most City services were highly rated. Between 9 and 10 residents positively rated fire services, ambulance or emergency medical services, Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities, the M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities, and the condition of City parks. About 9 in 10 respondents also gave high marks to Central Park, sanitary sewer services, police services, Lookout Ridge, overall customer service provided by City employees (including police, receptionists, and planners), and the condition of trails. More than three-quarters of respondents positively rated the recreation programs, street sweeping, stormwater and flood management, the amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets, the building inspection services and the snow plowing on city streets More than 6 in 10 residents highly rated snow removal on city trails, street lighting, and property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement. Finally, more than half of respondents rated pavement repair and patching on City streets as excellent or good, while about half positively rated drinking water. Most City services were consistent with previous years, except for Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities and snow removal on City trails, which were lower in 2026 than in 2024, and Lookout Ridge and drinking water, which were higher in 2026 than in 2024. Where benchmark comparisons were available, City services were generally rated similarly to or higher than all three sets of benchmark comparisons. Only one service, drinking water, was rated lower than the national, Minnesota, and population benchmarks (see Figure 17). Where there were differences, respondents living in Precincts 1 and 3 were generally less likely to positively rate several City services (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 16: Quality of City Services by Year Please rate the quality of each of the following services in ## Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 Fire services 94% 95% 98% 94% 96% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 92% Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 95% 98% 94% 94% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 95% ## Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities ## 91% 96% 93% 92% 91% 94% 93% 96% 98% 98% 97% NA NA ## M Health Fairview ## Sports Center programs and facilities ## 91% 95% 93% 93% 95% 93% 91% 90% 100% 98% 99% NA NA Condition of city parks ## 91% 93% 90% 92% 95% 91% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Central Park 90% 89% 90% 91% 91% 93% 97% 98% NA NA NA NA NA ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 25 - Sanitary sewer services 89% 92% 91% 94% 91% 93% 94% 97% 99% 99% 97% 98% 97% Police services 89% 89% 92% 92% 94% 92% 95% 97% 98% 98% 96% 96% 97% Lookout Ridge 89% 78% 80% 85% 86% 87% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 88% 92% 88% 89% 89% 87% 82% 83% 84% 81% 79% 78% 84% Condition of trails 88% 89% 89% 88% 88% 87% 84% 85% 86% 88% 83% 86% 87% ## Recreation programs 86% 88% 86% 86% 89% 87% 82% 87% 88% 88% 86% 87% 78% Street sweeping 84% 87% 82% 80% 77% 76% 85% 83% 86% 87% 85% NA NA Stormwater and flood management ## 84% 85% 85% 84% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets ## 81% 82% 85% 82% 81% 79% 82% 82% NA NA NA NA NA ## Building inspection services 80% 79% 77% 81% 75% 82% 76% 74% 85% 86% 80% 82% 73% Snow plowing on city streets 76% 83% 75% 84% 73% 72% 80% 77% 85% 82% 81% 80% 71% Snow removal on city trails 72% 78% 75% 73% 80% 75% 79% 77% 85% 84% 84% 85% 79% Street lighting 70% 66% 68% 72% 72% 71% 72% 66% 78% 77% 60% 64% 63% ## Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 66% 67% 69% 68% 69% 69% 79% 77% 84% 85% 83% 81% 79% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% 56% 63% 55% 51% 40% 67% 54% 53% 74% 68% 73% 64% Drinking water 51% 44% 44% 61% 74% 74% 75% 64% 60% 53% NA NA NA For a number of services, at least 30% of respondents selected “don’t know.” The full set of responses, including “don’t know” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. Prior to 2024, "M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities" was "HealthEast Sports Center programs and facilities.” Prior to 2019, “HealthEast Sports Center” was “Bielenberg Sports Center,” “Event center /event space (Central Park)” was “Event Center /event space.” Prior to 2017, "property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement" did not include "code enforcement." Prior to 2015, fire services was fire protection, ambulance or emergency medical services was emergency medical services and overall customer service by City employees was job performance of the Woodbury City staff. Parks and recreation programs were a single item prior to 2015. NA refers to questions not asked that year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 26 - ## Figure 17: City Services Benchmarks Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: ## National benchmark ## Minnesota benchmark ## Population benchmark (65,000 - 90,000) Ambulance or emergency medical services Higher Similar Similar ## Condition of city parks Similar Similar Similar ## Drinking water Lower Lower Lower ## Fire services Similar Similar Similar Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ## Similar Similar Similar Pavement repair and patching on city streets Higher Similar Similar ## Police services Higher Similar Similar Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement ## Higher Higher Higher ## Public information and City communications Higher Higher Higher ## Recreation programs Higher Similar Similar ## Sanitary sewer services Similar Similar Similar Snow plowing on city streets Similar Similar Similar ## Stormwater and flood management Similar Similar Similar ## Street lighting Similar Similar Similar ## Street sweeping Higher Similar Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 27 - ## Woodbury Taxes Roughly 7 in 10 respondents rated the value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury as either excellent or good. This rating is on par with previous years, higher than the national benchmark, and similar to the Minnesota and population benchmark comparisons. ## Figure 18: Value of City Services, 2026 Percent of respondents ## Figure 19: Value of City Services by Year ## Excellent 17% ## Good 51% ## Fair 23% ## Poor 9% 74% 72% 73% 74% 82% 73% 82% 69% 66% 69%69%69% 68% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury Percent excellent or good Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 28 - About half of Woodbury residents supported an increase in property taxes to maintain City services at their current level. The 2026 rating was slightly below the 2024 rating and marked a pause in the moderate upward trend observed since 2015. Residents aged 55 and older and those identified as White were more likely than their counterparts to strongly or somewhat support an increase in property taxes. On the other hand, respondents living in precincts 5 and 6 tended to give less support to the idea than residents elsewhere in the city (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Figure 20: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Year Percent strongly or somewhat support Survey participants were provided the following information regarding property taxes: “The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services” (See Figure 21). When asked to consider the City portion of property taxes in Woodbury, about half the respondents felt that taxes were very high or somewhat high, while the other half felt taxes were about average. The proportions of respondents selecting each option were similar to previous years. When analyzed across demographic segments, there were practically no statistically significant differences. (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). 62% 57% 53% 34% 26% 41% 50% 36% 42% 47% 49% 53% 47% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 29 - ## Figure 21: Property Tax Level by Year Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 Very high 13% 11% 8% 7% 9% 16% 8% 9% 14% 15% 12% 16% 15% Somewhat high 35% 34% 35% 37% 29% 43% 42% 35% 45% 46% 44% 40% 41% About average 46% 49% 51% 50% 54% 38% 48% 52% 40% 38% 42% 43% 43% Somewhat low 5% 4% 5% 4% 6% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% Very low 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% In 2022, this question was "For the median-valued homeowner, that is $95 per month for all city services.” In 2017, this question was "The median-valued homeowner in the City of Woodbury pays $81 per month for all city services. The percentage of your property tax bill going to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...?" Prior to 2017, this question was "The average homeowner in the City of Woodbury pays $83 per month for all City services. The percentage of your property tax bill going to the City of Woodbury is about 28%. Do you consider property taxes in Woodbury to be...?" ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 30 - ## Government and Employee Performance Similar to previous years, more than 8 in 10 survey participants strongly or somewhat approved of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing. Residents were also able to provide reasons for the rating they gave. These written responses can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open- Ended Questions. Younger residents, those who have lived in Woodbury for 20 years or less, and those identifying as White were more likely than their counterparts to strongly or somewhat approve of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 22: Approval of Mayor and City Council by Year Around 24% of respondents selected “don’t know” when assessing their level of approval of the Mayor and City Council. The full set of responses, including “don’t know” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. 86% 85% 91% 92% 93% 90% 94% 91% 85% 88% 86% 85% 83% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 Percent strongly or somewhat approve To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 31 - Around three-quarter of the survey respondents positively rated the City for treating all residents fairly, while about 7 in 10 highly rated the job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement, the City acting in the best interest of the community, and the overall confidence in Woodbury government. Finally, about two thirds of respondents rated the overall direction that Woodbury is taking as excellent or good. All ratings were similar to the ones of 2024. Woodbury ranked similarly to the Minnesota benchmarks for all aspects of government performance, and similarly to or higher than the national and population benchmarks. Those who had lived in Woodbury for five years or less, respondents between the ages of 18 and 34, and those with an income of $50,000 or more were generally more likely than their counterparts to positively rate the local government for acting in the best interest of the community and for the overall direction that Woodbury is taking (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 23: Aspects of Government Performance by Year Percent excellent or good 75% 70% 71% 71% 75% 65% 66% 68% 64% 72% 65% 71% 70% 69% 79% 66% 68% 71% 72% 76% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking Overall confidence in Woodbury government Acting in the best interest of the community ## The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement Treating all residents fairly 2026 2024 2022 2019 Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 32 - Similar to previous years, more than 8 in 10 survey participants rated the job performance of City staff as excellent or good. Residents were also able to provide reasons for the rating they gave, and these written responses can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions. Residents identifying as White and those living in households with an annual income of $50,000 or more were generally more likely than their counterparts to highly rate the job performance of Woodbury City staff (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 24: Job Performance of City Staff by Year This question was asked of all residents, regardless of their interaction with City staff. About 4 in 10 residents indicated that they had either in-person, email, or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury 12 months prior to the survey (see Figure 25). This rate of contact was higher than in 2024, and similar to the national, Minnesota, and population benchmarks. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 and men were more likely than older residents and women to have had contact with a City employee in the past 12 months (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Those who indicated that they had an interaction with a City employee in the past 12 months were asked to rate several aspects of their interaction, including the knowledge, responsiveness, and courteousness of the employee, as well as their overall impression of their interaction (Figure 26). Around 9 in 10 respondents positively rated the courteousness, knowledge, and responsiveness of the City employee, while 8 in 10 favorably rated the overall impression of the interaction. All ratings were on par with previous years. Homeowners and those having lived for 5 years or less in Woodbury were more likely than renters and longer-time residents to positively rate the overall impression of the employee. Those living in precincts 9 and 13 were less likely than their counterparts to positively rate the courteousness of the City employee during their interaction (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). 84% 85% 86%86% 83% 20172019202220242026 Percent excellent or good From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 33 - ## Figure 25: Contact with a City Employee by Year Figure 26: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Year Percent excellent or good Asked only of respondents who reported contact with a City employee in the last 12 months. In 2017, this question was worded “What was your impression of the employee of the City of Woodbury in your most recent contact?” and the characteristics wording was “Knowledgeable,” “Responsive,” “Courteous,” and “Overall impression”. 38% 42% 36% 34% 39% 20172019202220242026 84% 86% 85% 83% 88% 86% 91% 90% 88% 86% 90% 89% 84% 88% 90% 91% Overall impression ## Responsiveness ## Knowledge ## Courteousness 2026 2024 2022 2019 Percent yes Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 34 - ## Code Enforcement Roughly three-quarters of respondents reported being very or somewhat familiar with Woodbury’s residential ordinance requirements, similar to previous years. Renters, those living in attached housing, respondents between the ages of 18 and 34, those who had lived in Woodbury for five years or less, those in households with an annual income below $100,000, and those living in precincts 9 and 13 were less likely than their counterparts to be familiar with residential ordinance requirements (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 27: Familiarity with Residential Code Enforcement by Year Survey respondents were then asked if the current level of code enforcement was acceptable, excessive, or not enough. Over half of respondents indicated that they thought code enforcement in residential areas was acceptable. Fewer than 1 in 10 respondents felt that code enforcement was excessive, while another 1 in 10 residents felt that there was not enough code enforcement. Around 3 in 10 respondents indicated that they were unfamiliar with code enforcement. Proportions of respondents in each category were similar to previous years. 22% 20% 24% 20% 54% 55% 51% 53% 24% 26% 26% 26% 2019 2022 2024 2026 Very familiarSomewhat familiarNot at all familiar Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 35 - ## Figure 28: Level of Residential Code Enforcement by Year In 2026, residents were asked how much they would approve, if at all, the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot. Around half of the residents somewhat or strongly approved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single-family city lot. Conversely, the remaining half strongly or somewhat disapproved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single-family city lot. Support for allowing residents to keep chickens on any standard single-family city lot decreased as respondents’ age increased. Meanwhile, respondents living in precincts 1 and 3 were more likely than other residents to approve of allowing backyard chickens on standard single-family city lots (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 29: Level of Approval of Backyard Chickens, 2026 10% 10% 13% 11% 56% 54% 56% 53% 8% 6% 5% 6% 26% 30% 27% 30% 2019 2022 2024 2026 Not enoughAcceptableExcessiveUnfamiliar ## Strongly approve 19% ## Somewhat approve 30% ## Somewhat disapprove 21% ## Strongly disapprove 30% Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: Current city ordinances stipulate that residents must reside in rural zoning districts (R-1 and R-2) to have backyard chickens. Additionally, these regulations explicitly prohibit the keeping of roosters within City limits. Some HOAs (Homeowner Associations) may also prohibit chickens, regardless of ordinances. With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 36 - ## Public Safety The survey also measured resident contact with, and attitudes about, Woodbury Police. Similar to previous years, about 7 in 10 respondents reported having had no contact with Woodbury Police over the last year. Of those who had contact, around 1 in 10 respondents had contact with Woodbury Police through a call for police services. About 5% or fewer residents had contact with Woodbury Police for other reasons. Respondents were able to write in their own words another reason for contacting the police; these responses can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open- Ended Questions. ## Figure 30: Contact with Woodbury Police by Year Percent of respondents Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer, other than “no contact.” Prior to 2024, ## “Woodbury Police” was “the Woodbury Police Department.” 2% 5% 4% 3% 4% 14% 70% 1% 5% 4% 2% 2% 10% 71% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 11% 71% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 9% 70% Received a traffic citation/warning Reported crime as a victim Reported crime as a witness Involved in a traffic crash Attended a safety or educational program Call for police services No contact 2026 2024 2022 2019 What types of contact, if any, have you had over the last year with Woodbury Police? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 37 - Those who had contact with a Woodbury Police employee were asked to rate aspects of their interaction with the employee. About 9 in 10 or more respondents positively rated all aspects of their interaction. All ratings remained stable from previous survey administrations. Men and homeowners were generally more likely than women and renters to positively rate the employee during their most recent contact with a member of the Woodbury Police Department (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 31: Impressions of Contact with Woodbury Police by Year Percent excellent or good This question was only asked of respondents who indicated having contacted Woodbury Police in the last year. Prior to 2024, “Woodbury Police” was “the Woodbury Police Department.” 85% 85% 86% 92% 91% 92% 88% 96% 90% 96% 94% 94% 88% 92% 93% 94% 95% 95% 87% 90% 90% 93% 94% 94% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns ...handled your situation in a timely manner ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs ...was knowledgeable ...was courteous ...was professional 2026 2024 2022 2019 During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the employee... ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 38 - All survey respondents rated aspects of police relations with the community and with marginalized communities. Around 9 in 10 residents positively rated Woodbury Police’s relationship with the community as a whole. Around 8 in 10 participants rated Woodbury Police’s relationship with marginalized communities as either excellent or good. Both ratings were on par with previous years. Men, homeowners, older residents, and those who have lived in the community for more than 20 years were more likely than their counterparts to positively rate the Woodbury Police Department’s relationship with the community as a whole. On the other hand, respondents living in precincts 1 and 3 were generally less likely than their counterparts to positively rate police relations with the community as a whole (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Figure 32: Police Relations with Community and Marginalized Communities by Year Percent excellent or good Prior to 2024, “Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities” was “The Police Department's relationship with minority residents in Woodbury” and “Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole” was “The Police Department's relationship with the community as a whole.” More than 30% of respondents selected “don’t know” when rating each of these questions. The full set of responses, including “don’t know” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. 75% 88% 75% 89% 79% 88% 78% 86% ## Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities ## Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 2026 2024 2022 2019 Please rate the quality of each of the following: ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 39 - When asked what the Woodbury Police should focus on, around one in four respondents selected crime prevention and education (similar to 2024). Also, one in four chose promoting positive police- community relations (an increase compared to 2024), while 2 in 10 chose criminal investigation and apprehension (similar to 2024). Respondents were able to write in an “other” priority, and these responses can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions. ## Figure 33: Top Priority for Woodbury Police by Year In addition to responding to emergency calls, which of the following, if any, do you think should be the top policing priority for Woodbury Police (percent of respondents) 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 Crime prevention and education 26% 29% 46% 24% 29% 34% 40% 37% 30% Promoting positive police- community relations 24% 17% 23% 29% 25% 17% 16% 18% 24% Criminal investigation and apprehension 19% 19% 16% 12% 15% 17% 12% 15% 2% Mental health response 8% 9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Traffic enforcement 8% 7% 3% 6% 5% 8% 12% 13% 11% Juvenile crime and safety 5% 9% 3% 7% 8% 9% 12% 9% 20% Human trafficking 5% 6% 3% 9% 10% NA NA NA NA Alcohol, marijuana, and drug issues 1% 3% 7% 10% 8% 10% 8% 4% 6% Other 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% NA NA NA Prior to 2024, “Woodbury Police” was “the Woodbury Police Department” and “alcohol, marijuana, and drug issues” was “alcohol and drug issues.” Prior to 2017, "promoting positive police-community relations" was "promoting police-community partnerships." Prior to 2015, there was no option to select "other" or write-in an "other" response. NA refers to questions not asked that year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 40 - ## Parks and Recreation Woodbury residents were provided a list of six different parks and recreation programs or activities and asked how often they participated in each and to rate the quality of each. Around half of residents indicated that they had participated or attended a special event in the past year, which was similar to 2024. Roughly one-fifth of respondents indicated that they had participated in a youth programs, family programs and adult programs and athletic leagues, while fewer than 1 in 10 respondents indicated participation in 55+ programs and preschool programs. All of which were similar levels of participation compared to previous years. Residents aged 35 to 54, homeowners, residents living in detached housing, and those who identify as non-White were generally more likely than their counterparts to have participated in or used a Woodbury Parks and Recreation programs (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 34: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs/Activities by Year Please indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs... (Percent who participated at least once in the last 12 months) 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 Special events 48% 49% 41% 43% 37% 43% Youth programs 21% 23% 23% 24% 24% 23% Family programs 20% 23% 19% 17% 18% 18% Adult programs and athletic leagues 18% 15% 13% 4% 9% 8% Age 55+ programs 9% 10% 7% 13% 11% 13% Preschool programs 8% 8% 9% 11% 12% 12% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 41 - Of those who had an opinion, at least 8 in 10 positively rated each park and recreation program or activity, except for Age 55+ programs which were evaluated positively by 75% of respondents. Special events, youth programs, and family programs increased in positive ratings compared to 2024, while Age 55+ programs decreased in positive ratings compared to 2024. ## Figure 35: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs/Activities by Year Rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 Special events 90% 85% 85% 92% 92% 88% Youth programs 87% 79% 83% 89% 92% 80% Family programs 86% 80% 87% 90% 93% 82% Adults programs and athletic leagues 85% 81% 80% 70% 73% 76% Preschool programs 84% 81% 88% 92% 95% 80% Age 55+ programs 75% 81% 74% 72% 86% 72% Between 50% and 74% of respondents selected “don’t know” when evaluating the quality of each park and recreation program. The full set of responses, including “don’t know,” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. Prior to 2017, the question wording asked respondents to evaluate program quality “whether or not you have participated.” When asked if Woodbury had too much, the right amount, or too little of various kinds of parks and recreation facilities, most respondents felt there was the right amount of most types of facilities including community parks, playgrounds, and outdoor athletic fields, among others. About 6 in 10 respondents felt that there were too few or far too few aquatic facilities, while about 4 in 10 felt there were too few or far too few off leash dog areas. Less participants in 2026 felt there were the right number of trails and paths, outdoor hockey/skating rinks, indoor hockey/skating rinks, off leash dog areas, and aquatic facilities in Woodbury compared to 2024. Assessments of the number of other parks, playgrounds, and outdoor athletic fields and facilities remained relatively stable compared to previous years. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 42 - ## Figure 36: Amount of Parks and Recreation Facilities by Year For each of the following types of facilities provided by Woodbury, please indicate whether you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount to serve your needs. 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 ## Playgrounds Far too much/Too much 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% About right 86% 89% 85% 85% 86% 87% Too little/Far too little 11% 9% 13% 12% 11% 11% ## Parks Far too much/Too much 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% About right 87% 88% 86% 89% 90% 89% Too little/Far too little 11% 11% 12% 8% 8% 9% Outdoor athletic fields (soccer, football, softball, baseball) Far too much/Too much 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% 6% About right 82% 85% 83% 82% 85% 82% Too little/Far too little 13% 9% 13% 11% 10% 12% Trails and paths Far too much/Too much 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% About right 79% 84% 77% 79% 77% 78% Too little/Far too little 18% 15% 21% 18% 22% 20% Outdoor hockey/skating rinks Far too much/Too much 4% 3% 2% 4% 5% 3% About right 70% 81% 75% 76% 75% 76% Too little/Far too little 26% 18% 23% 20% 21% 21% Indoor hockey/skating rinks Far too much/Too much 4% 3% NA NA NA NA ## About right 69% 79% NA NA NA NA Too little/Far too little 27% 18% NA NA NA NA Outdoor court facilities (tennis, volleyball, basketball, pickleball) Far too much/Too much 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% About right 68% 68% 69% 70% 66% 73% Too little/Far too little 29% 31% 31% 26% 32% 26% Off leash dog areas Far too much/Too much 6% 4% 5% 4% 2% 7% About right 52% 65% 69% 51% 56% 53% Too little/Far too little 43% 31% 31% 45% 42% 40% Aquatic facilities (pool, aquatic center) Far too much/Too much 2% 0% 1% 2% NA NA About right 36% 49% 50% 48% NA NA Too little/Far too little 62% 51% 49% 49% NA NA Prior to 2024, "Outdoor hockey/skating rinks" was "Outdoor hockey/pleasure skating rinks” and “outdoor hokey/skating rinks” was “outdoor hockey/pleasure skating rinks.” Prior to 2022, “Parks” was “Community parks (e.g., HealthEast Sports Center, Ojibway Park, Carver Lake Park, etc.).” NA refers to questions not asked that year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 43 - ## Sustainability About 9 in 10 respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s environmental stewardship efforts, a proportion slightly higher than that registered in 2024. Residents aged 18 to 34 and those in households with annual incomes above $50,000 were more likely than their counterparts to be satisfied with the City’s environmental stewardship efforts (see Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). ## Figure 37: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts, 2026 Percent of respondents 30% 38% 57% 54% 10% 6% 3% 3% 2024 2026 Very satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedSomewhat dissatisfiedVery dissatisfied How satisfied are you with the City’s environmental stewardship efforts? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 44 - ## Public Communication Similar to previous years, around 8 in 10 Woodbury residents positively rated the quality of public information and City communications. This rating was higher than communities across the nation, in Minnesota, and among similar population size jurisdictions. Figure 38: Quality of Public Information and City Communications by Year Over 7 in 10 respondents positively rated the City for communicating key issues to residents, a proportion on par with 2024 data. ## Figure 39: Communication of Key Issues by Year 81% 80%80% 81% 82% 84% 201520172019202220242026 65% 80% 72% 70% 81% 74% 78% 70% 62% 68% 66% 72% 73% 2001200320052007200920112013201520172019202220242026 Percent excellent or good Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: Public information and City communications Percent excellent or good Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: Communicating key issues to residents ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results - 45 - When asked about sources of information in Woodbury, around 9 in 10 indicated that the Woodbury City Update newsletter was a major or minor source of information. Around 8 in 10 rated the Parks and Recreation brochure and other residents/word of mouth as either major or minor sources. Around three-quarters rated the City website as a major or minor source, while around 6 in 10 rated The Stormwater Update as a major or minor source. About half of respondents rated newspapers/magazines as major or minor sources. Fewer than half of residents rated the remaining sources as either major or minor sources of information. All ratings were on par with previous years, except for the City social media accounts, which increased in the number of residents selecting it as a major or minor source from 42% in 2024 to 48% in 2026 and TrueLens Community Media online, which decreased from 23% two years ago to the current 16%. ## Figure 40: Use of Information Sources by Year Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major or minor source) 2026 2024 2022 2019 2017 2015 ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 11 times a year) 89% 91% 91% 87% 88% 91% Parks and Recreation brochure 83% 83% 85% 83% 85% 88% Other residents/word of mouth 81% 80% 82% 74% 80% 82% City website (woodburymn.gov) 76% 72% 75% 70% 72% 81% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 63% 59% 55% 51% 53% 60% ## Newspapers/magazines 53% 51% 50% 55% 69% 64% City social media accounts 48% 42% 68% 55% 47% 43% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 41% 45% 47% 35% 45% 48% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 35% 35% 32% 32% 40% 36% ## Woodbury News Net ## 25% NA NA NA NA NA ## City YouTube ## 18% 16% NA NA NA NA ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) ## 16% 23% NA NA NA NA ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 14% 16% 17% 18% 29% 23% Prior to 2024, "Parks and Recreation brochure" was "Parks and Recreation brochure (published 3 times a year), "SWCTC local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18)" was "Cable television (channel 16 and 18)" and "City social media accounts" was "Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, NextDoor)." In 2015, "newspapers/magazines" was only "newspapers." On surveys prior to 2015, respondents were asked to indicate their principal source of information about Woodbury City government. Due to the differences in the way the question was asked in 2015 and 2017 compared to prior years, comparisons over time have not been made. However, anecdotally, The Woodbury City Update newsletter was considered the principal source of information in 2013 for residents (38% indicated this was their principal source) followed by local weekly papers (25%) and the City website (15%). ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results -46 - Survey respondents then rated the quality of each information source, regardless of use. Around 9 in 10 residents positively rated the Parks and Recreation brochure and the Woodbury City Update newsletter. Around 8 in 10 respondents highly rated The Stormwater Update, the InTouch email system, the City website and the Green Times. Approximately 7 in 10 participants gave high marks to ## Woodbury News Net, TrueLens Community Media -online and broadcast-, newspapers/magazines, City social media accounts, and City YouTube. While City social media accounts received lower quality ratings than in 2024, TrueLens and City YouTube received higher ratings compared to 2024). ## Figure 41: Quality of Information Sources by Year Regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) 202 6 2024 2022 2019 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 Parks and Recreation brochure 89% 87% 84% 91% 81% 87% 83% 86% NA NA NA NA ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 11 times a year) 88% 89% 87% 87% 83% 84% 84% 86% 80% 80% 80% 78% ## The Stormwater Update (published once a year) ## 82% 82% 77% 78% 71% 86% 85% NA NA NA NA NA InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) ## 80% 76% 73% 85% 78% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA City website (woodburymn.gov) 78% 79% 76% 76% 76% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ## Green Times (published 3 times a year) ## 77% 77% 73% 74% 70% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Woodbury News Net 70% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) ## 69% 62% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Newspapers/magazines 68% 67% 63% 75% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA City social media accounts 67% 72% 62% 68% 66% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) ## 67% 53% 60% 56% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA City YouTube 66% 57% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other residents/word of mouth 59% 57% 58% 63% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA When evaluating many of the sources, more than 30% of residents selected “don’t know.” The full set of responses, including “don’t know” can be found in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. Prior to 2024, "Parks and Recreation brochure" was "Parks and Recreation brochure (published 3 times a year),” "SWCTC local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18)" was "Cable television (channel 16 and 18)," and "City social media accounts" was "Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, NextDoor)." ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 47 ## Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics The following tables summarize the demographic characteristics of Woodbury’s survey respondents in 2026. ## Table 1: Question D1 How many years have you lived in Woodbury? Percent Number Less than 1 year 9% N=87 1 to 2 years 12% N=112 3 to 5 years 14% N=137 6 to 10 years 17% N=159 11 to 20 years 19% N=182 More than 20 years 29% N=276 ## Total 100% N=953 ## Table 2: Question D2 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 64% N=606 Working part time for pay 6% N=58 Unemployed, looking for paid work 2% N=19 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 0% N=2 Fully retired/full time student/homemaker 28% N=267 ## Total 100% N=952 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 48 ## Table 3: Question D3 Where do you primarily work? Percent Number Woodbury (outside the home) 12% N=82 Woodbury (from home) 25% N=166 ## Maplewood 7% N=46 ## Other location in Washington County 7% N=46 ## Dakota County 4% N=23 ## Minneapolis 9% N=63 ## St. Paul 16% N=107 Other location in Metro area 10% N=68 Multiple locations 7% N=46 ## Wisconsin 3% N=19 ## Total 100% N=667 Asked only of those working full time or part time for pay. ## Table 4: Question D4 Do you work a hybrid work schedule? Percent Number ## No 67% N=445 ## Yes 33% N=222 ## Total 100% N=667 Asked only of those working full time or part time for pay. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 49 ## Table 5: Question D4a How many days do you typically commute to work? Percent Number 1 day a week 18% N=41 2 days a week 24% N=53 3 days a week 32% N=72 4 days a week 26% N=59 ## Total 100% N=226 Asked only of those working a hybrid work schedule. ## Table 6: Question D5 On average, what is the commute time to your job location? Percent Number 5 minutes or less 3% N=20 6 to 10 minutes 11% N=70 11 to 15 minutes 13% N=86 16 to 20 minutes 17% N=109 21 to 30 minutes 22% N=147 Over 30 minutes 17% N=112 NA, work from home 18% N=116 ## Total 100% N=661 Asked only of those working full time or part time for pay. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 50 ## Table 7: Question D6 How do you normally commute to work? Percent Number Drive alone 78% N=514 Ride in a van or carpool 2% N=11 Take bus from near home 1% N=9 Use a park and ride lot 0% N=3 Walk or bike 1% N=4 Something else 1% N=7 NA, work from home 17% N=112 ## Total 100% N=660 Asked only of those working full time or part time for pay. ## Table 8: Question D7 - Including Don't Know Responses Which school district do you live in? Percent Number ## North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale (District 622) 4% N=37 ## Stillwater Area Schools (District 834) 13% N=121 ## South Washington County Schools (District 833) 70% N=666 Don't know 13% N=128 ## Total 100% N=951 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 51 ## Table 9: Question D7 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Which school district do you live in? Percent Number ## North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale (District 622) 4% N=37 ## Stillwater Area Schools (District 834) 15% N=121 ## South Washington County Schools (District 833) 81% N=666 ## Total 100% N=823 ## Table 10: Question D8 None 1 2 3 or more Total How many members of your household are aged 17 or younger? 63% N=547 16% N=137 15% N=131 7% N=57 100% N=871 How many members of your household are aged 18 to 64? 24% N=219 24% N=219 41% N=377 11% N=96 100% N=911 How many members of your household are aged 65 or older? 79% N=715 16% N=145 5% N=48 0% N=1 100% N=908 ## Table 11: Question D9 Do these children attend... Percent Number Public schools 60% N=200 Charter schools 6% N=20 Parochial/private schools 16% N=52 Home school 6% N=20 ## Other 21% N=71 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 52 ## Table 12: Question D10 Which best describes the residence you live in? Percent Number Single-family house detached from any other houses 59% N=566 Building with two or more homes (twin home, townhome or condominium) 27% N=258 ## Apartment 13% N=119 ## Other 1% N=11 ## Total 100% N=954 ## Table 13: Question D11 ## Is this residence... Percent Number ## Rented 21% N=201 ## Owned 79% N=753 ## Total 100% N=954 ## Table 14: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? Percent Number $50,000 or less 8% N=77 $50,001 to $75,000 10% N=90 $75,001 to $100,000 14% N=128 $100,001 to $150,000 24% N=214 Over $150,000 44% N=396 ## Total 100% N=904 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 53 ## Table 15: Question D13 ## Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number ## No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% N=898 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% N=35 ## Total 100% N=933 ## Table 16: Question D14 What is your race? Percent Number ## White 80% N=743 ## Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 13% N=121 ## Other 5% N=47 ## Black or African American 5% N=43 ## American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=6 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer. ## Table 17: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18-24 years 3% N=25 25-34 years 22% N=205 35-44 years 19% N=183 45-54 years 20% N=194 55-64 years 11% N=106 65-74 years 13% N=124 75 years or older 11% N=108 ## Total 100% N=945 ## Table 18: Question D16 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 54 What is your gender? Percent Number ## Woman 53% N=504 ## Man 46% N=436 ## Non-binary 0% N=1 Identify in another way 0% N=4 ## Total 100% N=945 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 55 ## Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. For questions that included a “don’t know” or “no opinion” response option, two tables for that question are provided: the first includes the “don’t know” or “no opinion” responses, and the second excludes those response options. ## Table 19: Question 1 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Woodbury as a place to live 48% N=458 47% N=452 5% N=45 1% N=5 0% N=1 100% N=962 Your neighborhood as a place to live 50% N=483 41% N=395 7% N=71 1% N=8 0% N=3 100% N=961 Woodbury as a place to raise children 44% N=419 34% N=328 4% N=43 1% N=6 17% N=165 100% N=961 Woodbury as a place to work 21% N=200 26% N=248 12% N=113 2% N=23 39% N=370 100% N=954 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 39% N=374 46% N=443 13% N=123 2% N=17 0% N=4 100% N=961 Shopping opportunities in Woodbury 50% N=485 39% N=375 9% N=88 1% N=9 0% N=4 100% N=961 Dining opportunities in Woodbury 28% N=269 44% N=428 21% N=203 6% N=55 1% N=11 100% N=965 Woodbury as a place to visit 20% N=194 41% N=395 25% N=237 5% N=52 8% N=78 100% N=957 Woodbury as a place to retire 22% N=216 28% N=267 17% N=163 9% N=83 24% N=234 100% N=963 Sense of community 20% N=189 42% N=406 28% N=263 7% N=66 3% N=32 100% N=955 The overall quality of life in Woodbury 36% N=352 55% N=529 8% N=76 1% N=6 0% N=1 100% N=964 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 56 ## Table 20: Question 1 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of ## quality of life in Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Woodbury as a place to live 48% N=458 47% N=452 5% N=45 1% N=5 100% N=961 Your neighborhood as a place to live 50% N=483 41% N=395 7% N=71 1% N=8 100% N=957 Woodbury as a place to raise children 53% N=419 41% N=328 5% N=43 1% N=6 100% N=796 Woodbury as a place to work 34% N=200 42% N=248 19% N=113 4% N=23 100% N=584 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 39% N=374 46% N=443 13% N=123 2% N=17 100% N=957 Shopping opportunities in Woodbury 51% N=485 39% N=375 9% N=88 1% N=9 100% N=957 Dining opportunities in Woodbury 28% N=269 45% N=428 21% N=203 6% N=55 100% N=954 Woodbury as a place to visit 22% N=194 45% N=395 27% N=237 6% N=52 100% N=879 Woodbury as a place to retire 30% N=216 37% N=267 22% N=163 11% N=83 100% N=729 Sense of community 20% N=189 44% N=406 28% N=263 7% N=66 100% N=923 The overall quality of life in Woodbury 37% N=352 55% N=529 8% N=76 1% N=6 100% N=963 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 57 ## Table 21: Question 2 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ## Woodbury as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor ## Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety 47% N=455 43% N=414 8% N=79 2% N=19 0% N=1 100% N=968 Overall ease of traveling to locations 31% N=298 46% N=441 18% N=171 6% N=54 0% N=1 100% N=965 Health and wellness opportunities 43% N=414 44% N=423 9% N=90 1% N=12 3% N=26 100% N=964 Fitness and exercise opportunities 39% N=380 42% N=402 14% N=131 1% N=14 4% N=39 100% N=965 Overall economic health 31% N=298 51% N=487 11% N=106 3% N=25 5% N=46 100% N=963 Overall image or reputation 37% N=357 51% N=488 9% N=89 2% N=17 1% N=11 100% N=962 Variety of housing types 29% N=284 47% N=456 16% N=155 3% N=32 4% N=40 100% N=967 ## Table 22: Question 2 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety 47% N=455 43% N=414 8% N=79 2% N=19 100% N=967 Overall ease of traveling to locations 31% N=298 46% N=441 18% N=171 6% N=54 100% N=964 Health and wellness opportunities 44% N=414 45% N=423 10% N=90 1% N=12 100% N=939 Fitness and exercise opportunities 41% N=380 43% N=402 14% N=131 1% N=14 100% N=926 Overall economic health 32% N=298 53% N=487 12% N=106 3% N=25 100% N=916 Overall image or reputation 38% N=357 51% N=488 9% N=89 2% N=17 100% N=951 Variety of housing types 31% N=284 49% N=456 17% N=155 3% N=32 100% N=927 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 58 Table 23: Question 3 What would you say are the most serious issues facing Woodbury at this time? (Please select top three.) Percent Number Affordable housing 35% N=334 Traffic congestion 40% N=378 Water efficiency 7% N=68 Growth and development 26% N=245 ## Crime 7% N=68 ## Education 9% N=83 Water quality 44% N=416 ## Taxes 45% N=426 Livable wage jobs 12% N=112 Fair and just policing 2% N=23 Condition of roads 16% N=151 Environmental stewardship 7% N=65 Speeding traffic 19% N=178 ## Other 11% N=101 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer. Responses to "other" can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 59 Table 24: Question 4 Please rate your agreement with the following statements: ## Strongly agree ## Somewhat agree ## Somewhat disagree ## Strongly disagree Total I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community 14% N=139 61% N=585 21% N=206 3% N=31 100% N=961 I feel connected to my neighborhood 30% N=286 53% N=507 15% N=141 3% N=24 100% N=958 I have good relationships with my neighbors 47% N=452 43% N=414 9% N=82 2% N=15 100% N=963 I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 42% N=406 39% N=379 13% N=126 5% N=53 100% N=964 ## Table 25: Question 5 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the ## following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Making all residents feel welcome 21% N=199 43% N=416 21% N=201 3% N=28 12% N=112 100% N=957 Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 17% N=162 31% N=298 24% N=232 5% N=45 23% N=215 100% N=953 Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 22% N=210 37% N=357 16% N=148 5% N=52 20% N=187 100% N=955 Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 22% N=212 38% N=361 15% N=144 4% N=43 20% N=194 100% N=952 Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 24% N=225 38% N=366 14% N=135 4% N=40 19% N=185 100% N=951 Treating all residents fairly 23% N=215 42% N=398 15% N=141 4% N=38 17% N=163 100% N=955 Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 25% N=242 43% N=415 11% N=107 4% N=42 16% N=149 100% N=955 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 60 ## Table 26: Question 5 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Making all residents feel welcome 24% N=199 49% N=416 24% N=201 3% N=28 100% N=845 Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 22% N=162 40% N=298 31% N=232 6% N=45 100% N=738 Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 27% N=210 46% N=357 19% N=148 7% N=52 100% N=767 Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 28% N=212 48% N=361 19% N=144 6% N=43 100% N=759 Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 29% N=225 48% N=366 18% N=135 5% N=40 100% N=766 Treating all residents fairly 27% N=215 50% N=398 18% N=141 5% N=38 100% N=792 Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 30% N=242 51% N=415 13% N=107 5% N=42 100% N=806 ## Table 27: Question 6 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe ## Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe ## Somewhat unsafe ## Very unsafe ## Don't know Total Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 76% N=728 18% N=170 4% N=37 1% N=12 0% N=3 1% N=6 100% N=957 In commercial areas 55% N=525 34% N=328 6% N=58 3% N=24 1% N=5 2% N=20 100% N=960 In city parks and recreation facilities 56% N=543 31% N=303 5% N=48 4% N=35 0% N=3 3% N=32 100% N=962 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 61 ## Table 28: Question 6 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe ## Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe ## Somewhat unsafe ## Very unsafe Total Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 77% N=728 18% N=170 4% N=37 1% N=12 0% N=3 100% N=950 In commercial areas 56% N=525 35% N=328 6% N=58 3% N=24 1% N=5 100% N=940 In city parks and recreation facilities 58% N=543 33% N=303 5% N=48 4% N=35 0% N=3 100% N=931 ## Table 29: Question 7 - Including Don't Know Responses To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? Percent Number Strongly approve 24% N=231 Somewhat approve 39% N=368 Somewhat disapprove 8% N=78 Strongly disapprove 5% N=44 Don't know 24% N=231 ## Total 100% N=952 ## Table 30: Question 7 - Excluding Don't Know Responses To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? Percent Number Strongly approve 32% N=231 Somewhat approve 51% N=368 Somewhat disapprove 11% N=78 Strongly disapprove 6% N=44 ## Total 100% N=722 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 62 ## Table 31: Question 8 - Including Don't Know Responses From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? Percent Number ## Excellent 24% N=228 ## Good 39% N=376 ## Fair 11% N=102 ## Poor 2% N=23 Don't know 24% N=227 ## Total 100% N=956 ## Table 32: Question 8 - Excluding Don't Know Responses From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? Percent Number ## Excellent 31% N=228 ## Good 52% N=376 ## Fair 14% N=102 ## Poor 3% N=23 ## Total 100% N=729 Table 33: Question 9 Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? Percent Number ## No 61% N=574 ## Yes 39% N=372 ## Total 100% N=946 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 63 ## Table 34: Question 10 - Including Don't Know Responses Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. Excellent Good Fair Poor ## Don't know Total Knowledge 58% N=225 27% N=107 8% N=30 2% N=8 5% N=21 100% N=391 Responsiveness 59% N=233 25% N=100 7% N=29 4% N=17 4% N=15 100% N=394 Courteousness 64% N=252 23% N=92 7% N=28 2% N=8 4% N=14 100% N=393 Overall impression 58% N=227 24% N=93 11% N=43 4% N=16 3% N=13 100% N=392 This question was only asked of respondents who indicated having contacted the City in the last 12 months. ## Table 35: Question 10 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 61% N=225 29% N=107 8% N=30 2% N=8 100% N=370 Responsiveness 61% N=233 26% N=100 8% N=29 5% N=17 100% N=379 Courteousness 66% N=252 24% N=92 7% N=28 2% N=8 100% N=380 Overall impression 60% N=227 25% N=93 11% N=43 4% N=16 100% N=379 This question was only asked of respondents who indicated having contacted the City in the last 12 months. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 64 ## Table 36: Question 11 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in ## Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 40% N=381 36% N=340 7% N=66 2% N=22 15% N=141 100% N=949 Fire services 40% N=376 26% N=245 4% N=35 1% N=6 30% N=287 100% N=949 Ambulance or emergency medical services 42% N=396 23% N=213 4% N=42 0% N=2 31% N=289 100% N=942 Sanitary sewer services 29% N=272 37% N=345 7% N=68 1% N=10 26% N=242 100% N=937 Drinking water 13% N=121 34% N=323 27% N=259 19% N=176 7% N=68 100% N=947 Condition of trails 33% N=306 48% N=448 9% N=88 1% N=13 9% N=83 100% N=938 Snow removal on city trails 22% N=206 36% N=340 16% N=153 6% N=58 20% N=187 100% N=945 Recreation programs 27% N=252 40% N=381 9% N=87 2% N=15 22% N=207 100% N=943 Condition of city parks 39% N=366 46% N=430 7% N=68 1% N=13 7% N=67 100% N=943 ## Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 15% N=143 20% N=185 4% N=33 0% N=0 61% N=577 100% N=938 ## M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 29% N=267 24% N=228 5% N=48 0% N=0 42% N=393 100% N=935 Central Park 36% N=337 26% N=242 5% N=51 1% N=10 32% N=301 100% N=941 Lookout Ridge 19% N=175 16% N=150 3% N=32 1% N=8 61% N=568 100% N=933 Street lighting 24% N=220 45% N=417 24% N=221 6% N=59 2% N=18 100% N=934 Building inspection services 13% N=120 17% N=162 6% N=58 1% N=14 62% N=584 100% N=938 Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 14% N=124 23% N=210 14% N=130 4% N=39 45% N=412 100% N=915 Pavement repair and patching on city streets 14% N=130 42% N=396 30% N=284 9% N=85 5% N=45 100% N=939 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 65 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in ## Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Stormwater and flood management 23% N=211 37% N=344 9% N=88 2% N=14 30% N=276 100% N=933 Snow plowing on city streets 36% N=337 39% N=366 17% N=158 7% N=66 1% N=12 100% N=939 Street sweeping 35% N=332 43% N=408 11% N=103 4% N=33 7% N=66 100% N=942 Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 30% N=281 50% N=467 14% N=129 5% N=43 2% N=21 100% N=941 Public information and City communications 33% N=310 45% N=429 12% N=118 2% N=22 7% N=66 100% N=944 Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 33% N=316 36% N=338 8% N=77 1% N=8 22% N=206 100% N=945 Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury 33% N=312 50% N=468 11% N=101 1% N=6 6% N=59 100% N=945 ## Table 37: Question 11 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following ## services in Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 47% N=381 42% N=340 8% N=66 3% N=22 100% N=809 Fire services 57% N=376 37% N=245 5% N=35 1% N=6 100% N=662 Ambulance or emergency medical services 61% N=396 33% N=213 6% N=42 0% N=2 100% N=653 Sanitary sewer services 39% N=272 50% N=345 10% N=68 1% N=10 100% N=695 Drinking water 14% N=121 37% N=323 29% N=259 20% N=176 100% N=879 Condition of trails 36% N=306 52% N=448 10% N=88 1% N=13 100% N=855 Snow removal on city trails 27% N=206 45% N=340 20% N=153 8% N=58 100% N=758 Recreation programs 34% N=252 52% N=381 12% N=87 2% N=15 100% N=736 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 66 Please rate the quality of each of the following ## services in Woodbury: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Condition of city parks 42% N=366 49% N=430 8% N=68 1% N=13 100% N=876 Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 40% N=143 51% N=185 9% N=33 0% N=0 100% N=362 ## M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 49% N=267 42% N=228 9% N=48 0% N=0 100% N=542 Central Park 53% N=337 38% N=242 8% N=51 2% N=10 100% N=641 Lookout Ridge 48% N=175 41% N=150 9% N=32 2% N=8 100% N=365 Street lighting 24% N=220 46% N=417 24% N=221 6% N=59 100% N=916 Building inspection services 34% N=120 46% N=162 16% N=58 4% N=14 100% N=354 Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 25% N=124 42% N=210 26% N=130 8% N=39 100% N=503 Pavement repair and patching on city streets 15% N=130 44% N=396 32% N=284 9% N=85 100% N=895 Stormwater and flood management 32% N=211 52% N=344 13% N=88 2% N=14 100% N=657 Snow plowing on city streets 36% N=337 39% N=366 17% N=158 7% N=66 100% N=927 Street sweeping 38% N=332 47% N=408 12% N=103 4% N=33 100% N=876 Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 31% N=281 51% N=467 14% N=129 5% N=43 100% N=919 Public information and City communications 35% N=310 49% N=429 13% N=118 3% N=22 100% N=879 Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 43% N=316 46% N=338 10% N=77 1% N=8 100% N=739 Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury 35% N=312 53% N=468 11% N=101 1% N=6 100% N=886 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 67 ## Table 38: Question 12 - Including Don't Know Responses To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? Percent Number Strongly support 9% N=86 Somewhat support 35% N=329 Somewhat oppose 21% N=203 Strongly oppose 27% N=256 Don't know 8% N=76 ## Total 100% N=950 ## Table 39: Question 12 - Excluding Don't Know Responses To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? Percent Number Strongly support 10% N=86 Somewhat support 38% N=329 Somewhat oppose 23% N=203 Strongly oppose 29% N=256 ## Total 100% N=874 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 68 ## Table 40: Question 13 - Including Don't Know Responses The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? Percent Number Very high 11% N=100 Somewhat high 30% N=282 About average 39% N=369 Somewhat low 4% N=37 Very low 1% N=9 Don't know 16% N=155 ## Total 100% N=952 ## Table 41: Question 13 - Excluding Don't Know Responses The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? Percent Number Very high 13% N=100 Somewhat high 35% N=282 About average 46% N=369 Somewhat low 5% N=37 Very low 1% N=9 ## Total 100% N=797 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 69 ## Table 42: Question 14 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate the following categories of Woodbury ## government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 15% N=140 46% N=434 21% N=195 9% N=80 10% N=95 100% N=945 The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 16% N=151 44% N=413 21% N=194 11% N=101 8% N=75 100% N=934 The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 18% N=170 34% N=322 17% N=158 4% N=36 27% N=257 100% N=943 Overall confidence in Woodbury government 18% N=165 43% N=406 19% N=181 9% N=86 11% N=98 100% N=937 Acting in the best interest of the community 20% N=193 44% N=413 17% N=162 9% N=83 10% N=92 100% N=943 Treating all residents fairly 20% N=190 38% N=355 12% N=116 6% N=53 24% N=225 100% N=939 Communicating key issues to residents 25% N=237 40% N=376 18% N=167 6% N=57 11% N=100 100% N=937 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 70 ## Table 43: Question 14 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate the following categories of ## Woodbury government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 17% N=140 51% N=434 23% N=195 9% N=80 100% N=850 The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 18% N=151 48% N=413 23% N=194 12% N=101 100% N=858 The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 25% N=170 47% N=322 23% N=158 5% N=36 100% N=686 Overall confidence in Woodbury government 20% N=165 48% N=406 22% N=181 10% N=86 100% N=838 Acting in the best interest of the community 23% N=193 49% N=413 19% N=162 10% N=83 100% N=851 Treating all residents fairly 27% N=190 50% N=355 16% N=116 7% N=53 100% N=714 Communicating key issues to residents 28% N=237 45% N=376 20% N=167 7% N=57 100% N=837 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 71 ## Table 44: Question 17 - Including Don't Know Responses How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? Percent Number Very satisfied 28% N=262 Somewhat satisfied 40% N=372 Somewhat dissatisfied 4% N=39 Very dissatisfied 2% N=18 Don't know 26% N=245 ## Total 100% N=937 ## Table 45: Question 17 - Excluding Don't Know Responses How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? Percent Number Very satisfied 38% N=262 Somewhat satisfied 54% N=372 Somewhat dissatisfied 6% N=39 Very dissatisfied 3% N=18 ## Total 100% N=691 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 72 Table 46: Question 19 - Use/Participation Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs. Daily 1-6 times per week 1-3 times per month Less than once per ## month Never Total Special events 0% N=1 2% N=21 6% N=57 39% N=359 52% N=476 100% N=914 Preschool programs 1% N=7 2% N=16 1% N=12 4% N=34 92% N=849 100% N=918 Youth programs 1% N=9 6% N=55 5% N=48 9% N=78 79% N=720 100% N=911 Family programs 0% N=1 2% N=15 3% N=30 15% N=138 80% N=731 100% N=915 Age 55+ programs 0% N=2 1% N=6 2% N=18 6% N=57 91% N=813 100% N=896 Adult programs and athletic leagues 0% N=2 3% N=30 4% N=38 11% N=99 82% N=750 100% N=919 Table 47: Question 19 - Quality - Including Don't Know Responses Then rate the quality of each. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Special events 15% N=123 30% N=240 5% N=37 1% N=5 50% N=405 100% N=811 Preschool programs 6% N=46 6% N=44 2% N=18 0% N=0 86% N=664 100% N=771 Youth programs 9% N=66 17% N=132 3% N=27 0% N=2 70% N=542 100% N=770 Family programs 7% N=57 16% N=123 3% N=24 1% N=5 73% N=560 100% N=768 Age 55+ programs 4% N=28 6% N=49 2% N=18 1% N=8 86% N=657 100% N=759 Adults programs and athletic leagues 6% N=46 17% N=129 3% N=26 1% N=6 74% N=575 100% N=782 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 73 Table 48: Question 19 - Quality - Excluding Don't Know Responses Then rate the quality of each. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Special events 30% N=123 59% N=240 9% N=37 1% N=5 100% N=406 Preschool programs 43% N=46 41% N=44 16% N=18 0% N=0 100% N=108 Youth programs 29% N=66 58% N=132 12% N=27 1% N=2 100% N=227 Family programs 27% N=57 59% N=123 11% N=24 2% N=5 100% N=208 Age 55+ programs 27% N=28 48% N=49 18% N=18 7% N=8 100% N=103 Adults programs and athletic leagues 22% N=46 62% N=129 12% N=26 3% N=6 100% N=207 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 74 ## Table 49: Question 20 - Including Don't Know Responses For each of the following types of facilities provided by Woodbury, please indicate whether you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount to serve your needs. Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little Don't know Total Parks 1% N=10 1% N=13 82% N=768 8% N=78 2% N=18 5% N=45 100% N=931 Playgrounds 1% N=8 2% N=20 70% N=659 8% N=76 1% N=6 18% N=171 100% N=939 Trails and paths 1% N=8 2% N=18 74% N=693 16% N=146 1% N=9 7% N=62 100% N=937 Off leash dog areas 1% N=12 2% N=17 27% N=258 17% N=162 5% N=52 47% N=441 100% N=942 Outdoor court facilities (tennis, volleyball, basketball, pickleball) 0% N=4 2% N=20 53% N=494 20% N=191 2% N=16 23% N=215 100% N=939 Outdoor athletic fields (soccer, football, softball, baseball) 1% N=11 2% N=23 63% N=586 9% N=82 1% N=9 24% N=224 100% N=934 Outdoor hockey/skating rinks 1% N=9 2% N=15 45% N=416 15% N=135 2% N=19 36% N=332 100% N=926 Indoor hockey/skating rinks 1% N=9 1% N=13 42% N=389 13% N=117 3% N=32 40% N=369 100% N=928 Aquatic facilities (pool, aquatic center) 0% N=4 1% N=11 25% N=237 26% N=246 17% N=160 30% N=283 100% N=940 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 75 ## Table 50: Question 20 - Excluding Don't Know Responses For each of the following types of facilities provided by Woodbury, please indicate whether you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount to serve your needs. Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little Total Parks 1% N=10 1% N=13 87% N=768 9% N=78 2% N=18 100% N=886 Playgrounds 1% N=8 3% N=20 86% N=659 10% N=76 1% N=6 100% N=768 Trails and paths 1% N=8 2% N=18 79% N=693 17% N=146 1% N=9 100% N=875 Off leash dog areas 2% N=12 3% N=17 52% N=258 32% N=162 10% N=52 100% N=501 Outdoor court facilities (tennis, volleyball, basketball, pickleball) 1% N=4 3% N=20 68% N=494 26% N=191 2% N=16 100% N=724 Outdoor athletic fields (soccer, football, softball, baseball) 2% N=11 3% N=23 82% N=586 11% N=82 1% N=9 100% N=710 Outdoor hockey/skating rinks 2% N=9 3% N=15 70% N=416 23% N=135 3% N=19 100% N=594 Indoor hockey/skating rinks 2% N=9 2% N=13 69% N=389 21% N=117 6% N=32 100% N=560 Aquatic facilities (pool, aquatic center) 1% N=4 2% N=11 36% N=237 37% N=246 24% N=160 100% N=657 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 76 Table 51: Question 21 - Use of Sources Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Not a source ## Minor source ## Major source Total The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 11 times a year) 11% N=98 23% N=218 66% N=615 100% N=930 The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 37% N=338 41% N=375 22% N=200 100% N=913 Parks and Recreation brochure 17% N=153 39% N=355 45% N=412 100% N=920 City website (woodburymn.gov) 24% N=219 49% N=452 27% N=246 100% N=917 InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 65% N=593 22% N=202 13% N=123 100% N=918 ## Newspapers/magazines 47% N=426 38% N=352 15% N=137 100% N=915 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 86% N=783 11% N=102 2% N=22 100% N=908 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 84% N=767 13% N=119 2% N=22 100% N=909 Other residents/word of mouth 19% N=171 59% N=542 22% N=202 100% N=914 Green Times (published 3 times a year) 59% N=539 27% N=249 13% N=122 100% N=910 City social media accounts 52% N=474 30% N=274 18% N=161 100% N=909 ## City YouTube 82% N=734 14% N=129 4% N=38 100% N=900 Woodbury News Net 75% N=683 16% N=140 9% N=82 100% N=905 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 77 Table 52: Question 21 - Quality of Sources - Including Don't Know Responses Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 36% N=319 42% N=372 11% N=94 0% N=1 12% N=107 100% N=894 ## The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 17% N=146 29% N=245 9% N=81 1% N=6 44% N=382 100% N=861 Parks and Recreation brochure 33% N=286 41% N=356 9% N=81 0% N=1 17% N=148 100% N=872 City website (woodburymn.gov) 18% N=155 38% N=323 15% N=126 1% N=9 28% N=242 100% N=854 InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 8% N=67 15% N=128 5% N=42 1% N=6 71% N=602 100% N=845 Newspapers/magazines 9% N=76 24% N=198 14% N=112 2% N=16 52% N=428 100% N=831 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 3% N=26 6% N=45 4% N=33 0% N=2 87% N=712 100% N=818 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 4% N=34 7% N=54 4% N=36 0% N=3 85% N=696 100% N=822 Other residents/word of mouth 10% N=82 37% N=308 30% N=248 3% N=24 21% N=177 100% N=838 Green Times (published 3 times a year) 11% N=91 18% N=146 8% N=63 1% N=5 63% N=509 100% N=814 City social media accounts 8% N=65 23% N=183 14% N=111 2% N=12 54% N=443 100% N=814 City YouTube 3% N=28 8% N=65 5% N=44 0% N=4 83% N=678 100% N=819 Woodbury News Net 6% N=47 11% N=88 7% N=55 0% N=2 77% N=631 100% N=823 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 78 Table 53: Question 21 - Quality of Sources - Excluding Don't Know Responses Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of ## each source. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 41% N=319 47% N=372 12% N=94 0% N=1 100% N=787 The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 30% N=146 51% N=245 17% N=81 1% N=6 100% N=478 Parks and Recreation brochure 40% N=286 49% N=356 11% N=81 0% N=1 100% N=725 City website (woodburymn.gov) 25% N=155 53% N=323 21% N=126 1% N=9 100% N=613 InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 28% N=67 53% N=128 17% N=42 2% N=6 100% N=243 Newspapers/magazines 19% N=76 49% N=198 28% N=112 4% N=16 100% N=402 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 24% N=26 43% N=45 31% N=33 2% N=2 100% N=106 ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 27% N=34 43% N=54 28% N=36 2% N=3 100% N=127 Other residents/word of mouth 12% N=82 46% N=308 37% N=248 4% N=24 100% N=662 Green Times (published 3 times a year) 30% N=91 48% N=146 21% N=63 2% N=5 100% N=305 City social media accounts 18% N=65 49% N=183 30% N=111 3% N=12 100% N=371 City YouTube 20% N=28 46% N=65 31% N=44 3% N=4 100% N=140 Woodbury News Net 24% N=47 46% N=88 29% N=55 1% N=2 100% N=191 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 79 Table 54: Question 22 Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance ## requirements: Percent Number Very familiar 20% N=193 Somewhat familiar 53% N=503 Not at all familiar 26% N=249 ## Total 100% N=946 Table 55: Question 23 Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential ## areas: Percent Number Not enough 11% N=107 ## Acceptable 53% N=507 ## Excessive 6% N=54 ## Unfamiliar 30% N=281 ## Total 100% N=949 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 80 Table 56: Question 24 Current city ordinances stipulate that residents must reside in rural zoning districts (R-1 and R- 2) to have backyard chickens. Additionally, these regulations explicitly prohibit the keeping of roosters within City limits. Some HOAs (Homeowner Associations) may also prohibit chickens, regardless of ordinances. With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? Percent Number Strongly approve 19% N=170 Somewhat approve 30% N=268 Somewhat disapprove 21% N=184 Strongly disapprove 30% N=264 ## Total 100% N=887 Table 57: Question 25 What types of contact, if any, have you had over the last year with Woodbury Police? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Number No contact 70% N=661 Reported crime as a victim 3% N=31 Attended a safety or educational program 4% N=37 Received a traffic citation/warning 3% N=29 Call for police services 9% N=88 Reported crime as a witness 3% N=31 Involved in a traffic crash 3% N=25 ## Other 11% N=102 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer. Responses to "other" can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 81 ## Table 58: Question 26 - Including Don't Know Responses During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the ## employee... Excellent Good Fair Poor ## Don't know Total ...was professional 74% N=226 17% N=52 4% N=14 1% N=3 4% N=11 100% N=305 ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 67% N=203 17% N=53 8% N=23 2% N=7 6% N=18 100% N=304 ...was courteous 74% N=226 16% N=50 4% N=13 1% N=5 4% N=11 100% N=304 ...was knowledgeable 70% N=212 16% N=50 5% N=15 1% N=4 7% N=20 100% N=301 ...handled your situation in a timely manner 64% N=194 17% N=52 8% N=24 1% N=4 10% N=30 100% N=304 ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 63% N=192 14% N=43 8% N=24 3% N=10 11% N=33 100% N=303 This question was only asked of respondents who indicated having contacted with Woodbury Police in the last year. ## Table 59: Question 26 - Excluding Don't Know Responses During your most recent contact with a member of ## Woodbury Police, the employee... Excellent Good Fair Poor Total ...was professional 77% N=226 18% N=52 5% N=14 1% N=3 100% N=294 ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 71% N=203 18% N=53 8% N=23 2% N=7 100% N=286 ...was courteous 77% N=226 17% N=50 4% N=13 2% N=5 100% N=293 ...was knowledgeable 75% N=212 18% N=50 5% N=15 2% N=4 100% N=281 ...handled your situation in a timely manner 71% N=194 19% N=52 9% N=24 1% N=4 100% N=274 ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 71% N=192 16% N=43 9% N=24 4% N=10 100% N=270 This question was only asked of respondents who indicated having contacted with Woodbury Police in the last year. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 82 ## Table 60: Question 27 - Including Don't Know Responses Please rate the quality of each of the ## following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 12% N=116 16% N=147 5% N=47 3% N=26 64% N=597 100% N=932 Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 26% N=246 38% N=357 9% N=87 1% N=12 25% N=228 100% N=929 ## Table 61: Question 27 - Excluding Don't Know Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 34% N=116 44% N=147 14% N=47 8% N=26 100% N=336 Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 35% N=246 51% N=357 12% N=87 2% N=12 100% N=701 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 83 Table 62: Question 28 In addition to responding to emergency calls, which of the following, if any, do you think should be the top policing priority for Woodbury Police (Select only one.) Percent Number Promoting positive police-community relations 24% N=225 Crime prevention and education 26% N=246 Traffic enforcement 8% N=75 Criminal investigation and apprehension 19% N=181 Juvenile crime and safety 5% N=46 Alcohol, marijuana, and drug issues 1% N=9 Human trafficking 5% N=43 Mental health response 8% N=78 ## Other 3% N=29 ## Total 100% N=931 Responses to "other" can be found in Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 84 ## Appendix C: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended ## Questions The following are verbatim responses to the open-ended question on the survey. Because these responses were written by survey participants, they are presented here in verbatim form, including any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. The responses are presented in alphabetical order. Question 3: What would you say are the most serious issues facing Woodbury at this time? – Other • Access to affordable childcare, transportation options. ## • APPROVING BISSLINE • Being overtaxed into poverty. Additionally, the lack of action regarding the smells into Woodbury from South St Paul. ## • BUCKTHORN COLBY LAKE ## • CARS RACING THRU RED LIGHTS & STOP SIGNS!! • City needs to encourage more eating options in southern half of city (south of Lake Rd). City could also use more employment beyond health field and retail, seems to be minimal middle class work outside of city hall. ## • COMPLACENCY • Construction ## • CONSTRUCTION ## • CONTINUED IN TAXES AND WORTHLESS PROJECTS • Current city government seems to believe that we want to be St Paul. We are NOT St Paul. We do not WANT to be St Paul. Do NOT just implement whatever policies that St Paul adopts. • DEI programs, policies and racially motivated political propagandas. • Difficulty of being a pedestrian ## • DRIVE BUS IS BIELENBERG ALWAYS EMPTY • drivers not following traffic laws/rules; going through red lights, turning out in front of other vehicles, etc ## • DRUGS IN OUR COMMUNITY • Failure to enforce laws both state and federal. Too many city ordinances which infringe on peoples pursuit of happiness ## • FAILURE TO STOP AT LIGHTS & STOP SIGNS UNLESS IN'S CONVENIENT TO DO SO ## • GOVERNMENT SPENDING • I perceive a unmet need now and in the near future for senior housing. • I would like more low cost opportunities for fitness and family events, especially in the winter • I would like to see more community events. Maybe events like a sand volleyball tournament or a bag toss tournament, etc. could be fun community events. Possibly ideas like bloc parties too. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 85 • I'm surprised I don't see anything about childcare as a serious issue. Since moving to Woodbury in October 2025, i've had a terrible time finding affordable, safe, in-home daycare options for my 7 month old. Only options are centers which some might find unaffordable. ## • ICE ## • ICE ## • ICE ## • ICE ## • ICE • Increase in electric bikes/scooters/skate boards by youth using city streets. This seems to be a serious accident watch to happen. • Je ne sais pas encore. je suis nouveau Woodbury. Pour le moment je n'ai pas de problmes ## • KEEPING ICE OUT • Keeping our kids/schools safe • Kids on E-Bikes • Lack of entertainment options, such as music and theater. Few restaurants have music or ambiance that ecourages a night out rather than eat and go. ## • LACK OF RETIRED FACILITIES • Lack of support to police/fire/EMS. SLOW RESPONSE BY FIRE AND EMS. • Lack of walkability from neighborhoods to local business ## • MAINTAINING BIKE/WALK PATHS • My HOA won't let me rent out my unit. They have been spending funds on lawyers and seem to be neglecting the tree removals in my neighborhood. In turn are raising my HOA fees drastically since I moved in here for no apparent change in quality of my life.The city is having me pay a tax for the road to be redone by my home. I'm uneasy about the payment. I would have preferred an earlier notice and an exact amount due for my home going into this spring.Last year I had someone steal a power drill out of my vehicle in my driveway. It has since been recovered. Thankfully I reported it to the police and the local pawn shop caught it. It happened between 12-4 in the morning.I want to have my guests who stay over night park on the street. Perhaps alternating parking on streets through the winter months. • Need more Fire Fighter personnel!! Also, the rules about how close grills and smokers should be to single family homes and not just multi. We can't believe how close people use their grills/smokers to their homes AND vehicles. We were displaced for 9 months because our neighbors' grill/smoker was on the apron of their garage and started their house on fire which jumped to our house. If people don't have common sense to use their grill/smoker at a safe distance from their house, they should be told (just like the use of seatbelts being a law). • Need to fix the potholes in the paved trails as it's a hazard for people using wheelchairs, walkers, or anything similar to it. • No community center with a public pool. • No ICE detention center • No ICE detention facility in Woodbury ## • NO MAIN ST • no sit-down family dining options in south Woodbury by the new housing developments • Noise pollution ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 86 ## • NONE • Other: speeding traffic combined with distracted drivers and lack of enforcement • Our friends and neighbors are being harassed and terrorized by ICE agents. • Overdevelopment. Woodbury needs to slow way down pushing out farms/ranches and covering every single acre with houses. Prioritize keeping around legacy businesses and establishments that build community and helped make Woodbury what it is. Prioritize locals over corporations and developers please. • Parks and trail improvements • Poor grocery shopping. Most people go to Cottage Grove to shop for a family • Population density • Population density is too much • Preventing domestic terroism (ICE) • Racially insensitive maga • Rampant real estate developments impacting existing home values negatively. Less open spaces. Houses everywhere. • Recreation opportunities • Red light runners, ppl often traveling through our town speed on radio and can be very aggressive. Lake rd is supposed to be 35mph and it can be near impossible to turn either direction out of our neighborhood due to traffic amounts and the speeds at which they drive. If they go 35mph it's manageable but we get folks trying to go 50 or even more after the light by the gas station near the freeway until the light by the high school. Anyone walking or trying to walk across the street often waits long periods of time due to no crosswalks available near the neighborhood and the road curves each direction making it super hard to see ppl coming. ## • RETIREMENT SENIOR CENTER W/ SERVICES ## • SENIOR CARE • Senior independent housing options ## • SENIOR NEEDS • Small additional taxes keep getting added on up, so prices in Woodbury keep going up. I drive out of Washington county now to buy most things. • Snow blowing trucks leaving a bunch of snow pile on driveway ## • STOP LIGHTS TOO LONG ## • TAXES • The awesome service members that make this community great, such as law enforcement / corrections / fire crew / and social workers are due for a hard earned pay raise! :) • The city council, elected leaders and the staff all need to go. They don't listen to the residents or respect their lived experience in the community. We were assessed a tax for unnecessary roadwork in the neighborhood despite resident objections. The roadwork has resulted in zero improvements, fast traffic into head on cars because the roads are so narrow, no room for pedestrians to safely/comfortably walk pets, and a roundabout that was driven over consistently with every snowfall. The people told you it was not a good solution for this neighborhood and it was forced on us. None of them will get my vote again. Too smart to just ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 87 listen to the people whose homes and pocketbooks they were directly affecting. Paternalistic- I know what's best for you. I am beyond disappointed in these "leaders". • The current ICE situation has made me scared to go out of my home, but otherwise LOVE ## Woodbury • The Gold Line buses- HUGE waste of $$$, Virtually NO riders and conveniently bringing homeless and druggies that would never get to Woodbury, Now, when I ride the bus to DT Minneapolis I have to avoid drugged freaks hanging out while I am waiting to catch a bus to work or I last week had to step over a homeless man laying in the area by the elevators as he is seeking a warm place to sleep. I didn't choose Woodbury to live for 25+ years to see crime skyrocket with carjackings, domestics situations, shootings, thefts, pot smokers everywhere. I work in Minneapolis... I don't want their crap where my home is. The past 6 years this town has seriously gone downhill. Instead of the Edina of the eastside, we have officially become "Hoodbury." • The possibility of an ICE holding pen here is very concerning. • The Woodbury Service Center is a madhouse. I go to Roseville for licenses and passports. ## • THREE NEIGHBORHOODS INTERLOCK KEY PARKWAY ## • TOO MANY ROUNDABOUTS! • Too much development. Gold train was and is a horribly, financially irresponsible action to put onto the taxpayers! • Too much unnecessary road work and detours! Unnecessary road work, and too many walking paths on BOTH sides of too many roads. ## • TRAFFIC LIGHT • Traffic obeying all traffic laws • Very negative on District 833 public schools. Taxes too high and money spent on many services that are not needed. Sidewalks on both sides of almost every street. • Walk ability to businesses. • Waste, fraud and abuse of tax payer money • We are disturbed and concerned about all the Amazon warehousing and the potential traffic issues that will result. Also, does limits are to high on Woodbury Drive and Bailey Road. Those roads go through neighborhoods and are the same as freeway speeds. It's almost impossible to pull out on to Woodbury Drive from a neighborhood at certain times of the day. Also, the speed limit on Woodbury Drive is 55 MPH and turning on to Lake Road it is only 35. Woodbury Drive through the neighborhoods should be lowered. • We need more street lights on Lake Road and Woodbury drive. • Would like more mixed zoning (e.g., small stores or cafes within residential neighborhoods) so that they are walkable or more easily bike-able. I feel like Woodbury is already doing this very well, but would like to see even more. • You could work on communication- city website design. I tried to find information about road construction last summer and it was virtually impossible. I signed up for the newsletter twice, but never received it. The city should do a better job advertising ways that it communicates. ## • Youth Athletics ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 88 Question 3a: Please elaborate on any comments or thoughts you have related to the items selected in question #3. • I have lived here for 20 years, in a townhouse built in 1975. My property taxes have increased over 100%, yet my home value has increased only 50%. • 1. Water Quality / PFASThe city is spending hundreds of millions on treatment facilities based on current standards, yet the EPA's new 2024 maximum contaminant levels are already 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, with indications of even stricter limits ahead. These large investments risk becoming insufficient shortly after completion. The responsibility for this contamination lies with 3M, not residents. The city must aggressively pursue full reimbursement from the polluter rather than continuing to shift costs to taxpayers and ratepayers through higher taxes and utility rates.2. Property TaxesWoodbury's property taxes are among the highest in the metro area, and the proposed 9.7% city levy increase for 2026 on top of 8.3% for 2025 is unacceptable. Successive double-digit increases to fund PFAS remediation, new facilities, and debt service are unsustainable. Residents expect fiscal discipline, zero-based budgeting, and an end to automatic levy growth. Middle-class families and retirees are being priced out of the community.3. Schools (District 833)Per-pupil spending has risen to approximately $16,000$17,000 and continues to climb, yet math and reading proficiency rates are declining, class sizes are increasing, and portable classrooms remain in use. Higher spending must produce better outcomes. The district needs greater accountability, transparent budgeting, and a focus on core academic results rather than continued tax increases that yield diminishing returns. ## • 1) OVER DEVELOPED 2) BAD WATER QUALITY 3) OVER TAXED ## • A BIT TOO MUCH GROWTH FOR HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT - TOO MUCH TRAFFIC HARD ## TO GET PLACES. HIGH TAXES. ## • A FEW YRS AGO I WAS T-BONED BY SOMEONE RUNNING A RED LIGHT ## • A QUALITY EDUCATION NEEDS MORE THAN JUST MORE MONEY. ## • A SENIORS ONLY COMMUNITY CENTER-EXERCISE CENTER IS NEEDED (NOT SHARED) ## • ACCESSIBLE HOUSES WITH AFFORDABLE PRICES, HARD WATER STAIR IN ALL AREAS. ## • ADD MORE TRASH CANS. LOTS OF LITTLE WITH NO PLACE TO DISCARD • Adding more traffic circles to keep traffic fllowing for example at Tamarck Rd and Sunset Dr (?) next to park to cross Tamarack to get toTarget. Traffic is heavy and comes up the hill. There is no traffic control. Add dog fountains. Add pathway lights. Add fitness and music and flower parks. Look at other cities like WSP or Buffalo or Anoka that have beautified their paths. Also need to improve issues of ice build up and water drainage. Tunnel under County Rd 19 heading to Powers Lake. That tunnel gets filled with graffiti. No drainage so flooding and the whole tunnel is dangerous with ice. All the taxes we pay should have better and more inviting trails. We have wonderful trails but they could be improved so much more. ## • AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS-NOT APARTMENTS ONLY • Affordable housing is an issue everywhere, not just Woodbury. Water quality is the PFAS issue, but it's being worked on. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 89 • After all the road were torn up for the new water treatment plant. It will only take a few winters to create road problems where the roads were patched. Taxes continue to increase that will no be sustainable for living in Woodbury in retirement. ## • AGGRESSIVE DRIVING-SPEEDING ON RESIDENTIAL ROADS • All of these additional taxes are ludicrous. • All the taxes and fees with no accountability!! ## • ALWAYS MAKE SURE WATER . IS GOOD, NO CHEMICAL • And for those areas with 'affordable' housing, how about more Police presence to dissuade the increase in crimes since they've been occupied?! • Apt rentals are high • Areas previously set aside for wildlife being developed. ## • AS IT RELATES TO ICE BUILDING A DETENTION CENTER HERE ## • AS MORE INDIVIDUALS/FAMILIES MOVE IN THE SCHOOLS CLASSROOMS WILL GET ## CROWDED • As population grew so did amount of traffic • As population grows, so is the amount of traffic. Drivers are not moving or aware how to get thru roundabouts, heavy traffic on major roads, poorly timed lights, etc. Taxes are growing but quality of services reduced, ex street snow plowing, road quality , etc. Bringing in larger business to support tax base helps, just need more. Also, bringing in non chain types of restaurants(make more attractive) to afford to operate here. As we grow continue to build good infrastrucutre to allow this. • As the largest east metro suburb, it shocks me that we do not have a community/recreation center with a community pool. Two of the gyms in the area (Xperience Fitness in Woodbury and LA Fitness in Oakdale) closed within a week of each other, leaving only two gym options (the YMCA and Lifetime). Both are overcrowded, and LifeTime is overpriced. For a swimmer this leaves no options. Other communities have beautiful community centers... Woodbury should have one too. ## • ASSOCIATION BEES PROPERTY TAX CONTINUE TO GO UP • Because it is a place of growth, city planning needs to be mindful of next steps. I really like the diversity so that needs to be maintained. • By affordable housing I mean, middle-class, affordable rental units. Not low income housing. • Can take 15-20 minutes or more to get across town ## • CITIZENS IN WOODBURY ARE WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE & UNSAFE DRIVES! ## • CITY CURRENTLY REQUESTING MET COUNCIL TO INCREASE THEIR GROWTH FORECASTS BY ## 1000 HOUSEHOLDS TO 2050 ## • CITY FEELS MORE CONGESTED WITH ADDITIONAL HOUSES BUILT ## • CITY HAS LIMITED PLANS FOR IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT • City has more than doubled in 15 years resulting in too much traffic, cars and rush-hour congestion. More than 8% sales tax, further increased in 2025 to pay for government projects • City should rethink option to not offer water softening while building treatment facility. Sure, most homes have softeners, but still need to pay for salt and maintain softeners. Replacement will also be needed over time. Not to mention the 5,000 or more homes to be built the next 15 years will benefit. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 90 • City taxes and fees continue to accelerate faster than our retirement incomes. ## • CLEAN OUT ALL BUCKTHORN AROUND COLBY LAKE. ALSO ALGAE IN COLBY LAKE ## • COMPLACENCY-TOO EASY FOR PEOPLE TO IGNORE CHALLENGES TO PRESERVING OUR ## DEMOCRACY. ## • COMPLETE THE WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE ASAP • Concern about PFA's in drinking water ## • CONCERNED ABOUT GROWTH OF PUBLIC HOUSING ## • CONCERNS OVER TAX FOUND I ILLEGAL ALIENS DRAINING RESOURCES ## • CONGESTION AT BAILEY AND RADIO TRAFFIC CIRCLE PARING EVENING/AFTER RUST HOUR • Continue addressing PFAS contamination. Continue with improving road surfaces and road safety due to increased volume of traffic (speeding, careless driving, and road construction) as well as residential traffic. • Continue to build more homes, build more shopping or entertainment than taxes need to increase to support all. • Coordination with school system to consider the effect of growth on school system. Public works is getting worse each year. Pot holes, grates, etc. in disrepair. Even notifying public works doesn't seem to be responsive. Winter plowing also increasingly worse too. • Cost of living and thriving continues to go up and up, while overall salaries are stagnant! • Crime has grown in the last several years. I think it is a serious issue - if we don't pay attention when it's not so bad, we will have to when it gets very bad. Unfortunately, crime is everywhere. Maybe there are ways to put things in place before it gets bad bad. I have lived here for 32 years and have seen the growth. It's incredible to think of Woodbury drive as a two lane road or Valley creek and radio as a 4 way stop - which it was when I moved here in 1994. I think the lights being so long create issues. People get frustrated. Then they run yellow and red lights. Think this is a bigger issue than people think. Now, taxes. The taxes in Woodbury are hefty. I'm a widow, and find the taxes are going to run me out of town. I think a good evaluation of how you really apply those dollars and what we see for it - I know there's a lot that goes into budgets - but there should be some checks and balances that are transparent. ## • CRIME IS A CONCERN GENERALLY IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. CONCERNED ABOUT ## WATER QUALITY BECAUSE OF PFA'S. ## • CRIME IS INCREASING PEOPLE DON'T OBEY TRAFFIC LAWS. PEOPLE DON'T OBEY ## CROSSWALK LAWS. THEFT IN DRIVEWAYS IS GROWING. • Crime rate is up especially on north side of the city, in around Tamarack Village, City Place, Hudson Road-Walmart area. This area needs more police presence. Also, property taxes are quite high in Woodbury that needs to be looked into (brought down where possible) • Crime seems to be increasing as well as taxes • Crime: it seems many break ins into cars reported; always sirens throughout the cityTaxes: continue to increase without a strong visibility where they are goingEducation: the quality of schools have gone down despite property taxes going up; not a uniform investment across all types of schools in the cityTraffic: there have been some improvements but 25 was very poorly planned in terms of road/watermain maintenance and construction causing congestion • Discovery Park needs a water fountain!! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 91 ## • DIVERSITY IN LEADERSHIP (NEEDS MORE) • Diversity is important to me and my household. I am not sure how affordable Woodbury is to a larger community. I would like to see a true community center. I am excited to see the new facility become a community hub. I am concerned with the growth of housing developments which will create an impact in the traffic. I have read reports about the water quality in this area due to 3M and would like to feel more safe with the city water. ## • DON'T KNOW ## • DRIVERS CONSISTENTLY RUN THEIR RED LIGHTS. • Drivers using cell phones. Fast drives weaving in and out. Big companies left years ago. ## • EDUCATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE IMPORTANT IT'S TOUGH GETTING AROUND BY CAR • Every single time I am at a stop light with any traffic, someone runs a full red light. People honk for not going immediately on green, but the first person could easily get killed. ## • EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DRINK THE TAP WATER, TOO MANY STOP LIGHTS • Expanding roads like 19 and building along it and increasing its traffic (and adding warehouses, trucks, etc.) means you also have to take noise reduction measures for both quality of life and property value improvements ## • FAIR TREATMENT OF HOAS WE ARE NOT SECOND CLASS • For education I worry about liberal politics in education. The lack of ability for disciplinary action is disappointing. • From a city planning perspective, we would appreciate the ability to walk to restaurants/coffee/shopping. Also we would prioritize for businesses that bring in more jobs rather than things like big company warehouses (i.e. Amazon autonomous warehouse) • Generally Woodbury is pretty expensive, and property taxes hit hard. Additionally, where I am living, the main road feels more like a paved country road, and 2 other roads are partially or completely unpaved for large sections. • Getting crowded ## • GETTING TWO CROWDS, EXCESSING MULTI STORY BUILDINGS, LEAVE SOME AREAS UN ## BUILT ## • GOOD THINGS FOR RAPID BUS TRANSIT TO BRING IN PEOPLE FROM ST. PAUL TO WORK AT ## THE NEW BUSINESSES OPENING UP IN WOODBURY-BECAUSE MANY CANT AFFORD TO LIVE ## HERE • Government spends money like it was mine. There seems to be no enforcement of traffic signals. How many times can we repair roads without doing it well? • Growing at a rate too fast to keep up with our road configurations, i.e. Bailey Road ## • GROWING TOO FAST ## • GROWING TOO FAST • Growing too fast and it's making our roads in to town highways with the amount of traffic. Radio is out of control. Too many stop lights on the new part of Bielenberg. • Growth & Development - There are way too many new housing developments authorized. Adding more housing and people place concerns about the efficient amount of good water supply, city staffing, and public safety (the need for more police and fire personnel).Water quality - I understand that this is being addressed with the new water treatment facility. However, if we keep adding new developments and people it won't matter what the water ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 92 quality is if we can't supply to all the people.Condition of roads (Winter months) - Where we live (SW corner of Woodbury - Kalen Dr/Kalen Court) we do not get timely snowplow service nor an adequate job. The cul-de-sac is never plowed down to the street leaving thick, icy roads. Contacted the city a few times with no results. • Growth and development - very anti all these "low income housing" options. People don't move to Woodbury to be by low income housing people. Water quality is an obvious issue. It's very expensive to live here. The sales tax is ridiculous and the property taxes are ridiculous. We will be moving as soon as our youngest graduates and we've encouraged our kids to not live here either as adults. Education has gone way down hill. They've gotten rid of the advanced classes, the younger kids don't have spelling or phonics. • Growth seems to be on a reckless pace. Far outgrowing the current infrastructure and city amenities. ## • HARD WATER ## • HAVE TO GET DRIVERS TO SLOW DOWN • Having ICE in our community ## • HIGH PROPERTY TAXES, WE NEED MOVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, LESS APARTMENTS • Historic lack of support for fire and EMS. Inadequate staffing - poor management. (Put individuals who know and understand how and why these departments should be run. Need individuals who are competent to do the job. This DOES NOT MEAN they need a 4+ yr degree. They need to be trusted by department staff and supported by city staff. Our former city administrator was not supportive. Additionally, the city does not need everything made of stone or brick. Allow businesses to use standard building design to draw customers in. DO ## NOT PUT EVERY BUSINESS IN HOLE. DEVELOP GOOD TRANSPORTATION FLOW THAT IS ## CONDUCIVE TO BUSINESSES, HELPS THEM MAKE THEIR LOCATIONS KNOWN AND ## AVAILABLE. ## • HOME OWNER INSURANCE IS VERY EXPENSIVE, AND THEN ASSOCIATION FEE IS VERY EX • Houses are expensive and the tax too is very high. • Housing and taxes is expensive ## • HOUSING COST GOING UP ## • HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ARE MAKING THE CITY TOO CONGESTED ## • HOUSING EXPENSIVE ## • HOUSING FOR SENIORS-AFFORDABLE, SMALLER • Housing is expensive ## • HOUSING IS EXPENSIVE & TAXES ARE UNAFFORDABLE ## • HOUSING IS EXPENSIVE AND THE CITY SEEMS TO BE EXPANDING TOO MUCH. ## • HOUSING SHOULDN'T BE US EXPENSIVE AS IT IS IN WOODBURY!! • Hudson road with so much traffic and the speed limit makes it difficult to get out of the development • I absolutely love Woodbury's trail system. I use it all the time for exercise year-round and to walk to nearby stores. I hope the trail system can continue to be maintained and possibly grow. • I am newly retired and we would consider downsizing from our large single-family home but "retirement- villa style homes" are just as expensive as our current larger home and there ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 93 seems to be little housing options for downsizing as our family grows and as young families would benefit from our neighborhood and home. The new Metro - Mini seems to be a potentially good resource to get about if/when I'm no longer able to drive but I've not tried it yet and still drive. We have always used a water filtration system in our home in Woodbury (never before in other homes) but I'm concerned for those who can't afford them or purchasing bottled water plus the plastic waste of bottled water. • I am very concerned about the number of houses and apartments being built when our schools are already at capacity. • I appreciate ongoing efforts to improve water quality. I observe much speeding and running red lights on residential streets, especially Radio. Also, most drivers do not obey the law related to stopping for pedestrians, especially noticeable on Interlachen. More education needed related to grass clipping on streets and trails. Even city employees that do mowing often leave a lot of clipping on paths and streets. ## • I BOUGHT MY HOME 30 YEAR SAGO-I COULD NOT AFFORD A HOME TODAY • I do not like all the large warehouse businesses going in along 94. I also think there are too many rentals home developments • I do not think I'll be able to retire here. I worry that the cost of living is just too high • I do not trust the water.i do not drink it!I live in 50+ "affordable housing" on a fixed income.In 5 years my rent has increased by $800/mo. This is not sustainable, nor affordable. ## • I DON'T HAVE A THIRD OPTION • I don't want badly trained, heavily armed thugs anywhere my children, grandchildren or my home. This facility must not be allowed here--or anywhere really. • I don't want Woodbiry to become a racist community • I feel as though Woodbury has been allowed to grow way too fast. I have lived here 8 years and it feels as though thousands of homes have been built in that time. I am concerned about schools and infrastructure keeping up. I don't have children in school, but hear from other parents that the high schools are packed to the point where they are concerned it is interfering with the quality of their children's education. • I felt that we wasted a bunch money redoing the roads only to tear them back up the next year. I felt I couldn't get out of town for months this summer. It was a maze • I have lived in Woodbury for 26 years. The road construction and closure of roads due to water pipeline was worst during summer 2025. The project was planned poorly and the closure of roads for months was unacceptable. It was extremely inconvenien and created major confusion and frustration. It will give the city a D grade. • I have seen ICE multiple times in Woodbury. It does not make me feel safe. ## • I HOPE WATER QUALITY IS CAREFULLY MONITORED. ROAD CLOSURES & REPAIRS HAVE ## SEEMED EXCESSIVE DURING THE SUMMER ## • I KNOW WATER QUALITY ISSUES ARE BEING ADDRESSED • I love Woodbury, but I'd like to see a more robust and thriving "downtown." I know that doesn't really exist, but it would be lovely. • I marked "Overall feeling of safety" as "fair". My rating for crime is "excellent" it's the roadways that caused my "fair" rating. I experience drivers "all over the road" on a daily basis often driving well under the speed limit & these people are clearly either distracted or highly ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 94 intoxicated (I assume primarily distracted). I've been in Woodbury 25 years but grew up in LaCrosse & EauClaire (Wisconsin) I'm used to seeing people pulled over excessively! Woodbury has just as many cops but it's rare to see someone pulled over for traffic violations. Please DON'T start pulling over drivers for every little thing, but we need to STOP all the phone usage on our roads and STOP excessive speeding (e.g. 11+ over). The problem is the citizens not the cops and I understand it's a challenging environment. There is also a problem with golf carts (less common) and teenagers/etc speeding on "electric motorcycles" on bike paths especially south of Bailey Road in the newer areas.I also rated dining as "fair". We seem to lack high quality establishments from local chefs and entrepreneurs. If possible, please prioritize licensing for any Minnesota based restaurants, restaurants with 5 or less locations, and anything that will help Woodbury residents find fast & healthy food! • I rated overall ease of traveling to locations as fair because there are so many traffic lights and they are pretty slow. You spend lots of time sitting at lights. Also, maybe it's just my neighborhood, but most of my neighbors keep to themselves. I would love to have more of a sense of community. But I love Woodbury as a location because there are so many stores to meet all your needs. Plus, St. Paul/Mpls are close. But Woodbury also feels like a gateway to all of the nature/outdoor activities in the St. Croix River Valley and Western WI. • I think Woodbury is expanding too fast. Traffic is very busy and people often speed. • I think Woodbury is uniquely geographically positioned to be a destination in the Metro area. We have great parks; there are tons of growth opportunities around us. However, Woodbury seems to lack a clear sense of direction and identity beyond the typical suburban affluence. In most ways, we're just a typical suburb with the same things as any other metro suburb. We have all the generic shops and restaurants you can find anywhere, but very little beyond that. I love Woodbury, but if I want something unique or charming, I'm compelled to go elsewhere. Small example, but there are zero independent coffee shops. There's no true central downtown. The retail centers we do have are not walkable. Honestly, it's a little shocking to see pedestrians in our retail zones. • I want local authorities to cooperate with federal agencies to keep the community safe. Again, work with federal agencies. Do not declare this a sanctuary city. Woodbury needs to attract more businesses (e.g: Manufacturers) to come here and create high wage jobs. Lower property taxes. • I want to shout out to the parks people. I moved out here in December 2024, and I'm right next to Mark Graffs Lake and those trails and those lakes and wetlands and all of that is so well taken care of by those folks. It's stunning! Absolutely beautiful. And it's surrounded by tons of thousands of people, but you can walk down there on a sunny Saturday afternoon and maybe see one other person or a couple walking. I guess it's your best kept secret. ## • I WAS TREATED UNFAIRLY BY THE POLICE. • I will not stay in Woodbury when I retire because there are too many taxes. I'm dissapointed that in challenging economic times, Woodbury chose to use taxes to pay for a new Public Safety campus when the current facilities are adequate. • I'm convinced that the City's plans for managing growth, including new roundabouts, will maintain or improve the City's traffic congestion. Also, the buildout on I-94 will continue to add to its tax collection to keep taxes among the best among large cities in Minnesota ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 95 ## • I'M NOT SURE THAT GOLD LINE IS NECESSARY ## • I'M NOT SURE WHEN STOPPING BECOME OPTIONAL • I've resided in and contributed to a number of communities in my lifetime and believe Woodbury to be the "best" in very many ways. I feel extremely safe and supported here, unlike a few other places I've resided in the past. Thank you! • ICE is causing people in our community to feel unsafe and is hurting many of our local businesses. Racial profiling is wrong. • ICE out now! ## • ICE OUT-3M CLEANUP • If Woodbury can't hire more fire personnel, why isn't the volunteer fire department brought back? ## • IM NOT AWARE OF ANY SERIOUS ISSUES/PROBLEMS • In my opinion, there are too many multi housing units, which is causing a lot of congestion on the roads • In the area of Settlers Ridge going towards Hudson Road, it is becoming overwhelmed with businesses and industrial sites, with many unoccupied. I feel the mass development is hurting our infrastructure and certainly affecting nature, which initially drew me to move to Woodbury in 2005. • It feels like the housing options are all overly large. We really wanted a single family home, but a huge percentage of housing is over 3000 sqft, especially the newer stuff, which we feel is excessive for a typical family and not a responsible use of resources, so we settled for a townhome. When our son graduates we may consider leaving Woodbury to find a smaller home to retire in. • It is very frustrating when road construction on main roads is all scheduled at the same time. Like last summer, tamarack, radio drive and valkley creek all had closers. Very inconvenient. Then there was no way to get updates on which roads would be closed when or how long. Also, I live on Donegal drive and many cars cut through donegal at high speeds, why can there not be speed bumps placed to slow down the traffic that does not live in this area. Pets have been run over by speeding cars. Hopefully children will not be run over. • It seems stoplights in Woodbury are highly inefficient, water quality with the 3M issue is of concern and it seems small businesses fail with all of the large corporations taking over the city. • It takes over 15 minutes to go out to eat a restaurant in Woodbury because restaurants are located North and East in Woodbury. The sit-down dining/family options are poor. We need more in Woodbury. • it's common to see cars running red lights making it dangerous at intersections. i appreciate more policing the last couple years which makes me feel safer. I also appreciate the work towards getting better water quality. • It's just busy! It takes a while to get across the city. ## • ITS VERY HARD TO GET AROUND TOWN IN A TIMELY FASHION • jobs don't pay enough to afford to live here.J ## • JUST MOVED HERE & GETTING ADJUSTED ## • JUST WANT TO CONTINUE TO PRIORITIZE THOSE ISSUES-DOING WELL I THINK ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 96 • Kids that are not old enough to have licenses should not be operating any sort of assisted motion vehicles anywhere near roads. They do not obey basic traffic laws when crossing intersections, turning, or passing patrons using paths for walking. No City has a good hold on educating and/or policing them, but it should be a major concern if it isn't already. ## • LACK OF COMMUNICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. ## • LESS LIVING AREAS FOR RIFFRAFF • Let your police chase cars • Livable wages may not be in your control. But cost of living issues need to be addressed. • Long-term, it's important for Woodbury to consider how to set our community up for success in response to climate change. Taxes make it expensive for people to live here. ## • LOTS OF CARS GOING THROUGH RED LIGHTS, LOTS OF CARS, ROUNDS GET PRETTY LOUSY • Lots of hard water build up and it's tricky to get around with a lot of traffic. ## • LOTS OF RENT GOUGING WITHOUT RENT CONTROLS, MUCH UNPUNISHED CRIME, POOR ## WATER, NO WHITE COLLAR CRIME ENFORCEMENT ON CORRUPT LLCS. ## • LOTS OF TRAFFIC, LOTS OF SPEEDING TRAFFIC, LOTS OF CAR'S WITH EXPIRED TABS • Lots of traffic, several roads need improvement and people like to speed. • Love the focus on sustainable habitat restoration with native species in parks like Hassenback and Valley Creek. We need to continue this focus while promoting plant-based nutrition options in our schools. We need to incentivize plant based dining experiences to move to Woodbury as part of our commitment to diversity, inclusion, and environmental sustainability. Regarding speeding traffic, we need protected bike lanes, speed bumps, sidewalks, more stop signs, roundabouts, narrower roads, or other methods for reducing the speed of vehicles flying down Eyrie Drive here in the Eagle Valley neighborhood. ## • LOW TEST SCORES ## • LOWER RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMIT TO 25 ENFORCE ALL SPEED LIMITS ## • MAINTAINING BIKE/WALK PATHS. SOME ARE SO DETERIORATED THEY'RE DANGEROUS. FOR ## EXAMPLE: PATHS ALONG RADIO DR. & BAILEY • Many homes in Woodbury are geared towards single family with upper middle range income. Traffic is very high in several areas with speeding in residential areas being very dangerous and concerning. • Many of the "affordable" housing has HOA additional costs, making it then unaffordable. Majority of housing is either townhomes or large homes. I find many people running through red lights. • Many Roads are under construction related to the new Water Treatment Plant, causing major traffic congestion. ## • MANY VEHICLES GOING THROUGH RED LIGHTS SPEEDING ## • MORE CHECKS ON THOSE WHO DON'T REMOVE SNOT GUT GRASS IN YARDS • More frequent community events can increase community closeness and including having them in different areas of the city as well. Maybe they don't have to be very big events but being frequent and changing locality can help get wide participation. • More robust transit options, gold line should have been extended down 94 to eastern Woodbury. Need better transit in southeast Woodbury where development is. • More schools needed and why some zones in woodbury go to stillwaters district ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 97 • More speed traps needed • most of the job opportunities in the area are retail which offer low wages. We need more larger businesses that offer many levels of skill availabilities, ranges of pay and kinds of business opportunities. (And corresponding housing opportunities). • Most residents work elsewhere. Most workers live elsewhere. • My parents also live here and they're in their 80's. Property taxes are going up at a rate that will contribute to them moving due to affordability • Need absolute truth on water quality and what we are exposed to. Expedite the cleaning of our water is priority. ## • NEED BY CORPORATE PLACES TO EAT • Need more indoor recreational activities centers: including water parks, swimming and more during the winter season. • need more medical help for more easier and more available appointments. too low PFA water limits ! • Need more single level homes for older residents ## • NEED NEW STORES INSTEAD OF MORE HOUSING IN AREA BY EAST RIDGE • Need roundabouts at some two way stops on valley creek. Impossible to cross safely or drive onto from side street because there is so much traffic. Taxes are insanely high • Need to work on the stoplights when there's people trying to cross the busy roads. • New water treatment plant will help. ## • NO MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING! REMAIN NEUTRAL WITH NEWSLETTER & POLITICAL ## BIASES. BEING LIBERAL DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF US! ## • NO SERIOUS ISSUE, BUT NEED TO KEEP THE PROBLEM ON THE TABLE • Not that it is untollerable but property taxes could be lower ## • NOTHING CLOSE TO A DOWN TOWN-JUST ANOTHER SUBURB-ALL BLDGS LOOK THE SAME ## • ONE NEEDS TO MONITOR THE SPEED OF VEHICLES!!! ## • ONGOING ISSUES WITH SPEEDING • Our 26 year old lives at home with us, works in Woodbury, and has a close to zero chance of finding affordable housing of his own. We need more options to support recent graduates, those just starting, out, and new home buyers in our community. He'd love to be on his own, but working in education limits his prospects for affordable housing. • Our family's sense of safety was exceptional until 2026 when the presence of ICE shattered our security. This is an issue far greater than Woodbury. We often find ourselves driving to Cottage Grove for meals and shopping because traveling to north of Valley Creek is cumbersome. • Our property taxes are very high. This does coincide to our quality of living so I'm not sure there is a solution. Speeding in my neighborhood is concerning, especially with the number of kids playing outside. ## • OUR STREET, WATERFRONT DRIVE, IS OVER RUN BY TRAFFIC • Our taxes are too high. I can drive 10 miles east into Hudson and pay much less for goods and services. Traffic congestion is too high because of the city's push for more high density housing. I live in the NE part of the city. I used to be able to get to the freeway quite easily. No more. Driving west to get to 494S now can take over 10 mins. And what you've done to ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 98 Lake Rd (reducing to one lane and reduced speed limit) was a terrible decision. Why restrict major easr/west artery through the city? ## • OUT GROWING ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE WATER • Over developed. Increased crime. Not enough services available for size of population. Too much multi unit housing that increases population and people that are not invested in the direction of the community. This city used to have a community feel and now it just feels like we're all matchsticks stuck in a box. We've lost the feeling of cohesiveness. • Over development of large commercial warehouses and large apartment complexes. I have grown up in the area and my family and friends don't even recognize Woodbury anymore (not in a good way). • pas d'avis ## • PEAS BUT CITY IS PROCESSING ## • PEAS CONCERNS SEEM TO BE ADDRESSED IN NEXT FEW YEARS ## • PEOPLE CONTAINING TO RUN RED LIGHTS AND RECEDING THROUGH INTERSECTIONS ## • PEOPLE DRIVE HAD TO SPEND OVER 10,000 DUE TO TERRIBLE WATER LIKE IMPATIENT TOO ## MANY PEOPLE ## • PEOPLE DRIVE LIKE A HOLES IN WOODBURY • People frequently speed and run red lights. It is scary as a driver at times, even though I know when to anticipate it. I believe part of the problem is influenced by issues with the timing of traffic lights. This leads to frustration, and it's worse during times of high congestion. I also concerned about the history of PFAS in the water. ## • PEOPLE RUNNING RED LIGHTS BECAUSE OF CONGESTION • Pex tubing in our new house of 1.5 years old has already turned brown from the sediments in the city water. • Pfas • PFAS in water ## • PLACEMENT OF NEW BUSINESSES TOO CLOSE TO HOUSING. ALL SEEMS SQUEEZED IN. TOO ## MUCH LOW INCOME HOUSING • Planning for the west to east corridors/streets needs improvement as south Woodbury and north Cottage Grove development converges. • Please continue to build affordable housing -- it's so important. And thank you for addressing water quality and PFAS. • poor traffic control and can't move around the city, high sales tax now and super high residential taxes (both city and county), water that literally has runied appliances due to being so hard and noxious, too much growth without supporting infrastructure, no cute downtown area like an Afton or Hopkins, no community pool, super expensive to live and I will be driven out when I retire due to affordability. ## • POOR WATER QUALITY • Potholes seem to be an issue every winter and spring. ## • PRICE OF HOMES OUR GOING UP TOO FAST. ## • PROPERTY TAKES ARE RATHER HIGH • Property tax is high ## • PROPERTY TAX KEEPS INCREASING EACH YEAR ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 99 • Property taxes and utility rates keep going higher for the same or less services. • Property taxes are high mostly related to school funding. So much of the commercial property tax base goes to Stillwater. So much retail and not enough industry creates wages that are lower than living wages. Traffic on roadways is very congested and it can take 20+ minutes to simply gat across the city. Water quality is being addressed which is critical. • Property taxes are high, sales tax is high. Still scared to drink the water, even though they say it is "safe", yet they ration the water. It takes forever to get from one side of Woodbury to the other. In any direction. • Property taxes are high. We loved Woodbury as a smaller community when we moved here in 1981. • Property taxes are high. School District taxes are high while I have no child in school. • Property taxes are outragious • Property taxes are too high • Property taxes are too high. There needs to be more pushed for development of commercial businesses to drive property tax rates down. Schools are also starting to be overcrowded, commercial tax revenue within the 833 district could be beneficial in solving some of these constraints. There's also been poor planning in residential neighborhoods and the associated sewer, water, and utilities into the area. • Property taxes have skyrocketed and there isn't much to offer the community as a whole to enjoy. The gold line is a huge failure and of no use to anyone I have encountered. • Property taxes increases have happened nearly every year we've lived here. It will get to a point that we will move out of Woodbury because they will get to be too much. • Property taxes seem a bit high and have been increasing (until very recently), and it would be nice to have more professional job opportunities in Woodbury, but compared to most places I am familiar with, I don't think Woodbury is facing any particularly serious issues. Also, I don't know how serious it is, and I know Washington County is working on one, but a convenient compost site in Woodbury that accepts all types of yard waste would be great. ## • PROPERTY TAXES TOO HIGH AND CRIME (RETAIL) AND OTHER IS VERY CONCERN • Public services are sense of community are poor. ## • QUALITY/TEST SCORES IN WOODBURY SCHOOLS HAVE GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY ## • QUIT RAISES TAXES, TO PAY NGO'S AND FRAUD • Rampant real estate developments leading to traffic congestion, crowded schools and limited open spaces • Recently moved here. It was difficult to find apartments that were 1 to 2 bedrooms that were under $2100 a month. We were able to find one at $1900, but had few options. Water quality is a drawback and a concern with PFAs and how hard the water is here. • Red stop lights are too long. Yellow lights are too short for safety. • Regarding growth and development, I would love to see green spaces and parks preserved as Woodbury fills out. ## • RESIDENTS LIKE NO WHO HAVE WELLS ARE NOT HAVING THE PFOA CORRECTIONS MADE ## IN A TIMELY MANNER. ## • RETIRED PEOPLE DON'T HAVE FREELING EXPRESS RESOURCES ## • RETIRED-FIXED INCOME, TAXES GOING UP, NEED BUILD SCHOOLS ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 100 • Riding on some town roads such as Settler's Ridge and parts of Valley Creek feels like driving on a washboard. The density of newer apartment buildings looks like it hasn't had proper oversight. There are too many ugly big boxes and very little landscaping in certain areas where there has been rapid development. • Road Conditions - my side street has been patched SO many times. We are being assessed for a new road this coming summer. Close to $5k. What are you doing with city tax dollars that a road needs to be assessed? ## • ROAD CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN A REAL HARDSHIP FOR MANY RESIDENTS. ## • ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON TOP OF THE WATER IMPROVEMENT ## • ROAD PROBLEMS RELATE TO THE EVER PRESENT CONSTRUCTION • Roads are definitely a concern, the traffic lights are always poorly timed and have added significant transit time. ## • ROADS ARE TERRIBLE & TRAFFIC IS CRAZY! TOO MANY SCHOOLS-HIGHER TAXES • Roads have improved but still some problem areas. I respect all the work being done on the water system but periodically I find my own tasting odd. ## • RUNNING OUT OF LAND FOR FUTURE GROWTH. ESPECIALLY FOR HOUSING. ## • SAFETY OF RESIDENTS IS A SERIOUS CONCERN • Safety, inclusion of different cultures, variety of dining and hobbies for everyone ## • SALES TAXES ARE HIGH • School system not educating to previous standards - too much DEI ## • SCHOOLS - OVER ENROLLMENT • Schools are too liberal in our opinion, in MN but also here. Building too much housing (units and also single family) in the city, more traffic, schools are crowded, etc. Very different city than when we moved here 15 years ago. • Seemingly uncontrolled growth in expensive housing has led to Woodbury being less affordable for average people. A new construction house about the same size as mine now has a price pushing one million dollars. That is insane. The larger number of people living in the city has highlighted the total lack of infrastructure to support the increase in traffic. There is no easy way to get to all of those expensive houses south of Bailey Road. The road construction plans I have seen so far show very poor planning for the future. Traffic will continue to be a nightmare. • Separation of schools creates divide within city. Youth organizations full of corrupt people who are only volunteering to provide opportunities to their own kids. ## • SHOULD NOT HAVE WASTED 3M-1B ON GOLD BUS LINE, THE EXPRESS BUS WE HAD WAS ## FINE ## • SINCE 'AFFORDABLE' HOUSING BECAME A PART OF WOODBURY-IT HAS DECLINED. ## • SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TOO EXPENSIVE ## • SO MANY DRIVERS ON THEIR PHONES, SPEEDING • Some major traffic lights only stay green for literally three seconds • Some roads are in real need of repair. Water quality has been an issue for a significant period of time. • Something needs to be done about the speed of the cars. You don't see many patrol on the road slowing people down if any. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 101 ## • SOMETIMES I THINK WE'RE GROWING TOO FAST ## • SPEED LIMIT ON RADIO DR. BETWEEN DALE & MILITARY RDS. • Speed limits are not enforced. You can drive any speed you wish. I also wish we had more restaurants and a centralized shopping mall. ## • SPEED ON INTERLOCHIN NORTH/VALLEY CREEK-USING IT AS SHORTCUT FOR RADIO ALSO ## SPEED ON BUCKWOOD TRAIL ## • SPEEDING & UNSAFE DRIVING MAJOR ISSUE IN METRO AREA ## • SPEEDING E-BIKES MY KIDS CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN WOODBURY PFAS • Speeding in all areas of city. Stop signs and lights are ignored. Rural areas are bad for speeding cars plus trucks just roll through intersections-or just drive right through!!!. ## • SPEEDING IN WOODBURY AND ALSO ON VALLEY CREEK-CREATE ROUNDANENTS TO ## LEASER SPEED? • Speeding traffic is horrendous!!!! ## • STEP RAISING TAXES; CLEAN UP THE WATER; TEACH OUR CHILDREN INSTEAD OR ## INDOCTRINATING • Stop increasing the budget. Bring in more businesses to relieve the home tax burden. ## • STOP LIGHTS EVERYWHERE, SPEEDER AND RED LIGHT OUT OF CONT • Stop raising taxes, it's getting to be ridiculous, you can't even drink the water here. ## • STOP THE STACK & PACK HOUSING!! • Tax increases were excessive for our household. ## • TAXES & HOUSING COSTS CAN (HOME OWNERSHIP) MAKE LIVING IN WOODBURY ## DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME ISN'T VERY EXCEPTIONS. • Taxes are getting out of control and are to high, especially given all of the new commercial tax revenue the city is receiving. Saying city taxes are lower than some other suburb or city is not acceptable. We choose to live here 15 years ago in part because of the reasonable taxes. The aren't reasonable anymore. • Taxes are high but probably make all the above "Excellents" possible. • Taxes are increasing at a much greater rate than inflation. At some point this will drive residents out of their homes. Places like IA and SD will start looking good to over taxed Minnesota residents ! • Taxes are ridiculous • Taxes are so overburdensome. This whole survey is designed to raise taxes. LOWER TAXES. • Taxes are somewhat high in Woodbury • Taxes are the largest concern, but this goes well beyond Woodbury. Minnesotans are way overtaxed and thus why we answered that it is not a place to retire. • Taxes are too high ## • TAXES ARE TOO HIGH • Taxes are too highCrime is allowed to happen • Taxes are way too high, traffic is horrible and all these new houses; apartments; townhomes, who can afford them? It's horrible • Taxes are way too high. Some of my older friends can no longer afford their homes due to the taxes. Way too much development and unnecessary increase in retail stores. When do we say we have enough shopping? ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 102 • Taxes driving cost of housing. • Taxes for public safety is good. Taxes on extra fun things like splash pads, not needed. Lets keep costs down. • Taxes have gone up dramatically since moving here from South Maplewood. 3M lead the growth in Woodbury with a great company with great paying jobs and benefits. Water issues have been blamed on this company but government also let this happen! 3M has been a great grant company many Millions of $'s in the new water effort with very little appreciation from Woodbury! I grew up on the East side of St. Paul. It was very blue collar neighborhood were everyone worked for a living! It was safe and now with all the government give always that area and issues are spreading into Woodbury. This cityis turning to a high taxed and government supported community. People don't believe in earning a living for goals and high living standards. My great aunt and uncle were a Markgraf generation and times were great then. Family values start are very young age and are not achieved with give away programs. Government should take leadership for well deserved government funded programs for well deserved people. The ghost bus has been a complete folly. Build for the future but don't run Large buses with nobody on them. Manage the business as it grows if it does. Major freeway TRAFFIC COMES FROM Wi. But the bus never was built that far These people who work for a living drive this congested freeway everyday and would have helped congestion if the downtown TC area doesn't loose more corporations and business. • Taxes have significantly grown over the 12 years that we have lived in Woodbury. I don't see Woodbury as an affordable place to retire. ## • TAXES TOO HIGH-LACK OF GOOD PAYING JOBS MEDIAN PRICED HOUSING ## • TAXES TOO HIGH, POLICE DO NOTHING, HIDE COMPLAINTS TO LIFT IMAGE ## • TAXES VERY HIGH FOR GIVEN SERVICES • Taxes went up while the state is allowing theft and not being held accountable so instead of Woodbury fighting the state for Woodbury's fair share and deserved state aid, you voted to raise taxes and put it on Woodbury residents. If you live in Woodbury too, I'm talking about you too being cheated by this corrupt state. Tax payers state wide got hosed last year by their local and county taxes because instead of fighting for the state aid lost by a corrupt state government, you put it on the local and county tax payers. Think of that, instead of holding corrupt officials accountable, just make the tax payers pay more. Let the thieves continue to enrich themselves. This makes no sense and is wrong. The tax payers get no relief in this state and many get priced out of their homes many of us have lived in 30 years and more. You have got to have common sense and know this is robbing Peter to pay Paul and never fixing the problem. The saying, "nickeled and dimed to death" is not a joke. Stand up for your residents and fight this corrupt state, please. • The amount of houses has dramatically increased over the last 5 years. The traffic congestion has become an issue. Getting in and out of our development is equivalent to entering and exiting pit row at a Nascar race. Narrowing the roads and posting lower speed limits is not the answer. Property taxes continue to rise in Woodbury, even with the huge influx of new homes/homeowners. What are those funds being spent on exactly? • The Bus line wasn't wanted or needed in our suburb and will only bring crime and vagrancy. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 103 • The business climate in WoBU is homogenous. So many boring chains. More independent businesses would help. • The city claims townhouses as affordable housing. Modest income people, single people or first time homebuyers cannot get housing in Woodbury. New townhouses are just as expensive as existing homes. • The city has taken out several stop signs in Eagle Valley where we live which used to slow traffic down. Now people just speed around the roads and traffic drives too fast through the residential neighborhood. In addition, all the round abouts keep traffic moving however they do not slow traffic down, people speed though them and are still dangerous. ## • THE CITY IS GROWING TOO FAST CAN'T KEEP UP W/GROWTH THEREFORE TRAFFIC ROAD ## CONDITIONS ARE TOO MUCH • The city mismanages money, overtaxes, and overspends. They come up with ridiculous referendums to get more tax money due to mismanagement. Building low-income housing by the hundreds of units and importing associated problem people and crime. Schools are suffering due to far-left-wing agendas and ideology. ## • THE CITY SHOULD NOT ONLY THINK OF YOUNG FAMILIES. STOP THE DEVELOPMENT! • The cost of housing here is very high. Which leads to few options for people that would benefit from living in this community. The water here is nasty. We have filters and a humidifier. And the forever chemicals are still a concern. Hopefully solved soon. The livable wage issue is due to the types of jobs here. Mostly retail, service and hospitality jobs. None of which are high paying. ## • THE COST OF LIVING IS HIGH & LOWER - WAGE JOBS ## • THE HARDER YOU WORK AT IT, THE WORSE IT GETS & COST!! • The increase in taxes imposed by the city is making it more expensive than neighboring cities. Also still concerned about water quality though i know that is trying to be addressed. • The insatiable desire to develop this city is hurting its identity and damaging its reputation as a good place to live. Alos, the water project is a complete joke. • The level of taxation is extreme. The city should be evaluating impacts fees as the area develops. Why charge existing residents to pay for more roads and schools that new folks require. That is not right! • The levies put on homeowners for supposed technology requirements for schools are unfortunate. Invest in teachers and quality of education for studentsRather than raise property taxes every year incentivize more business (including restaurants) to open in the south side of Woodbury near ERHS and all the ball parks • The Metro gold line should have been voted on my the community. • The only two things that I have an opinion about is the amount of (in my mind) unnecessary development that has been happening in northeastern Woodbury, near I-94. I feel as though all this extra, ugly commercial development takes away from the farm charm that the area had previously. Though I know you as the city "exec" people don't have complete control over who landowners sell their land/property to, I still wanted to voice me issues with this area. Also, while we have an amazing park and trail system in our city, I would love to see more parks rather than Amazon warehouses, as someone who doesn't use Amazon ever, nor do I have an account, this building is a waste to me. Thank you so much for listening/reading my ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 104 thoughts, I know there are many people who just complain, and I know that's kind of what I did. I just love the way we are both very suburban but also value community, diversity, the outdoors, and recreation in our city. • The people who work in Woodbury can't afford to live here. • The property tax is too high ## • THE ROAD IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE COUNTRY RD IS WOODBURY'S QUARTER MILE DRAG ## STRIP • The roads need attention, every year the cost of asphalt gets more expensive. putting repairs off only costs taxpayers more in future years. • The roads seem to deteriorate very rapidly, especially the well traveled roads like Radio Drive and Valley Creek Road. Also Afton Road between Radio Drive and Tower Drive really needs to be replaced soon. • The roundabouts do NOT slow traffic. Many drivers try to zip through at maximum speed, like on a race track. • The schools are not improving results, but a majority of our large tax burden goes to them and keeps going up. We will not retire here. Only family keeps us here for now. And the open land is being built up so quickly.....it feels like a big city and crime has increased. • The schools in SoWashCo don't appear able to handle our growth, and I am very concerned with the class sizes at every school level. To have 30+ students in each class is unacceptable, especially for a town/county that prides itself on quality of education. • The speed limit on Lake road is 35mph and cars go 45mph or higher don't see people getting stopped. • The speeding and running of red lights is ridiculous. More enforcement is needed. Bring in red light cameras. Start taking away licenses. Whatever it takes before someone dies! • The taxes are getting out of control that are forcing people to move out of Washington County and the State. Also the corruption in our State Government. • The traffic has gotten to be terrible. It is beyond the construction. I attribute it to the never ending growth. We moved here in 2015 and Woodbury has exploded. Growth caps would be a good idea. Limit the number of building permitsRoads are congested but the worst is the speeding through neighborhoods as people try to bypass main roads and lights. I rarely see speed patrols - my guess is that there are more pressing safety issues but it sure woudl be nice to have speeding cameras installed. Plenty of other cities do this . • The traffic in 2025 was a nightmare and I work from home! ## • THE WATER STINKS AND MAKES MY TOWELS STINK • There are many stoplights and it takes forever to get from one side of the city to the other. • There are too many people in Woodbury and more housing is being built all year round. It's starting to feel like people are in each others' way, rather than a community. • There has to be something done on the continued expansion of housing in this city. The city is already over crowded, schools are over crowded yet everywhere you look there's more townhouses, apartments, etc, being built. This is my biggest frustration living in Woodbury. • There have been multiple cases of theft in my neighborhood, police have chased multiple fleeing suspects through my neighborhood, sometimes armed, my neighbor had gunshots fired into their house. Taxes are increasing rapidly, gold line bus route was a mistake, school ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 105 safety is a joke, very few local businesses are here and we seem to be building warehouses and chain businesses instead of focusing on small businesses and walkable areas with outside seating. Water quality is a concern, especially in schools. There seems to be a push for residents to adhere to the very strict water regulations but businesses frequently disregard their rules, including watering in the rain. Citizens bring complaints but we do not see any changes. My street is the last to be plowed after snow but a main thoroughfare to get to an elementary school. Also, why does snow plowing start at 6am? Is that a union thing? I want drivers to be well rested but having the ability for plows to operate any time is better for residents. Is there a way to have crews work different shifts so some are always on? City parks are not providing services they used to and heavy chemical spraying has ramped way up putting local wildlife, pets, and kids at risk. Most of the area sprayed was near water and contained native plants. Targeted spraying, cutting/hand removal, or goats would be better for the ecosystem and residents. There has also been a disturbing lack of information about ICE in our city. I am a citizen with long american heritage but am avoiding most woodbury businesses due to constant ICE presence. With a healthy diversity in our city and citywide cultural community days the silence from city officials is deafening. It is clear only whites are really welcome in Woodbury and it makes me ashamed to live here. There has been little guidance from schools and I don't know what to tell my child about why her POC friends no longer feel safe having playdates. • There is a lack of affordable condos in Woodbury. • There is way too many housing developments, condos, etc. Woodbury is sprawling too far and we are losing our close knit community. • There needs to be additional ways to travel east to west and north to south. You have added neighborhoods bordering Cottage Grove, but didn't take in to account the extra traffic that would need to travel through Woodbury from 494 and 94. Bailey should be 4 lanes from 494 to Manning Ave. Military Road should also be reopened to access Woodbury Dr. Changing Lake Rd from 4 lanes to 2 lanes and then changing the speed limit to 35mph, does not make sense. Radio Drive south of Bailey also needs to be updated. What a terrible and frustrating situation for drivers and homeowners at Radio and Dale. The roads need to be able to handle the traffic for Woodbury and for half of Cottage Grove. The families in the new Cottage Grove neighborhoods are not accessing them through Cottage Grove, they are going through Woodbury. Don't wait until everything is developed and then decide to improve the access, update it now. The city should also think about adding shopping and restaurants around Jerry's Foods or around Manning and Bailey. The current shopping areas are congested with Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo and Hudson shoppers. Plus with all the additional multi family home buildings is adding to the overall congestion. One more area of issue is the one road access to Costco. Too often this becomes backed up and cannot handle the amount of traffic trying to access that intersection. • There seems to be lack of enforcement for traffic laws, lots of speeding particularly in school zones, running red lights & stop signs. • These questions have very limited answers and seem to push for more government services. Which is not what Woodbury needs ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 106 • This is a very nice community to live in while I'm working but not when I retire. This relates more to the state of MN but not the Woodbury city. • Three options is unjust, if I could choose more to pick from I would say that the taxes here are more significant than in neighboring cities. The education system is not as great as in different parts of the world which is a major concern. Traffic congestion is terrible at times and there are a lot of elderly people who live in woodbury who think they own the city and make demands and or implement their own unjustified rules that the community should uphold. Housing seems to go up every year yet wages don't get an increase so it is getting harder and harder to find a place to live at a resonable price especially in woodbury where it should be more affdordable for everyone living here. The water quality for woodbury is extremly terrible it leaves stains on my faucets, toilets, and shower/bath. ## • TO MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS GOING UP DESTROYING THE LOOK OF WOODBURY ## WHERE WE HAVE LIVED FOR 30 YEARS ## • TO MANY DETOUR FOR ROAD WORK ## • TO MUCH GROWTH, OVER CROWDED • Too high of taxes ## • TOO LIBERAL; INCREASE JUDES-CHRISTIAN VALUES IN CLASSROOM ## • TOO MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING BRINGS CRIME! • Too many chain retail and dining, need to foster independent small businesses which will help with sense of community, bringing visitors in and employment. • Too many construction projects at the same time which makes it hard to navigate around Woodbury. And our taxes keep going up up and up. • Too many developments popping up, becoming too congested • Too many drivers do not obey laws. Hopefully, the new water treatment plant will make the water safe to drink (despite the city saying it is currently safe, I don't trust it). • Too many housing developments causing high traffic. City could be developed better. Low income is bringing the crime. ## • TOO MANY MULTI-HAVE HOUSING ## • TOO MANY NEW COMMERCE AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ## • TOO MANY NEW DEVELOPMENT ## • TOO MANY ROADS FALLING APART POT RATS IN ROAD FROM SEPERATION ## • TOO MANY SPEEDERS • Too many very busy, high speed, very wide roads between residential areas and destinations that make walking there scary and prohibitive for anyone except the very brave & agile pedestrian. No pedestrian accommodations within commercial developments, just massive parking lots. • too much development for roads to handle the increase in traffic ## • TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT. TOO HIGH OF PROPERTY TAXES ## • TOO MUCH DRAG RACING ON RADIO DR - PROPERTY THEFT IS UP ## • TOO MUCH GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT MAKES TRAFFIC WORSE • Too much growth and development, not enough open spaces and natural areas. • Too much growth too fast is ruining the quality of life for those of us that moved here in the last 5 years or more ago. The new industrial or commercial buildings and new apartments just ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 107 degrade the quality of our life and sense of peace and quiet and degrade the crazy amount of traffic. It's feeling like a downtown city rather than a suburb. • Too much housing growth without considering the affect on traffic congestion. Also, speeding on settlers ridge between Hudson Road & valley Creek Road is a real problem that the city refuses to address. ## • TOO MUCH INEFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION & UNNECESSARY ROAD WORK • Too much of our taxes go to the schools • too much section 8 housing. unfortunately crime seems to follow it. What a shame Jerry's had to add security. • Too much speeding in residential • Too much spending...taxes are out of control! ## • TOO MUCH TRAFFIC! ## • TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS ADD CONSIDERABLE TIME TO COMMUTES • Traffic appears continues to be on a steady increase. • Traffic can be annoying. I voted for tax hikes but wish it would come down after all the upgrades. • traffic congestion is a real issue with expansion. It would be helpful to reassess stoplight timing on a regular basis. some lights that you approach, you have 2 seconds before they are yellow. then you're stuck for another 3-4 minutes. As for the education - we do not have enough schools for the growing community. definitely need another school, both elementary and junior/senior high to be built in the South eastern addition area. The school seats available currently simply do not meet the number of students in the community. Water quality - this is obvious. I know it is in the works, but it is very unnerving knowing that we have such poor quality water. Especially for those who strongly prioritize our family's health, typically raising the bar higher than what is "allowed" to be consumed by the public. It's hard to trust the water that we currently consume, and also feel it has had a strange odor as of late. ## • TRAFFIC CONGESTION: ROAD CLOSURES DUE TO 3M WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS ARE ## CHALLENGING • Traffic enforcement is a serious issue; daily I see drivers go speeding through yellow and red lights. ## • TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE 24/7, WOODBURY IS NOW EAST ST PAUL W/CRIME AND ISD 833 IS ## GRADUATING STUDENTS THAT REALLY CAN'T MEET THE REQUIRE • traffic is terrible during rush hour, taxes keep going up while the growth and development doesn't seem to be enough to make the budget balance out without tax increases • Traffic is very heavy in the afternoons and weekends with many stop lights. I added water quality because we tested ours last week with a kit. It noted it noted high alkalinity. ## • TRAFFIC LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED. THE WATER QUALITY IS MORE OF A PROBL THAN THE ## CITY IS LETTING US KNOW. • Traffic light at Radio and Hudson Road - East and West bound- is way too short. Lucky if three cars get through. Too many cars are parked overnight on the street when it snows. Streets become too narrow since the plows can't get to the curbs. Our street consistently has cars parking overnight on the street when it is snowing - not a one time event. ## • TRAFFIC LIGHTS ARE POORLY COORDINATED. THEY TURNED JUST AS A CAR APPROACHES. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 108 • Traffic lights aren't designed to allow for optimal traffic flow. ## • TRAFFIC ON RADIO, LAKE, WOODBURY DR-VERY AGGRESSION DRIVERS/SPEEDING IN ## HEAVY TRAFFIC • Traffic on Valley Creek Rd east of Hwy 19 seems to travel too fast at times. Is there ever enough affordable housing? • Water cost seems highTaxes seem highSeveral roads need resurfacing ## • WATER DOES NOT TASTE VERY WELL • Water is HORRIBLE! We can't even drink it. Using it for ice c g anges the flavor of you're drink so nasty you can't drink it. We would NOT have moved here if we knew. We don't have confidence this NEW water treatment project is going to make it water drinkable. • Water pollution needs to be addressed and city taxes need to be lowered in order to attract buyers from adjoining neighborhoods. This tax mainly penalizes those living within the city. ## • WATER PURIFICATION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE POLLUTION HOUSING GROWTH ## DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF POPULATION GROWTH • Water quality could be better. Roads are congested and traveling time takes a long time. House values have climbed soo much that it is no longer affordable. Property taxes keep climbing up as well. • water quality still needs improvement - especially for those of us in apartments as we can't put in water softeners or filters, we have entitled drivers often going through red lights because they thought they could make it on the yellow which is very dangerous ## • WATER QUALITY SUMMARIZE QUESTIONABLE • Water Quality- cancer concerns • Water safety and environmental stewardship are the most important things to me. ## • WAY TOO MUCH GROWTH-SCHOOLS OVERCROWDED, TRAFFIC CONGESTED. I WOULD ## ACCEPT THE GROWTH MORE IF PROPERTY TAXES • We appreciate Woodbury including city official and educators. Job well done city staff. • We continue to add neighborhoods but people complain about increased taxes to support schools. There is only so much room in a school for students. Traffic is getting extremely bad especially during rush hour times. People also drive too fast and there doesn't appear to be much enforcement. ## • WE DO NOT TRUST THE WATER QUALITY DUE TO 3M TENSION HERE FOR 80 YEARS • We don't need any more multi family housing. • We have a lot of retail and big box stores in Woodbury so we need to be careful that our growth is not just in retail. Water quality because of the closeness of the 3M toxic chemicals and our neighborhood road was just replaced after almost 8 years of needing it badly. • We have enjoyed living in Woodbury for 11 years. I actually grew up in Woodbury as a teenager and have seen Woodbury grow and develop. I have some serious concerns regarding public safety with the steady increase in affordable housing. I have noticed the need for increased police presence in retail areas, restaurants, and patrolling of neighborhoods. My neighborhood has experienced increased police presence in the last 2 years. I have lived in Woodbury a long time and have never seen crime occurring like this. It's really sad because I love living in Woodbury but have had to consider moving to different communities due to this obvious increase in crime. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 109 • We have PFAS concerns in regards to the water.Feel that Woodbury drive between Lake and Eagle Creek Ln is very dark after sunset . Same is true for Lake road between Woodbury drive and Settler's Ridge. • We need clean water, lower taxes and easy to drive roads • We need to better ticket poor and speeding drivers. And in the summer have required education for bikers before one gets killed • We seems to put a lot of focus on affordable housing. All that seems to bring is added crime. • We support the new water treatment plant and feel it is much needed. Drivers treat streets like Settlers Ridge like the interstate. Also, too many loud vehicles being driven late at night. • When I boil tap water, white residue appears, but this does not happen with purified or bottled water. This makes me feel that the water quality in Woodbury could be improved • While education is better than many other districts in the state, Woodbury or more specifically SoWashCo have been gradually putting too much emphasis into political indoctrination. Moreover, only one side of the politcal aisle is acceptable in the eyes of many of the district's educators and the vast majority of the school board. • While Woodbury does have dining options available, it has a lot of chain restaurants. I would love to see more locally owned businesses in our city. ## • WHY DOESN'T THIS SURVEY HAVE A CHECK BOX FOR HIGH LEVEL HOUSING? ENOUGH SAD! ## TOO MUCH SOCIALISM! • Winter plowing on many side streets is terrible as plows leave plowed snow three feet away from curbs and it hardens which makes access to mailboxes difficult if not impossible. ## • WISH THERE WERE CONDOS TO BUY • With all the growth & development, there seems to be more traffic & lots of cars going over the speed limit. We have lived in Woodbury since 2012 & have seen the condition of the roads deteriorate. The roads used to be so nice to drive on. • With so much development, we're going to run out of water • With the amount of traffic within Woodbury, I find myself going to neighboring towns for shopping purposes, just to avoid the backups in town. • Woodbury as one of the largest communities by area (sq miles) is largely a bedroom community. We lack a place to stroll, shop, dine and enjoy entertainment. Our developments are largely parking lots surrounded by business. They are not pedestrian freindly. Unfortunately, the safest way to get from one business to the next within the same development is to get in your vehicle and drive there. The Lakes is a missed opportunity. It is essentialy a mall without a roof. There is little dinning and no entertainment. There are a few spaces within the Lakes that have the opportunity for outdoor music but they are not utilized. I'm not talking a concert just a one piece musician or a small band that people could enjoy on an evening out. It could give outsiders and residents a reason to visit, socialize and enjoy a beverage or food in Woodbury. Oppotunities for Seniors. ## • WOODBURY DOESN'T TREAT POLICE WELL USE THEM AS HR • Woodbury has a lot of wealthy residence, generally wealthy people lean republican, the Republican Party has turned into a braindead cult that targets anyone not like them. • Woodbury has grown way to much, stressful number of people now living here ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 110 • Woodbury has not done a good job of managing population growth. The push for affordable housing and diversity has caused multiple issues. Crime, traffic congestion, overcrowding at restaurants and businesses. I liked it better when Woodbury was a single family home community. Eastern Wisconsin is starting to look better as a place to live. • Woodbury has way too high of taxes. We need more businesses at the south end to help ease the taxes • Woodbury has, in my opinion, been challenged with keeping up with a high rate of growth. It feels like the City is always playing catch-up and not always prepared to handle big issues that come with a fast pace of growth and development (commercial, industrial, and residential). • Woodbury is generally safe, and has been a very good community for raising a family. I wish there were less retail and more good paying job/career opportunities so I did not have to travel outside of the community for work. I would also like to see more unique/individual restaurants and small businesses/retail - Woodbury has too many chains. I don't see myself retiring here because services are too spread-out and there are not great, simple, easy transportation options within the community unless you have a car. Would like to see WAY fewer traffic lights, and more actual enforcement of city ordinances/laws (e.g. keeping pets on leashes in public parks). Roads could use improvement. • Woodbury is growing far too quickly without enough thought about congestion, available schools, sense of community. It seems to me, that it would be reasonable to let infrastructure (roads, grid, schools, etc.) to catch up and see how the community functions as-is before we start stacking more housing on the edge of the city limits. Let's protect what we have and enhance it into a gem instead of spreading everything so thin that it's intollerable. As someone that is fully invested in Woodbury (WAA volunteer coach, school PTO board member, etc.) I'd really like a pause and assess where we are at before the city continued growth (residential, commercial/retail and industrial). • Woodbury is growing too fast. It was a quiet suburb 10 years ago and now it is more like St. Paul was 15 years ago, and that is not going in the correct direction. The non sensical political goals in St. Paul have obviously crept into Woodbury. The people leaving St. Paul/Mpls, which is only possible because of the ridiculous amount of growth, are bringing their nonsense here which is driving those with common sense to WI. We don't need another woke suburb with outrageous taxes courting the lowest common denominator. ## • WOODBURY IS GROWING WAY TOO FAST, DESTROYING SCHOOLS AND MEDICAL CARE • Woodbury is not a place to visit. It is where people shop, eat and get healthcare. Woodbury would not be on my list of places to visit. There is really nothing 'unique' here unlike Afton or Stillwater or even a neighborhood in St. Paul with shops and restaurants. We just don't have that here--a main street. The amount of traffic construction projects this summer was insane. Most residence would rather have slight inconveniences rather than trying to figure out how to get to work each day. Closing multiple main arteries was not the solution. It also baffles me that we do all these road projects, only to tear up the road again wasting tax payer money. The roads are worse than before the start of the tear up.If we can't support the infrastructure, we need to stop/delay/slow down housing development, that is just common sense. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 111 • Woodbury is now quickly becoming another suburb like all the others in the metro surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul due to these programs and policies that have been shown to fail time after time. They bring in high crime and lawlessness due to the invitation of people with poor cultural values, ethics and morals into our communities who do not contribute nor pay their fair share. Thus brings high taxes to hard working folks like us to make up the difference and ultimately suffering the consequences at the hands of poor "white guilt" leadership decisions. • Woodbury is very limited in restaurant selections. Wish there were a few more and of a larger variety. • Woodbury population growth and sprawl led to increased traffic congestion. Even to that end, people seem to frequently cause additional traffic safety issues with reckless driving, running red lights from impatience, and general speeding. ## • WOODBURY SHOULD HAVE A SENIOR CENTER & SERVICES CENTRAL FOR SENIORS • Woodbury should slow it's growth. More isn't always better. It's okay to take a pause and really analyze what is needed. • Woodbury taxes are getting out of hand the mayor has to stop spending our money start living within our means. • Woodbury used to be moderate and it's now just another liberal wasteland like the rest of MN. We are an embarrassment. "Fair and just policing" is even an option in the above section. Give me a break. Statistics people. Stop the virture signaling and run the city like a business. Gold line is a waste. Taxes too high. We are outta here as soon as our youngest graduates. Shunning the conservative and moderate folks has RUINED this city and state. It's no victory. 833 school district is a joke. • Woodbury's leadership is destroying what was a great place to live. This is not the same Woodbury from even 5 years ago. Way too many apartments and townhomes, just shoving more people here for what end? You're growing in all the wrong areas. And this new bus linewhat an absolute joke, ruining more of Woodbury. No one I know in Woodbury agrees with any of this and all question what is going on and why. • Would be nice to have some more non chain restaurants • Would love another tennis facility on this side of town, Also would love the high schools to improve. Rankings have dropped. Question 5a: Do you have any comments related to any of the items in question #5? ## • A LOT OF THE UNFAIR AND CORRUPT POLICIES OF THE CURRENT MN GOVERNMENT ## ADVERSELY EFFECT SOME OF THESE ISSUES. • As of writing this, ICE is threatening our state and community. Although happy to hear the city council doesn't support an ICE detention center, I wish they were more active in saying that ICE is not welcome in our community. ## • BEING MORE WELCOMING TO IMMIGRANTS • Black and brown people don't always feel welcome • Building 15 schools in the next 5 yrs ! • By accommodating, one group or area of a community, you are creating divides between other groups in the city ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 112 • City code does not take into account that older homes may not be in compliance as easily as newer homes. For example, having clean trash bins "visible" violates code. That code is a discriminatory practice and I would prefer to live in oakdale or maplewood where they care less about such minor things. ## • CITY IS TOO BIG TOO IMPERSONAL • come to Woodbury with a desire to be the best you can be and to be a good neighbor and you will do well here. • Current federal ICE operations are terrorizing and harassing our friends and neighbors. I have yet to see a statement or policy action from the city of Woodbury regarding this ongoing injustice. • DEI initiatives necessarily discriminate against individuals with non-preferred skin color and should not be practiced by Woodbury. ## • DIVERSITY & RESPECT FOR ALL IS A PRIME REASON THAT I LOVE WOODBURY. • Diversity happens and does not need to be forced. I lived and worked in St. Paul and I watched the Hmong population struggle then assimilate while not losing their own culture and identity and prosper turning a dying University Avenue into a strong prosperous corridor. The history of St Paul saw new residents do the same and we had vibrant neighborhoods with unique and strong cultures and we attended each other's festivals because we wanted to. Diversity is not forced, it happens. People are all individuals, some will assimilate, some won't some people welcome others some won't. You don't need to waste money pushing it. It is not government's job, it is God's hope for all of us but we bear individual responsibility to love thy neighbor. • Diversity is welcomed and fine, provided the people are productive and morally sound human beings. Bringing in lower income housing, so we can have higher crime is NOT acceptable. • Do not build an ICE detention center in Woodbury. We value our fellow humans. • Dont know how woodbury as a whole deals worh diversity • Even prior to ICE in our community I notice law enforcement targeting people of color in our community. Roadway improvements are not prioritized by need but appear to be prioritized by the tax bracket of the neighborhood and/or if there is a community govt official in the neighborhood. There has been a need for a traffic light for years at Tamarack & Woodduck but the city claims allegedly it is too close to other signals and can't be done, yet there is less space between traffic lights at Tamarack & Woodbury Dr/Tamarack Hudson place and Hudson Rd & Norma/Hudson Rd & Woodbury Drive. It appears it's not a priority because one side of Tamarack & Woodduck is townhouse and rentals including section eight housing &/or viewed as lower income. • Feeling much less safe with the explosion of the population and rise in crime • Focus less on diversity, different cultures, etc but rather growing one shared strong community for all. Even asking these types of questions promotes segregation rather than a shared sense of belonging. • Forcing diversity won't make everyone equal because all people are different!!! • FYI "previous" is spelled incorrectly here. I've only been a Woodbury resident for a few months. I'm happy to see the community come together for anti-ice protests and the outpouring of residents at the previous city council meeting around the potential detention ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 113 center. However, when I read some comments on some of Woodbury's social media, it's concerning and makes me think Woodbury isn't as progressive as I thought. ## • GOVERNMENT CAN'T CREATE DIVERSITY. ONLY THINK SO!! • Hard for new folks to integrate, this is a MN problem that is no different in Woodbury. • Housing and openly serving/supporting of ICE by local businesses recently was not ok • How does the city show or provide valuation to a diverse background of residents? Why is it Woodbury's job to make everyone feel good/included here and what can the city do to manage or promote that? Treating our fellow residents with respect is what we each individual that lives in Woodbury should demonstrate and expect from each other. Don't believe it's the job of our local government to treat people differently just because they may be a minority, disadvantaged or different culture. ## • I AM GLAD TO SEE ON COMMUNITY BECOMING MORE DIVERSE MORE WELCOMING • I am not a person of color or diverse background, so I don't feel it is my place to rate these. • I am not from a diverse background and do not ask others how they are being treated therefore it is very difficult to answer the question with specificity. • I am relatively new to Woodbury. • I am tired of the focus on diversity. Let's focus instead on raising the quality of life for all residents instead of focusing on a small segment of the population. • I am white and I don't have any friends of color living in Woodbury, so I feel as though I can't speak to most of the above questions. • I appreciate the Woodbury newsletter for reminders on watering, parking, events • I can't speak as well since I do not come from a diverse background but I appreciate community events that appear to include all. • I disagree with all DEI stuff. This is only segregating residents, not making it better. It's an unnatural influx right now and I can see the tensions in Woodbury are now noticeable, beyond the standard Minnesota passive aggressive behavior. • I don't feel there is any need for government subsidized low income housing. This is bringing an element into Woodbury which has ruined other communities. • I don't have a concern of neighbors with a different background as long as they have similar values. Majority of houses are very close to neighbors so you hope that your neighbors have similar values otherwise it can make things difficult. • I don't want ICE in our community ## • I DONT HAVE MUCH INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT CULTURES • I feel like Woodbury's diversity really shows up strongly in our schools. • I have a hard time excepting a culture that wants us dead. • I have been a white person living here since childhood for the last 35 years, so I have not experienced the need to be welcomed to the community, particularly as a minority • I have been a Woodbury resident for 26 years. When we moved here there was no outreach to new residents. We discovered the community on our own. Given this I have no idea of any efforts to welcome new residents. How would the greater community know the answers to these questions. My answers of "Good" are based on my perception only. ## • I HAVE LIVED HERE 51 YRS IN SAME HOUSE, NEW PEOPLE HOUSING IN YOUNG/FAMILIES ## DO NOT SHOW INTEREST IN OLD PEOPLE! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 114 • I have lived in Woodbury since 1985. I can't say how someone who moved here more recently feels. ## • I HAVE MINIMAL EXPERIENCE WITH EXPERENCE FROM ALL ISSUE ## • I HAVE ONLY LIVED IN MN FOR 2 YEARS IN WOODBURY • I hope all the above are at least fair but I don't have insight to other's experiences and Woodbury has hosted groups like Mega churches and others which are notoriously intolerant organizations. • I hope to see continued development of recreation, learning, and business spaces rather than federal government or detention facilities. Woodbury would feel less safe with detention facilities within city limits and become a less desirable place to live. • I hope Woodbury is not bending over backwards and letting those considered diverse get away with things that endanger those who are not. ## • I LIKE THAT THE LOCAL GOVT DOES NOT PROVIDE POLITICAL DIVISION ## • I LIKE WOODBURY A LOT • I love the diversity of the Royal ambassadors, too! • I moved here within the past year and I find it somewhat impersonal and anonymous. • I only have merge experiences of safety as a white woman. I would prefer to hear from diverse communities on their feelings of inclusivity and safety. • I read the city updates but don't get a sense of what Woodbury is doing to address the above items. Maybe more publicity about it would help. ## • I THINK THEY TRY PEOPLE WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS NEED TO ANSWER THIS ## QUESTION • I think this is a two-way street, if you want to be treated with respect and kindness, you have to offer the same treatment to others in your community. This is not about different cultures, backgrounds, race, etc. this is about how we all behave towards each other and create a community we call home and are proud of. • I think Woodbury does too much giving for people who. Don't need or deserve it! • I think Woodbury visibly puts in effort to make this a connected community. It is up to residents to take part. • I wish Woodbury was more diverse. • I've been impressed with the One Woodbury events and efforts and ability to be heard at City Council meetings • I've lived in Woodbury for the last 18 years, and I found my neighbors in both places I've lived to be unfriendly, not willing to engage in conversation, and sometimes won't even wave back. This was not my experience in the other communities I've lived throughout my life. I feel the stuffy reputation we have amongst other city suburbs is warranted. • I've never experienced anything to the contrary on any of the above items. The city shouldn't focus on these things. It should worry about safety through enforcement of state and federal laws. It should also focus on ensuring the public ways and utilities are well maintained. The rest society will sort out for itself. • Ice agents make me feel less safe going out • ICE patrolling the streets is bad for diversity, equality, safety. ## • ICE!! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 115 • In my neighborhood acceptance is mostly positive but there are people who want things a certain way and don't like people with different attitudes. • In my neighborhood, people keep to themselves and our relationships never go beyond occasional hello or hi or hand waving. • In my neighborhood, people really keep to themselves. With the Wy neighborhoods are isolated by HOAs, there isn't a great way make connections. • It is a an integrated community. ## • IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET TO KNOW OUR NEIGHBOUR • It is hard to answer these questions, as I am white. I don't know the experience of people from other cultures. Only they can answer these questions and if they feel welcomed and safe. • It's the people of Woodbury who aren't kind nor accepting towards non-white people. They don't value the minimum wage workers but they all use their service. Connect this bridge please. • Just that the word is spelled "previous" • Keep ICE out of woodbury, don't allow them to purchase any properties as detention centers • Legal migrants are welcomed by overwhelming majority for sure. The cultural differences do add complexity in assimilation for new arrivals. A natural resistance to change is understandable but there needs to be enthusiasm for adapting to the national, state, and local customs and way of life. Weaving in the best of all cultures is what drives a community forward and allows it to evolve and thrive. • Like can we chill out on the "diversity" thing - it's just way too much. We seem to devalue white European people the most. • Living in a senior housing facility limits my answers to within this facility not so much Woodbury at large. • Many of those I meet in Woodbury are very conservative and don't want anyone of color to be in our community - I totally disagree, but we have a lot of bigoted individuals in our community • More variety of cultural and diet-aware food options would improve the welcoming atmosphere of the city • My experiences are good so far but I think the response to ICE will be very telling. • My HOA has issues that cause division among the neighbors. My older neighborhood is not treated as well as those in the new developments or around Wedgewood. • My neighbors who just became US citizens do NOT feel safe here. • My only comment is that the word previous is misspelled in the question above. • My perspective of Woodbury is unique in that I moved here during Covid peak. Neighborly activities were never available and it seems to have never come back if it ever existed before. • no • no • No • No • No • No • No ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 116 • No • No • No • No • No ## • NO ## • NO ## • NO ## • NO ## • NO ## • NO COMMENT • No comments. • No, other than "previous" is spelled with a "u" in the script there Crew. J/K LOL #RESPECT • No. • non • Non • none • none • None • None • None • None • None • None • None of the above seem to happen • None. • Nope. • not at this time ## • NOT AT THIS TIME • not racially diverse • Nothing other than these seem like leading questions. ## • OLDER RESIDENTS ARE NOT WELCOMED LIKE YOUNGER FOLKS • Our community's reluctance to embrace a wider range of affordable housing leads me to believe that we like to say we are inclusive but aren't genuinely so. • Our household values diversity, but I won't pretend to know what it feels like to be a minority in Woodbury. • Overall, Woodbury remains a safe suburbs outside the Twin Cities, with violent crime rates far below state and national averages.However, rapid population growth and state-mandated dense housing policies are eroding the peaceful, family-friendly suburban character that drew us here. We chose Woodbury to raise families in a spacious, low-crime community not to deal with big-city problems like: Reckless e-bikes and e-scooters on trails and parksUnderage riders (violating Minnesota's under-15 ban) on over-powered devices routinely endanger pedestrians, families, and seniors. Nationally, e-bike injuries surged 293% and e-scooter ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 117 injuries rose 88% from 20192022 (American Journal of Public Health, 2024), with many involving young riders and shared-path conflicts. In Woodbury, near-misses are rampant, yet enforcement is virtually nonexistent unless a crash is severe. Our trails limit devices to Class 1/2 (20 mph max), but rules are ignored daily. Rising petty crime and nuisance behavior from overcrowdingWhile violent crime stays low, total reported crime in Woodbury jumped 8% in 2024 alone (City-Data.com), bringing more vandalism, thefts, and trail incidents exactly what happens when suburbs are forced into urban-style density. Unbearable traffic congestion from nonstop developmentEndless building on every remaining parcel has gridlocked roads like Valley Creek, Radio Drive, and I-94 ramps. Commutes that once took minutes now drag on, with constant construction and overflowing intersections turning our suburb into a parking lot.We did not move here for urban density, reckless e-devices zooming past our kids, rising nuisance crime, or gridlocked streets. Please enforce trail rules aggressively (age/speed limits, visible patrols), push back against state mandates for dense/low-income housing that overload our infrastructure, halt over-development, and preserve Woodbury as the safe, spacious suburb families dream of. ## • PEOPLE DON'T HELP US OTHERS • Personally i have the best neighbors ever !We are a great tight knit neighbors!I love them all!My personal experience when visiting some offices was not good but overall i can't complain.This particular lady was very dismissive but on my 2 nd visit the lady i met she was wonderful ! ## • PLEASE DON'T GIVE IN TO SPECIAL DEMANDS FROM MUSLIMS • Please don't waste too much time or resources worrying about diversity and inclusion. You've gone overboard. Take care of our safety and our roads and the traditional responsibilities of municipal government in an efficient manner. The push for affordable housing has reduced the overall desirability of our town. More congestion, more crime, reduced quality of schools. • Previos question (Previous is misspelled) • Previous is misspelled above. Back in the day there was a welcome to Woodbury where new residents could meet and greet and learn about Woodbury. Does that even exist anymore? • Previous is spelled wrong. Happens to the best of us. As long as they aren't doing illegal things I do not care what type of ethnic background my neighbor is to me we are all the same • PREVIOUS. Spell it right. This section is a comical waste. It's so 2010 of you to be worried about "diversity" and fairness. The scandinavians are the ONLY people discriminated against. Pride flags at the medical clinics, pronouns on city council members and the like. Grow up. ## • PUTTING A 'BLACK LIVES MATTER' SIGN IN YOUR FORTY 2ND DOES NOT MEAN YOU WE ## OPEN TO DIVERSITY IN YA OWN NEED ## • QUESTION IS TOO WOKE • Questions like this only "create" or imply the illusion of implicit bias between different people. People are all just people in my view. ## • READING COMMENTS IN NEXT DAY APP REALLY OPENED MY EYES TO THE # OF RACISTS ## THAT LINE AROUND HERE HOW GOOD PEOPLE TOO • Recent experience--a person of color came to my door about 7pm. I asked how I could help him. The minute he saw me, he realized he was at the wrong house, and put up his hands saying how sorry he was to have bothered me. He obviously thought there was the possibility ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 118 that I might shoot him, or call the police. He was just at the wrong house, but he was terrified! Nobody should be terrified like that! • Relocating to MN from several other states and countries felt abysmal, the Minnesota coldness and lack of genuine warmth is palpable. Community response and services lack any real commitment to trying to learn from and or understand from those experiencing challenges. • Residents are not treated fair on my block. There are 4 white families that keep getting fined for our garbage containers. Do better Woodbury...who cares! Spend that time and energy elsewhere, please! • Safety is job one. More community service oficers and police woul dbe great ## • SCHOOLS DO A GOOD JOB, BUT ADULTS AREN'T AS OPEN TO DIVERSITY ## • SEEMS TOO BE A FOCUS. DEI ## • SO FAR SO GOOD (SAFETY AND SECURITY WISE) • Stop putting people into different categories • Tax paying citizens are being over taxed in Woodbury and Minnesota! • The above questions were hard to answer because the neighborhood that we live in is 99% white. However there is a large & diverse population that uses Central Park/Library, & that is very positive to see. ## • THE CITY COULD BE MORE INCLUSIVE BY MAKING MORE OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF HOW ## ARE POLICE FORCES WILL SUPPORT ALL OF ARE MEMBERS. • The city seems to express openness to all. I have no first hand knowledge of how it is for all races, religions, cultures, genders. I have a mixed race family next door who are great people. My family is not at all bigoted nor are any neighbors that I'm aware of. • The City, with the collaboration of the Woodbury Community, the Chamber of Commerce, et al will continue to work on valuing diversity and welcoming it's continuing growth of minorities. • The city's importation of inner-city low-income problem people and illegal criminal immigrants has pushed the police department beyond its capacity. They also don't assist or help comply with federal immigration laws. Most residents feel unsafe with illegal criminals in our community. • The gold line bus station is not safe. I live next to it and I have seen multiple homeless people go down into the woods; multiple mentally ill and/or drug addicts pacing and punching walls in the parking garage; prostitutes hanging out in the seating area; children running around unsupervised (one even tried to get on a MOVING bus) while metro police were parked IN THE GARAGE and did nothing.Also I feel like conservatives are forced to keep quiet or be bullied by the community. • The majority of Woodbury residents are respectful of other residents of different backgrounds, but there persists to be more of those who don't want to condone the culture and behaviors of other backgrounds. • The previous section of questions is not the responsibility of the city. There is also no way for the average person to know. ## • THE PROGRAMS AT SCHOOLS, LIBRANS ETC, HELP WITH THIS. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 119 ## • THERE APPEARS TO BE MANY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS EMPLOYED WHERE AT ## SHOP OR DINE ## • THERE ARE MORE THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT THAN DIVERSITY ## • THERE ARE NEW RESIDENTS WHO ARE NOT INTEGRATING WELL • There are some cultures that do not assimilate well with others. ## • THERE'S A LOT OF TALK-BUT LESS & LESS WALKING IT FROM THE COMMUNITY ## • THESE ARE LEADING QUESTIONS IN FAVOR OF A SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC • These are questions that are not needed • These are very loaded questions--I think Woodbury does a good job but I don't see any of these on a day to day basis nor am I really looking for it. We don't have a full-time government. • These survey questions are double-barreled questions and should be changed. As an American-born with East Asian descent, I value my culture and diversity here in America. Particularly as an Asian man, we are the most oppressed, most discriminated, and most underprivileged people in America, yet we don't complain or demand for any type of special privilege or entitlement. Instead we continue to work hard, pursue good ethics, morals and values. I cherish, assimilated and value our American culture even more because it allows me to be free, independent and unique. Not all people from different backgrounds, cultures and religions appreciate or are compatible with our American culture and values. We should not be pandering to any culture besides encouraging the American culture. You will never be able to please everyone or every culture. These folks ran or escaped from their culture that had failed them previously. No one ever fled or migrated to another country because their country, culture or belief system, etc., were "too good!" ## • TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS, POSSIBLY ILLEGAL ## • TOO MANY SOMALIANS • Too much affordable housing & mixed type of housing in the same neighborhood is less desirable. • Too much emphasis on diversity and subsidized housing. We moved here to get away from the nonsense in the city. I am a retired law enforcement officer and moved here so I didn't have to deal with the element I dealt with at work. Well, you opened up the low income and subsidized housing and now I see squads heading that way on a nightly basis. Looking forward to moving in the next few years to again get away from the nonsense. Lived here for 25 years • Too much emphasis put in this area. We should treat everyone similarly. ## • TOO WOKE! ## • TREAT ALL LEGAL RESIDENTS THE SAME, WHO CAPES WHERE THEY ARE FROM - THEY ARE ## HERE TREAT THEM • Until Operation Metro Surge I felt Woodbury embraced people of all backgrounds. It was one of the reasons we moved here. Currently I feel all previous community outreach was a front and we no longer welcome POC. Our city government has carried on like business as usual as ICE frequents our restaurants and shopping centers. Stayed quiet as citizens were executed by our government. And posted mundane social media posts. Very tone deaf and dissappointing. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 120 ## • VERY LITTLE ETHNIC DIVERSITY ## • VERY LOW NUMBER OF PEOPLE OF COLOR WOODBURY IS SEEN AS A 'WHITE' COMMUNITY ## • WANT THE RESIDENTS MOVING TO WOODBURY TO BE RESPECTFUL TO EXISTING ## RESIDENTS ## • WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH NEIGHBORS. ## • WE DONT NEED ANY MORE DIVERSITY ## • WE HAVE VERY FEW LOCALLY OWNED/INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES • We need to embrace community and reject ICE and the Conservatives • We place too much focus on people backgrounds and not the person. Nobody cares what your background is if you are a good person ## • WE REFLECT THE GREATER METRO SOCIETY SO USE HAVE THE USUAL TENSIONS ## • WE SEEM TO HAVE A VERY WELCOMING CITY ## • WELCOMING ALL PEOPLE IS RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH PERSON NOT THE COMMUNITY AS A ## WHOLE ## • WHAT & FILES KNOWN YEARS AGO - NEVER HARD FROM THE CITY • What is a "previos" question? • Why all the questions on diverse backgrounds? I don't look at people and see color. Apparently whoever wrote this survey is a democrat. ## • WHY ARE WE LETTING ILLEGALS & SOMALIS TAKE OVER OUR HOUSING ## • WHY IS THIS A FOCUS OF WOODBURY, CRIME & SCHOOLS SHOULD BE FOCUS • Why is this survey weighted so heavliy towards "differences" and "diversity?" You are either a Woodbury resident, or you arent. Why highlight differences and division? • With 85,000 people, they all want a voice. • With ICE presence I hope our leadership maintains a just and fair approach to our community members. • With the things that are going on here in Minnesota I really believe that every community needs to reach out and have people be more aware of the diversity that is around us and how we should treat everyone equally. Having mixed great grandsons in my family I worry about what it is going to be like For them in a few years. I know it starts in the home with forming a child's personality in mine and thinking, but hope our school are really doing their job. ## • WOODBURY (NOW CALLED 'HOODBURY' BY SOME DUE TO CRIME) HAS REALLY DECREASED ## IN TERMS OF CRIME AND PROPERTY TAX HIKES. I'M NOT TOO CONNECTED TO ## COMMUNITY BUT ENJOY SHOPPING AND DINING CHOICES. • Woodbury could be more inclusive and more family/culrure friendly. ## • WOODBURY DOES GREAT-ISSUE IS W/ FEDERAL GOVT RIGHT NOW • Woodbury does welcome and respect diversity however these populations have created safety concerns on our roadways and a cold welcoming to some shopping locations. • Woodbury has alienated those who have lived in Woodbury longer than five years in favor of the same nonsense that has led to riots and chaos in St Paul/mpls. I willl be leaving as soon as possible. • Woodbury has become more diverse but it doesn't always feel welcoming. Elitist mentalities of "East Woodbury" vs "Old Woodbury" are common. The City may be ethnically/culturally diverse, but socioeconomic diversity is lacking. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 121 • Woodbury has become very diverse. ## • WOODBURY HAS DEFINITELY OPENED UP TO LET DIVERSITY IN. • Woodbury has many people of color and ethnicity but overall I don't know how they are treated or represented. Also, the word previous is spelled wrong. • Woodbury has opportunities to meet middle aged couples without kids. • Woodbury is a great place and I don't want it turn into Minneapolis. Attract more businesses to come here. Why can't we attract business like Graco when they exit Minneapolis • Woodbury is a wealthy and safe city so let's keep it that way. We do not need to promote government housing for those who do not value community only to have them slander our way of life demanding more government subsidies. We should continue to help those in need but once they are no longer motivated to contribute to our city then we should stop the welfare assistance • Woodbury is a wonderful and very welcoming place for new residents and for people from diverse background. My family has always felt welcoming and comfortable here. ## • WOODBURY IS VERY DIVERSE • Woodbury seems to embrace people from all cultures and backgrounds, especially those whose choose not to integrate' or assimilate. • Working outside of the Woodbury area, I don't have any strong sense, opinion or experience in this areas so indicated "Don't Know" for most of these. • Ya, why are you asking so much about diversity? Stop that crap. People are people. Period. ## • YOUR'RE LYING, ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS ILLEGAL ALIENS AND BLAC. Question 7a: To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? – Why? Strongly or Somewhat Approve. ## • A LOT OF ISSUES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT HARDER WITH IMPUT BY MANY DIFFERENT ## PEOPLE. OVERALL, WOODBURY PROBABLY DOES A BETTER JOB THAN MANY ## SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. • Again, new resident so I don't have a ton of knowledge on the Mayor or City Council. I do approve of how they handled the ICE detention center rumors and decision. • all staff seems involved in community events and communicating their activities • always room to improve • Anne Burt has done a phenomenal job. The city is clean and appealing looking. • As far as I can see they are doing a good job • As previously stated, way too much new development. Keeping taxes affordable - the administration is doing a good job at that. We have lived in Woodbury since 1985 and consider the taxes that we pay have been fair. • At times, I believe that the City Council puts forth their personal views rather than what is best for Woodbury and all residents. • Because I am not aware of any significant issues that need to be addressed or that aren't being addressed, they are fully meeting my expectations. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 122 • Because it is hard for me to strongly approve of anything. ## • BECAUSE LIFE IN WOODBURY SAFE AND COMFORTABLE • Because they are standing up and doing a job that I couldn't nor wouldn't do. Thank you. ## • BISKEN ## • BUDGET MGT & OVERALL CITY OPERATIONS • Can always do better ## • CITY IS WELL RESPECTED BY NEIGHBOR CITY AND STATE AT MN ## • CITY SEEMS TO BE WELL RUN • City seems well run • Closing multiple main roads over the summer was absolutely ridiculous, valley creek for example. One at a time. ## • COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-FINAL USAGE OF SITES DIFFER FROM INITIAL DESCRIPTIONS ## & APPROVALS, LIMITED COMMERCIAL ORDINANCES • Continued growth • Control the budgets in order to lower taxes. ## • CORE OF OPEN SPACES IS POOR ## • DIFFERENT POLITICAL VIEWS • Disappointed that ICE facility was shot down. limit growth of high-volume residential buildings. ## • DISAPPROVE OF HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING ON EASTERN SECTION AT CITY ## • DOES NOT ALWAY GET ENOUGH INFOR • Don't follow city politics much but recently with ICE facility, I think the city needs to be proactive in planning and listening to residents. Residents need to know what is within the power of city council and what is not. Meeting on January 14th was not clear. ## • DON'T HEAR BAD THINGS • Don't like stance on some things. • Don't like the new bus line that nobody uses or would have given higher rating. • Don't need to be woke. We have a great city and don't need to add more things to bring in bad elements. Bus is a mistake. Don't want low income apartments ## • ECONOMY IS GROWING & GOOD COMMUNICATION W/RESIDENTS ## • ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN & STANCE TO KEEP PPL SAFE ## • EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE RUNNING WELL • Except the high property tax, I do enjoy making my home in Woodbury, In fact it's the only place I want to live in MN, And I do appreciate Woodbury mayor and city keep the city so beautiful, Thank you • Feel all is going great! ## • FEEL OVERALL SECURE & ENJOY AMENITIES ## • FEEL SAFE & CITY IS WELL RUN ## • FISCALLY MANAGED CITY, GOOD COMMUNICATION • Focus on future instead of current times. • Focus on politically divisive topics and policies should never happen at the local level when all local politician run as "non-partisan". • Focused on Water issues and doing a good job. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 123 • for comments about the possible ICE detention center • from what I know they are doing a good job, Woodbury is a well managed city • Generally happy with the city. ## • GENERALLY, I AM SATISFIED WITH THE CITY • Given today's environment and options, unsure I would do anything differently. • Good communication • Good communication • Good communication efforts ## • GOOD COMMUNICATION FEW SERIOUS PROBLEMS ## • GOOD COMMUNICATION IN REGULAR MAILINGS • good interaction with residents • Good job navigating the water infrastructure, but the Gold line decision was useless, nobody rides. The rapid growth of Woodbury over the last 10 years is startling and appeasers to be outpacing infrastructure needs which we are all paying for now whether we like it or not. • Great progress is made on city projects and communications to citizens are exceptional. • grown to much and taxes • Happy with the direction • Hard work good for all ## • HAS EXCELLENT SUPPORT WITH COMMUNITY • Hate seeing trees that have been around for ages removed for development and replaced with small trees. ## • HAVE HOT HAD ANY DIRECT INTERACTION TO FEEL STRONGLY APPROVE • Have known Anne for decades and respect her. Mayoral roles are challenging in today's environment. ## • HAVE MANAGERS GROWTH WELL ## • HAVE NO COMPLAINTS I WAS ON PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW FOR MAPLEWOOD • Haven't had much interaction. • Havent seen much but I like what I've seen ## • HIGH PROPERTY TAXES • How the Council continues to make water quality a priority. The standardisation of retail buildings appearance. Support for citizen organisations within the city. And most recently, the vote to not allow an ICE detention center to be built within City limits. • I agree with most decisions. Upset about the way our neighborhood roads were redone. ## • I AM GENERALLY HAPPY WITH CRUCIAL DECISION, ANT WORDS ARE ACTIONS ARE ICE ## PREVENTION HAVE TEMPERED RAT • I am overall pleased, I worry about the quality of the schools • I am pretty happy with living in the city of Woodbury. I believe people need to feel safe and welcome in the community and the city of Woodbury does just that ## • I APPRECIATE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE CLEAN WATER THAT IS POLLUTION FREE • I appreciate how the ICE facility issue was handled. I know you can't ban private business owners from things, but it seems like you guys did a good job working with that owner to encourage them to not rent that space that way... ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 124 • I appreciate the amount of communication I get from both Woodbury and Washington County. I lived in St Paul/Ramsey county for 35 years and Woodbury keeps we residents well informed. It seem there are also more informational meetings and discussions available to participate in. • I appreciate the transparency of the Mayor's office and the City Council. I understand their priorities and how they are measuring progress. If only this could be true at the national level. • I approve but I do think we need to be cautious about keeping expenses in check and ensuring we are spending in a responsible way. • I believe the mayor and city council have done excellently in attracting businesses to the city and creating a prosperous local economy. I believe they have done less well in prioritizing quality of life for current residents. I believe the Gold Line has been a detriment to the Woodbury community through access for low-level criminal actors, which has not yet been offset by any realized economic benefit. • I believe the mayor and council were very responsive to the recent high concern of the federal detention center • I believe the mayor is addressing the communities needs. • I believe they do the best they can. This city is a large suburb now. Last summer was a disaster to move around Woodbury with all east west roads closed. These are decisions that could be done better. We know there's water treatment plant etc, but I think if you know about planned construction events take care with you residents. Also, the building of homes is insane. Now it's warehouses. I guess it's progress but to what extent. You are just bringing in money, you're not investing $ - as in community pool or activity center. You're just parcelling out the land to have buildings that collect taxes. • I believe they gave the residents interest in mind. • I believe we are spending too much, following the state and national trend. All public entities spend more than they need to • I chose that answer because I always think all of us can do better. One thing I have to complain about is a few years back. We were all assessed for a curb area in our streets, but not all were replaced including our home and it is a mess. And it makes me very angry today that it cost us 13 or $1400 And didn't get a damn thing for it. • I do appreciate the difficult job they have pleasing everyone in Woodbury. I would hope they would work to protect ALL Woodbury residents from ICE. • I do not approve of the rate at which my property taxes are going up. I also strongly dislike the low income housing that was built. It will bring crime to our suburb. • I do not feel like enough is being done to keep kids safe • I do think that there is poor oversight and planning for where residential and commercial areas are going in. The south side of Woodbury essentially has no commercial areas. • I don't approve of taking down all of the farm land and turning it into apartments or warehouses. • I don't follow that closely • I don't have any complaints • I don't have any negatives that stand out • I don't hear from the mayor ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 125 • I don't know enough about her • I don't know her well enough to know. • I don't like the new bus line, it brings more crime into the city • I don't really pay attention, but seems like there are a lot of businesses and Woodbury is always busy so you must be doing alright. • I don't understand how you can allow for so much construction (homes and businesses) and not have an increased tax base that allows you to ease the burden on those already living here. • I don't want my property taxes to increase. My escrow was affected. That coupled with an increase in HOA dues makes me unhappy. • I feel issues are addressed in a timely manner. ## • I FEEL SAFE LIVING IN WOODBURY. • I feel that too many dollars are spent on things no one wants. It's not the city, but the bus line is a total bust. Very, Very few riders and a lot of money !!!! • I feel they are doing the best they can • I greatly appreciate the current support for ICE OUT. • I have no areas of concern at this time. I appreciate transparency and Facebook posts that keep the community informed. • I haven't heard about major problems one way or another • I know some council members support ice actions that are negatively affecting our community and causing many people to live in fear. ## • I KNOW THERE ARE DISAGREEMENTS, BUT USUALLY WORKED OUT I FEEL COMFORTABLE ## HERE • I like receiving the various city related newsletters; through them is my only knowledge of what the mayor and city council are up to. • I like the direction where we are going in Woodbury but we are not there yet. It is easy to pass judgment with the issues of ICE in our community and how we are living with this. I believe that people go into public service for the good of the community not for personal gain. In large I believe this is true with the Mayor and City Council. • I like the effort they put into planning for the future (e.g. prioritizing clean drinking water, sales tax to fund school renovations, etc.) • I love how Woodbury keeps the citizens informed with changes and updates • I love the way the city has been developing the last few years. The recent road renovations and parks are excellent, as are the great mixture of multi and single family homes. I feel like the city is responsive to residents. I like that affordable housing is being built (e.g., The Meadows at Prairie Ridge). • I moved here in 2023. I love the communication and direction the city maintains. I'm very happy here. Moved from Minnetrista. ## • I NEED TO BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING-BUT APPRECIATED THE ## RECENT MTG. ABOUT ICE & PROTECTING RESIDENTS. • I quite frankly don't know many of the details, but can certainly observe the efforts around infrastructure, parks, and such. I didn't select strongly agree due to the rather chaotic nature ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 126 of the roadwork and planning. It probably could have been streamlined better than a perpetually changing traffic pattern. • I rarely hear of disagreements between Mayor and City Council. I should be more proactive in following City Council meetings. • I support the city council members that are progressive and open minded. I do not support those that are myopic, particularly those who support the values of Trump and his administration. • I think both could improve on what the priorities are for spending money, but I also understand the times we are living in • I think our response to addressing water quality was unnecessarily slow, and that the 3M settlement was insufficient. I will always wonder if any health issues are related to PFAS consumption. • I think she's doing a very good job. • I think they are doing an acceptable job and that they have set good goals for long term planning. • I think we could be doing more to get ice out of our city, our hotels, and restaurants • I want to see more manufacturers to come here. It will provide high wage jobs. Cooperate offices to come here also - maybe Target perhaps. I also have concern with teachers go out their way and obstruct federal operations • I was dissappointed by the mayor's tepid response to ICE seeking a facility in Woodbury. ICE's presence in Woodbury will make all of our citizens less safe. ## • I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH HOW SHE HANDLED THE JAN 14 COUNCIL MTG OVERFLOW ## CROWDS. ## • I WOULD LIKE A STRONGER ANTI-ICE MESSAGE • I would like to see better zoning an a move to make a more walkable downtown with restaurants. • I would like to see how the year goes about how the mayor and city council handles various issues and concerns in the city of Woodbury. • I would like to see more emphasis on the growth of the city to attract visitors to grow the overall economy besides new housing and apartments as well as retail stores. As a land of 10 lakes: the state doesn't have any sort of water parks which Woodbury could leverage the opportunity. • I would like to see the Mayor and City Council take a stronger stance on issues that matter and lead the way as one of top 10 largest cities in MN. Too often, it feels like our elected leaders are hesitant to make a statement and prefer to make decisions that do not draw attention to the City. • I'm a little apprehensive about tax increases. • I'm concerned with the current environment and am not sure how the City Council is being fully transparent when it comes to ICE related incidents in our community right now. • I'm not pleased with the excessive growth. We used to have farmland and open spaces. We used to be able to take routes to avoid traffic. The city has not been receptive to indoor pickleball for seniors. The new pickleball businesses are not necessarily affordable.The Rapid Bus line has proved to be a low ridership waste of money, just like light rail. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 127 ## • I'M NOT SURE OF SOME THINGS BUT I AM SATISFIED OVERALL. • I've recently moved to Woodbury so I don't have much knowledge at this time. • ICE is the reason I no longer feel completely safe. The last name on the deed to my house and many of neighbors homes would be clear targets. • Im sure they are doing a reasonably good job • In general there is no point to attending a meeting where a decision has already been made, but it is made to sound like residents input is being requested. I wasted my time twice where council was opposite of all residents in attendance and will not do it again, • It appears they have a fair outlook for their residents • j'approuve • Just focus on stewardship of tax dollars and making Woodbury a great place to live. Hudson is always an option for my family and business. ## • KEEP WOODBURY OUT OF NATIONAL POLITICS • Keep your backbone. There will be a ton of calls from anti ice. Keep our community safe but also they are arresting some sick people. Woodbury cops are being gone after this past weekend. Please stand up for them they are the best cops. Nobody should be told where they can park or not. • Keeps community connected with regular newsletters. Balancing budget well. Improving the city and exploring new growth opportunities. • Laser focus on expanding business, industry, and commerce needs to be a main focus. Social engineering around climate change, DEI, and similar issues should have no place. ## • LOVE THE BUSINESSES BROUGHT IN • Lower taxes • Mayor Anne Burt empowers the city council and city administrators to do their best work. • Mayor Anne exhibits strong leadership of the City Council as she carefully listens to the input from the 4 Council members and the citizens attending the meetings. • Mayor Burt is doing an amazing job! Love her. Keep showing up in the community (Chamber ## Events, Outings, etc) ## • MAYOR BURT IS STRIVING TO MEET A LOT OF DIVERSE NEEDS, RESPONSIBILITIES ## • MAYOR DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB • Mayor MUST keep the WASTEFUL spending as low as possible. Mayor MUST dedicate her personal time in doing audit checks and financial reviews. Mayor's office MUST ensure that WASTEFUL spending is NOT encouraged, spending is always QUESTIONED, and culture of MERIT and PERSONAL HONESTY is valued and encouraged. • Most Major issues seem to be covered. ## • MOST STAFF IS FINE BUT FEAR OVER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN SPACE ## • MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION • My only worry is rhe time it is taking to guarantee safe water • My rating reflects "good with opportunities to be even better" • Need more attention to critical services. ie EMS/Fire, Police. • Need more patrols through neighborhoods to feel safer • Need more public facilities and city hall renovation • Need to resist ICE coming into Woodbury. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 128 ## • NO BIG ISSUES THAT ARE CONCERNING, I APPRECIATED COMMUNICATION ABOUT ## POSSIBLE ICE PRESENCE AND USE OF WAREHOUSE AND KNOW IT WON'T BE HAPPENING. ## • NO COMMENT ## • NO ISSUES • No major issues to complain of yet. I'm still new to the area too • No real complaints but they seem to be caretakers rather than leaders. Not really visionaries in any sense. Can they envision something better, or different? Not sure. • No serious problems but think there are lots of public works projects that don't make sense and too much growth and development and little sense of community. ## • NOBODY IS PERFECT • Nonstop road construction and multiple multiple large apartment construction • Not an extreme left or right mayor ## • NOT ENOUGH INTERACTION DIRECTLY • Not even sure what our Mayor has done for our city. • Not in tune with the workings of city government. However, the monthly newsletter is a great tool that helps keeping resident's informed. • Not sure they are looking out for the residents of Woodbury • Nothing is being done about the traffic speeding and red light running. Property taxes keep climbing higher but services don't seem to be increasing or improving. ## • ON THE SURFACE THE CITY IS RUNNING SMOOTHLY WHO KNOWS IF FRONT IS HAPPENING ## BELOW THE SURFACE HOPE NOT • Open communication and long range p. ## • OVERALL CITY GOV. IS DOING GOOD FOR THE CITY ## • OVERALL GOOD JOB BUT SOMETIMES THEY DESIGN AND PUBLIC INPUT FOR THEIR OWN ## AGENDA • Overall, the city is run well. ## • OVERALL, WOODBURY IS A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE • Please do not allow ICE detention center. That will force us to move to a different area. • Please keep Woodbury safe for residents and our children. • Professional mayor and city administrator who go above and beyond to keep people happy and informed. • Property taxes are killing me, I'm paying near double into escrow for taxes and insurance than I do for principle and interest combined. • Property taxes are too high • Property taxes need to be controlled. Please do not keep taxing at a high level. • Raising taxes seems to be the answer to everything. • Read in newsletter • Really good communication with the community...much appreciated! ## • RECENT REFUSAL TO ALLOW ICE DETENTION IN OUR CITY • Related to my comments in the first section. • Rethink efforts to develop cluster housing widely across the city. Focus on transportation hub areas not every nook and cranny of the city. based on experience living in Europe, lower ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 129 income housing does bring 'petty crime' into the overall neighborhoods (break-ins to cars and homes). ## • ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NEW BUSINESS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS • Seem to be in touch with what is going on in our area ## • SEEM TO NEEDY NEEDS OF GROWTH IN THE RESIDENT ## • SHE DOES MARVELOUS THINGS TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT!! ## • SOME WHAT OVER THE TOP IN SPENDING • Something needs to get done with Fire staffing. • Somewhat approve ## • STRATEGIC ## • TAXES • Taxes keep going up due to the cities spending including all the new trucks and vehicles used by city employees. ## • TEXAS COST LIVING CITY FEES HIGH ## • THANKLESS JOB - I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM STANDING STRONGER GOING ICE • The city council (years ago) decided without a very transparent process to resurface neighborhood, which we objected to and with a petition were able to reverse the original plan • The city isn't headed downhill and seems to be remaining mostly safe despite overgrowth. • The communication and coordination of the pipeline project during the summer of 2025 was poor. There were detours routes that were also closed for repair and so it was almost impossible to get around town • The council has often performed with intelligence when dealing with many issues, and have been very proactive on the important ones such as water contamination. Mayor Burt has done a very nice job, and has made herself approachable in public. • The few times I have attended informational meetings the city manager appeared to be dismissive of residents concerns. • The infastructure improvements are great. Please don't let ICE open a detention center here. ## • THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - AS A WHOLE - ARE DILIGENT ABOUT LISTENING ## CONSIDERING & DISCUSSING PROPOSALS & CONCERN • The mayor and city council have done a wonderful job and planning for the future of the city. The investment into the future of public safety (staffing) is greatly appreciated. ## • THE MAYOR IS VERY TRANSPARENT & SENDS OUT FREQUENT MESSAGES TO THE ## COMMUNITY • The plan and decisions are not great ## • THE RELATIONSHIP WITH MET COUNCIL IS QUESTIONABLE ## • THE SERVICES ARE FELT AND EXPERIENCED • The taxes and shop lifting or crime • There are lots of room for improvements • There are many issues the mayor must prioritize. Water has been one of them. Now safety in commercial areas should be another. ## • THERE HAS BEEN IMPROVEMENTS • There is good communication and I agree with the direction and attitude of city operations. ## • THERE SEEMS TO BE MAJOR EFFORTS ON UPDATING WATER FACILITIES ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 130 • These people always seems focused on making improvements to Woodbury which has made this a great place to live for over my 50 years ## • THEY APPEAR OFTEN TO MOVING THE COMMUNITY FORWARD AS AN INCLUSIVE PLACE ## FOR ALL TO LIVE • They are always involved in making Woodbury a better place to live • They are connected with the community • They are like all politicians ## • THEY ARE MAKING GOOD DECISIONS DEALING W/CITY GROWTH • They are pushing for growth and I'm on the slow-it-down bandwagon.I also went to check out the new City Park and it's very nice- but it's generic now- with everything that made it unique removed. ## • THEY ARE VERY RESPONSIVE TO ANY OF BIG ISSUES ## • THEY CARE THEY LIVE HERE THEY TACKLE ISSUES BEFORE THEY BECOME PROBLEMS ## • THEY COMMUNICATE WITH WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHY THERE NEED TO RAISE TAXES ## • THEY KEEP US INFORMED ## • THEY MUST WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM & THEY SEEM TO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS • They seem to be making good choices in governing. ## • THEY SEEM TO WORK HARD, TAKE THEIR WORK SERIOUSLY ## • THEY SEEMS TO BE DOING A GOOD JOB ## • THEY TAKE VERY GOOD CARE OF OUR COMMUNITY • Things run well in Woodbury • This is not the same community that I moved into. There seems to be a "more" mentality instead of making what we have great. But I might not know what is really going on and I realize that Woodbury is part of a bigger metro area planning group. • Throughout my time in Woodbury, I feel like there is a lot of stability. It feels the same, or slightly better than when I moved here in 2008. • to many give aways from city ## • TOO MUCH GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT • too much growth too fast ## • TOUGH JOB, WHO ACTUALLY WANTS IT ## • TRANSPARENCY ## • TRANSPARENCY-CARING-INTEGRITY-ACCOUNTABLE ## • TRANSPARENT WITH DECISIONS AND UPDATES • Very happy in Woodbury but believe they might be trying to be to "woke" like the inner Twin Cities. ## • VERY INVOLVED PROMOTING POSITIVE VALUES • Very much disagreed with wasteful spending on Gold Line • Very responsive ## • VERY-DRIVING COMMUNITY • We agree with the water treatment facility for Woodbury and ongoing road repairs. • We have high taxes ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 131 • We know the city likes spending lots of money on their fancy offices. Also charges special assessments against highest bid price but chooses the lowest bid price and pockets the difference • We listened to the council meeting on 1/14/26 where there was discussion about an ICE detention center in Woodbury. I thought the meeting was conducted respectfully to time & in an orderly manner. • We moved from Cottage Grove where the major was very transparent, down-to-earth, and accessible. I wish our mayor in Woodbury was more so. • We need to continue providing a safe community and control property taxes. I wish Woodbury would address the breakup of the community into different school districts. It is frustrating to live in Woodbury and be in Stillwater school district even being 2 houses away from Woodbury/ER school district. ## • WE NEED TO MAINTAIN/PRESERVE NATURE-LAND PATCHES, TREES FOR BIRDS, DEERS, WILD ## ANIMALS TO THIN • We need to make sure ICE detention facilities never come here • Wedgewood people always get a voice, the rest of us want the same input. • Woodbury feels safe and well-cared-for. I like having this as my kids' "town that they grew up in." • Woodbury has excellent city planning which I appreciate. I also appreciate all of the city parks. • Woodbury is a nice place to live. I would strongly approve if not for ICE in woodbury. • Woodbury is a respected community in the metro area and is considered upscale by many who do not live here • Woodbury is clean , quiet , good roads . • Woodbury is doing well, but I know that I have some different viewpoints than council members because they are not the individuals I voted for. ## • WOODBURY IS GROWING NICELY • Woodbury is organized and well planned. ## • WOODBURY SEEMS TO ALLOCATE TAX DOLLARS TO THINGS THAT DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE ## COMMUNITY ## • WOODBURY SEEMS TO BE VERY STABLE & WELL MANAGED • Would like illegal immigrants to not receive local funding dollars, but would like for those dollars to be given to citizens and disabled/elderly that are in need in our community. • Your recent letter about a potential ICE facility in Woodbury was just plain stupid. Bowing to the libtards who believe everything they read. You don't have to react to stupid. Strongly or Somewhat Disapprove. • As a female, I don't feel as safe as I used to walking alone on city trails or in parks. Also stop blaming 3M for every water problem in Woodbury. You are alienating a lot of the community members because Woodbury is a strong community for 3M employees. • As I stated earlier, the city continues to expand housing - apartments, townhouses, new homes, yet our schools are over crowded and traffic keeps getting worse. I just don't understand why we would keep growing without resolving these issues. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 132 ## • BACK OUR POLICE AND GET RID OF ILLEGALS • Based solely on the environment right now which includes ICE in our community- the mayor and city council are not taking a clear stance. Their statements have been vague and nuanced leaving room for exceptions. • Better control of expenditures and especially failing schools ## • BSSLINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BUS APPROVED • By thinking or making up problems that you can solve them by throwing money at them!! • City council needs to talk to and actively engage with residents. They need to say no to change when residents oppose the change, not rubberstamp change because it has gone through a committee or is something 'nice' to have. Every community needs to be treated equally. That is from Woodbury Heights to the most expensive and exclusive areas of the community. Put benches, picnic tables and trash containers in ALL of the parks. Don't put the 'old' equipment in the older areas. Treat them the same across the community. (Old people need to sit down on occassion!) ## • CITY HAS BECOME VERY LIBERAL WHICH ISN'T ACCEPTABLE! • City is changing from a very lucrative and value oriented city to an extended E St. Paul of today with higher taxes. • Community residents don't see the value in participating because there have been too many times the city has already made decisions without truly providing an opportunity to influence decision making. • Do not agree with many of their decisions • Do NOT try to be St Paul. We don't live in St Paul. Don't just adopt the latest preaching from the Met Council. The Met Council staff seems to be most interested in producing studies to justify their paychecks. ## • DON'T FEEL THE LAWS ARE BEING APPLIED ALL THE TIME, SHOP LIFTING & SPEEDING. ## • EVER CROWDED, TEXAS ## • FOCUS ON DEI ## • FOCUS SHOULD BE ON REDUCING GOVERNMENT SPENDING • For any city Mayor not to complain about the leadership of this state/Governor means that this city is complicit with current leadership. The Metro Gold line should never had been built- Complete waste of tax dollars. Leadership should support police, fiscal conservative spending and family values. I don't see that in today's leadership. • For reasons above about too much growth too quickly. • Have yet to see budgetary decreases for other than essential services. ## • HIGH TAXES • Honestly, communication is horrible, unless you are making a lot of noise. Pandering to a 'mob' never works, instead be honest. We should be filled with more "Kim"s on the city council. At least she is honest and doesn't pander. People in government should be concerned for ALL residents not just certain ones or demographics. She realizes everyone has a place, and gives them a sane voice in this city. That isn't true about most on the council. • I am not happy with the excessive housing growth when all our schools are full. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 133 • I am uncomfortable with the city being discussed as a potential home for an ICE facility. I want leadership that rejects conservative's hateful ideology. I will move out if ICE establishes a presence here. • I do not think the Gold Line was a needed method of transportation for our community. ## • I DON'T THINK THEY ALWAYS LISTEN TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT • I look around and see decisions that can only be made to satiate a desire for power in rolls that should really be part time and seldom heard from. They remind me of Parks and Rec but with a less altruistic goals. • I strongly disapprove.The current leadership has allowed uncontrolled development and state-mandated dense housing to overwhelm our infrastructure, turning a once-peaceful suburb into an overpopulated area with gridlocked roads, reckless e-bikes and scooters endangering families on trails, rising petty crime, skyrocketing property taxes, and hundreds of millions in water-treatment costs that may soon be obsolete. These issues stem directly from poor long-term planning, weak pushback against state overreach, and a refusal to prioritize fiscal discipline and the suburban character that made Woodbury desirable in the first place.I was deeply disappointed that the mayor ran unopposed in the last election, but I'm encouraged to see more community members stepping up to run this year. Woodbury families deserve representatives who will protect our quality of life instead of managing its decline.We need new leadership that says "no" to endless growth at any cost, enforces our rules, controls spending, and keeps Woodbury the safe, spacious, family-oriented suburb we moved here for not a mini-Minneapolis. ## • IMAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN COMMONSENSE FE FRUGALITY ## • INCREASING TAXES; TOO MANY REGULATIONS & TAXES ON COMMERCIAL BUSINESS - WHY ## OTHER & RESTAURANT CLOSE HERE • It is not up to the city to voice opinion of the city whether or not ICE is welcome in Woodbury • It seems the focus is on growth but the city can't keep up - traffic is bad, schools are overfilled, taxes are high and continue to go up, there are a lot of empty business spaces, very little support for locally owned/family owned restaurants of any kind. ## • LAW & ORDER IS NOT A PRIORITY • Left-wing mismanagement, overspending, and over-taxing. • Living in the city for 20 years, seems like the quality is going down hill. Tax money going towards the wrong things. Only care about providing low income a place to live and rentals. It's turning into another downtown. The council does not care about needs like extra ice rinks and improvements to the sports center. Crime up as well. I don't feel as safe as I used to living here. • Mayor needs to be out there more. In the schools, neighborhood events. Many resident can not connect a face to the mayor or council member. • More liberal than my personal opinions/convictions. • Most are only focused on making money at the expense of residents as opposed to what is good for or wanted by residents and neighborhoods. An example: imposing more taxes without resident approval, but residents can have input on how they want to pay them. They approve developments then never take the time to learn of the negative impacts to areas surrounding the development. They approve agenda items even though there is ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 134 overwhelming opposition for legitimate reasons and then never require impacts be addressed. There are likely some diligent members but as a body there is significant room for improvement. Poor leadership. It would be nice to have council members represent constituents vs personal agendas. • My wife and are retired and the taxes and referendums are out of control. Is your goal to drive me out of my home? ## • NO PROVISIONS FOR A SENIOR CENTER-A DISAGREE TO A CITY OF THIS SIZE SENIOR ARES ## IN CENTRAL DIVE IS A JOKE ## • NO RESPONSIBLE SPENDING! US MIL FOR A CENTRAL LIBRARY/TEARING DOWN A ## PERFECTLY GOOD! BUILDING LICENSE. ## • NOT HAPPY ABOUT CENTRAL PARK - ME & SOME OTHERS I KNOW LIKED IT THE WAY IT ## WAS ## • ONLY INTERESTED IN FED MONEY AND GIVE AWAY PROGRAME • Our contact with the mayor has lead to indifferance. ## • OVER REACH MAKE UP PROBLEMS? ## • PLEASE SEE 3A AND CITY COUNCIL, WILLSON IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF IMMIGRANT ## POPULATION • Please stop raising our taxes. I am afraid I will have to move out of Washington County if they continue to go up. Pay increases don't keep up with inflation and rising taxes. • Poor decisions on development. Ridiculous water treatment construction plan. Leftist policies huring busineses. This isn't the city I moved into, and I can't wait to get out. • Poor job clearing snow after storms; • Purposeful eradication what little nature remains (trees, wildlife) in order to build more and unnecessary shopping malls and sports complexes. ## • QUIT RAISING TAXES • Rising taxes. Expose the state grift. Be frugal. Don't create feel good programs to virtue signal. Government at all levels should be limited and just enough to keep the city functioning but not overreaching and let diversity happen. it is not your job or your responsibility. I am very impressed that you repealed the dog license fee because fees on any right is constitutionally illegal. Nickel and diming people isn't necessary if you are fiscally responsible. ## • ROADS AND TRAFFIC ARE GETTING WORSE WHILE THE TAXES GET HIGHER • See answers above. I disagree with the priorities you've set. • See my responses above. My immediate neighbors are fantasic but outside of my street there is little sense of community. Crime frequently goes through my neighborhood with police blocking my street. ## • SHE DOES NOT TAKE A STRONG STANCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES. WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HER ## AGAIN • She's become too left wing and the council is very left wing. We are in a town that is 50/50 and they forget that. They really devalue white people, which is a majority of our population. • Spending too much unnecessay tax money • Taxes / spending is out of control! • Taxes are out of control • Taxes are too high ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 135 • Taxes are too high • Taxes are too high and money is being spent on ridiculous projects. Do we really need trees/shrubs in the center of Valley Creek? Or to water them during the severe drought? Money would be better spent on an increased police presence, or lowering taxes. • Taxes are too high. ## • TAXES ARE VERY HIGH ## • TAXES, HOUSING-HOMES FOR AVENGE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES • Taxes, levies, poor financial stewardship • The city council, elected leaders and the staff all need to go. They don't listen to the residents or respect their lived experience in the community. We were assessed a tax for unnecessary roadwork in the neighborhood despite resident objections. The roadwork has resulted in zero improvements, fast traffic into head on cars because the roads are so narrow, no room for pedestrians to safely/comfortably walk pets, and a roundabout that was driven over consistently with every snowfall. The people told you it was not a good solution for this neighborhood and it was forced on us. None of them will get my vote again. Too smart to just listen to the people whose homes and pocketbooks they were directly affecting. Paternalistic- I know what's best for you. I am beyond disappointed in these "leaders". ## • THE CITY DON'T FEEL SAFE ## • THE CITY HAS GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THE CURRENT MAYOR TOOK OVER • The community leaders are slow to act. They also spend way too much on retail, and commercial entities. • The decisions to keep spending money is sickening. • The mayor and city council are not looking out for the citizens of the city. They are focused on diversity and attracting diverse groups to the city. They should be more focused on the quality of life for the current citizens. • The plans to fully develop Woodbury has taken away from the what used to be the charm. A suburb with good schools, shopping, restaurants, park and farm land to congested roads, schools, shopping and restaurants. There is beauty in farmland that cannot be replaced. We find it is is faster for us to run to Hudson to eat and shop then it is to drive across Woodbury. • The value we receive for the money we pay in taxes is disproportionately discriminatory for residents! With all the entertainment and retail we have in Woodbury, and the draw for out- of-city residents, we should NOT be paying $9,000/year in property taxes! • They only take input from from one sideAnd there is no tax they wouldn't raise if the could just to spend it ## • THEY PROMOTE GOOD INFO & HIDE BAD. EGIAMBULANCE RESPONSE TIME & THEY ## VIOLATE OPEN MEETING LAWS • They spend to much of our money on stuff that is not needed. • This survey and too much concern with un important topics. • This survey is a great example. STOP with the extreme bowing to left wing phrases and ideas. Stop taxing. Stop going along with everything St. Paul does. Be your own city. ## • TO MUCH DEVELOPMENT ## • TO MUCH EXPANSION-NEED TO TAKE CARE OF EXISTING RESIDENTS ## • TOO LIBERAL ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 136 ## • TOO MANY PROJECTS AT SAME TIME - LOOSING OPEN AREAS TO BUILDINGS • Too many trails and paths being added in where there are already some across the streets or nearby. ## • TOO MUCH FOCUS ON DIVERSITY ## • TOO MUCH MULTI-FAMILY & RENTAL DEVELOPMENT • Too much new growth and apartments. Stop trying to diversify housing options. • Too quick to expand for tax revenue. Then sometimes don't finish. IE: The red roof inn area. The trucking hub that replaced the water place on Woodlane has increased traffic at the stoplights in a horrible way. The Hudson rd. Corridor. • was very against the GOLD rail coming into Woodbury huge waste of tax payer money • Water treatment is great, but the jobs here are terrible, unless you're in medicine. I'd like to see data on how many people can afford Woodbury home prices while holding jobs in Woodbury. And the warehouse row is not good either, what an eyesore. It's just my opinion but growth is prioritized into the wrong things.. • We need to do a better job of protecting our friends and neighbors from federal ICE operations. • We've let the Metropolitan Council dictate the construction of low-income housing which is causing the city problems due to the influx of people who don't hold Woodbury values. • what have you done - actually accomplished in 2025? Other than allowing a bus line that no one rides to come into our city. Waste of money. But it accomplished the goal of bringing other neighborhood's problems to Woodbury. • What I've noticed is the over development has ruined the suburban feel and now the city just feels like an extension of mpls/st.paul. Increased crime, traffic and congestion of services. If I wanted to live in mpls, I'd move there. My neighborhood is going downhill and sometimes frequent visits from the police are noted. Noisy. Tamarack traffic sounds prevent me from opening windows in the summer. • Who is looking out for spending levels? We're giving options such as: "Vote for this or we'll raise taxes." ## • WITH ALL OF THE BIG HOMES & BUSINESSES, GAS TAX, WHERE IS IT ALL GOING? • With recent political atmosphere, I feel that our council is not doing enough for our communities to protect the citizens. • Woodbury is not a "preferred" suburb any more its just too expensive to sustain residency. • Woodbury is now quickly becoming another suburb like all the others in the metro surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul due to these DEI/Racist programs and policies that have been shown to fail time after time. They bring in high crime and lawlessness due to the invitation of people with poor cultural values, ethics and morals into our communities who do not contribute nor pay their fair share. Thus brings high taxes to hard working folks like us to make up the difference and ultimately suffering the consequences at the hands of poor "white guilt" leadership decisions. Stop the virtue signaling and focus on keeping our taxes low or reasonable, our communities safe by allowing and encouraging our police force to do their job especially how much they're wages are now, and work on improving our infrastructure and economy. ## • WRONG FOCUS, POWER HUNGRY LOSERS ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 137 • You allow so many townhouses and people in a small area. Causing way more traffic. Then when we come to you for help you say, not or problem. ## • YOU HAVE ALLOWED EVERY OPEN SPOT TO BUILD HOMES WOODBURY HAS GROWN WAY ## TOO MUCH ## • ZERO AWARENESS OF THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF A ONCE NICE COMMUNITY. Don’t know. • As "different" as it might read, I do not currently have a strong pulse on local (Woodbury) politics. I pay attention to national and International news, but not much locally here admittedly and that is probably "my bad." However please take that as a compliment as there is a strong infrastructure here in many different ways. I probably naively / unintentionally take much for granted but always try to be the most respectful to all in leading with positive intent as this community is 1,000% awesome in many ways I truly appreciate and in many ways I am likely naive to. • As previously indicated, working outside of Woodbury and having friends outside the community, I tend to spend a lot more time in other communities and don't necessary follow any actions in particular by Mayor or City Council. • Do not feel connected • Do not know enough to effectively answer ## • DON'T DEAL WITH POLITICS • Don't follow everything she does • Don't have a credited opinion ## • DON'T KNOW EITHER AND DON'T FOLLOW CITY GOVERNMENT ## • DON'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING ## • DON'T SEE EVIDENCE OF CHANGE ## • DONT GET ANY INFO • Dont know what the mayor or city do • Frankly, I don't hear what the mayor and the council does for the city in detail. However, I feel that over the past 10 years the city has changed and not always towards better so maybe that is also down to the mayor and her team's work. • Haven't been following closely • Haven't lived here long enough to have an opinion ## • HAVENT LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH • I am relatively new to the area. • I do not have any first hand interactions with them in order to formulate an informed opinion • I don't ever hear anything about the mayor of this city and the city council are never relevent any anything that i do which isn't a big concern of mine i care more about neighboring cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Where there is a crisis occuring with ICE agents using unethical methods to detain "Immigrants" and even U.S. Citizens. • I don't pay attention. • I don't pay much attention to the workings of city government, but have no complaints about it. • I don't think I pay close enough attention to judge this. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 138 • I have heard the mayor is a Trumper. If she is, she needs to be voted out. • I have not attended any of the city meetings and my information source is the Woodbury City Update. • I have not followed Woodbury city government actions, so don't know what projects or issues the city council have been working on. I only know about the huge Public Works project with the installation of all the new pipes for the city water treatment. • I have not lived here long enough to have paid enough attention to the local city council to know what's going on. • I have only lived here since July 2025 and have not gotten involved in local politics. • I haven't paid much attention locally • I honestly haven't paid much attention to the government of Woodbury • I served on my previous city's council. I appreciate the newsletters that are sent. I have a favorable impression of Mayor Burt. I haven't learned much about issues that are on meeting agendas or the overall goals of the council. ## • I'M COMFORTABLE HERE BUT I DON'T HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH CITY HALL ## • LITTLE OR NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF WOODBURY POLITICS • Moved to Woodbury in 2019. Other than what I read in the Woodbury City Update, I haven't been involved. ## • MPHS-BAD ## • NEVER INTERACTED WITH MAYOR. • New to the area and have not seen any council meetings at this time. • No interaction • Not too involved. • Not up to date on what they are doing ## • ONLY BEEN ARE 1 YEAR • Regular communication in simple terms would be helpful. ## • UNCLEAR IF THEY CAN DO MORE ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH OUR CITY • Unsure what initiatives to respond to. Question 8a: From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? – Why? Excellent or Good. • Action is happening • Agree with direction our city is going • All dealings have been met with politeness and patience. • All my encounters with city employees have been positive. • All my interactions have been great • All of my direct interactions with City Staff have been positive. They have been respectful and helpfull ## • ALWAYS HELPFUL ## • ALWAYS HELPFUL COURTEOUS ## • ALWAYS RESPONSIVE AND HELPFUL - THEY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 139 • always room for improvement ## • AMAZING PARKS AND TRAILS • Any time I've had to go to any of the offices or DMV or library etc everyone has been super helpful and kind. • Anything I've needed has been fairly simple and taken care of in a timely manner, other than anything to do with the DMV • Apart from few individuals who are mean , overall staff are friendly,patient,professional and efficient. • Appears to be fine with my one interaction. ## • BECAUSE LIFE IN WOODBURY SAFE AND COMFORTABLE • Building dept stays informed and does inspections. • Can see the fruit of their labor ## • CITY IS GROWING ## • CITY IS TAKEN CARE OF QUITE NICELY ## • CITY IS VERY CLEAN ## • CITY IS WELL RUN • City planners are professionals and accessible ## • CITY SAME TO OPERATE WELL WITH GOOD SERVICE • City seems well run • City Staff MUST keep the WASTEFUL spending as low as possible. • Clean parks and streets well maintained, I am always able to get answers to questions about city code every time I call. ## • CONTRACTING INFREQUENT BUT NO ISSUES ## • DEALING WITH IDIOT BOSSES MUST BE TOUGH • DMV has been excellent interactions ## • DO A GREAT JOB • E-mails have been returned promptly. • effective and fast • Every time I go in to City Hall or encounter someone working on a bike trail -- they are kind, polite and respectful. • Every time I sent an inquiry (permitting, etc.) I received a prompt and informative response. • Everyone does their job. • Everyone I've dealt with on city staff have been curteous and helpful. • Everyone seems nice in the city hall. From permits to emergency building. • Everyone's been helpful and kind. • Excellent is very subjective. We all can do better. • Experience were good but not anything beyond expectations. • feels clean, safe, welcoming ## • FEW CONTACTS I'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL, RESPONSE • Formerly Excellent, but now harder to reach a "live" person in some departments with questions. • From the experience I've had with the City Of Woodbury employees everyone from engineers to inspectors, etc. have been excellent to deal with. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 140 • From what I have encountered; city hall pet licensure, dmv visits, parks and rec staff, and central park staff- all of these staff have been helpful and friendly. • From what I have experienced, they are good at doing their job; attentive • From what I know, job performance is good • Funding going towards appropriate causes. • Good ## • GOOD BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES • Good experience at new government center. ## • GOOD EXPERIENCES WHEN RENEWING DRIVERS LICENSE, ETC ## • GOOD LISTENERS. TRUST WORTHY-GOOD PLANNER-PRACTICAL ## • GOOD POLICING & PUBLIC SAFETY ## • HARD WORKING, COMMUNICATIVE KIND ## • HAVE ALWAYS HAD EXCELLENT RESPONSE • Have appreciated notary service, and answers to questions about property boundaries. ## • HAVE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES PROMPT OF COURTEOUS SERVICE ## • HAVE ONLY WITH DMV • Haven't heard too many complaints • I am helped when I call with questions. I don't get lost in a phone tree. • I am overall pleased, I worry about the quality of the schools • I appreciate the city newsletters. • I asked once for a job to be done and it was not • I believe the city staff cares about the community and passionately completes their work in a manner that advances our common good. • I continue to be bothered by snow plowing and the amount of snow pushed back in my driveway. A city staff member said once the snow is pushed back on my property, "I own it". • I don't have the job so I think it must be and feel enormous - I think there is room for improvement. Start small and take in to account all citizens. ## • I DON'T HEAR NEGATIVE TALK • I don't know much about them, but I believe that is a good thing. • I had some car licensing stuff to do last summer, and the staff there was great. • I have always found city employees to be helpful, kind, and courteous. ## • I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT STAFF W/QUESTIONS • I have gone to the city building for services and I see the park organization doing a great job. • I have had almost no contact with city staff. • I have had positive encounters and communications with Library, voting registration, DMV staff. I am not sure if they fall under "City Staff." • I have no areas of concern at this time. • I have no complaints, again, they are showing up. • I have not had much interaction with the city staff. I mostly go to other service centers as stated above. When I have interacted with Woodbury staff, the experience was good. ## • I HAVE NOT NET A STAFF MEMBER WHO WAS HELPFUL AND FRIENDLY • I have very little contact with them ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 141 • I haven't had a lot of experience but I do feel that surveys like this and communications we have received have been informative and seem professional and welcoming which makes me assume the staff are doing well • I notice a lot of work being accomplished that matters to me. • I take a great deal of pride in being an upstanding, quietly humble, and contributing member of this awesome community. Frankly, I do not want to be the "weakest link" in the chain here, as in my perspective in WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER. • I think excellence would be overrating but in general, the city staff is doing a decent job. • I think the City Staff is doing a great job, except for the snow plowing department. They do an abysmal job. They have no respect for residents and plus in such a way as to pile snow across driveways making it impossible to get out and causing extra effort to shovel. • I think the sheriff is doing a wonderful job • I think the snow plow drivers do a good job! • I used to go in to engage with city staff when purchasing dog licenses, and the service has always been exemplary! • I wish they would tree line streets in the "poorer" neighborhoods like along Tamarack between Radio and Bielenberg like they just renovated. Why do all the tree lined streets occur near Stonemill Farms and Dancing Waters? What about people who live in 55125? • I work with many in my work role, they always seem to care and do a good job. • I've always been very pleased with the service I've received from Woodbury City staff. I've lived in many other states and cities, and Minnesota Nice is real. They are to be commended. • I've had no issues • I've had to contact them before for kids enrollment in activities. Always pleasant. • I've only been to city hall a few times, and the people at the front desk have always been very friendly and helpful. • I've only had limited exposure. • If ever I call regarding something, staff are helpful • Interaction at various city offices ## • INTERACTIONS HAVE ALL BEEN GOOD, EVEN W/POLICE ## • INTERACTIONS WE'VE HAD WERE EXCELLENT • It seems good enough. • It would be excellent except for last construction season. Too many roads were closed. I understand the need to close roads/lanes for the water improvement project. However, other no related CIP projects should have been delayed until 2026. Example: Tamarack ## • KIND PROFESSIONAL ## • LITTLE INTEGRATION BUT VERY GOOD WHEN DOING SO ## • LOW KEY APPROACH • Marilym Danuell, Terese. They went above and beyond to help with HOA issue. • most interactions I've had with city staff have been positive. • My experience has primarily been with the maintenance of recreational facilities, which are very good. • My few experiences with staff members has always resulted in very satisfactory results. • My interaction as been limited but excellent when needed. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 142 ## • MY INTERACTION HAS ALL BEEN POSITIVE • My interaction with the different city employees has been positive and helpful. • My interactions have always been positive • my interactions have been good • My interactions with city staff and departments have been good. ## • MY INTERACTIONS WITH STAFF ARE VERY POSITIVE ## • MY ONLY CONTACT HAS BEEN WITH POLICE & EMTS I FOUND THEM TO BE KIND & ## NEEDFUL ## • NEVER HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE • No comment ## • NO COMMENT • no complaints • No complaints except for how long the li es are at the DMV! • No direct observations...just everything seems to be working smoothly. Now in the winter, I am just so impressed with the snowplowing they get done on all streets, including our residential street. • no problem with them ## • NOT ENOUGH INTERACTION DIRECTLY • Not sure. • On the rare occasions that I have interacted with the Woodbury City Staff, they have been helpful, although on one occasion I vaguely recall the wait being a bit long. ## • OUTSIDE OF WAITING TO SEE SOMEONE, PEOPLE IS POLITE • Overall good but somewhat over zealous with development. I have seen it in the past 46 years I have lived here, since we moved here from Roseville. Feels like a character loss. • Overall they're doing a great job! • Overall, they do a nice job. • Parks and Rec are great. Engineering has done a good job communicating during our road replacement and recent large projects. • Permits are responded to quickly, voting is easy, the DMV is efficient. • pleasant city staff ## • PLOWING & PARKS ARE WELL MAINTAINED • Police and firefighters are doing good work. ## • POSITIVE EXPERIENCE WHEN PHONE THEM ## • POWER & EMS HAVE HELPER AR • Prioritized according to residents. Would encourage/increase small scale public transportation WITHIN Woodbury. • Public works is very responsive ## • RESPONSIVE PROFESSIONAL ## • RESPONSIVE TO CONCERNS WHEN CALLED OR EMAILS • Road snow plowing has gotten so much worse since we moved here 5 yrs ago. • same as above • Seem very competent. • seems like everyone is doing ok ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 143 • Some favor construction contractors and the likes over the residents of our neighborhoods! No enforcement of their responsibilities ## • SOME TIMES DO NOT WANT TOO INTERN ## • STREET ENGINEERS AS DONT LISTED • Streets are plowed and swept. • Summer celebration was great at Ojibway park, well done by Parks and Rec staff amongst Public works and Safety to make it happen! ## • TAB RENEW AND DRIVER LICENSE RENEW. STAFF IS VERY POLITE AND HELPFUL. • The building permit department is awesome • The city employees seem to be great but city officials seem to act in their personal interests over city benefits. • The city seems to run well. • The city staff with whom I have interacted directly have been professional, courteous, and helpful. As a whole, I'm unimpressed by city staff performance in maintenance of infrastructure to support parks and roads. • The city workers I see around the city and how they maintain everything seems to do great work. • The new DMV staff were great, I dont know some other places • The people at the new Drivers License were excellent. I also observed that the employees treated all people equal, whether based on gender, age, nationality, etc. • The staff appears to be efficient and friendly • The staff continues to execute its responsibilities on time and within budget. • The Woodbury City Staff that I have talked with are always helpful and polite. ## • THEIR SERVICE IS GOOD WHEN NEEDED ## • THEY ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL & WELCOMING • They appear to act on behalf of citizens of Woodbury and for the greater good of the community and not the self serving interests of individuals • They do a great job of keeping our community a safe and good place to live. • They have always been helpful when I have called with a quesiton. • They have always been helpful. • They have always been very pleasant when I have interacted with them. ## • THEY HAVE ALWAYS TREATED ME FAIRLY ## • THEY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIVE TO OUR CONCERNS ## • THEY KNOW EXACTLY ## • THEY LISTEN DO WHAT THEY CAN TO HELP • They perform their jobs as leadership sets the values. ## • THEY RESPOND TO QUESTIONS/CONCERNS • Things seems to be going well. ## • UP KEEP ROADS ETC • Very efficient with communication to Woodbury residents. • Very few interactions. • Very little interaction if any ## • VERY QUALIFIED ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 144 • We can get things done fairly easily • We don't have much interaction with the City Staff, but it has been positive for the little we needed. • We have lived here 33 years in 2 different houses. With all the growth the city services/city worker levels have kept pace with providing good services. • We have property adjacent to city property and they respond when I contact them ## • WELCOMING & HELPFUL I FIND MY DEPARTMENT TO BE TOXIC HOMOPHONIC XENOPHIC ## & RAUST. I WORK FOR THE CITY. • When I have gone into thc city offices, they have been helpful. • When I moved here the roads were plowed for the morning commute, now they are sort of plowed. I feel a sense of relief when I get to the freeway, because it's going to be an easier drive. When we call or speak to city staff they are friendly and helpful. • Whenever I contacted city staff for any issue, they were polite, respectful, and helpful. • Whenever I have connected with city staff for services needed or questions answered, I have always been exceptionally pleased with efficient and prompt assistance. • Whenever I have emailed to report a tennis court repair request in one of our city parks, staff consistently respond promptly and professionally. They take swift action when addressing the requested repairs. • Whenever I have interacted with them, they have always been professional and helpful • Whenever I have needed to interact with city staff I have been treated politely and gotten the help I need. • Whenever I've had interactions with city staff, I've been treated with respect. • Where are the police? They need to be more focused on speeding and traffic violations. You need to look both ways right now before going through a green light. • with the exception of whatever is going on in the fire department employees are amazing. I keep hearing firefighters complain about their chief. • Woodbury is a well maintained city • Woodbury is on it when it snows. Our roads are better than most cities! • Woodbury staff have been responsive and courteous. ## • YOU ARE NOT IN NEWS FOR FRAUD, DWI, PORN - I KNOW A LOW BAR. Fair or Poor. • Again, all we see and hear are racially and politically motivated propagandas and rhetoric from our city leadership and organizations. Stop this virtue signaling, for not only is it the real racism here, it is the real cause behind the division in our community. • Contact with community maintenance has not been received as positive. • Current federal ICE operations are terrorizing and harassing our friends and neighbors. I have yet to see a statement or policy action from the city of Woodbury regarding this ongoing injustice. • Do not interact with staff other than while paying property taxes or renewing tabs. ## • DON'T BRING IN MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING - SOMALIS ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM ## • DON'T LIKE THE SNOW PLOWS KNOCKING GARBAGE CANS AND THE ROADS ARE POORLY ## PLOWED ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 145 • Engineering Dept was not helpful during the Royal Oaks road rehab project. They treated residents as if we were a bother. • Had few encounters with City staff and felt them unqualified, lacking customer service skills, and not interested in resolving properly. • Had issues with a department where I needed to seek legal council to get the matter resolved. The city was 100% wrong, but it took a letter from my lawyer for them to agree I was correct even though they had all the information for months and repeatedly told me I was wrong. ## • HATE THE CONSTRUCTION SIDES, WHEN NOBODY WORKING-FINISH WORK EVERY DAY TO ## GET DONE • I believe focused dollar spending should be on parks and alternate funding option to non- public schools in the area. • I choose fair becaus they uphold a certain standard in wooodbury and it makes it feel safe and nice to lIve here. • I continue to emphasize we have an issue w speeding East ridge high schoolers thru our neighborhood and strongly feel we need speed bumps to slow them down but they are not willing to listen and only give reasoning that Woodbury does not offer speed bumps as a solution • I don't share the same vision of what makes Woodbury great as the city staff as what I see happening is all wrong imo • I feel that the license center needs more staff especially at peak hours. • I feel there could be more transparency and communication. ## • I HAVE POSITIVE COMMENTS AND ALSO THAT STAFF SHOULD NOT BRING A LIBERAL BIAS ## TO THEIR WORK • I rarely encounter city staff who are allowed to go over and above the standard day to day operation, unless they do it on their own dime. • I'm sure they are wasting our tax dollars in some fashion. • I've reached out to a staff member about a current project he was managing and did not receive a response. • ils font bien leur boulot ## • ITS JUST A JOB AND CUSTOMERS SUCK • Lake Rd decision. Affordable housing decision. Not trying to keep taxation in check. ## • LICENSE BUREAU, NEW BUILDING, MORE PODS, DIDN'T HELP • Lower taxes • Making small concerns into big problems and continuing to work towards a goal that is ultimately unattainable because it is all blown out of proportion!! ## • MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH POLICE • Not much contact but unimpressed when dealing with public works • Our Plows are NEVER in our neighborhoods. • Overgrown medians, long grass along the streets, slow response to inquiries from city staff when calling City Hall. Detours on street shutdowns that don't take us to other through- streets, but simply dump us into neighborhoods where we are forced to double-back and find other ways. The Street Superintendent SERIOUSLY needs to go back to running a street sweeper. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 146 • Parks and rec dudes are awesome. Plow drivers are great. • People at the DMV are rude, I do not go there and encourage others to go to Cottage Grove • Poor fiscal responsibility • Realizing that the staff runs the city, the decisions of city planners/administrators, etc, never fully respect to take into account the residents of this city. • Roadway Rehabilitation project management was very disappointing; pro-active management and direction of Fire and EMS services have put Woodbury residents and property in severe risk; data sources and analyses that inform decisions has not been transparent; questionable and even unethical leadership in the Fire/EMS ranks. ## • SAME, PROMOTING THE OUR BUILDING OF THE CITY FOR TAX SAME • See above • Some are excellent, but some are very poor. ## • SOME ARE VERY RESPONSIVE SOME ARE NOT RESPONSIVE ## • SOME STAFF ARE THOUGHTFUL SOME ARE NOT • Some take pride in their work and community, while others lack accountability. ## • SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WITH MONEY • The amount of new building is destructive to the environment and degrades the community • the chief arborist advocated for planing of emerald ash borer "resistant" ash all over the place, surprise surprise they aren't as resistant as thought... some skepticism on this front would have saved a lot of trees back in the day. In stonemill farms, some guy burnt down the porta potty house a few years back and they built it back in a way that was not as nice as it was before. And finally, in stonemill farms, the park is overgrown with weeds / poorly maintained, not shoveled during the winter. • The city council, elected leaders and the staff all need to go. They don't listen to the residents or respect their lived experience in the community. We were assessed a tax for unnecessary roadwork in the neighborhood despite resident objections. The roadwork has resulted in zero improvements, fast traffic into head on cars because the roads are so narrow, no room for pedestrians to safely/comfortably walk pets, and a roundabout that was driven over consistently with every snowfall. The people told you it was not a good solution for this neighborhood and it was forced on us. None of them will get my vote again. Too smart to just listen to the people whose homes and pocketbooks they were directly affecting. Paternalistic- I know what's best for you. I am beyond disappointed in these "leaders". • The city runs as I think it should as one would expect from a city this size. I'mnot overly impressed with what the city does, but not underwhelmed either. • The city seems to function. • The fact that we pay so much in taxes and the snow plows don't plow overnight is insane. That needs to be fixed!! We need clear roads for work and school. • The parks and rec staff were incredibly difficult to work with for baseball tournaments during 2025 and made the entire process miserable for our organization. • The pond in my neighborhood was partially dredged. When I asked questions about why they did not complete it and if they would finish the dredging they gave me fuzzy, unscientifically accurate answers and refused to address my concerns further. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 147 • There's probably a personal political agenda that governs political action rather than serving the community interests. ## • THEY INSISTED ON CUTTING, A BRAND NEW DRIVE WAY TO REPAIR A CURD THAT DID NOT ## NEED REPAIR • They seem to make decisions in a vacuum. Many don't live here, and have zero skin in the game. No accountability, and my perception is that it is impossible to replace or fire them for poor decsions. • Two broad of a question to fully answer appropriately. There are many divisions within the city, so it's hard to answer it. ## • WARD TO COMMENTS • We have complained of our neighbors back yard for many years - there is vermin and they have had a wooden back deck door for almost one year - the city comes occasionally and tells them to clean up, but we have to continue to complain • We still have water safety issues yet the city is allowing more and more developments to be built. We are the ones paying for not only the fixing of the water problem and we keep paying more to support the growth of the city. Fix the water problem first. Encourage farmers and local agricultural development instead of mass housing. • While some departments handle routine matters adequately, direct experiences with major projects reveal a troubling pattern of indifference to resident safety: During recent construction, heavy truck traffic was rerouted through our established residential neighborhood despite nearby commercial routes being available. This caused multiple near- misses and documented incidents involving children and vehicles all reported to police and city staff with no meaningful change in routing. Safety signs were repeatedly knocked down and only replaced after residents complained, never proactively monitored or protected. Responses from staff were vague, non-committal, and offered no solutions classic reactive bureaucracy rather than proactive management.Adding to the frustration, Woodbury still sets default residential speed limits at 30 mph higher than the 25 mph now standard in most Minnesota cities and in family-oriented suburbs across the country (including Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth, and dozens of others that lowered limits for safety). This outdated 30 mph default makes our neighborhood streets feel even less safe, especially when construction traffic or speeding delivery vehicles are added to the mix.Woodbury taxpayers pay premium property taxes expecting professional, responsive government that puts resident safety first not evasive answers and inaction. City staff must be held to a higher standard of accountability, proactive problem-solving, and common-sense policies like lowering residential speeds to 25 mph. Don’t know. ## • AGAIN-NON-EXISTENT EVIDENCE • Don't interact with them ## • DON'T SEE WHAT CITY STAFF DOES 'DAY IN AND DAY OUT' ## • DONT GET ANY INFO • Dont know ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 148 • have had no contact with city staff ## • HAVE NOT USED CITY SERVICES • Haven't been following closley • Haven't had a need to interact with Woodbury City Staff. • Haven't lived here long enough to have an opinion ## • I DO NOT PAY MUCH ATTN AGE 92 • I don't interact with the city staff • I have had no contact with city staff with the exception of the police department who sponsored a Scam seminar in 2025. • I have no idea what the City Staff does • I have not had to visit the Woodbury City offices in many years, so I don't know much about them. I think I had some inspector out here a couple of times and that is the only connections. • I haven't had any contact with staff. • I haven't had any first hand experiences • I haven't had the need to interact with city staff in any way. I don't know who they are or what they do other than the snow plow guys from the sports style introduction video. • I haven't had to communicate with anyone on the city staff. ## • I NEED TO HAVE MORE EXPOSURE. • I really don't know • I'm not sure what the city staff are responsible for. ## • IVE ONLY LIVED HERE FOR TWO YEARS. ## • NEVER SEEN THEM • Never studied it • New to the area. ## • NO CONTACT WITH STAFF ## • NO IDEA! ## • NO INPUT • No interaction • No interactions with them in almost 18 years. I've only contacted the code enforcement become the HOA won't keep the sidewalks clean that are their responsibility and they get icy and dangerous • Not up to date on what is going on • Not very knowledgeable on the subject. ## • ONLY 1 TIME CALLED WATER DEPT • Our Washington County Office is terrible (1 waited over 2 hours one day to get my Drivers license renewed and twice to pay taxes and get plates on a new vehicle.) Our Woodbury post office is staffed with crabby people. I go to Afton to get service or use the lobby computer machine after hours. (I know these aren't city offices, but they are staffed in Woodbury.) • Same as comment above. • Very little contact with the staff. • Very little interaction • We don't know what the city staff does. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 149 Question 17a: Please elaborate on any comments or thoughts you have related to your answer to question #17. Very or Somewhat satisfied. ## • A COMMUNITY ORGANIC GARDEN WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION • Again, these questions only address liberal values. Also I wrote a letter to the city and never received a response regarding my concerns about the safety at the gold line bus station. As a minority, it feels like Woodbury only values the opinions of liberal minorities. • All residents not just wedgewoods need a voice. ## • APPRECIATE ENVIRONMENT CENTER • Appreciate the efforts for in ground sprinklers ## • CITY WAITED TOO LONG TO ADDRESS EAB & MANY TREES WERE LOST • Communication is done on time to let us know of an planned repairs/ construction and updates/ alerts. • Decisions about the closed golf course on Century Ave should involve concerned citizens not just the money of investors to dictate its use/reuse. • Definitely concerned about the mowing around the ponds behind Madison's playground. That space is a year long science lesson for little kids and it gets mowed down too soon for fall. One day we are walking through there watching the milk weed pop to spread its seeds, trailing grasshoppers as they jump across the path, picking wild grapes off the vine, watching the squirrels and chipmunks grab the acorns-and 2 days later- it's all mowed down, not a sound, couldn't even find an ant. Huge disappointment • Doing more than what is needed. • Don't know a lot about these efforts. • don't follow it ## • ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE REUSABLE SHOPPING BAGS & LESS ZIPLOC BAGS • Environmental stewardship continues to be a focus, near the top of the list ## • EVALUATE/EXPAND GEOTHERMAL USE. ## • EXCELLENT • Fix the underground water /PFAs issue as soon as possible and complete the upcoming water purification facility on time. • Focus on composting home food is great! • Food scraps, environmental center great! • Good land and water stewardship of the parks, lakes, and streams. • Good tree planting • Great Job ! • Great water resources and storm water management activities. Trees and landscaping on public land is very calming and gives a sense of well being. L ## • GREEN STEP CITY-WINNING SUSTAINABLE AWARDS H20 CONSERVATION ## • HOW DO YOU KNOW THE NEW WELLS WILL EVENTUALLY CONTAMINATE ## • I AM GLAD THEY CONTINUE TO WORK ON WATER QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING • I am unsure of the drinking water quality. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 150 • I appreciate the trails and parks. I question watering unnecessary plants during the last drought. • I believe there is too much use of salt in the winter. Drainage in my neighborhood has been altered due to construction. The drainage pond which is included in our property but which drains the neighborhood (and affected by a new development) has never been dredged like other ponds. Those of us with wells have been disregarded by the city in light of PFAS in the water. ## • I BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING THEIR BEST CONSIDERING US GOVERNMENT AGAINST CLIMATE ## CHANGE (KEEP FIGHTING) • I don't know all of the environmental services, but I am pleased with the recycling and composting efforts. • I don't really know about Woodbury City Government's efforts this issue, so I really shouldn't comment. • I feel like Woodbury is a leader in sustainability. ## • I HAVE A SENSE THAT THE CITY CARES ABOUT THIS • I have concerns about the water.I have concerns about over-building in the northeastern quadrant ## • I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS ## • I HAVE READ ABOUT A LOT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS THE CITY HAS DONE, THEY ## ARE VERY GOOD EFFORTS • I like programs such as limiting water usage during peak times, the recycling center, and water pipeline expansion ## • I LIKE THAT CITY GOV TRIES TO HOLD 3M ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONTAMINATION • I like that developers need to include park space/money when creating new housing. • I like the access to various recycling and disposal services, water PFAS mitigation, and city maintenance and cleanup efforts. ## • I LIKE THE RECYCLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE • I love our inclusion of so much nature in our city, it makes it feel so much more homey. It also shows that we value the way our city looks and therefore feels, functions, and runs. • I love that we have the ability to separate food scraps and a local environmental center to drop off things for free. • I LOVE that Woodbury protects tamarack trees/saves space for them. • I super love the natural areas and parks that I have visited such as Chippewa Park and Tamarack Nature Preserve and Colby Lake. I love that the street project in Royal oaks offered rain gardens. • I think it is great we take steps to protect our water and sewer, but would like to see more protection of sewers from lawn debris and pesticides • I think the city is doing a good job • I think there could be some changes to retailers and the plastic bag usage • I would like to see more enforcement of watering restrictions. I have neighbors who will water their lawns consistently on off watering days. I have reported my concerns to the city and was told the city would need to catch them watering on the off days. I would also like to see more native landscape restoration. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 151 • I would like to see more options for yard waste provided by the city. • I would love to see a water park or more indoor pool activities in Woodbury, similar to that in Eagan or Shoreview. • I'm concerned about low income housing showing up. I grew up poor but my neighbors and I never stole from stores so I won't accept it from current low income people. I've noticed the need for security at Jerry's and several other stores. ## • I'M HAPPY THE WATER TREATMENT PLAN IS GOING ON & IMPRESSED W/ THE WORKERS- ## JUST WISHED ROAD CLOSURES COULD BE REVIVE BY PLANUS • I'm pleased at the number of trees that are planted • I'm satisfied. But, don't go overboard. ## • IMPRESSED WITH THE SEA WATER TREATMENT FACILITY • In addition to the EnvironmentalCenter on Settlers Ridge the city should have, or work with the county to have a free lawn/garden waste and wood Easter recycling center. Going to Hugo to use the free county center is just as ridiculous as paying to dump at Gertens site off of Manning. Woodbury is large enough to offer this service to its residents. ## • IS THE FOREVER CHEMICALS ISSUE OVER? • It is unclear who owns boulevard trees. Im pretty sure the City does but when we had one die, I was told to replace it • It is very good. We don't need to increase the budget for the environment ! • It seems adequate • It's very positive that we can utilize the food scrap recycling program!! • Keeping the residents aware of environmental stewardship is great. • lack of shade trees • Looks like the city is taking quick and concrete action to address previous pollution concerns from long ago. • Love the effort on parks and nature preserves ## • LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT CENTER IN WOODBURY ## • MAINTAINING MANY PARKS KEEPING OPEN SPACE • Maintaining Strom water ponds. • Make sure pfas is removed from the system ## • MANY GREEN SPACES IN ALL DEVELOPMENTS • More outreach and supporting programs other than cutting buckthorn. Consider partnering with the County or Watershed. ## • MUCH PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT • Need a local composting site. ## • NEED MORE TRASH BIRD AROUND TOWN ## • NEED PEAS TREATMENT • Need to check out the walking paths near the Walmart as there's a pot hole in a walking trail near the Markgraf's Lake plus there may be buckthorn around Markgraf's lake. • Need to see improvements to the City's snow removal and water quality ## • NICE ARRAY OF PARTS AND TRAILS ## • NICE NEWS LETTER • Nice parks and nature trails. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 152 • No comment ## • NO COMMENT ## • NO CURRENT CONCERNS • No strong opinion. • none • None • One of the things I like about Woodbury is the environmental forward thinking ways. ## • OUR PARKWAYS ARE BEAUTYFULL • Overall love the new lookout ridge updates but thought the Central Park felt more park like with better water features in old park • Persistent in implementing needed water treatment efforts. • Please maintain park, trail, and rain gardens. Do not just plant an area then NEVER visit it again. So many dead standing trees and shrubs. Yes, there need to be some dead wood for wildlife. However, there are so many that if a lightning strikes a dead tree in a city controlled area, there is ample fuel for a fire that destroys a large area. I live on a drainage pond. It has been dredged ONCE in 34 years. When we have a dry spell, the ducks can stand in the middle of it. The pond has so much silt I doubt it has anywhere the holding capacity for which it was designed. • Protect wildlife areas. • put in more fishing piers ## • RECYCLE CENTERS ARE GO CAT, NEED MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DISPOSE FOOD ## WASTE/GOOD WASTE • See comments above about grass clippings. Better management of de-icing compounds: I often see large piles of residual salt on some streets in winter. Native plantings: We enjoy having some areas of native vegetation in the neighborhood but kids need places for unstructured outdoor play, and open space with maintained nonnative grasses is often the most cost effective way to provide these spaces. It is hard to play in knee or waist high prairie plantings. For this reason, I believe the recent interest in converting more open space to native vegetation is excessive. A better focus would be ecologically sound management of the conversions that are done, which has not always been the case. For example, in Seasons Park, trees (many of them non-native) were planted first, then prairie planted around the trees. These two types of vegetation don't belong together, and the need to preserve the trees makes management of the planted prairie, especially with fire, very difficult. Street sweeping: we've noticed an increase in recent years, but it doesn't seem to be scheduled for times when the most debris is present. ## • SEEING REMOVAL & DESTRUCTION OF TREES IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WITH LIMITED TO NO ## REPLENISHMENT • Seems like more could be done with solar energy generation on commercial and residential buildings. • Seems to have resident interest and opinion in mind when making decisions • Snowplowing= not being done between 8pm and 5am and people need to drive to work during these times which is terribly inconvenient. Trails blacktop is buckling and in the winter is plowing is horrendous. Code enforcement- lawns on our neighborhood are sometimes ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 153 overgrown for weeks and why is this not enforced?We have a pond on eagle valley golf course and you keep draining our pond. Stop taking our pond and leave our water on hole 2 fairway. ## • SO HAPPY THAT WE HAVE A FOOD SCRAPS PROGRAM • Sometimes it feels like you are putting the environment before your citizens. ## • SUPPLYING RAIN WATER BARRELS, & FOR TRIMMING TREES, EFFORTS LIKE MAKE ## DIFFERENCE ## • TAKE GOOD CARE OF PARKS AND WALKING TRAILS • Taxes are high in Woodbury and the services we receive keep lowering. I am all for building improvements but new builds have been a lot with little imput as to if they were necessary just how we would fund them with tax increases. I have received lots of communication on lower priority topics but big impactful topics have not been communicated. this differs from the past. • That's why I love this city- stewardship of the earth. • The 3M PFAS water legal settlement and resulting water treatment facilities construction and communication has been very good as dealing with the removal and replacement of Dutch ## Elm Diseased trees ## • THE CITY COULD DO MORE BUT DO NOT THE COMMUNITY WORLD • The city seems somewhat lax in burning regulations. Neighbors burn their leaves and pollute and no one seems to care. • The City seems to be on top of any environmental issues. ## • THE CITY SHOULD BUY MORE LAND FOR TRAILS & GREEN AREAS • The construction management is a bit of a necessary evil, but could have caused less disruption if better planned. ## • THE EFFORT TO CLEAN PFAS - VERY WELCOMED • The more you think of the good your accomplishing the more laws you make to think that will protect it. • The pursuit of the PFAS issue and commitment to IMPLEMENTING solutions has been exemplary, direct action to remediate an issue while effectively leveraging resources to hold those who caused the problem accountable. ## • THE SERVICES ARE EXCELLENT AND THE VALUE IS AS WELL. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR ## NOT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE EXCELLENT IN ALL CATEGORIES. • The street run-off ponds are in terrible condition starting mid-summer. Can anything be done? • The survey did not give a chance to respond to the question about having chickens on any single family lot, so I am having to put my comment here... NO CHICKENS! That's preposterous! Why would someone in Wedgewood, Dancing Waters, Stonemill Farms, or any other upscale neighborhood want chickens in their yard! Disgusting. • The wooded area behind houses in my Woodbury Crossing neighborhood have many old trees that are decayed or dead and many have fallen. I don't see any new trees planted to replace them. Some trees might be growing on their own from seedlings of nearby trees. However, it might be better to have city plantings. also, the hillside has sandy undersoil that has a lot of erosion. Something needs to be done to prevent further erosion. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 154 ## • THERE COULD BE MORE ATTENTION TO TREE TRIMMING ALONG TRAILS & STREETS • There is always work to do in this area though I am satisfied. ## • THEY ARE DOING A NICE JOB • They do a decent job keeping up with mowing parks and many public areas, but they lack during the winter months. Getting out late to plow the city streets whent they know there will be snow. Sometimes they will be ahead of the snow and be out salting the roads but only when the conditions are going to bring icy conditions will they do that. Then during the warmer months I hardly ever see any street cleaners out. ## • THEY SHOULD KEEP IT UP. • This is not the Woodbury I grew up in and it makes me sad. • Too many areas to consider • Too many low income housing projects - we don't support it! • Tree Program, Water Treatment, Parks and Lakes, all extremely worthwhile and what make Woodbury an elite destination for anyone. • Truthfully I am not too concerned about environmental stewardship. ## • TRY TO HELP MOST PEOPLE ## • VALUE DEVELOPMENT OVER OPEN SPACES • Very important to protect the environment and we support the city's efforts in maintaining a high degree of focus on this. • Very satisfied ## • WATER FILTERING EFFORTS • Water is a concern ## • WATER TREATMENT IS FIRST CLASS ## • WE HAVE RECYCLING & WELL KEPT CITY PARK ## • WE MUCH DO MORE ## • WE NEED ARE LAND/NATURE PRESERVATION, LESS LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE • well done from what I have seen ## • WISH MORE WAS DONE TO CURB EXCESS IRRIGATION (SUCH AS AFTER SIG RAIN) ## • WOODBURY HAS BECOME A VERY EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE • Woodbury promotes "sustainability" and "green" programs, but actual stewardship is lacking: Decades of approving rapid growth with insufficient long-term protections for groundwater led directly to widespread PFAS contamination in multiple wells a preventable crisis now costing residents hundreds of millions in treatment plants and higher utility rates, while the real polluter (3M) still hasn't fully paid. The city continues aggressive clear-cutting of mature trees and woodlands for new apartments, retail, and dense housing projects. Although a tree preservation/woodland protection ordinance exists (requiring preservation plans and replacement trees), the requirements are modest, replanting often consists of small saplings that take decades to replace lost canopy, and enforcement feels inadequate resulting in permanent loss of green space and natural habitat. Remaining open spaces, wetlands, and tree buffers keep disappearing to meet density goals rather than being genuinely protected.Real environmental stewardship would mean pushing back harder on over- development, strengthening (and rigorously enforcing) tree and wetland protections, and making polluters not taxpayers bear the full cost of cleanup. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 155 ## • WOULD LIKE A STRANGER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN TO COMFORT CLIMATE CHANGE ## • YES, THE ENVIRONMENT IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR WOODBURY. Very or Somewhat dissatisfied. • A little over board in the wrong areas • Addressing water issues was much, much too late. Cleanup of pond areas only seems to happen in higher property value areas. The pond behind me is a mess with many fallen trees, but no effort to clean it up to make it look nice has been done in the twenty years that I've lived here. And it's very visible to everyone because it's next to a park, playground, baseball fields and tennis courts. So you'd think it'd be worth of some attention and maintenance. But no. • City could do better job reaching out to its constituents. ## • CLOSED YARD WASTE FACILITY ## • CUT TOO MANY TREES FROM PARKS • Destroying land for growth is my main complaint. Very little green spaces in new commercial areas. ## • ELIMINATE BUCKTHORN ## • EVERY PIECE OF EMPTY LAND IS BEING DEVELOPED ## • GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION (3M) • I am concerned about overall amount of development and the sufficiency of water • I would like to see more green space and trails. It is also very important to me that we have more trees and landscaping along our roads. Overall, we could use a lot more trees and sidewalks. Interlachen Parkway for example, it is a 30mph road with walking trails and trees. This is an example of how I would like most roads in my city to be. I go out of my way to use slower, more scenic roads as they are safer and more aesthetically appealing. • I'm confident you are worrying way too much about the environment. You only seemed to worry about Pfas when free money became available. • Invasives such as :buckthorn, sumac, wild grape and poison ivy are overtaking native and desirable trees in our parks. ACTIVELY engage with citizens to improve parks. Schedule and publish regular clean up days every month. Encourage citizens to improve park areas and to 'Own' improvements. (NOT DISCOURAGE) • Is the money/effort that goes into the frequent street sweeping really environmentally sound? It picks up some "dirt", but how much pollution/resources are being generated/used in doing so? • It is overly emphasized as if it will have any bearing on anything that matters other than being a waste of money • It's hard to see so much green space that allowed homes for animals be taken away for development. • let us know if there are any pfas in our water..... dont trust most reports • Love the focus on sustainable habitat restoration with native species in parks like Hassenback and Valley Creek. We need to continue this focus while promoting plant-based nutrition options in our schools. We need to incentivize plant based dining experiences to move to Woodbury as part of our commitment to diversity, inclusion, and environmental sustainability. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 156 ## • NEVER INTERACTED WITH CITY EMPLOYERS. • Our water situation is a mess ## • SEEMS TO BE WASTING RESOURCES IN HASENT BACK WOODS PRODUCT NEAR ST JOHNS ## DRIVE ## • STILL WATER ISSUE ## • STOP WITH THE 'SUBSTANABITY'. • The city is getting carried away and going overboard on the environmental issues. Still worried about climate change which is all been proven to be a hoax. • The loss of the farmland is a disappointment. ## • THE PARKS - MANY TREES FALLEN DOWN/DEAD, THIS WOULD BE A FIRE HAZZARD ## • THE ROADS ARE TERRIBLE & SHOW REMOVABLE SLOW • The water treatment issue. I would like to see the city be the first in the county to do actual research and tell the county to stop putting Fluoride in the water. The evidence has been proven that Fluoride is not a healthy additive that makes our teeth healthy. Tell me why it says on a tube of toothpaste to call poison control if ingested? Why do they have different color ribbons on toothpaste? Black meaning the worst (most toxic), red, blue and green, meaning the least toxic. It isn't just the plastics that are killing us. • There has never been any welcoming committee or package, at least for me. As far communication, there is none, you get a fine and that's it. No explanation or nothing. • Too much development which then takes down trees. Need to plan developments and keep areas green. • Too much focus is being put into environmental stewardship efforts ## • TOO MUCH ROAD SALT. IT NEGATIVELY AFFECTS PONDS & CREAKS ## • TOO MUCH SALT ON THE SHEETS. LACK OF OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT ## • TOO MUCH SPEND FOR NOT AN IMPORTANT ITEM ## • WASTE ON DUMB PROJECTS, FOCUSED ON SOCIAL ENGINEERING NOT RUNNING THE CITY ## CORRECTLY ## • WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ## • WHO APPROVED THE REPAYMENT JOB ON VALLEY CREEK, THAT ROAD IS ROUGH & ## CHOPPY • Woodbury allows developers to get by without completing approved plans or having adequate plans in the first place for environmental aspects including trees/plantings/screening, storm water management during construction, and runoff management/infiltration after construction (storm drains / grading improperly done). Woodbury does not do enough to reduce the need for irrigation by the way development plans are approved. Water efficiency focus is reactive instead of proactive. Woodbury seems to think replacing healthy mature trees with new plantings is an adequate alternative when wiping out large stands of trees for development. Don’t know. • Don't know information related to any of the topics • Don't know what was proposed or has been done. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 157 • Dont know what the plan is beyond the water treatment plant. It surely isn't planting trees along renovated roads (Tamarack) and enforcing speed limits to reduce car emissions. ## • HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH THIS ISSUE ## • HAVE NO INFORMATION • I don't know much about the City's environmental initiatives and cannot comment with confidence. • I have no clue what the City does for environmental stewardship. • I have no heard anything about these efforts. • I have not had or learned enough about environmental stewardship efforts in Woodbury. • I haven't looked into what this program actually does, but anything with environment and climate makes me concerned if it's a waste of money. • I haven't read anything about the city's environmental efforts. • Not sure what they are ## • OVER GROWTH OF RESIDENTS IN REGARDS TO INFRASTRUCTURE • Plowing is horrible, drinking water is terrible! • stewardship of what? • Stop overspending. • Taxes are way too high. We have a private street and are assessed for repairs but still pay the city. • This is a broad category and I'm not sure how to respond. • Water safety and environmental stewardship are very important to me ## • WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Question 25: What types of contact, if any, have you had over the last year with ## Woodbury Police? – Other • 911 MISDIAL and police were at my door within 5 minutes (i live very close to city hall). Only issue was my mistake, but they sure responded FAST. • A police officer helped my husband with a flat bike tire. Great experience! • Accidental 911 call • Accidental call. Police showed up within short time. Great response! • Accidentally had watch call 911 ## • AMBULANCE ## • ANIMAL CONTROL • Asked about a nuisance ordiance • Assisted in car breakdown • bumping into them in public or when they are patrolling • Call ambulance because I had kidney stone • Called 911 in error • Called about chronic speeding on Interlachen • Called about residential code violation. • called by paramedics for help in medical needs. Courteous and professional services. • Called police for infoPolice came to my door looking for a 911 caller. Not me • Called to report car that hadn't moved in a long time. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 158 • Community connections ## • COMMUNITY EVENTS • Concern about unusual situations. • Conversations with officers while in public ## • DOG ATTACK FROM NEIGHBORS DOG • Emergency call response for an injury ## • EVENTS I MEETINGS • Frequent my place of work - good relationship with officers that come in. Feel safe and protected should I need the services. ## • FRIEND COULD NOT GET HOLD OF ME - ASKED POLICE TO CHECK ON ME ## • GENERAL CONTACT • Getting a permit • Getting my permit to purchase ## • HAVE SEEN THEM IN ACTION WITH GROUP HAVE RESIDENT ON OUR BLOCK • Hit a deer ## • HOME SECURITY ALARM WANT OFF • Home Security System called them. They were quick to respond, and beat us to the scene. False alarm. • I accidentally dialed 911 on my bike -- not sure how -- and called to correct the issue. A community service officer called to make sure I hadn't hit my head (I was on my bike) and to check on me personally. I really thought that was going above and beyond and I appreciated it! • I attend Eagle Brook church and there is very friendly officer there. • I fell at Woodbury Days and the officers at the Medical Tent called for an ambulance to meet us at the high school. The EMTs checked me for a concussion (none) and bandages my bleeding elbow and released me. The officer then drove me back to the Medical tentten • I found a lost child as an officer was driving by looking for her also, and he helpedme find the parents • I have not interacted with the police within the last year. • information on city ordinance • Interaction through visiting. • Just know a few officers through friends and neighbors. • Kids were actin up in our neighborhood this summer doing ding dong ditch. Cops showed up. They were ok. • lost a wallet and reported it. • Lost dog, as Animal Control was not available. • Meeting police officers at community events • My 5 year old called 911 to look for his brother who had gone to school on the 1 st day of this school year.The police showed up at our door just to confirm everything is okay within minutes and he was very friendly to the 5 year old and he encouraged him to enjoy school when he told him he will be going to his school the following day. ## • MY ALARM WENT WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN A CAR WITH PEOPLE WAS PACKED YOUNG ## ON CONFER PASS AT MID NIGHT & I CALLED TO SEE IF THEY NEEDED HELP. THE OFFICER ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 159 ## CALLED ME BACK 45 MIN LATER TO LET ME KNOW THEIR CAR WAS DISABLED & THEY WERE ## WAITING FOR A THE TRUCK (AROUND MIDNIGHT) I APPRECIATED THE FOLLOW UP • My granddaughters & I were taking a walk last spring & a police officer stopped in his squad car & gave them a sticker. That was nice. ## • National Night Out ## • NATIONAL NIGHT OUT • Nearly every Wednesday I see a group of them gathering at Jerry's early in the morning. I always greet them and usually thank them. I do wonder why they all have beards that look alike. :-) • Neighbor ## • Neighborhood Night Out contact ## • NEIGHBOUR DONE CAR INTO FRONT YARD TREE ## • NON-EMERGENCY REPORTS ## • OFFICER WAS NOT LISTENING • Parking complaint ## • PERMIT TO PURCHASE ## • PHONE CARE ## • POLICE ACTION ON MY NEIGHBORHOOD ## • POLICE COME TO HOUSE FOR DOG CONCERN ## • POLICE REMOVAL & NEIGHBOR • Police spoke to me after an an incident at my neighbor's residence • Provided video of incidents as requested by police • Regular customer at my place of work. ## • REPORTED EMUS ON THE RUN ## • REPORTED LOST HEMS • Reported traffic crash as a witness • Saw police officers at town events. They gave stickers to my kids. Super nice! ## • SEE SRO DAILY DURING SCHOOL YEAR • Seen police presence in my neighborhood on calls and chases. Police in retail and restaurants. Did not have direct contact with an officer. • several instances have spoken with officers when they meet at Jerry's and talked with community services officers - all great interactions, excellent people • Social • someone stopped at my home looking to serve papers to a neighbor they could not find, do not know why on multiple occasions they came to my home. • Spoke to while they were looking at something in our neighborhood • talked with officer who was in neighborhood observing activity on nearby property ## • TALKED WITH OFFICERS • They are at Saint Ambrose for some Masses and they with the Saint Ambrose Fallfest 5k • They came to our home for a false security alarm. • They came to talk to me after somebody died in the unit behind me ## • TRAFFIC STOP WITH NO TICKET • Un don pour mon installation ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 160 • Use non emergency line for dogs off leash, unfamiliar cars parked on street, etc. • Use the winter vacation watch services. • Visited by police before Paramedics arrived after a 911 call for a neighbor. • Welfare check for neighbor. • Witnessed swearing in at city council and have seen present at special events • WITTNESSED THEM IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. i WAS IMPRESSED ## POSITIVELY. • Work at senior living and see them often. They are fantastic. Question 28: In addition to responding to emergency calls, which of the following, if any, do you think should be the top policing priority for Woodbury Police – Other • 100% phone call coverage without going through the county for weekend calls ## • ALL ABOVE ## • ALL EQUALLY IMPORTANT ## • ALL OF ABOVE • All of the above, except that alcohol, substance abuse only needs attention by police if we have negative situations. I was not able to select multiple items. • All of the above??? • Almost all of the above.. Drugs lead to crime, mental health issues, trafficking humans, etc. Guess what the GOLD Line Brings to Woodbury... all of it • Combat overnight theft. ## • COMPUTER CRIME • Crime prevention & human trafficking (it was a tie for me) • Criminal investigation and apprehension, including helping federal law enforcement get the criminal illegals out of the city. ## • FOLLOW UP TO PEOPLE 1) WHEN WE COMPLAIN OR CRIME ETC. 2) NEED A POLICE NEWS ## TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON DAILY. • Homelessness/home insecurity • I canot say because I do not know what the most critical issues are in Woodbury. All items are important but I believe only the police can really know what the priorities are. I wish there was more traffic enforcement, but that is not as crucial as some areas like human trafficking, mental health response or apprehension/investigation ## • I DONT KNOW • I know human trafficking is important, but I'd like to add speeding enforcement at school let out daily. Lake rd as well as woodlane is dangerous for all the walkers. ## • I SELECT AU ## • I THINK ALL OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT WHEN NEEDED IN GENERAL I AM VERY PLEASED ## WITH THE ROAD POLICE • My opinion is the Woodbury Police give each of these situations equal priority. • Need to address the use of EV scooters on the roads • Need to work with federal law enforcement ## • NO CONNECTION TO ICE-INCLUDING ALLOWING DEM IN RE BUILDING OR USING THE ## PACKING LOT ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 161 ## • PEOPLE PARKING WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG WAITING AND NOT CARING IF SOMEONE IS ## BEHIND THEM PEOPLE PARKING IN HANDICAP W/OUT PROPER TAGS ## • POSITIVE RELATIONS! HUMAN TRAFFICKING ## • SERVICES FOR THE HEALTH & WELFARE OF YOUR OFFICERS. THERE ARE SO MANY THAT ## PRAY FOR THEM & ARE BEHIND THEM ## • SEVERAL OF THE ABOVE ARE WORTHY; CAN'T REALLY PICK ONE. ## • SPEEDING AROUND & IN WOODBURY NEIGHBORHOODS ## • SPEEDING IS RAMPANT LITTLE TO NO ENFORCEMENT ## • STREET RACING/SPEEDING AFTER MIDNIGHT ON SETTLERS RIDGE IN THE SUMMER ## • THERE WE ALL IMPORTANT ## • THEY DO NOT: CITY SPEEDERS, RED LIGHT RUNNERS, AND FAILURES TO STOP AT SIGNALS ## TRIGGED TOMS. CITE WHEELCHAIR SPACE ABUSERS. ENFORCE NOISE ORDINANCE. CITE ## PEOPLE WHO DEFACE PROPERTY. INVESTIGATE STALKING, OR PEEPING TOMS. INVESTIGATE ## IDENTITY THEFT. THEY WILL NOT WRITE UP REPORTS FOR ANY OF THESE EITHER WHERE ## • THIS IS TOO LONG... STOP BRINGING IN LOW INCOME HOUSING & PUBLIC ## TRANSPORTATION. IT GROWS CRIME HERE. • To rank these as top priorities is impossible. The needs and safety of the community are equally important. Dealing with crime is the most important. • Traffic enforcement with clear and positive police-community relations around a clear goal to make our roads better & safter! ## • TRASH THROWING Question D17: What is your gender? – Identify in another way ## • I FEMALE, 2 MALES ## • NOT A RETARD • That's not your business • This question is ridiculous. You can't change your gender. I am a woman. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 162 ## Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey ## Questions by Respondent Characteristics The subgroup comparison tables contain the cross tabulations of selected survey questions by respondent characteristics. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. For each pair of subgroups that has a statistically significant difference, an upper-case letter denoting significance is shown in the category with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the category with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Differences were marked as statistically significant if the probability that the differences were due to chance alone were less than 5%. Categories were not used in comparisons when a column proportion was equal to zero or one. Items that have no upper-case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different. For example, in Table 63 on the following page, 96% of women (A) gave excellent or good ratings to Woodbury as a place to raise children. This proportion of residents was statistically higher than men (B), as denoted by the letter ‘B’ below the 96%. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 163 Comparisons by Length of Residency, Age and Gender. ## Table 63: Quality of Life Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Woodbury as a place to live 98% ## C 96% 92% 99% ## B C 95% 94% 96% 95% 95% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 91% 91% 89% 93% 93% ## A 93% 91% 92% Woodbury as a place to raise children 97% ## C 95% 91% 98% ## C 94% 92% 96% ## B 92% 94% Woodbury as a place to work 75% 79% 80% 73% 77% 80% 83% ## B 70% 77% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 88% ## C 87% ## C 75% 87% 83% 89% ## B 88% 84% 85% Shopping opportunities in Woodbury 93% ## C 93% ## C 83% 98% ## B C 86% 89% 91% 89% 90% Dining opportunities in Woodbury 77% ## C 79% ## C 62% 79% ## B 68% 75% ## B 77% ## B 70% 73% Woodbury as a place to visit 69% ## C 72% ## C 55% 68% 64% 72% ## B 69% 66% 67% Woodbury as a place to retire 78% ## C 69% ## C 52% 77% ## B 60% 69% ## B 71% ## B 62% 66% Sense of community 62% 70% 63% 62% 65% 66% 69% ## B 59% 64% The overall quality of life in Woodbury 93% 93% 88% 95% ## B 90% 92% 93% 91% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 164 ## Table 64: Community Characteristics Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Overall feeling of safety 92% 89% 87% 90% 89% 93% 92% ## B 88% 90% Overall ease of traveling to locations 82% ## C 75% 73% 85% ## B C 72% 77% 78% 76% 77% Health and wellness opportunities 87% 90% 89% 90% 87% 92% 92% ## B 87% 89% Fitness and exercise opportunities 82% 89% 83% 85% 83% 87% 89% ## B 81% 84% Overall economic health 88% ## C 88% 81% 94% ## B C 81% 86% 87% 86% 86% Overall image or reputation 94% ## B C 88% 84% 99% ## B C 85% 88% 90% 89% 89% Variety of housing types 81% 85% ## C 75% 84% 77% 81% 80% 80% 80% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 165 ## Table 65: Community Connectedness Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (Percent "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community 69% 78% ## A 78% ## A 69% 79% ## A 75% 78% 74% 75% I feel connected to my neighborhood 73% 86% ## A 85% ## A 73% 85% ## A 88% ## A 82% 84% 83% I have good relationships with my neighbors 83% 93% ## A 90% ## A 83% 91% ## A 93% ## A 87% 94% ## A 90% I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 69% 89% ## A 84% ## A 67% 84% ## A 88% ## A 81% 82% 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 166 ## Table 66: Community Diversity and Inclusivity Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Making all residents feel welcome 72% 72% 71% 75% 73% 71% 73% 73% 73% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 58% 61% 64% 59% 65% 62% 66% ## B 59% 62% Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 70% 75% 74% 79% ## B 70% 73% 74% 74% 74% Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 73% 82% ## A 74% 81% ## B 72% 75% 76% 76% 75% Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 76% 84% 77% 83% 76% 75% 78% 78% 77% Treating all residents fairly 81% 77% 73% 82% ## B 75% 77% 78% 78% 77% Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 83% 81% 78% 87% ## B 78% 82% 79% 86% ## A 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 167 ## Table 67: Feelings of Safety Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (Percent very or somewhat safe) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 92% 97% ## A 97% ## A 94% 96% 94% 95% 94% 95% In commercial areas 90% 93% 93% 88% 95% ## A C 89% 93% 90% 91% In city parks and recreation facilities 93% 96% 91% 95% ## C 93% ## C 87% 91% 92% 91% Table 68: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent strongly or somewhat approve) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? 90% ## C 87% ## C 73% 92% ## B C 79% 84% 83% 85% 83% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 168 Table 69: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? 86% 81% 79% 90% ## B 79% 86% ## B 83% 84% 83% ## Table 70: Contact with City Employees by Respondent Characteristics (Percent yes) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 41% 35% 39% 50% ## B C 32% 39% 36% 43% ## A 39% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 169 Table 71: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Respondent Characteristics Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) ## Knowledge 91% 96% 85% 93% 87% 90% 90% 90% 90% Responsiveness 92% ## C 90% 82% 90% 86% 88% 87% 89% 88% ## Courteousness 94% 87% 92% 90% 93% 90% 89% 93% 91% Overall impression 88% ## C 82% 77% 82% 84% 88% 85% 85% 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 170 ## Table 72: Quality of Service Delivery Ratings by Respondent ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Police services 84% 92% ## A 88% 84% 88% 94% ## A B 89% 89% 89% Fire services 90% 97% ## A 96% ## A 90% 94% 95% 92% 95% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 90% 95% 96% 91% 92% 96% 91% 96% ## A 93% Sanitary sewer services 89% 91% 88% 87% 89% 90% 85% 93% ## A 89% Drinking water 57% ## B C 42% 46% 55% 48% 51% 43% 60% ## A 51% Condition of trails 89% 87% 90% 91% 89% 86% 89% 88% 88% Snow removal on city trails 70% 73% 79% 66% 74% 75% ## A 69% 75% 72% Recreation programs 84% 92% ## A 84% 91% ## B 83% 87% 85% 87% 86% Condition of city parks 88% 96% ## A 92% 88% 91% 93% 92% 90% 91% Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 83% 93% ## A 97% ## A 85% 93% ## A 92% 92% 89% 91% ## M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 91% 92% 91% 90% 91% 91% 92% 90% 91% Central Park 91% 91% 93% 89% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 171 ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Lookout Ridge 89% 93% 92% 90% 91% 84% 91% 86% 89% Street lighting 69% 74% ## C 62% 69% 68% 72% 69% 70% 70% Building inspection services 77% 87% 80% 78% 81% 81% 80% 82% 80% Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 73% ## C 73% ## C 58% 73% 68% 62% 66% 67% 66% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 62% 61% 56% 54% 62% 58% 55% 63% ## A 59% Stormwater and flood management 87% 86% 79% 86% 85% 82% 84% 85% 84% Snow plowing on city streets 74% 79% 72% 68% 74% 82% ## A B 74% 78% 76% Street sweeping 81% 87% 89% ## A 80% 84% 88% ## A 84% 85% 84% Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 85% ## C 83% 77% 84% 79% 83% 82% 81% 81% Public information and City communications 83% 91% ## A C 81% 89% ## B 81% 86% 83% 85% 84% Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 87% 92% 87% 89% 84% 94% ## B 87% 90% 88% Overall quality of services provided by the ## City of Woodbury 90% ## C 91% ## C 83% 93% ## B 83% 90% ## B 86% 90% 88% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 172 Table 73: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Characteristics (Percent strongly or somewhat support) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? 42% 50% 49% 41% 46% 53% ## A B 50% 46% 47% Table 74: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Characteristics (Percent very or somewhat high) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median- valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 49% 47% 53% 52% 48% 44% 46% 48% 48% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 173 ## Table 75: Government Performance Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) The value of services for the taxes paid to ## Woodbury 69% 69% 64% 74% ## B 63% 69% 71% 65% 68% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 77% ## B C 63% ## C 51% 79% ## B C 59% 64% 68% 66% 66% The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 72% 77% 70% 76% 71% 71% 74% 71% 72% Overall confidence in Woodbury government 75% ## C 67% 65% 77% ## B 62% 70% ## B 67% 71% 68% Acting in the best interest of the community 84% ## B C 70% ## C 60% 88% ## B C 62% 71% ## B 69% 75% 71% Treating all residents fairly 81% ## C 78% 70% 86% ## B 70% 79% ## B 75% 80% 76% Communicating key issues to residents 73% 75% 72% 75% 72% 74% 71% 77% 73% ## Table 76: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts (Percent very or somewhat satisfied) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? 93% 93% 89% 97% ## B C 91% 91% 93% 91% 92% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 174 Table 77: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Characteristics Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent at least once) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Special events 43% 55% ## A 54% ## A 39% 58% ## A C 43% 45% 52% 48% Preschool programs 8% 15% ## A C 4% 7% 11% ## C 4% 7% 8% 8% Youth programs 17% 26% ## A 29% ## A 10% 37% ## A C 11% 18% 24% ## A 21% Family programs 23% 20% 19% 15% 29% ## A C 15% 15% 26% ## A 20% Age 55+ programs 3% 8% 9% ## A 1% 2% 23% ## A B 11% 8% 9% Adult programs and athletic leagues 18% 19% 14% 21% 18% 18% 18% 20% 18% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 175 Table 78: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Characteristics Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Special events 91% 86% 85% 89% 89% 90% 90% 89% 90% Preschool programs 76% 94% 76% 84% 83% 82% 88% 79% 84% Youth programs 73% 88% ## A 92% ## A 79% 87% 91% 92% 83% 87% Family programs 89% 90% 86% 86% 86% 87% 93% ## B 82% 86% Age 55+ programs 59% 86% 76% 34% 81% ## A 76% ## A 81% 66% 75% Adults programs and athletic leagues 86% 93% 84% 85% 87% 81% 87% 82% 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 176 ## Table 79: Use of Information Sources by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 81% 93% ## A 92% ## A 79% 90% ## A 96% ## A B 90% 89% 89% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 53% 70% ## A 60% 48% 66% ## A 70% ## A 62% 65% 63% Parks and Recreation brochure 71% 90% ## A 94% ## A 66% 90% ## A 88% ## A 87% ## B 79% 83% City website (woodburymn.gov) 75% 75% 80% 76% 82% ## C 70% 75% 78% 76% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 24% 38% ## A 42% ## A 24% 40% ## A 38% ## A 36% 36% 35% Newspapers/magazines 48% 53% 58% ## A 42% 55% ## A 61% ## A 54% 54% 53% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 12% 13% 13% 8% 14% ## A 18% ## A 14% 14% 14% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 16% 18% 12% 11% 17% ## A 17% 16% 16% 16% Other residents/word of mouth 74% 79% 91% ## A B 72% 88% ## A C 81% ## A 83% 81% 81% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 31% 39% 38% 24% 41% ## A 55% ## A B 39% 44% 41% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 177 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) City social media accounts 47% 56% 54% 46% ## C 62% ## A C 33% 54% ## B 42% 48% City YouTube 21% 19% 17% 14% 25% ## A C 15% 18% 20% 18% Woodbury News Net 24% 23% 19% 14% 30% ## A 27% ## A 27% 23% 25% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 178 ## Table 80: Quality of Information Sources by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 82% 92% ## A 88% 86% 86% 91% ## B 90% 86% 88% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 78% 84% 77% 82% 79% 84% 87% ## B 77% 82% Parks and Recreation brochure 87% 87% 86% 92% 86% 90% 93% ## B 83% 89% City website (woodburymn.gov) 72% 86% ## A 75% 75% 75% 86% ## A B 83% ## B 73% 78% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 81% 81% 75% 100% ## B C 77% 78% 82% 78% 80% Newspapers/magazines 64% 76% 71% 66% 71% 66% 72% ## B 63% 68% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 56% 71% 64% 100% ## B 60% 65% 71% 62% 67% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 66% 84% 54% 100% ## B C 64% 62% 74% 65% 69% Other residents/word of mouth 60% 62% 59% 68% ## B C 58% 54% 64% ## B 53% 59% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 65% 81% 71% 90% 74% 78% 82% 73% 77% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 179 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) City social media accounts 66% 76% ## C 55% 72% 62% 72% 69% 62% 67% City YouTube 55% 88% ## A C 59% 63% 66% 73% 67% 67% 66% ## Woodbury News Net 60% 77% 61% 71% 69% 73% 75% 66% 70% ## Table 81: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent very or somewhat familiar) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ## More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: 57% 80% ## A 77% ## A 57% 78% ## A 79% ## A 71% 76% 74% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 180 ## Table 82: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent acceptable or excessive) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: 91% ## C 84% 76% 92% ## B C 82% 81% 83% 84% 84% ## Table 83: Approval of Backyard Chickens (Percent strongly approve or somewhat approve) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? 58% ## C 49% 47% 67% ## B C 52% ## C 34% 47% 52% 49% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 181 ## Table 84: Public Safety Ratings by Respondent Characteristics During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the employee...: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) ...was professional 96% 94% 98% 93% 95% 96% 92% 97% ## A 94% ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 91% 87% 90% 87% 89% 93% 85% 94% ## A 90% ...was courteous 94% 98% 96% 93% 94% 96% 92% 97% 94% ...was knowledgeable 93% 99% 91% 93% 92% 95% 89% 97% ## A 93% ...handled your situation in a timely manner 93% ## B 82% 92% 82% 92% ## A 93% ## A 84% 96% ## A 90% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 91% 81% 84% 87% 85% 92% 83% 92% ## A 87% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 182 Table 85: Police Department Relations with Community and Minorities by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the quality of each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Length of residency Age Gender Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Woman Man ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 73% 82% 78% 67% 78% 89% ## A B 78% 78% 78% Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 79% 87% 89% ## A 72% 87% ## A 93% ## A B 82% 90% ## A 86% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 183 ## Comparisons by Housing Unit Type, Housing Tenure and Household Income ## Table 86: Quality of Life Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Woodbury as a place to live 94% 97% ## A 97% 94% 90% 95% 96% ## A 95% Your neighborhood as a place to live 94% ## B 89% 88% 93% ## A 86% 94% ## A 92% 92% Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 94% 96% 94% 84% 95% ## A 96% ## A 94% Woodbury as a place to work 73% 82% ## A 82% 75% 76% 75% 78% 77% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 85% 87% 86% 85% 81% 88% 86% 85% Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury 87% 95% ## A 96% ## B 88% 86% 93% 90% 90% Dining opportunities in Woodbury 67% 83% ## A 81% ## B 71% 77% 86% ## C 69% 73% Woodbury as a place to visit 64% 73% ## A 70% 67% 72% 76% ## C 66% 67% Woodbury as a place to retire 60% 75% ## A 83% ## B 62% 69% 75% ## C 63% 66% Sense of community 64% 65% 66% 64% 61% 72% ## C 63% 64% The overall quality of life in ## Woodbury 91% 92% 89% 92% 81% 92% ## A 94% ## A 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 184 ## Table 87: Community Characteristics Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Overall feeling of safety 89% 92% 93% 89% 84% 94% ## A 90% 90% Overall ease of traveling to locations 72% 85% ## A 87% ## B 74% 75% 79% 76% 77% Health and wellness opportunities 88% 92% 91% 89% 88% 94% ## C 88% 89% Fitness and exercise opportunities 83% 87% 83% 85% 82% 91% ## C 83% 84% Overall economic health 83% 90% ## A 88% 86% 70% 89% ## A 87% ## A 86% Overall image or reputation 87% 92% ## A 94% ## B 88% 79% 91% ## A 91% ## A 89% Variety of housing types 81% 79% 72% 82% ## A 75% 77% 82% 80% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 185 ## Table 88: Community Connectedness Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (Percent "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community 79% ## B 70% 68% 77% ## A 66% 76% 76% ## A 75% I feel connected to my neighborhood 88% ## B 75% 67% 87% ## A 81% 84% 82% 83% I have good relationships with my neighbors 94% ## B 84% 78% 93% ## A 92% 87% 91% 90% I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 90% ## B 69% 56% 88% ## A 82% 78% 83% 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 186 ## Table 89: Community Diversity and Inclusivity Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Making all residents feel welcome 76% ## B 68% 66% 75% ## A 63% 78% ## A 73% 73% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 67% ## B 57% 55% 65% ## A 62% 64% 62% 62% Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 76% 70% 66% 76% ## A 74% 75% 73% 74% Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 77% 73% 66% 78% ## A 72% 77% 76% 75% Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 80% ## B 74% 69% 80% ## A 77% 78% 77% 77% Treating all residents fairly 79% 75% 75% 78% 69% 78% 78% 77% Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 82% 80% 75% 83% ## A 76% 86% 81% 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 187 ## Table 90: Feelings of Safety Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (Percent very or somewhat safe) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 96% ## B 92% 92% 95% 94% 92% 96% ## B 95% In commercial areas 90% 92% 91% 91% 86% 90% 92% 91% In city parks and recreation facilities 90% 92% 92% 90% 77% 93% ## A 93% ## A 91% Table 91: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent strongly or somewhat approve) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? 79% 89% ## A 86% 82% 81% 86% 84% 83% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 188 Table 92: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? 82% 86% 82% 83% 67% 88% ## A 85% ## A 83% ## Table 93: Contact with City Employees by Respondent Characteristics (Percent yes) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 41% 37% 36% 40% 32% 39% 40% 39% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 189 Table 94: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Respondent Characteristics Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) ## Knowledge 91% 89% 91% 89% 88% 92% 91% 90% ## Responsiveness 88% 88% 84% 88% 90% 88% 89% 88% ## Courteousness 93% 87% 90% 90% 92% 92% 92% 91% Overall impression 86% 82% 77% 86% ## A 90% 84% 86% 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 190 ## Table 95: Quality of Service Delivery Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Police services 91% 87% 82% 91% ## A 79% 91% ## A 89% ## A 89% Fire services 95% 92% 90% 95% ## A 89% 98% ## A 94% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 91% 89% 94% ## A 82% 99% ## A C 93% ## A 93% Sanitary sewer services 90% 87% 85% 90% 74% 89% ## A 92% ## A 89% Drinking water 50% 52% 50% 51% 40% 56% ## A 51% 51% Condition of trails 89% 88% 88% 88% 82% 85% 90% 88% Snow removal on city trails 72% 73% 67% 73% 72% 74% 72% 72% Recreation programs 86% 87% 86% 86% 74% 88% ## A 87% ## A 86% Condition of city parks 93% ## B 89% 82% 93% ## A 86% 90% 92% 91% ## Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 92% 88% 84% 92% 94% ## B 81% 94% ## B 91% ## M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 91% 92% 91% 91% 85% 86% 93% ## B 91% Central Park 90% 91% 91% 90% 86% 89% 92% 90% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 191 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Lookout Ridge 88% 90% 93% 88% 74% 85% 91% ## A 89% Street lighting 72% ## B 66% 64% 71% 60% 69% 72% ## A 70% Building inspection services 83% 74% 65% 83% ## A 78% 73% 85% ## B 80% Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 67% 66% 63% 67% 64% 67% 69% 66% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 58% 60% 54% 60% 54% 59% 61% 59% Stormwater and flood management 86% 82% 75% 87% ## A 68% 82% ## A 88% ## A 84% Snow plowing on city streets 75% 77% 69% 77% ## A 74% 77% 76% 76% Street sweeping 87% ## B 80% 74% 87% ## A 82% 81% 87% ## B 84% Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 80% 83% 83% 81% 80% 82% 83% 81% Public information and City communications 84% 85% 83% 84% 75% 84% 86% ## A 84% Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 89% 88% 82% 90% ## A 80% 92% ## A 89% ## A 88% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 192 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury 87% 89% 86% 88% 75% 91% ## A 89% ## A 88% Table 96: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Characteristics (Percent strongly or somewhat support) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? 47% 48% 49% 47% 48% 39% 51% ## B 47% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 193 Table 97: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Characteristics (Percent very or somewhat high) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 48% 47% 49% 48% 56% 52% 44% 48% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 194 ## Table 98: Government Performance Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 65% 72% ## A 72% 67% 59% 68% 69% 68% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 62% 71% ## A 69% 65% 48% 71% ## A 68% ## A 66% The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 73% 71% 71% 72% 59% 72% 74% ## A 72% Overall confidence in Woodbury government 65% 73% ## A 71% 67% 64% 68% 70% 68% Acting in the best interest of the community 67% 78% ## A 80% ## B 69% 60% 74% ## A 73% ## A 71% Treating all residents fairly 77% 77% 73% 77% 62% 76% ## A 79% ## A 76% Communicating key issues to residents 74% 72% 67% 75% 65% 68% 77% ## B 73% ## Table 99: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts (Percent very or somewhat satisfied) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? 92% 91% 90% 92% 85% 93% ## A 93% ## A 92% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 195 Table 100: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Characteristics Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent at least once) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Special events 56% ## B 36% 40% 50% ## A 38% 41% 52% ## A B 48% Preschool programs 10% ## B 4% 7% 8% 6% 9% 7% 8% Youth programs 28% ## B 11% 9% 24% ## A 12% 18% 23% ## A 21% Family programs 25% ## B 13% 14% 22% ## A 13% 16% 22% 20% Age 55+ programs 8% 11% 7% 10% 20% ## C 13% ## C 7% 9% Adult programs and athletic leagues 21% ## B 15% 11% 21% ## A 13% 19% 19% 18% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 196 Table 101: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Characteristics Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Special events 90% 88% 96% 88% 88% 89% 90% 90% Preschool programs 84% 81% 84% 83% 59% 84% 88% ## A 84% Youth programs 87% 86% 81% 88% 70% 91% ## A 88% 87% Family programs 84% 91% 92% 85% 72% 85% 88% 86% Age 55+ programs 77% 71% 61% 78% 57% 68% 87% ## A 75% Adults programs and athletic leagues 86% 82% 83% 85% 82% 74% 91% ## B 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 197 ## Table 102: Use of Information Sources by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 94% ## B 83% 79% 92% ## A 82% 87% 91% ## A 89% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 66% ## B 59% 51% 66% ## A 62% 58% 65% 63% Parks and Recreation brochure 89% ## B 75% 68% 87% ## A 76% 78% 86% ## A B 83% City website (woodburymn.gov) 80% ## B 72% 66% 79% ## A 68% 68% 81% ## A B 76% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 40% ## B 28% 23% 39% ## A 40% 34% 35% 35% Newspapers/magazines 55% 51% 45% 56% ## A 56% 47% 56% ## B 53% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 13% 16% 13% 14% 28% ## B C 17% 12% 14% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 15% 16% 15% 16% 27% ## C 19% 14% 16% Other residents/word of mouth 86% ## B 74% 68% 85% ## A 83% ## B 70% 85% ## B 81% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 43% 38% 35% 43% ## A 49% 39% 40% 41% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 198 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) City social media accounts 51% 44% 52% 47% 43% 35% 53% ## B 48% City YouTube 19% 18% 19% 18% 27% 17% 19% 18% Woodbury News Net 24% 25% 25% 24% 35% ## C 27% 23% 25% ## Table 103: Quality of Information Sources by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 89% 87% 81% 89% ## A 72% 90% ## A 90% ## A 88% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 80% 84% 79% 82% 68% 85% ## A 84% ## A 82% Parks and Recreation brochure 89% 88% 86% 89% 74% 94% ## A 88% ## A 89% City website (woodburymn.gov) 79% 76% 71% 79% 62% 74% 81% ## A 78% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 199 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 78% 85% 89% 78% 68% 94% ## A C 78% 80% Newspapers/magazines 71% 64% 50% 72% ## A 47% 59% 75% ## A B 68% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 69% 64% 65% 66% 37% 79% ## A 72% ## A 67% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 74% 63% 63% 71% 42% 69% ## A 78% ## A 69% Other residents/word of mouth 62% ## B 53% 45% 62% ## A 50% 60% 60% 59% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 80% 74% 68% 79% 70% 79% 79% 77% City social media accounts 68% 63% 54% 70% ## A 61% 75% 65% 67% City YouTube 73% 58% 38% 75% ## A 64% 69% 69% 66% Woodbury News Net 73% 68% 59% 74% 60% 77% 72% 70% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 200 ## Table 104: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Characteristics Percent very or somewhat familiar) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: 86% ## B 56% 43% 82% ## A 62% 67% 76% ## A B 74% ## Table 105: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Characteristics (Percent acceptable or excessive) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: 82% 87% 82% 84% 84% 87% 83% 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 201 ## Table 106: Approval of Backyard Chickens (Percent strongly approve or somewhat approve) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? 44% 57% ## A 60% ## B 47% 50% 50% 50% 49% ## Table 107: Public Safety Ratings by Respondent Characteristics During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the employee...: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) ...was professional 97% ## B 91% 82% 97% ## A 91% 98% 97% 94% ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 92% 85% 69% 93% ## A 96% 91% 91% 90% ...was courteous 96% ## B 91% 82% 96% ## A 98% 94% 97% 94% ...was knowledgeable 95% 91% 84% 94% ## A 95% 95% 95% 93% ...handled your situation in a timely manner 93% ## B 85% 69% 93% ## A 98% 92% 91% 90% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 89% 85% 69% 90% ## A 95% 85% 90% 87% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 202 Table 108: Police Department Relations with Community and Minorities by Respondent Characteristics Please rate the quality of each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) Housing unit type ## Housing tenure Household income Overall ## Detached Attached Rent Own $50,000 or less $50,000 to $100,000 $100,000 or more ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) ## Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 81% 74% 65% 83% ## A 78% 84% 78% 78% ## Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 88% 83% 69% 90% ## A 86% 87% 86% 86% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 203 ## Comparisons by Ethnicity and Race Table 109: Quality of Life Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Woodbury as a place to live 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 97% 91% 95% 92% Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 94% 95% 92% 94% Woodbury as a place to work 77% 74% 78% 77% 77% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 87% ## B 68% 88% ## B 78% 85% Shopping opportunities in Woodbury 90% 89% 92% ## B 85% 90% Dining opportunities in Woodbury 74% ## B 59% 74% 73% 73% Woodbury as a place to visit 68% 73% 69% 67% 67% Woodbury as a place to retire 67% 81% 65% 72% 66% Sense of community 64% 76% 63% 70% 64% The overall quality of life in Woodbury 92% 94% 93% 89% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 204 ## Table 110: Community Characteristics Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Overall feeling of safety 91% 89% 92% ## B 86% 90% Overall ease of traveling to locations 77% 67% 76% 81% 77% Health and wellness opportunities 90% 87% 90% 87% 89% Fitness and exercise opportunities 85% ## B 69% 85% 85% 84% Overall economic health 87% 77% 88% ## B 80% 86% Overall image or reputation 89% 93% 90% 88% 89% Variety of housing types 81% ## B 67% 80% 81% 80% ## Table 111: Community Connectedness Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (Percent "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community 75% 92% ## A 73% 83% ## A 75% I feel connected to my neighborhood 83% 83% 82% 87% 83% I have good relationships with my neighbors 90% 83% 90% 90% 90% I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 81% 84% 82% 80% 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 205 Table 112: Community Diversity and Inclusivity Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Making all residents feel welcome 72% 88% 72% 77% 73% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 63% 51% 60% 70% ## A 62% Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 74% 64% 76% 70% 74% Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 75% 84% 76% 73% 75% Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 77% 93% ## A 78% 78% 77% Treating all residents fairly 77% 89% 78% 77% 77% Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 81% 92% 82% 83% 81% Table 113: Feelings of Safety Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (Percent very or somewhat safe) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% ## B 83% 96% ## B 90% 95% In commercial areas 92% ## B 77% 92% 90% 91% In city parks and recreation facilities 91% 96% 92% 89% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 206 Table 114: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent strongly or somewhat approve) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? 85% ## B 60% 86% ## B 79% 83% Table 115: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? 84% 84% 87% ## B 75% 83% Table 116: Contact with City Employees by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent yes) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 39% 47% 39% 39% 39% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 207 Table 117: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Knowledge 90% 91% 91% 89% 90% Responsiveness 88% 94% 87% 92% 88% Courteousness 90% 94% 90% 93% 91% Overall impression 86% ## B 59% 86% 82% 84% Table 118: Quality of Service Delivery Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Police services 89% 95% 92% ## B 80% 89% Fire services 94% 90% 96% ## B 88% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 90% 96% ## B 85% 93% Sanitary sewer services 89% 94% 92% ## B 79% 89% Drinking water 51% 42% 51% 52% 51% Condition of trails 89% ## B 77% 90% ## B 82% 88% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 208 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Snow removal on city trails 73% ## B 56% 74% ## B 66% 72% Recreation programs 86% 98% ## A 89% ## B 78% 86% Condition of city parks 91% ## B 80% 95% ## B 79% 91% Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 92% ## B 64% 95% ## B 76% 91% M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 91% 98% 93% ## B 85% 91% Central Park 90% 95% 92% ## B 86% 90% Lookout Ridge 89% 97% 94% ## B 78% 89% Street lighting 70% 57% 74% ## B 57% 70% Building inspection services 81% ## B 54% 84% ## B 73% 80% Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 67% 57% 66% 68% 66% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% 56% 57% 66% ## A 59% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 209 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Stormwater and flood management 85% 72% 87% ## B 76% 84% Snow plowing on city streets 76% 68% 79% ## B 65% 76% Street sweeping 85% ## B 73% 88% ## B 73% 84% Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 82% ## B 58% 84% ## B 74% 81% Public information and City communications 84% 95% 87% ## B 73% 84% Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 89% ## B 77% 92% ## B 78% 88% Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury 89% ## B 74% 91% ## B 77% 88% Table 119: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent strongly or somewhat support) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? 48% 44% 51% ## B 38% 47% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 210 Table 120: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent very or somewhat high) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 47% 55% 46% 51% 48% ## Table 121: Government Performance Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 68% 66% 73% ## B 54% 68% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 67% 66% 68% 65% 66% The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 71% 95% ## A 74% 68% 72% Overall confidence in Woodbury government 69% 64% 72% ## B 59% 68% Acting in the best interest of the community 72% 69% 75% ## B 67% 71% Treating all residents fairly 78% 64% 80% ## B 70% 76% Communicating key issues to residents 74% ## B 52% 76% ## B 63% 73% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 211 Table 122: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent very or somewhat satisfied) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? 93% 84% 92% 93% 92% Table 123: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent at least once) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Special events 48% 72% ## A 46% 54% ## A 48% Preschool programs 7% 15% 6% 14% ## A 8% Youth programs 20% 44% ## A 19% 26% ## A 21% Family programs 20% 38% ## A 17% 33% ## A 20% Age 55+ programs 9% 4% 10% ## B 5% 9% Adult programs and athletic leagues 19% 23% 18% 23% 18% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 212 Table 124: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Special events 89% 95% 90% 89% 90% Preschool programs 82% 100% 85% 83% 84% Youth programs 86% 100% 91% ## B 79% 87% Family programs 85% 94% 85% 88% 86% Age 55+ programs 78% ## B 27% 78% 63% 75% Adults programs and athletic leagues 87% ## B 58% 86% 82% 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 213 Table 125: Use of Information Sources by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 89% 97% 90% 87% 89% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 64% 55% 64% 61% 63% Parks and Recreation brochure 84% 78% 85% ## B 78% 83% City website (woodburymn.gov) 77% 81% 76% 79% 76% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 35% 55% ## A 35% 36% 35% Newspapers/magazines 54% 62% 51% 61% ## A 53% TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 14% 23% 11% 24% ## A 14% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 15% 44% ## A 11% 32% ## A 16% Other residents/word of mouth 82% 72% 81% 82% 81% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 41% 34% 42% 39% 41% City social media accounts 49% ## B 31% 49% 47% 48% City YouTube 19% 20% 14% 33% ## A 18% Woodbury News Net 25% 21% 22% 36% ## A 25% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 214 Table 126: Quality of Information Sources by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 88% 92% 91% ## B 77% 88% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 82% 86% 85% ## B 71% 82% Parks and Recreation brochure 89% 94% 91% ## B 82% 89% City website (woodburymn.gov) 77% 95% ## A 82% ## B 68% 78% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 80% 89% 83% 75% 80% Newspapers/magazines 70% ## B 46% 72% ## B 60% 68% TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 67% 73% 71% 61% 67% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 69% 83% 73% 65% 69% Other residents/word of mouth 59% 62% 58% 62% 59% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 77% 71% 82% ## B 63% 77% City social media accounts 66% 88% 70% ## B 58% 67% City YouTube 65% 86% 71% 62% 66% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 215 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Woodbury News Net 70% 82% 77% ## B 61% 70% ## Table 127: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent very or somewhat familiar) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: 73% 74% 75% 68% 74% ## Table 128: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent acceptable or excessive) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: 84% 78% 84% 84% 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 216 Table 129: Approval of Backyard Chickens by Respondent Ethnicity and Race (Percent strongly approve or somewhat approve) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? 50% 37% 49% 49% 49% ## Table 130: Public Safety Ratings by Respondent Ethnicity and Race During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the employee...: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not ## Hispanic Hispanic White ## Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) ...was professional 95% 93% 95% 94% 94% ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 89% 93% 89% 94% 90% ...was courteous 94% 93% 95% 94% 94% ...was knowledgeable 93% 93% 95% ## B 87% 93% ...handled your situation in a timely manner 90% 93% 90% 92% 90% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 87% 87% 88% 86% 87% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 217 Table 131: Police Department Relations with Community and Minorities by Respondent Ethnicity and Race Please rate the quality of each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Ethnicity Race Overall ## Not Hispanic Hispanic White Not white ## (A) (A) (B) (A) (B) Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 77% 91% 81% 74% 78% Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 86% 92% 89% ## B 76% 86% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 218 ## Comparisons by Geographical Area ## Grouped Precincts • Precincts 1 & 3 • Precincts 2 & 4 • Precincts 5 & 6 • Precincts 7 & 8 • Precincts 10 & 11 • Precincts 9 & 13 • Precincts 14 & 15 • Precincts 12 & 16 ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 219 ## Table 132: Quality of Life Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Woodbury as a place to live 98% 95% 92% 96% 92% 96% 95% 95% 95% Your neighborhood as a place to live 94% ## B C 85% 84% 94% ## B C 96% ## B C 90% 97% ## B C F 93% ## C 92% Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 90% 95% 96% 96% 93% 95% 92% 94% Woodbury as a place to work 78% 81% 76% 66% 80% 82% ## D 74% 70% 77% Overall quality of business and service establishments in ## Woodbury 87% 91% ## D 85% 77% 86% 87% ## D 84% 84% 85% ## Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury 96% ## D E G H 93% 93% 84% 87% 94% ## D E G H 85% 86% 90% Dining opportunities in Woodbury 74% 77% ## H 75% 64% 77% ## D G H 80% ## D G H 66% 65% 73% Woodbury as a place to visit 78% ## D G 71% 68% 61% 66% 68% 62% 65% 67% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 220 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ## Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Woodbury as a place to retire 73% ## D 70% ## D 67% 51% 72% ## D H 72% ## D H 62% 58% 66% Sense of community 73% ## C E 70% ## C E 56% 59% 54% 62% 73% ## C D E 73% ## C D E 64% The overall quality of life in Woodbury 90% 90% 90% 95% 94% 91% 89% 93% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 221 ## Table 133: Community Characteristics Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Overall feeling of safety 89% 93% 85% 91% 91% 89% 90% 92% 90% Overall ease of traveling to locations 80% 77% 71% 83% ## C G 74% 84% ## C E G H 71% 72% 77% Health and wellness opportunities 92% 94% ## C H 85% 88% 91% 89% 90% 85% 89% Fitness and exercise opportunities 85% 88% 81% 84% 86% 86% 83% 81% 84% Overall economic health 76% 89% ## A 86% 81% 85% 89% ## A 82% 91% ## A 86% Overall image or reputation 91% 88% 89% 87% 89% 88% 88% 90% 89% Variety of housing types 71% 82% 82% 80% 76% 80% 82% 84% ## A 80% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 222 ## Table 134: Community Connectedness Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (Percent "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) I feel connected to the overall ## Woodbury community 67% 81% ## A 73% 78% 79% ## A 74% 75% 75% 75% I feel connected to my neighborhood 84% 92% ## C F H 79% 83% 84% 76% 88% ## F 81% 83% I have good relationships with my neighbors 82% 94% ## A 90% 90% 88% 87% 97% ## A E F 91% ## A 90% I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 74% 84% ## F 82% ## F 78% 87% ## A F 73% 86% ## A F 89% ## A F 81% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 223 ## Table 135: Community Diversity and Inclusivity Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Making all residents feel welcome 85% ## F G 81% ## F 73% 72% 73% 65% 68% 78% ## F 73% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 74% ## E F 68% ## E F 62% ## F 65% ## F 52% 50% 71% ## E F 71% ## E F 62% Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 75% 76% 75% 76% 71% 69% 71% 83% ## E F 74% Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 72% 78% 72% 79% 78% 71% 72% 85% ## F G 75% ## Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 80% 76% 80% 79% 78% 72% 77% 81% 77% Treating all residents fairly 76% 74% 80% 70% 82% 74% 84% ## D F 77% 77% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 224 Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 82% 84% ## F 88% ## F 80% 84% ## F 72% 83% ## F 86% ## F 81% ## Table 136: Feelings of Safety Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (Percent very or somewhat safe) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 93% 98% ## C 90% 93% 93% 94% 98% ## C 95% 95% In commercial areas 86% 95% ## E 90% 92% 84% 92% ## E 94% ## E 92% ## E 91% In city parks and recreation facilities 93% 92% 90% 92% 88% 90% 92% 91% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 225 Table 137: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Precinct (Percent strongly or somewhat approve) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and ## City Council are doing? 86% 87% 83% 76% 80% 84% 81% 85% 83% Table 138: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Respondent Precinct (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? 88% ## G 80% 89% ## G 80% 85% 81% 76% 86% ## G 83% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 226 ## Table 139: Contact with City Employees by Respondent Precinct (Percent yes) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Have you had any in- person, email or phone contact with an employee of the ## City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 43% 43% 33% 42% 44% 38% 38% 35% 39% Table 140: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Respondent Precinct Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Knowledge 100% ## F G 94% ## G 93% ## G 89% 93% ## G 85% 77% 95% ## G 90% Responsiveness 84% 89% 89% 87% 93% 83% 85% 92% 88% Courteousness 97% ## F 96% ## F 93% ## F 88% 91% ## F 79% 92% ## F 96% ## F 91% Overall impression 84% 90% 87% 90% 83% 80% 76% 91% ## G 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 227 ## Table 141: Quality of Service Delivery Ratings by Respondent Precinct ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Police services 81% 86% 92% ## A 93% ## A 89% 87% 93% ## A 92% ## A 89% Fire services 87% 97% ## A 97% ## A 99% ## A F 93% 91% 97% ## A F 94% 94% Ambulance or emergency medical services 86% 96% ## A 97% ## A 98% ## A 95% ## A 92% 93% 91% 93% Sanitary sewer services 81% 92% ## A 88% 89% 93% ## A F 85% 89% 93% ## A F 89% Drinking water 46% 56% ## C 33% 41% 55% ## C D 56% ## C D 47% ## C 60% ## A C D G 51% Condition of trails 71% 86% ## A 89% ## A 84% ## A 88% ## A 92% ## A 92% ## A 93% ## A 88% Snow removal on city trails 58% 81% ## A E 70% 67% 62% 74% ## A E 78% ## A E 80% ## A E 72% Recreation programs 76% 94% ## A D 89% ## A D 76% 85% 86% 89% ## A D 91% ## A D 86% Condition of city parks 86% 96% ## A D F 94% 87% 91% 86% 93% 95% ## A F 91% ## Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 100% 98% 87% 90% 88% 89% 90% 93% 91% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 228 ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## M Health Fairview ## Sports Center programs and facilities 90% 96% 89% 91% 94% 88% 92% 91% 91% ## Central Park 97% ## D F 90% 89% 84% 92% 86% 95% ## D F 91% 90% ## Lookout Ridge 100% ## C D F H 95% ## C D 80% 78% 90% 86% 96% ## C D 86% 89% Street lighting 52% 64% 68% ## A 80% ## A B 69% ## A 74% ## A 75% ## A 68% ## A 70% Building inspection services 86% ## F 83% ## F 85% ## F 84% ## F 84% ## F 62% 82% ## F 81% ## F 80% Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 64% 57% 85% ## A B E F G ## H 67% 65% 61% 68% 65% 66% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 41% 62% ## A 74% ## A D E F 58% ## A 51% 57% ## A 65% ## A E 64% ## A E 59% Stormwater and flood management 73% 82% 87% ## A 76% 88% ## A 82% 91% ## A D 92% ## A D F 84% Snow plowing on city streets 63% 75% 83% ## A D 70% 74% 81% ## A 75% ## A 79% ## A 76% Street sweeping 75% 93% ## A D F 83% 82% 84% 83% 84% 89% ## A 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 229 ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 87% ## B E 73% 85% ## B E 77% 73% 85% ## B E 79% 91% ## B D E G 81% Public information and City communications 84% 85% 82% 83% 80% 87% 83% 89% 84% Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 91% ## E 96% ## E F 94% ## E F 87% 81% 84% 88% 94% ## E F 88% Overall quality of services provided by the City of Woodbury 88% 91% 90% 84% 85% 88% 88% 90% 88% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 230 Table 142: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Precinct (Percent strongly or somewhat support) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? 58% ## C D 44% 35% 41% 52% ## C 52% ## C 49% ## C 44% 47% Table 143: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Respondent Precinct (Percent very or somewhat high) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 36% 42% 51% 45% 52% ## A 48% 48% 56% ## A 48% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 231 ## Table 144: Government Performance Ratings by Respondent Precinct Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) The value of services for the taxes paid to ## Woodbury 74% 78% ## F G H 70% 65% 70% 64% 64% 62% 68% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 82% ## B C D F G 65% ## D 64% ## D 48% 70% ## D 64% ## D 64% ## D 68% ## D 66% ## The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 81% ## F 73% 69% 69% 73% 66% 72% 76% 72% Overall confidence in ## Woodbury government 78% ## D 71% ## D 69% ## D 48% 66% ## D 70% ## D 66% ## D 75% ## D 68% Acting in the best interest of the community 76% ## D 72% 70% 59% 70% 76% ## D 68% 75% ## D 71% Treating all residents fairly 72% 85% ## D 75% 68% 76% 78% 73% 82% 76% Communicating key issues to residents 77% 76% 69% 67% 65% 77% ## E 74% 80% ## E 73% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 232 ## Table 145: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts by Respondent Precincts (Percent very or somewhat satisfied) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? 93% 96% 95% 88% 91% 90% 94% 87% 92% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 233 Table 146: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Precinct Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent at least once) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Special events 64% ## B C E F H 38% 38% 50% 45% 50% 58% ## B C E H 42% 48% Preschool programs 11% ## F 5% 9% ## F 8% 10% ## F 2% 11% ## F 6% 8% Youth programs 25% ## F 16% 19% 19% 23% ## F 13% 33% ## BCDEFH 21% 21% Family programs 21% 21% 19% 20% 18% 17% 29% ## E F 19% 20% Age 55+ programs 5% 15% ## A F G 9% 8% 14% ## A F G 7% 7% 9% 9% Adult programs and athletic leagues 21% 17% 18% 13% 23% 14% 17% 24% ## D F 18% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 234 Table 147: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs by Respondent Precinct Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs and then rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Special events 93% ## D 84% 90% 78% 95% ## D F 84% 92% ## D 98% ## B D F 90% Preschool programs 89% 100% 78% 100% 90% 71% 78% 78% 84% Youth programs 63% 100% ## A 98% ## A 83% 95% ## A 93% ## A 84% ## A 84% ## A 87% Family programs 85% 98% ## D 78% 71% 83% 95% ## D 88% 82% 86% Age 55+ programs 62% 89% ## G 82% 100% 64% 85% 54% 81% 75% Adults programs and athletic leagues 82% 92% ## D 79% 55% 82% ## D 83% ## D 92% ## D 96% ## D 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 235 ## Table 148: Use of Information Sources by Respondent Precinct Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 94% ## F H 96% ## F H 88% 93% ## F H 94% ## F H 83% 92% ## F H 82% 89% ## The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 57% 73% ## A D 66% ## D 49% 63% ## D 65% ## D 61% 64% ## D 63% ## Parks and Recreation brochure 74% 89% ## A H 84% 87% ## A 84% 81% 91% ## A F H 76% 83% City website (woodburymn.gov) 72% 74% 72% 76% 71% 82% ## E 74% 85% ## A C E G 76% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 43% ## F 41% ## F 32% 31% 33% 29% 40% ## F 41% ## F 35% Newspapers/magazines 48% 49% 54% ## D 39% 51% 55% ## D 61% ## D 62% ## A D 53% ## TrueLens Community ## Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 10% 22% ## A D F 15% ## D 3% 16% ## D 12% ## D 16% ## D 13% ## D 14% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 236 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## TrueLens Community ## Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 19% ## D F 23% ## D F 15% ## D 3% 20% ## D F 9% 22% ## D F 15% ## D 16% Other residents/word of mouth 77% 84% ## H 80% 81% 83% ## H 85% ## H 84% ## H 72% 81% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 31% 50% ## A C H 35% 38% 50% ## A C F H 38% 49% ## A C H 32% 41% City social media accounts 52% 43% 49% 41% 41% 50% 51% 54% ## E 48% City YouTube 14% 17% 20% ## D 9% 18% 19% 28% ## A D E F 18% 18% ## Woodbury News Net 19% 22% ## D 28% ## D 9% 26% ## D 22% ## D 39% ## A B C D E ## F H 26% ## D 25% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 237 ## Table 149: Quality of Information Sources by Respondent Precinct Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 89% 88% 85% 87% 92% ## H 90% 85% 83% 88% ## The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 80% 83% 90% ## H 77% 86% 82% 80% 74% 82% ## Parks and Recreation brochure 83% 89% 93% ## H 88% 94% ## A H 90% 87% 82% 89% City website (woodburymn.gov) 72% 83% 76% 83% 78% 82% ## G 70% 79% 78% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 77% 86% 87% 65% 87% 79% 76% 82% 80% Newspapers/magazines 62% 83% ## E 69% 75% 56% 68% 67% 75% ## E 68% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 238 Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## TrueLens Community ## Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 43% 75% 61% 67% 77% 71% 66% 63% 67% ## TrueLens Community ## Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 60% 78% 56% 57% 79% 71% 72% 63% 69% Other residents/word of mouth 59% 50% 70% ## B D F 47% 64% ## D 53% 63% 66% ## D 59% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 66% 84% ## G 77% 80% 84% ## G 87% ## A G 63% 76% 77% City social media accounts 52% 86% ## A C G 63% 61% 66% 68% 59% 79% ## A G 67% City YouTube 65% 93% ## C D G 40% 30% 84% ## C G 65% 53% 73% ## C 66% Woodbury News Net 63% 85% 57% 68% 88% ## C F G 63% 66% 71% 70% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 239 ## Table 150: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Precinct (Percent very or somewhat familiar) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: 72% 80% ## F H 77% ## F 85% ## F H 77% ## F 63% 77% ## F 68% 74% ## Table 151: Code Enforcement Ratings by Respondent Precinct (Percent acceptable or excessive) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: 91% ## G 79% 84% 83% 82% 88% ## G 77% 89% ## G 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 240 ## Table 152: Approval of Backyard Chickens by Respondent Precincts (Percent strongly approve or somewhat approve) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) With that in mind, how much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? 66% ## E F G H 55% ## G 57% ## E G 57% ## G 43% 48% 39% 44% 49% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 241 ## Table 153: Public Safety Ratings by Respondent Precinct During your most recent contact with a member of ## Woodbury Police, the employee...: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ...was professional 89% 98% 97% 90% 99% ## F 90% 94% 97% 94% ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 78% 97% ## A 93% 86% 90% 89% 88% 93% 90% ...was courteous 95% 98% 94% 90% 95% 90% 94% 97% 94% ...was knowledgeable 98% ## F 98% ## F 97% ## F 93% 91% 85% 95% 93% 93% ...handled your situation in a timely manner 75% 91% ## A 95% ## A 90% 95% ## A F 81% 95% ## A F 95% ## A 90% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 75% 90% 88% 86% 92% ## A 83% 91% 90% 87% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 242 Table 154: Police Department Relations with Community and Minorities by Respondent Precinct Please rate the quality of each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Grouped Precincts Overall ## Precincts 1 & 3 ## Precincts 2 & 4 ## Precincts 5 & 6 ## Precincts 7 & 8 ## Precincts 10 & 11 ## Precincts 9 & 13 ## Precincts 14 & 15 ## Precincts 12 & 16 ## (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ## Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 63% 100% ## A E F H 94% ## A E F 88% ## A F 74% 61% 92% ## A E F 77% ## F 78% ## Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 73% 97% ## A E F 90% ## A 87% ## A 84% ## A 82% 89% ## A 89% ## A 86% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 243 ## Appendix E: Detailed Benchmark Comparisons ## Comparison Data Polco’s database of comparative resident opinion includes perspectives gathered through surveys from more than 400 communities whose residents evaluated the same types of topics as those included in the Woodbury Resident Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. Polco adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. National benchmark comparisons, Minnesota communities’ comparisons, and comparisons to communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000 have been provided when similar questions on the Woodbury Resident Survey are included in Polco’s database. ## Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Woodbury’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Woodbury’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Woodbury’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Woodbury’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Woodbury’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Woodbury’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 244 ## National Benchmark Comparisons ## Table 155: Quality of Life ## Quality of Life Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation 89% 60 368 Higher The overall quality of life in ## Woodbury 91% 95 393 Similar Woodbury as a place to live 95% 87 378 Similar ## Table 156: Governance ## Governance Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Woodbury government 68% 47 331 Higher The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 66% 88 357 Similar The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 68% 61 385 Higher Acting in the best interest of the community 71% 48 334 Higher ## The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 72% 14 357 Higher Treating all residents fairly 76% 37 334 Higher Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 88% 36 373 Similar Public information and City communications 84% 7 353 Higher Overall quality of services provided by the City of ## Woodbury 88% 20 373 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 245 ## Table 157: Economy ## Economy Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health 86% 42 341 Higher Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 85% 18 337 Higher Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury 90% 8 340 Much Higher Woodbury as a place to visit 67% 150 344 Similar Woodbury as a place to work 77% 64 377 Higher ## Table 158: Mobility ## Mobility Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall ease of traveling to locations 77% 13 334 Higher Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% 92 381 Higher Street sweeping 84% 13 340 Higher Street lighting 70% 90 356 Similar Snow plowing on city streets 76% 71 291 Similar ## Table 159: Community Design ## Community Design Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 71 352 Similar Variety of housing types 80% 2 340 Much Higher Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 66% 16 362 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 246 ## Table 160: Utilities ## Utilities Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Drinking water 51% 306 349 Lower Sanitary sewer services 89% 49 339 Similar Stormwater and flood management 84% 56 352 Similar ## Table 161: Safety ## Safety Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety 90% 74 365 Higher Police services 89% 43 390 Higher Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 18 358 Higher Fire services 94% 63 369 Similar Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% 146 348 Similar In commercial areas 91% 183 333 Similar ## Table 162: Parks and Recreation ## Parks and Recreation ## Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Condition of city parks 91% 63 358 Similar Recreation programs 86% 30 342 Higher Fitness and exercise opportunities 84% 47 331 Higher ## Table 163: Health and Wellness ## Health and Wellness ## Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Health and wellness opportunities 89% 17 336 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 247 ## Table 164: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and ## Engagement Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 64% 164 356 Similar Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 71 382 Higher Woodbury as a place to retire 66% 168 376 Similar Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 74% 34 349 Higher Making all residents feel welcome 73% 112 331 Similar Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 75% 65 326 Similar ## Table 165: Participation ## Participation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Have you had any in- person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 39% 281 345 Similar ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 248 ## Minnesota Benchmark Comparisons ## Table 166: Quality of Life ## Quality of Life Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation 89% 7 36 Higher The overall quality of life in ## Woodbury 91% 13 37 Similar Woodbury as a place to live 95% 10 36 Similar ## Table 167: Governance ## Governance Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Woodbury government 68% 7 30 Similar The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 66% 9 31 Similar The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 68% 8 37 Similar Acting in the best interest of the community 71% 8 32 Similar ## The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 72% 3 32 Similar Treating all residents fairly 76% 4 30 Similar Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 88% 8 35 Similar Public information and City communications 84% 2 31 Higher Overall quality of services provided by the City of ## Woodbury 88% 5 36 Similar ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 249 ## Table 168: Economy ## Economy Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health 86% 7 31 Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury 85% 1 32 Higher Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury 90% 2 30 Much Higher Woodbury as a place to visit 67% 12 30 Similar Woodbury as a place to work 77% 9 36 Similar ## Table 169: Mobility ## Mobility Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall ease of traveling to locations 77% 2 30 Higher Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% 18 34 Similar Street sweeping 84% 3 31 Similar Street lighting 70% 17 32 Similar Snow plowing on city streets 76% 20 37 Similar ## Table 170: Community Design ## Community Design Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 10 31 Similar Variety of housing types 80% 1 33 Higher Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 66% 2 30 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 250 ## Table 171: Utilities ## Utilities Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Drinking water 51% 30 33 Lower Sanitary sewer services 89% 4 31 Similar Stormwater and flood management 84% 16 32 Similar ## Table 172: Safety ## Safety Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety 90% 8 33 Similar Police services 89% 7 36 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 2 30 Similar Fire services 94% 7 32 Similar Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% 17 31 Similar In commercial areas 91% 18 29 Similar ## Table 173: Parks and Recreation ## Parks and Recreation ## Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Condition of city parks 91% 10 35 Similar Recreation programs 86% 5 30 Similar Fitness and exercise opportunities 84% 7 30 Similar ## Table 174: Health and Wellness ## Health and Wellness ## Items ## Percent positive ## Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Health and wellness opportunities 89% 3 31 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 251 ## Table 175: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and ## Engagement Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 64% 17 35 Similar Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 9 36 Similar Woodbury as a place to retire 66% 18 36 Similar Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 74% 3 34 Similar Making all residents feel welcome 73% 14 30 Similar Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 75% 9 29 Similar ## Table 176: Participation ## Participation Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Have you had any in- person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 39% 27 34 Similar ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 252 ## Population Benchmark Comparisons Communities with populations between 65,000 and 90,000 ## Table 177: Quality of Life ## Quality of Life Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation 89% 11 42 Higher The overall quality of life in ## Woodbury 91% 15 47 Similar Woodbury as a place to live 95% 14 45 Similar ## Table 178: Governance ## Governance Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Woodbury government 68% 10 42 Similar The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 66% 15 44 Similar The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 68% 8 44 Similar Acting in the best interest of the community 71% 11 42 Similar ## The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 72% 4 44 Higher Treating all residents fairly 76% 9 42 Higher Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 88% 8 43 Similar Public information and City communications 84% 1 40 Higher Overall quality of services provided by the City of ## Woodbury 88% 6 44 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 253 ## Table 179: Economy ## Economy Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health 86% 8 41 Higher Overall quality of business and service establishments in ## Woodbury 85% 4 43 Similar Shopping opportunities in ## Woodbury 90% 3 41 Much Higher Woodbury as a place to visit 67% 19 42 Similar Woodbury as a place to work 77% 13 46 Similar ## Table 180: Mobility ## Mobility Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall ease of traveling to locations 77% 2 40 Higher Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% 10 45 Similar Street sweeping 84% 4 42 Higher Street lighting 70% 16 43 Similar Snow plowing on city streets 76% 8 36 Similar ## Table 181: Community Design ## Community Design Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% 11 43 Similar Variety of housing types 80% 1 42 Much Higher Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 66% 5 43 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 254 ## Table 182: Utilities ## Utilities Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Drinking water 51% 40 44 Lower Sanitary sewer services 89% 11 44 Similar Stormwater and flood management 84% 10 41 Similar ## Table 183: Safety ## Safety Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety 90% 9 42 Higher Police services 89% 8 45 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 4 41 Similar Fire services 94% 11 44 Similar Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% 16 42 Similar In commercial areas 91% 20 41 Similar ## Table 184: Parks and Recreation ## Parks and Recreation Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Condition of city parks 91% 10 44 Similar Recreation programs 86% 7 43 Similar Fitness and exercise opportunities 84% 6 41 Similar ## Table 185: Health and Wellness ## Health and Wellness Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Health and wellness opportunities 89% 4 41 Higher ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 255 ## Table 186: Inclusivity and Engagement ## Inclusivity and Engagement ## Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 64% 19 42 Similar Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% 12 46 Higher Woodbury as a place to retire 66% 21 46 Similar Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 74% 10 43 Similar Making all residents feel welcome 73% 17 42 Similar Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 75% 13 41 Similar ## Table 187: Participation ## Participation Items ## Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison ## Comparison to benchmark Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 34% 41 46 Lower ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 256 ## Appendix F: Survey Methodology ## About the Survey The City of Woodbury Resident Survey was first administered in 2001. General resident surveys, such as this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the City, their use of City amenities, their opinions on policy issues facing the City and their assessment of City service delivery. The City of Woodbury funded this research. Please contact Shelly Schafer of the City of Woodbury at shelly.schafer@woodburymn.gov if you have any questions about the survey. ## Developing the Questionnaire The 2026 survey instrument was developed by starting with the version from the previous implementation in 2024. Few changes were made to the survey in order to maximize comparisons over time. In an iterative process between City staff and Polco staff, a final five-page questionnaire was created. ## Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which survey recipients are chosen. The “sample” refers to all those who were given a chance to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Woodbury was purchased from a vendor based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service, updated every three months, providing the best representation of all households in a specific geographic location. Polco used the USPS data to select the survey recipients. A larger list than needed was pulled so that a process referred to as “geocoding” could be used to eliminate addresses from the list that were outside Woodbury’s boundaries. Geocoding is a computerized process in which addresses are compared to electronically mapped boundaries and coded as inside or outside desired boundaries; in this case, within Woodbury. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of 16 precincts. All addresses determined to be outside the study boundaries were eliminated from the list of potential households. A random selection was made of the remaining addresses to create a mailing list of 5,000 addresses. To choose the 5,000 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 257 An individual within each household was randomly selected to complete the survey using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random sample, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was publicized through various channels including the Woodbury website and social media. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. ## Survey Administration and Response Rate The 5,000 households selected to participate in the survey were contacted two times. First, an invitation postcard informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the City of Woodbury Community Survey was sent on January 7, 2026. The postcard included a URL and a QR code to take the survey online. Approximately one week after mailing the postcard, these households were mailed a paper survey containing a cover letter enlisting participation. The cover letter also included a URL and QR codes where respondents could go to complete the survey online, if desired. The packet also contained a postage-paid return envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire to Polco. Completed surveys were collected over seven weeks. The survey officially closed on February 23, 2026. About 3% of the 5,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant, or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 4,844 households presumed to have received a survey, 969 completed the survey (563 of which were completed online and 406 on paper), providing a response rate of 20%. Additionally, responses were tracked by geographic area; response rates by area ranged from 14% to 34%. The response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 1 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. 1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/ for more information ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 258 ## Response Rate by Area for Mailed Surveys ## Total sample Undeliverable ## Completed surveys Response rate Precinct 1 277 11 38 14% Precinct 2 361 19 63 18% Precinct 3 244 14 32 14% Precinct 4 259 6 46 18% Precinct 5 290 6 49 17% Precinct 6 202 5 62 31% Precinct 7 191 2 36 19% Precinct 8 248 6 50 21% Precinct 9 664 39 106 17% Precinct 10 370 12 72 20% Precinct 11 278 8 93 34% Precinct 12 329 7 74 23% Precinct 13 324 4 72 22% Precinct 14 279 3 46 17% Precinct 15 434 10 92 22% Precinct 16 250 4 38 15% Overall 5,000 156 969 20% ## Margin of Error The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be found that is within three percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error). While the margin of error for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample, results for subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 259 ## Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, Polco would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Polco uses its own online public engagement tool to collect online survey data. The Polco platform includes many features of online survey tools, but also includes elements tailored to the civic environment. For example, surveys on Polco are presented with the City name, logo (or other image) and a description, so residents understand who is asking for input and why. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). ## Weighting the Data The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2020 Census and the 2024 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Woodbury. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were respondent gender, age, housing unit type (attached or detached), housing tenure (rent or own), race, and ethnicity. This decision was based on: • The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables • The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups • The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. Several different weighting “schemes” are tested to ensure the best fit for the data. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 260 ## 2026 Woodbury Resident Survey Weighting Table – Random Sample ## Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data ## Housing Rent home 22% 12% 21% Own home 78% 88% 79% Detached unit 58% 67% 59% Attached unit 42% 33% 41% ## Race and Ethnicity White 76% 88% 77% Not white 24% 12% 23% Not Hispanic 96% 98% 96% Hispanic 4% 2% 4% ## Sex and Age Female 53% 54% 54% Male 47% 46% 46% 18-34 years of age 26% 7% 24% 35-54 years of age 40% 30% 40% 55+ years of age 34% 63% 36% Females 18-34 14% 3% 12% Females 35-54 20% 16% 22% Females 55+ 19% 35% 20% Males 18-34 12% 4% 13% Males 35-54 19% 14% 18% Males 55+ 16% 29% 16% ## Precinct Precinct 1 5% 4% 5% Precinct 2 6% 6% 6% Precinct 3 4% 3% 4% Precinct 4 5% 5% 4% Precinct 5 6% 5% 6% Precinct 6 4% 6% 5% Precinct 7 5% 4% 3% Precinct 8 6% 5% 5% Precinct 9 12% 11% 13% Precinct 10 6% 7% 8% Precinct 11 7% 10% 7% Precinct 12 7% 8% 8% Precinct 13 7% 7% 8% Precinct 14 5% 5% 4% Precinct 15 10% 9% 10% Precinct 16 5% 4% 4% * 2020 U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey Population Estimates ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 261 ## Analyzing the Data The electronic dataset was analyzed by Polco staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, frequency distributions and mean ratings are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix B: Complete Survey Frequencies. Also included are results by respondent characteristics (Appendix D: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they have been denoted with capital letters. ## Comparing Survey Results Woodbury’s survey data were collected by phone in 2013 and prior. In 2015, the City switched data collection from phone to mail. Research is clear that a change in the method of survey data collection, by itself, will result in a change in results if the shift is from telephone administration to self-administration or vice versa. The change occurs even without change in resident perspectives and is attributed to the different environment that a survey respondent confronts when providing answers to a person on the telephone compared to offering private anonymous opinions. Questions by phone elicit more positive, optimistic, socially-desirable responses than do the same questions asked on a written self-administered questionnaire. The self-administered questionnaire brings out more candid responses. As a consequence of the switch in methodology, a general decline in ratings was both expected and observed; an average of about 11 percentage points (after the removal of “don’t know” responses). Thus, Polco adjusted down the findings from 2013 and prior by this average difference for the most extreme differences in order to maximize the comparability of results over time. This way the reported trendline data are not influenced by the decline that is attributable to the change in data collection mode from phone to mail. While the adjusted findings for data prior to 2013 reasonably control for the expected change from phone to mail data collection, the comparability of data over time does have some limitations. Not only is there sampling error in each survey administration, but also, the methods change occurred after a two-year gap in survey administrations and some question wording was inconsistent among survey years. Because of the overall shift in the methodology and related survey changes, Polco recommends that any change in ratings or reported behaviors between the 2015, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2024 and 2026 results and those from 2013 and prior be viewed with caution. Woodbury can consider differences of more than 10 percentage points from previous years to be large enough to signal a genuine change in opinion. Differences that do not reach this threshold should not be considered changes worthy of further interpretation. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 262 ## Appendix G: Open Participation Survey Results ## About the Open Participation Survey After data collection for the address-based survey was underway, a web-based survey was made available to Woodbury residents through a link publicized by the City. Residents were able to complete the survey from February 4 to February 23, 2026. A total of 585 responses were received. This section contains results of this open participation, web- based survey. It is presented along the responses to the probability survey for context. The data from the open participation survey was not collected through a random sample, and it is unknown who in the community was aware of the survey; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to match the U.S. Census and American Community Survey (ACS) population norms for Woodbury. The results of the weighting scheme for the open participation survey are presented in the table. ## 2026 Woodbury Resident Survey Weighting Table – Open Participation ## Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data ## Housing Rent home 22% 5% 17% Own home 78% 95% 83% Detached unit 58% 83% 63% Attached unit 42% 17% 37% ## Race and Ethnicity White 76% 86% 78% Not white 24% 14% 22% Not Hispanic 96% 97% 95% Hispanic 4% 3% 5% ## Sex and Age Female 53% 66% 56% Male 47% 34% 44% 18-34 years of age 26% 9% 21% 35-54 years of age 40% 53% 42% 55+ years of age 34% 38% 37% Females 18-34 14% 7% 12% Females 35-54 20% 34% 23% Females 55+ 19% 24% 21% Males 18-34 12% 3% 9% Males 35-54 19% 18% 19% Males 55+ 16% 14% 16% * 2020 U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey Population Estimates ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 263 ## Open Participation Survey Responses ## Table 188: Quality of Life Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Woodbury: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Woodbury as a place to live 95% ## B 89% Your neighborhood as a place to live 92% ## B 88% Woodbury as a place to raise children 94% ## B 87% Woodbury as a place to work 77% ## B 70% Overall quality of business and service establishments in ## Woodbury 85% ## B 80% Shopping opportunities in Woodbury 90% ## B 85% Dining opportunities in Woodbury 73% ## B 64% Woodbury as a place to visit 67% ## B 58% Woodbury as a place to retire 66% ## B 55% Sense of community 64% ## B 50% The overall quality of life in Woodbury 91% ## B 84% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 264 ## Table 189: Community Characteristics Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Woodbury as a whole: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Overall feeling of safety 90% ## B 86% Overall ease of traveling to locations 77% ## B 65% Health and wellness opportunities 89% ## B 85% Fitness and exercise opportunities 84% ## B 76% Overall economic health 86% ## B 76% Overall image or reputation 89% ## B 79% Variety of housing types 80% ## B 68% ## Table 190: Community Connectedness Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate your agreement with the following statements: (Percent "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) I feel connected to the overall Woodbury community 75% 72% I feel connected to my neighborhood 83% ## B 78% I have good relationships with my neighbors 90% 90% I can rely on my neighbors when I need help 81% 80% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 265 ## Table 191: Community Diversity and Inclusivity Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate the job the Woodbury community does at each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Making all residents feel welcome 73% 69% Helping new residents feel connected and integrated 62% 61% Openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds 74% ## B 67% Valuing residents from diverse backgrounds 75% ## B 65% Demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems 77% ## B 67% Treating all residents fairly 77% ## B 67% Providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds 81% ## B 73% ## Table 192: Feelings of Safety Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (Percent very or somewhat safe) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Walking alone in your neighborhood during the day 95% 93% In commercial areas 91% ## B 85% In city parks and recreation facilities 91% 88% Table 193: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Survey Mode (Percent strongly or somewhat approve) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? 83% ## B 70% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 266 Table 194: Mayor and City Council Approval Ratings by Survey Mode (Percent excellent or good) ## Address- based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the Woodbury City Staff? 83% 78% ## Table 195: Contact with City Employees by Survey Mode (Percent yes) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Have you had any in-person, email or phone contact with an employee of the City of Woodbury within the last 12 months? 39% 43% Table 196: Ratings of Employee in Most Recent Contact by Survey Mode Thinking about your most recent contact, please rate the City employee on each of the items below. (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Knowledge 90% 88% Responsiveness 88% 85% Courteousness 91% 92% Overall impression 84% 84% ## Table 197: Quality of Service Delivery Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury. (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Police services 89% 87% Fire services 94% 97% ## A Ambulance or emergency medical services 93% 97% ## A Sanitary sewer services 89% 92% Drinking water 51% ## B 38% Condition of trails 88% 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 267 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Woodbury. (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Snow removal on city trails 72% 70% Recreation programs 86% 82% Condition of city parks 91% 88% Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities 91% 92% M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities 91% 93% Central Park 90% 93% Lookout Ridge 89% 93% Street lighting 70% ## B 62% Building inspection services 80% 74% Property maintenance enforcement/code enforcement 66% 63% Pavement repair and patching on city streets 59% ## B 53% Stormwater and flood management 84% 86% Snow plowing on city streets 76% 74% Street sweeping 84% 86% Amount of trees and landscaping along city roads and streets 81% ## B 74% Public information and City communications 84% ## B 76% Overall customer service by City employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 88% 87% Overall quality of services provided by the City of ## Woodbury 88% ## B 82% Table 198: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Survey Mode Percent strongly or somewhat support) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) To what extent would you support or oppose an increase to the city portion of your property taxes to maintain city services at their current level? 47% 43% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 268 Table 199: Level of Support for Property Tax Increase by Survey Mode (Percent very or somewhat high) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) The percentage of your total property tax bill that goes to the City of Woodbury is about 25%. For the median-valued homeowner, that is $115 per month for all city services. Do you consider the city portion of property taxes in Woodbury to be...? 48% 54% ## A ## Table 200: Government Performance Ratings by Survey Mode Please rate the following categories of Woodbury government performance: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) The value of services for the taxes paid to Woodbury 68% ## B 58% The overall direction that Woodbury is taking 66% ## B 50% The job Woodbury government does at welcoming citizen involvement 72% ## B 60% Overall confidence in Woodbury government 68% ## B 55% Acting in the best interest of the community 71% ## B 49% Treating all residents fairly 76% ## B 62% Communicating key issues to residents 73% ## B 61% ## Table 201: Satisfaction with Environmental Stewardship Efforts by Survey Mode (Percent very or somewhat satisfied) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) How satisfied are you with the City's environmental stewardship efforts? 92% ## B 78% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 269 Table 202: Participation in Parks and Recreation Programs by Survey Mode Please first indicate how many times, if at all, in the past 12 months you or another household member have used or participated in each of the following Woodbury parks and recreation programs. (Percent at least once) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Special events 48% 58% ## A Preschool programs 8% 7% Youth programs 21% 27% ## A Family programs 20% 24% Age 55+ programs 9% 14% ## A Adult programs and athletic leagues 18% 19% Table 203: Quality of Parks and Recreation Programs by Survey Mode Then rate the quality of each. (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Special events 90% ## B 80% Preschool programs 84% 81% Youth programs 87% 86% Family programs 86% ## B 76% Age 55+ programs 75% 64% Adults programs and athletic leagues 85% 71% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 270 ## Table 204: Use of Information Sources by Survey Mode Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. (Percent major source or minor source) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) ## The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 89% 88% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 63% 62% Parks and Recreation brochure 83% 82% City website (woodburymn.gov) 76% 84% ## A InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 35% 48% ## A Newspapers/magazines 53% 51% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 14% 15% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 16% 22% ## A Other residents/word of mouth 81% 83% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 41% 42% City social media accounts 48% 71% ## A City YouTube 18% 25% ## A ## Woodbury News Net 25% 38% ## A ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 271 ## Table 205: Quality of Information Sources by Survey Mode Please rate the extent to which you use each of the following as sources of information about Woodbury government and its activities, if at all. Then, regardless of use, please rate the quality of each source. (Percent excellent or good) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) The Woodbury City Update newsletter (published 10 times a year) 88% ## B 81% The Stormwater Update (published once a year) 82% ## B 76% Parks and Recreation brochure 89% 86% City website (woodburymn.gov) 78% 73% InTouch email system (subscriptions to topics of interest) 80% 77% Newspapers/magazines 68% ## B 57% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) local government broadcasts (cable channels 16 and 18) 67% 53% ## TrueLens Community Media (formerly SWCTC) online (website, YouTube, or social media) 69% 61% Other residents/word of mouth 59% 60% Green Times (published 3 times a year) 77% ## B 67% City social media accounts 67% 70% ## City YouTube 66% ## B 54% ## Woodbury News Net 70% 72% ## Table 206: Code Enforcement Ratings by Survey Mode (Percent very or somewhat familiar) ## Address-based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Thinking about residential code enforcement (e.g., property maintenance, lawn and yard waste and exterior debris); please indicate how familiar, if at all, you are with Woodbury's ordinance requirements: 74% 83% ## A ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 272 ## Table 207: Code Enforcement Ratings by Survey Mode (Percent acceptable or excessive) ## Address- based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Please indicate your thoughts towards the current level of code enforcement within residential areas: 84% 83% ## Table 208: Approval of Backyard Chickens by Survey Mode (Percent strongly approve or somewhat approve) ## Address- based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) How much would you approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family city lot? 49% 59% ## A ## Table 209: Public Safety Ratings by Survey Mode During your most recent contact with a member of Woodbury Police, the employee...: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address- based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) ...was professional 94% ## B 88% ...was responsive to your requests and/or needs 90% 84% ...was courteous 94% 90% ...was knowledgeable 93% 88% ...handled your situation in a timely manner 90% 85% ...resolved and/or addressed your concerns 87% 84% Table 210: Police Department Relations with Community and Minorities by Survey Mode Please rate the quality of each of the following: (Percent excellent or good) ## Address- based ## Open- participation ## (A) (B) Woodbury Police's relationship with marginalized communities 78% 77% Woodbury Police's relationship with the community as a whole 86% 85% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 273 ## Table 211: Outreach Method How did you hear about this survey? (Select all that apply.) Open-participation The City’s website 4% The City’s social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) 31% Received an email from the City 11% In a City newsletter or utility bill 5% Received a postcard or letter from the City 2% Nextdoor 1% In my Facebook feed 22% Saw it on a video of a public meeting or at a meeting I attended 0% Saw it on the City's cable channel 0% Saw it in a newspaper article or ad (hard copy or online) 2% Saw a flyer or poster about it 1% Heard about it from a family member, friend or neighbor 11% Heard about it from a business or social organization in my community 4% Polco’s weekly email 0% Polco social media post 1% On my Polco feed 0% Other 5% ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 274 ## Open Participation Verbatim Responses Following are verbatim responses to the open-ended question on the survey. Because these responses were written by survey participants, they are presented here in verbatim form, including any typographical, grammar or other mistakes. The responses are presented in alphabetical order. Question 3: What would you say are the most serious issues facing Woodbury at this time? – Other • Affordable spaces for older elementary aged and middle school aged kids to gather, build social skills and spend time together. • Aging neighborhoods, lack of kids first activities. • Allow hens • Although we have excellent trails and parks for recreational hiking and biking, Woodbury is car-centric and this makes it difficult to walk or bike to businesses that are nearby but feel walled off by busy, fast multilane roads. Secure bike parking is almost nonexistent at local businesses and huge parking lots contribute to sprawl that further reduces walkability. All of this paved parking increases runoff that makes pond and lake management more difficult. • Availability if pool facilities. You have two high school sharing a middle schoolPool. • Building "affordable" housing is bringing in "diversity" but also brings crime, drugs, and safety issues. • charm - Woodbury is an operationalized city. That said I can't point to any specific area as a downtown or a place that gives Woodbury charm • City not enforcing it's ordinances in neighborhoods. Our neighborhood has garbage bins out for days, dead trees, people burning leaves etc with no enforcement. • Community center with basketball gyms and pool. See Eagan community center offerings. Woodbury has more than just toddlers in its community and the YMCA is not community friendly. • Community- specifically around unification activities, events, community education, and public facilities. WOODBURY NEEDS A COMMUNITY CENTER, WITH A POOL. 50 METER • Cost of energy and water • Drivers not obeying yield and stop signs, racing through stop & go lights - running red lights. Driving too fast, particularly in neighborhoods. Bikers thinking they own the roads and trails, and not paying enough in taxes for development and maintenance of streets and trails. Get control over kids and electric bikes/scooters; they present a big hazard on roads, sidewalks, and trails! • Energy and water bills increasingly high within the last year • Establishing culture and shaking the "cookie cutter suburb" label ## • Government Spending • Growing at such a fast pave, we are concerned about traffic and speed limits. Lake Road is only 35 MPH but Woodbury Drive and Bailey Road are 55 which is the same as most freeways. Woodbury Drive goes through neighborhoods with children and should not be 55. Any 55 speed limits through neighborhoods need reevaluation. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 275 • Growth and services not matching. Growing too much without the infrastructure needed to support it which results in a higher tax burden for residents and lack of amenities that correlates with the higher taxes comparatively to other suburbs • Hockey ice availability • I do not want any more developments, and for sure no more low income neighborhoods. It brings down the value of the houses, and lowers the safety. Woodbury used to be a place people aspired to live in which means it healthy, and created a great sense of community. • I don't understand why we funded a police training center. Apparently the police don't serve and protect our neighbors, I think tax dollars should be spend on actually useful things like schools instead of hiring armed thugs who don't defend us from other government thugs who don't follow the constitution. ## • ICE • ICE in our community. We can't feel safe when they are here. Woodbury use to be a place where everyone wanted to be. Now we have family & friends canceling trips to visit because ICE has taken over our hotels and are terrorizing our community. Just ask places like Good Bites, Hope Breakfast Bar, Legendary Spice, etc... places, good places, are functioning in fear or not functioning at all. We as a community deserve better, deserve safety, deserve the right to not constantly be looking over our shoulders looking for them to come kidnap and torment people. Our children deserve to live in a community where they aren't sick to their stomachs in fear that their friends, their family, their educators, their neighbors, or even themselves will be a target for just the way they look or sound. All of these other ranking issues are trivial in comparison to the very real fear we live in. Kim Wilson should be removed for her support of "ICE has always existed". They have not. They didn't begin to e • ICE in our hotels and restaurants and not feeling protected by our law enforcement officers from ICE • ICE invasion. My children shouldn't see psychos in masks with guns coming out of our restaurants & hotels looking go detain brown people. • ICE is here • ICE operations that the local governments seems intent on gaslighting the community on. Get them out of the community. • ICE presence • Immigration • Incentives to get more corporate businesses and higher end restaurants to come to Woodbury. • It is unfortunate that a city the size of Woodbury does not have a public swimming pool. The splash pad does not make up for this failing. Not everyone should have to join a gym to access a pool. Only one school in Woodbury, Lake Middle, has a pool. Lower income kids are at a disadvantage. ## • Kim Wilson • Lack of a community pool • Lack of a true downtown • Lack of community, weak, uninspiring elective leadership • Lack of entertainment venues. Lack of public swimming pool and water park. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 276 • Lack of walkability/bikability. When communities are more walkable (sidewalks) neighborhoods grow stronger. The trails are great, but once you end up in the massive strip mall parking lots it gets dangerous fast for pedestrians. • Lake of action against ICE • Lake of community pool given school district funding not keeping up with growth and forced school pool closures ## • LGA • Marijuana use in public; parking lots; while driving. It smells everywhere and is very concerning that people are driving high. Plus it just smells awful. • More non-chain restaurants. Change the liquor sales rules. • Need community center for activities and health. Nothing much for teens or retirees unless involved in religious activities. • Neighborhood condition • No ICE/ Nazi detention camps • No variety of shopping or dining in my area. Only 1 sandwich shop and a brewery. Need to drive 8-15 minutes for any shopping or dining. Few parks and open spaces until recently- my 4 and 7 yr old grew up 7 years without a park in our new development- annd by the time we got one they were teenagers (they grew up looking at a park coming soon sign for 7years.). I moved from Minneapolis and there was a lot more parks and shopping and dining and natural spaces. There are dining and shopping options just minimal to none to service the south side and the massive developments we have over here. • Not enough upper level income homes. Too much focus on affordable housing; hence, your question above. • Not having non-whites city employees. • Occupation of ICE in Minnesota and Woodbury. • Overdevelopment - stop developing what little land we have left. Woodbury is special because of the land and the city. Don't ruin it. Please. • Overzealous housing expansion • Parking enforcement. Cars, trucks, trucks with trailers park on the street (Monticello drive) all year long. Police are not ticketing. Why have a restricted times if not enforced. • pedestrian safety • Playground and swimming pool • Plowing the snow in a timely manner • Political agendas being pushed on our kids. • Protesting ie interfering with law enforcement, ICE • Public transit within the city • Red light runners • Residents who sadly refuse to utilize mass transit parking & carpool options. Truly sad how some believe crime originates from buses. We need more affordable housing options and chance for ownership of homes. We have an amazing setting & community! • Senior housing & services • Senior programs • Sense of Identity, just feels like a filler suburb with 8000 chain/franchise establishments. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 277 • Should be allowed 4 chickens per acre if zoned for homestead. ## • Sidewalks- Tower Drive • Speed limit in on beilenburg got lowered for no reason after the bus route. • Stewardship of taxes paid ## • Street Lighting • The amount of low income rental properties is lowering the values of single family homes. These rental units are way too much and bringing in disruptive criminal elements. • The city does not take ce of the landscaping as they used to.The city does not shovel their bus stops. Overall beautyhas gone down hill • The metro transit station • The strong family values that made Woodbury great is being pushed aside to try not to offend groups that will never be happy. • Too many apartments and crowding of the apartment complexes being built. • Too many stoplights • Traffic running stop signs and lights with no ramifications • Trail safety with increased popularity of e-bikes and e-scooters • transportation other than cars- public transit within the city, bike lanes and safe ways to bike as transit, sidewalks for pedestrians • Tree replanting grants • Wasted money on Gold line • We are spending too much money • We do not have a community pools that the public benefits from. For so long we've seen the YMCA as acceptable yet cities of our comparable size have large competitive swimming facilities with stadium seating. The YmCA is not a big facility to meet the needs of the community and the parking isn't enough This will bring funding to the city by having a community center and allow local swim teams to use the pool instead of competition with the school competitive teams. Check out Eden Prairie community center. We don't invest enough in the well being of our community. Many parents have to travel to other cities to use their community pools and it's lost revenue for the city. We do not need more housing developments when we don't even have the community infrastructure to support keeping our residents in the city.We also have too many chain restaurants and not enough small businesses. They get run out because of the high cost of rent and we lose the authenticity of our community to these big • We need a community pool and/or aquatic center. • With all of the recent closures of school pools, it is getting harder and harder to access pools for fitness, learning and community teams. I'm also extremely upset that the city is not doing more to help our public charters who are being openly targeted by the Minnesota department of Education. The Minnesota DOE has rejected expansion proposals for every public charter school in the state this year. Woodbury is lucky to have one of the top ranked public charters in the state and a nationally ranked school right here in our backyard, but if the city and the state are not able to allow them to continue to expand to serve more students, I would hate to think that we might lose it to neighboring states. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 278 • With so much growth in Southern Woodbury, there is very little retail, fast-food, restaurants. Everyone has to converge to the center of woodbury where it is so congested. Where are the gas stations, convenience stores, pizza shops?? • Woodbury does not support small businesses by offering affordable space - everything is chain restaurants (lame) and very little authentic restaurants, coffee shops, shopping. • Woodbury drivers are less likely than those I encounter elsewhere to stop at red lights. • Woodwinds needs to expand or we need another hospital in the area to fit the growth we've seen in WB and Cottage Grove • Zoning issues that cause the tax base for ISD833 to fall disproportionately on houses. Many of our major industry and commercial centers are part of other school districts for tax base Question 3a: Please elaborate on any comments or thoughts you have related to the items selected in question #3. • A moratorium needs to be in place. Woodbury is growing at a rate that is too high. Bringing low income housing into a higher income area will continue the great decline of Woodbury. Just look at the high quality Walmart base! • Accelerated growth in Woodbury leading to traffic congestion and need to offer variety of housing that included affordable housing. Accelerated growth is also increasing taxes to pay for new schools and other needs. • Affordable housing doesn't exist here. First time home buyer has no options that are truly affordable. • Affordable spaces for older elementary aged and middle school aged kids to gather, build social skills and spend time together. The redesign of lookout ridge and Central Park is beautiful but inadequate for creating a recreation center for tweens. Tweens are not old enough to get jobs, so they can't pay $30/hour to sign up for classes together with new friends. They don't have their own transportation, other than maybe a bike. Woodbury missed a huge opportunity to create a gathering space for this demographic. Look at the Hudson library- they have a teen area with engaging hands on learning materials. Look at St Paul, they offer free classes to residents, along with true rec centers. Where can a tween in Woodbury go, for free, and not get in trouble for loitering, and not be required to spend money to be there? Sure we have playgrounds and fields. But where's the gathering space with a retired volunteer available to mentor the youth who show up? Where is the space with a 3d printer and someone to teach kids how to create their own design on it? Where is the space with a robust hub for connecting young people with volunteer opportunities that allow kids under 14 to participate? We are missing out on so many opportunities to connect and mentor and engage the youth in meaningful ways! Scheduled programming serves a good purpose, but inviting spaces with availability to drop in anytime are also equally as important to a welcoming community. • Along with the congestion is speeding traffic! We live off Woodlane and the average speed is way over the limit and it's dangerous to try and turn out on woodlane and VERY dangerous to try and cross the road if we are walking!!! • As a Dancing Waters resident we are very concerned about all the development close to us. Knowing what we know now we would've never selected this development. It's too close to ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 279 all the apartments, subsidize housing, rentals and commercial warehouse business. I can confirm that most of our neighbors feel the same. It feels like everything that they don't want anywhere else is in this quadrant of the city. • As population growth, some of the roundabouts on lake rd and other southern parts of the city maynot be adequate. And the lines such as shoulder white line and double yellow lines on those road at a rainy/snowy night are terrible. I wish there could be some reflective marks indicate the shoulder and the middle of the road. As to the education, I hope the city would have more summer camp options. They don't have to be academic, it could easily be "explore our city's hidden gems" or "how a city functioning". I believe the education should not only focus on books but to let kids understand how real world goes around. • Bailey Rd is a nightmare after school and more schools are being built along it. It needs expansion. You keep raising my taxes to support schools - now use my taxes for the roads so I can travel around the schools you keep building. Basically all of the schools are in my neighborhood and it's impossible to get out of at school start and end times. Saint Ambrose church also needs traffic direction. Only one entrance in and out onto a busy and fast travelled Woodbury Dr is only asking for problems. My suggestion is make all traffic exiting a right turn only (heading north) and go to the roundabout if needing to head south. A bus simply cannot cross Woodbury Dr and head south without causing traffic to slow down or stop. • Bailey Road is always busy and the roundabout at Bailey & Radio is backed up and dangerous. A stoplight would be better. • Build smaller, lower cost homes and cheaper rental units. • Buildings are popping up at an amazingly fast rate. Feels overcrowded. The Woodbury lakes and ponds are so polluted that Pollution controls and environmental safe options are needed to be put in place for homeowners and businesses that use the chemicals on their lawns in spring/summer/fall and the salt that is used on driveways and roads and parking lots. See the environmentally safe options Scandinavian countries are using. • Calling the Public Safety with concerns for safety with ICE terrorizing residents and receiving a response of we don't know what to do'. Seeing other suburbs put signage up to prohibit ICE from taking up shop in city owned parks and parking lots, and Woodbury not doing much of anything. Other suburbs are standing with their residents and Woodbury seen largely shrugging and watching it happen. First time I've ever felt Woodbury wasn't actually putting their citizens first. Mr. Cha showed up. Where is the mayor? Where are council members? It's poor and will directly drive both my motivation to vote and who I will vote for. It's time for change. Large scaled change. • Can we stop with the boxes of houses...have more quality and affordable homes. Preserve some land. Woodbury has the worst waterPAY your teachers and support staff and your business drivers livable wages and benefits packages • City government needs to work better with school district • City of Woodbury, like most cities, is very cryptic about how it spends its money. It also borderline deceived the population regarding the recent sales tax add-on. Woodbury has also done a mediocre job of spurring business growth, particularly dining, but has leaned in on ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 280 the half vacant speculative warehouses. Woodbury has also leaned in on apertment housing rather than encouraging construction of smaller single family homes. • Cost of energy and water has risen tremendously in the past year. • Crime control is mostly in check, but I am not confident that it could spike out of control at any time. Taxes continue to rise. Water quality is questinable. • Crime rate & accidents rate has gone up last 2 years • Crime seems to be rising in the community. Property crime and sense of security for families is lacking. • Development is happening at an insane rate, without sufficient infrastructure. The schools are overcrowded and underfunded. Academics are suffering. The water quality is a serious issue and more housing is putting even more pressure on that resource. • Did not need bus line very empty • Drivers are running lights and stop signs and speeding. I see people run lights well after they have turned red and driving thru stop signs without even slowing down pretty much everyday. • Drivers here more than anywhere I have lived do not follow basic traffic safety. The stop sign by Woodbury HS off of courtly and woodlane is extremely dangerous. We have almost been hit walking more than a handful of times. Additionally cars run red lights much more often than anywhere else I have lived. Maybe traffic cameras or more police activity would help this. I feel scared for my daughter to be out and about with the driving here. • Drivers run red lights in Woodbury on a Daily basis. Tailgating is atrocious. Speeders everywhere and others constantly on cell phones. Woodbury has grown and it seems traffic congestion has gotten worse. It also seems that there is a lack of locally owned restaurants in Woodbury and we do not have any local coffee shops. Key pieces of community are missing and there must be a reason why Woodbury primarily only attracts chain & franchised restaurants. • E/W traffic on Tamarack Rd at Radio Dr has green light for less than ten seconds. • Education - quality of education is being sacrificed. Opportunities are being taken away from hardworking performing students in the name of equity. Equity should be brought about by equal opportunity not by holding groups back.Crime - Petty crimes are increasing since there are no consequences. Long term effects of this will make Woodbury unsafe.Taxes - Taxes are on the rise unreasonably and spending is high questioning financial stewardship especially with Minnesota being known as a state ripe for fraud due to its welfare programs. • Education- making sure new developments pay taxes to support education infrastructure changes, pfas in water contendues to be a very important issue in this area, environmental stewardship will continue to be very important • Establish higher "license, registration, and use" fees for bikers. All other recreational and non- recreational vehicles/items (boats, snowmobiles, etc.) pay high fees.Also, narrowing roads is ridiculous! And too many stop & go lights. • Establishing better laws and ordinances for backyard gardens, beekeeping and poultry keeping • Existing homeowners should not bear the expense of city expansion and new housing. More DEI in government. Better community theater. Live music. Higher focus on art. Quit ruining ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 281 things like City Center and Lake Road. We need a place for exercise where people can swim laps. Don't have Woodbury Days during the State Fair and invite previous volunteers back. Return Minneapolis park and ride to the theater where we can wait for the bus inside instead of standing outside while the bus you are waiting for is sitting across the street in the dead of winter. • faded on non-existent pedestrian crosswalk roadway paintings. Some drivers who are impatient or do not see pedestrians at crosswalk locations. • For years I have not drank Woodbury water. It tastes awful and one time it had such a plastic odor to it. I gasped. Never again. I buy my water and if I cook with it then it's only via boiled water. • Growth is happening to fast - please slow it down. • Growth plan has too much condensed housing. • Have lived in Woodbury for 36 years. My parents moved here to get out of the city and away from crime that comes with inner city services/politics. Woodbury is trending in the wrong direction and is turning into an inner ring city and becoming less desirable for successful residents. Speaking as an American Indian father, I thought I would be able to raise my children based on their character and ability, not have them told they are disadvantaged due to their heritage. Crime has gone up since the rapid bus line was put in and a focus on low income housing has infiltrated city politics. I spend more time in traffic on valley creek than I do at n 494 going to work and the city has had a decade to fix the PFAS issue and hasn't. There really is nothing desirable about Woodbury except for my families historical ties and yearning for what Woodbury used to be before social justice warriors infiltrated city politics. • Horrible traffic lights with traffic and long waits. Lights won't trigger to green coming out of my neighborhood. Horrible bus lane • Housing costs are not sustainable. If we want to move into a bigger home for our family we'd have to leave Woodbury • Housing is expensive, there when a house goes up for sale we know it will be older people or high income earners, which drastically reduces likelihood of more kids and/or non-white neighbors. • I am leaving Woodbury because after 30 years at Ecolab I cannot afford to purchase a retirement home in Woodbury. Your city planners are horrific building on top of wetlands once again your management of traffic is horrific. I've lived here for four years and I am so excited to be leaving. • I am retired with many in my area that are retired also. It is increasing hard to justify your property tax increases in support of Development and Growth since I am on a FIXED income. I have been a resident here for almost 40 years so I have seen alot of changes here some good and some not so good. You might as well consider us residents of Saint Paul and not Woodbury . This is not a good thing. The Bus route which residents didn't get to vote on is a big issue for residents here once again forced to pay taxes to Ramsey county for a Bus line that is running empty and never to use so some people can receive kick backs in Washington county. • I believe the city is dealing with each of these issues. Traffic congestion was though in 2025 due to so many projects occurring at once. I expect that to improve in 2026. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 282 • I can't stand driving from one end of Woodbury to the other. I will drive to Cottage Grove or Oakdale sometimes IGH or Eagan before I will drive across Woodbury. I know Woodbury is all about hushing the roads by making them one lane. This only causes road rage, accidents and 25 minutes to get from one place to another. I can drive to cottage grove in 10 minutes. Eagan Costco is great! Nice drive and better gas pumps. I don't spend much money in Woodbury. • I don't have kids but pay more and more every year for nothing in return. I'd like to see some improvements that are not always kid focused. And the discussion' on ICE warehouse was to squishy! Put your foot down and say NO ICE here! • I don't like traveling to other cities for offerings that Woodbury could easily encompass. • I don't see where with the development of housing there is an equal representation of retail, gas, eating. It forces residents to get anything in town, to go through the congestion and traffic and lights to get to anything. Not practical, not efficient, not reasonable for residents. • I feel connected to my immediate 4 neighbors and I feel connected to my church community but I don't feel connected to others my age (40) or to fellow parents with elementary school aged kids. • I feel that property taxes are getting out of control. • I moved here for the supposedly excellent public schools and have had an absolutely awful experience. • I moved here three years and Minnesota taxes are simply outrageous. And I do not see the bang I am getting for my buck. Plus the liberal state government list billions through fraud. • I think Woodbury has grown too quickly and some of the key elements were not able to keep up. The city feels too big with too many different schools and it's lost that sense of community. • I was shocked when we moved our family that there were no public swimming facilities. • I worry about the PFAS in the water and the fact we seem to ALWAYS have road construction. • I worry especially about the water quality and the groundwater quality in relation to PFAS contamination from 3M. Is it even safe to have a garden in your yard if the lake less than a mile away has warning signs saying not to be in the water. • I would like to see ways to reduce expenses that allow for lower property taxes. • i would love to see more of an effort to encourage sustainable lawns/yards and a focus on pollinator friendly habitats. the amount of treatment that residential and commercial properties use is crazy and it greatly impacts pollinators. i would also love to see fruit trees on public property that anyone can access for food! • I'm concerned about the rate of growth and the strain it puts on the schools. I'm glad to see improvements being done to WHS. It troubles me that Stillwater and Tartan get the majority of taxable business income for their school districts because of how the maps are drawn. I have concerns about increased taxes for retirees on a fixed income and lack of affordable housing. Overall I love living & working in Woodbury. It's a great place to raise a family. I would like affordable options so my kids can afford to live here & do the same. • I'm dissatisfied with too many affordable housing units being built. Attracts needy populations who demand we change to accommodate them. Overall, too many new housing developments and converting to parks that destroy our treasured natural habitats which ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 283 displaces the poor wildlife. The city used to care and prioritize preserving wild habitats. STOP new construction! Lennar is a poor quality, substandard materials, over priced builder!! Get rid of them! Stop all new construction!! Our once renowned for excellence school district has plummeted in quality education and WOKE crap. Get back to basic teachings, discipline, only recognize boys and girls, cook real fresh food for lunch not frozen heat n serve. Schools should focus on educating the truth. Get back to basics. Not slanted political indoctrination and brainwashing or creating mental/emotional harm. Establish and enforce high behavior expectations and rules. Be the authority! Teachers need to dress professionally, not like a student. Students should address teachers by Mr. Mrs. Miss, sir, ma'am. Get rid of the "new" math. Raise standards. End racism by not dividing students into racial groups, special privileges, cultural celebrations, gender groups. I'm glad my kids are adults. If I had school age kids, I'd homeschool them. Lower the property taxes!!! Stop your spending!! We can't afford higher taxes!! Stop with the climate change green nonsense. It's false! Too costly for no benefits. ROI in 30 years at best. No immediate cost or "energy" savings. How much will you increase our water bills once the new plant is running? Another waste of money.Listen and act according to what residents in our city want. Not your political bias, nonsense beliefs, egos.P.S. The police and fire are awesome!! • I'm not confident that Woodbury has sustainability for the future in mind: environmentally, economically, and housing. • I'm specifically referring to spaces and events that can or could take place in our city. The most massive thing our city is lacking is a public recreation center. Lifetime is unaffordable. The Y is too small. Given Woodbury has the businesses and hotels to make it a "destination" city for events, we now need the comprehensive event spaces that would make our city worth coming to. The M Health fairview place with ice rinks is just a start. It does not incluse all sports. • ICE needs to leave ASAP. Our water needs to be better. Traffic tailgates others and goes too fast. • ICE presence (staying in 4+ local hotels) is very unsettling and the ONLY thing making me feel unsafe in my community right now. • Immigration is the most serious concern. You cant even tell this is Woodbury anymore! The entire community has become unsafe from this invasion of outsiders. Truly, you're all a disgrace and complicit! Never voting for any of you again as long as I live, I've taken note of what you all have done to destroy this amazing city! You all disgust me. • In a race to accommodate planning from the Met Council, the city is losing focus on the existing residents. Crime has increased, mass transit costs are over burdening the city since user rates must be subsidized, clean water competes with over expansion. • Increase trash clean up along roadways, continue outreach for haz waste disposal - look into at home pick up of waste and uncommon recyclables. Supplement green energy initiatives and rebates since Xcel won't. • Increased taxes with limited increase in services.city manager and leadership are subpar. Police target people of color. Too much development leading to traffic. • Infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 284 • It appears Woodbury has over-developed these last 10 years. The population has doubled within the last 25. Resources have not kept pace. Let's pause housing until such resources as schools, roads, and health care are sufficient. • It feels like there is a lot of growth without sustainability plans on how public services and the city can adequately and safely support. Water quality being intricately tied into this. Also, as a higher end suburb we don't have the community resources one would expect like a Shoreview or a Plymouth has. • It is easier for my family to go to cottage grove to shop then drive across Woodbury due to traffic and time. • It seems like Woodbury is growing faster than what the city can handle in areas like educational facility attendance and traffic congestion. Also, housing is too expensive. • It would be nice to have new developments have more unique features you can tell that most developers are used in Woodbury and the city is looking like one big mass development especially along Bailey. Some old town charm like the old neighborhoods we have would come back. Also it seems the traffic is worse on woodlane and lake now and the lights make it worse as they don't seem timed very well. Radio drive is getting better • It's becoming a hood in certain areas like by Walmart. • Its so hard to get a sense of community with three different school districts • Lack of support from the City Ciuncil I. Addressing concerns about ICE in our community. Ignoring citizens safety concerns • Lake road is traveled at 50 to 60 miles per hour despite the 3 lane/35mph postings • Lots of road work and closures going on, rerouting creates issues. I absolutely loved the Public Works team video on reading emails they get! • Make the city more walkable, don't make the parking lots so big. Add artwork and create culture that the community can actually have character and personality. • Many 2 lane plus turn lane roads the openness of the roads makes people drive faster. Cross walks are not clearly marked. Need to install many more button and solar powered cross walk warning signs to allow for safe travel and recreation • More education for HOA homeowners about rights (not to water due to shortages) etc is needed. Too many HOAs are impeding on the rights of owners. ## • N/A • Need more restaurants. Would be awesome if the city would allow late night restaurants if any wanted to open. • Need more starter homes • None • Not thrilled with direction of Woodbury planning.. we've lost sense of respectfulness for those living around high school and changes to neighborhood roadways. • Older city maintained streets are in disrepair, and city sales taxes should be lower to attract more revenue, water quality will hopefully be resolved when the treatment plant is operational. • One of the most jarring things when I moved to Woodbury was seeing how fast a lot of people drive on residential streets/non-highways. I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone pulled over for speeding, but it sure isn't for lack of opportunity. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 285 • Only chains are open right now. And local police are not helping. • Other suburbs seem to have better resources for families and kids in relative comparison to Woodbury while having similar taxes. Community centers, community pools, great city support and infrastructure. I'd love to not have to drive 20 minutes to get something it feels like our city should already provide. • Our city feels dangerous when hotels and local businesses cater to federal agents who are not following constitutional laws, harassing and kidnapping people. Our city feels dangerous when local police and elected officials cannot and will not stand up to these unlawful federal agents. • Our growth is directly tied to the make up of our residents. Our residents are dictated by housing affordability. Housing affordability is determined by existing median income, not potential. The system itself is an obstacle for people aspiring to add to our community make- up. Woodbury should find a way to provide single family housing for new home buyers that aren't overly wealthy and do so without the existing residents assuming those housing developments won't be crime-filled slums. • Our local government needs to publicly support and protect our public service officers. ICE • Our roads are dangerous, riddled with pot holes, exasperated by the water system construction. 3M is responsible for the water system renovations and should be held liable for the road renovations in Woodbury as well. It should not come from our continously rising taxes. Furthermore, the businesses and our community have been gravely impacted by ICE in our community. We need them out and we need safety protocols in place to help ensure our community can rebuild without fear that this will community happening. Inflation and federal government overreach has made life hard enough for our families. Woodbury should be a safe haven for those who live here, invest here, and place us back on the map of best places to live in America. • Our taxes have gone up way too high in the past year for the services we receive. Traffic has become a serious issue, sometimes I sit at a traffic light over 3 minutes. The construction last year was ridiculous with roads shut down for much longer than were promised. Ridiculous to fix roads only to tear them up the next summer to do additional work. • Our water has pfas, and while there's a solution in progress, an entire generation of our children have grown up while waiting for a solution. Please do not allow grass to be watered in the summer if it means opening contaminated wells. Is green grass more important than our health? • Over developing the city • Overall Woodbury is a great place to live, but taxes have gone up way too much on the past five years • Overdevelopment causing horrible roadway congestion, over crowded schools, and completely lowering the quality of life. Woodbury used to be wonderful, now it is bursting at the seems and unable to provide what once made it a great place to live (friendly, quiet, safe, clean, etc.). The water treatment construction has been a nightmare. The dangerous water has been a nightmare, with citizens having to fund their own sources of clean water, along with the water shortages/usage constraints caused by the 3M contamination being a nuisance and ruining landscaping. Woodbury is all chain restaurants, chain stores, no variety, no community ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 286 center (the YMCA is not a suitable substitute), no personality other than exasperated residents it's over crowded, you can't drink the water, schools are scrambling, people have lost civility towards one another I would never recommend Woodbury to anyone. 10 years ago, I would have. • Overdevelopment in the last 5-8 years is the single biggest issue eroding the quality of life in Woodbury. Examples include bringing in large Corp chains and forcing out small businesses and the increased crime, nuisance, traffic and higher taxes the overdevelopment has caused. • People drive so fast!! I get the stoplights aren't great, but holy moly we have a lot of zoomers! Obviously our 3m infiltrated poison water is an issue. And lastly I'm saddened by all the development and not more thoughtfulness to turn land into nature areas, or at least a darn community center! • People drive too fast in Woodbury and everywhere! • Places say they are affordable housing for 55 plus or 65 plus and you must prove you have enough income, but not too much. Then each year rents go up based on the average of income in all of Woodbury. So the apartment you sold your home for, the apartment you qualified for now gets a $135 per month increase. How is this affordable for people on fixed incomes who did qualify, didn't make too much, but social security does not increase to meet the rent increase? It is bait and switch. • Please allow hens in backyard • Please improve water quality • Please raise my property taxes to support our schools better. Our schools create our future. • Please slow down on housing developments. We don't need any more shopping either. It's too much. • Please slow down the growth and development. • Police are very biased and racisist • Police to enforce traffic laws. Red light runners! • Poor thoughfare design. Radio & Bailey traffic jams. Very poor roundabout design. Too much residential development. Too little commercial development in south metro. Too much government! Infrastructure will be very expensive to maintain. No visible police patrol - they hide! • Property taxes are out of control--give us a break! • Property taxes with the referendums is to high and out of control. Should have signed on to the Mayoral letter to the state re: fiscal policies disappointed Woodbury was not a signee • Recent government policies including adding low income housing in good neighborhoods, new bus and light rail transit will destroy this place. • Roads are poor especially with all the visitors yet homeowners take the brunt of having to pay taxes on these roads. • Roads need more attention • Rush hour traffic on main artery is moving 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. • Should we be considering a 25mph for neighborhood streets. Traffic seems very fast especially around the high schools. • Slow down the growth of housing • Slow down the growth, traffic congestion has grown significantly in last decade. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 287 • So many new developments are catered toward families. Woodwinds ER and inpatient capacity can't keep up with this population growth. We need another large healthcare system to help absorb the population growth we have experienced since Woodwinds opened • So many people speed through neighborhood roads in woodbury and its dangerous, especially in school mornings. • Some Homes/yards that aren't in associations can become junky with food/trash being thrown on the ground and old furniture, junk in driveways. • Some of the roads and the amount of traffic on the roads can be dangerous. For example, I live near Settlers Ridge Parkway and there are frequent accidents near Eagle Brook Church and that intersection. Drivers frequently fly through red stop lights and/or stoplights change rapidly and some drivers feel the need to run the light. • Speed limit is too high on major roads, specifically Bailey Road and Woodbury Drive, with lack of enforcement or awareness, making it extremely loud for residents who moved here long before the growth boom happened. Water is expensive and watering bans are out in place, however, we just keep building and adding more people, making the problem even worse. Taxes keep going up. • Speeding traffic is an enormous problem, especially on Woodbury Drive and Bailey Road. • Stop building more houses. We don't want to be a large community. Woodbury was much better at 50,000 residents. It's so frustrating!!!! • Stop raising taxes. • Stop spending money on "Improvements" and take care of what we already have. • Stop the building of apartments, slow the growth • Strong public education and environmental health for current and future generations should be a top priority. • Takes 20 minutes to drive from 1 side of Woodbury to the other due to Red Lights. Left turns might not occur due to short time while turning left arrow is allowed. • Tax relief needed for seniors • Taxes are amongst the highest in the state. • Taxes are excessive and bringing "low income housing" draws more cost without contribution. • Taxes are excessive. Road work is poorly done and planned for. Road cleaning crews use an excessive amount of salt. City and county buildings are excessive and show a lot of wasted space in new designs. • Taxes are getting too high. Roads are too congested - stop building. • Taxes are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Shifting blame to county, school district or other factors does not help residents. When your sales tax and property tax increase at a greater rate than salary and wages, Woodbury becomes an unsustainable place to live. • Taxes are incredibly high and only getting higher. Cost of living has become outrageous. • Taxes are out of control. And there are far too many poorly timed stoplights. And do us a favor and add a flashing yellow arrow on Lake Road to 494 south • Taxes are to high in Woodbury, the high taxes are pushing out the older residents as well as long term Woodbury residents. to much growth is affecting the quality of life for current residents. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 288 • Taxes are to high! Very rarely do you see kids playing outdoors without an organized group. Bikers don't use the paths and they don't follow the rules on traffic. Radio and Valley Creek could use better timing during rush hour. • Taxes are too high • Taxes are too high • Taxes are too high, roads are horrible, stop lights timed improperly, lowering the speed limit is ridiculous instead of investing in flashing cross walks and studying how many pedestrians to cars are there to warrant the change. The water quality is dismal and ruins health and appliances. Even Cottage Grove has a visitor magazine but Woodbury does not • Taxes are too high, there is too much over development of apartment complexes, which effects water consumption. • Taxes are too high. • Taxes are very high. I am not sure that I see a lot of benefits. Development roads are not plowed, too much snow left on the surface. I hate living so close to the warehouse district. That development was unexpected. Our infrastructure is not keeping up with growth. Can we ever elect a more diverse City Council? I don't feel represented, maybe it's time for wards. • Taxes continue to go up, when they should be going down with all the businesses revenue. Cities like this make it impossible to be fiscally conservative while owning a house. • Taxes in Woodbury are absurd • Taxes keep going up and we find out our road needs redone and it's not even paid for by those raised taxes. Instead we have to fork out money for the special assessment. Makes me want to move away. Should warn all residents before they move here about those garbage tactics. • Taxes should be lowered • The "terrible drivers per capita" of Woodbury seems to be off the charts. Water quality issues related to 3M pollution will likely be an ongoing issue. • The amount of low income rental properties is lowering the values of single family homes. These rental units are way too much and bringing in disruptive criminal elements. Diverse background residents are ruining Woodbury. Stop the invasion • The city caters to young families but does not offer much for active senior citizens • The city decided to re-zone undeveloped but "future" R-2 areas as R-4. This was, and continues to be a big problem. County roads, schools, and city services are now overwhelmed. Quit trying to compete with other suburbs. The reputation of this city is pretty pooreven by residents of this city. • The city develops every square inch of open land......it's a joke. Mayor made a comment recently that we are a superior city or something like that. I absolutely do not agree with that. I cannot wait to retire and move far, far away. We tell everyone NOT to look in Woodbury. Leaders have no idea what the citizens want. • The city has approved way too many new housing developments and way too many townhomes and dense housing. Which has now made our roads congested and many other aspects of the city too crowded as well. Please stop. We want open land and more green spaces. If you must continue developing, make more neighborhoods with 2-3 acres of land with higher end homes. We don't want affordable housing, this has increased the crimes rate ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 289 and flooded schools with non-English speakers which makes it extremely challenging for teachers and successfully teach the entire classroom. • The city is becoming over developed. We have lived here over 14 years and traffic, housing, school classroom sizes have grown immensely. • The city is growing and thus the tax base, but the infrastructure and quality is deteriorating disproportionate to the increase in the individual taxes increases. More money gathered with less provided to the residents year over year. • The cost to buy a house has increased significantly since 2021. There have been some fishy sales and relisting of homes around 2023. Someone buys a starter home, and relists it a week to a month later 70,000 to 140,000 more with no visible work done to the home. It creates frustration in the housing market and kept the cost of a new home high. • The crime is high. We have to be so careful to keep all doors locked while home or in the yard. Don't feel safe as a woman . I live in a nice neighborhood but crime is everywhere. I NEVER see routine patrols in residential neighborhoods like we did 25 years ago. I'd like to see more routine patrols in residential mature neighborhoods • The education system is slipping for the district which is the reason we moved here. • The heavy focus on police in an are with zero meaningful crime is a tragedy. Hire more firefighters. Support the schools. We don't want or need counter terrorism capabilities at the local level. • The infrastructure is not set up well for people to get from point a to point b by any method except cars; I think Woodbury can do much better! We have great paths for leisure strolls etc, but why wouldn't we have sidewalks to walk to the store? Bike lanes to get to the transit hub? More bike racks to park bicycles? We can do it. • The landscape is changing here.we are growing fast and sometimes we need to pause and ensure we are doing things thiughtfully • The newest residents (10 years or less) are complaining about too much development, yet they themselves enjoyed building new homes. • The number of non-whites in Woodbury is growing. However, that's not reflected in the city's employment. • The police department needs to be allowed to be proactive again. Traffic enforcement appears non-existent compared to what it was 10 years ago. Vagrants are allowed to loiter and harass shoppers in business districts. • The property taxes are so high that retired folks will have to sell their homes There are so many fast food places. We should be promoting and working with family owned and operated businesses. There is too much development, too many big box stores and not enough family owned specialty businesses • The property taxes are too high. The public education is full of leftwing woke communist nonsense. The growth has been way too fast and destructive to what made many people choose to live in woodbury. • The road construction has been endless every year and so much that can't even get around the city getting confusing and complicated. Even in the winter snow plows don't know neighborhood roads at different sizes making them more narrow then they should so have to shovel more. The city is growing to fast and not in control as new buildings looks cheap and ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 290 doesn't fit in with what's around or houses are more like detached townhomes being so close together. We've lost so many HQs here for jobs need to bring some back rather than tear down them. The gold line is not great especially lowering the speed limits. Also the Central Park renovations are sad and bland as the old design was more community and park feel. Visited other cities like Bentonville which have community centers, gyms and even a senior center gym. Please bring back what mad Woodbury unique and different. • The road projects in the past 3 years have been beyond painful. For those in Royal Oaks, not only did they come at a HUGE cost, but terrible inconvenience. I was stuck with 2 ambulance bills because we couldn't get our car to our house to take me to the hospital as the road was tore up. • The roads are actually very good, but in spots there are pot holes consistently - like Radio Dr north of Valley Creek. And other places. • The taxes are out of control. The lack of a plan for growth is obvious - it is a town of strip malls, banks and mattress store with no sense of being a town or community. People drive way too fast and I rarely see cops pulling over for speeding. • The traffic has become unbearable within the last few years and it's disappointing that our way is poisoned with PFAS • The traffic has gotten worse since the community has grown • The traffic lights on Woodbury Dr and Valley Creek especially are brutal. • The water quality remains poor. • The water sprinklers need to be better monitored or better yet removed.. Sick of seeing sprinklers going off when it's raining including city owned sprinklers. There shouldn't be any sprinklers. Grass is an evasive species that is sucking our reservoirs dry. We need to be better stewards of our planet. People want green lawns? Plant clover and other native species. Green lawns is a stupid vanity project that does nothing! It is weed. If it was natural to our environment you wouldn't have to water it. • The Woodbury burns through money like a SAHM with a Black Card • There are a lot of homes going in without the schools needed. Cap the building.The quality of the schools has declined. Please focus on the fundamentals for those who are behind and create opportunities for those who are ahead to continue to advance. • There are certain areas where speeding or traffic are a major issue and pose serious risk. The lack of streetlights are a concern at night. • There are not enough grocery stores or quick restaurant options for the amount of new developments. • There are so many road projects that it seems to be getting harder to keep up with regular maintenance. Potholes getting bad at Lake/Woodbury drive & Bailey/Radio drive traffic circles. Water solve is ongoing. Taxes are creeping up with 2026 jump. • There are some serious potholes along Valley Creek. Some are filled but not all. • There is a lot of road construction, but little noticeable pavement improvement to many of the actual roads. Taxes are always increasing with little added extra benefit. Affordable housing is a challenge. There need to be more affordable single-family home options. • There is always construction • There is very little options in housing affordability in Woodbury. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 291 • There needs to be a total overhaul of the education system within the city. • This seems so minor, but it is a HUGE frustration the stoplights are so poorly managed and calibrated and there are far too many. "Green Waves" do not exist in Woodbury. People spend more time idling at stop lights than actually getting to their destinations. • This state loves to tax. Im retired and now i see why people live elsewhere cuz we cant afford to live here. Like why do we keep having to pay tax for road construction it was supposed to been under gas tax went up twice in 20 years now it's under another specialized tax on product mine how many more ingenious wager the Democrats gonna think of to continue on the tax people for road construction after 25 years of being here fair enough it was probably due to it, but why am I having to pay $3500 when I pay taxes to cover that? It's no wonder people leave.I also think you need to have a part like right behind St. John's Church north of there I thought was gonna be a skating board area for the kids, but it turned out to be nothing. I don't know what it is, but I think you need to think about putting a parking for the kids so they can go skateboard and that sort of thing • Too many drivers speed in residential areas and near parks and schools where children are meant to feel safe. Not enough is being done to curb this. Specifically Arbor Ridge neighborhood where there is a park and the boundary for Bailey Elementary is a walking zone. • Too many houses, too much development. Building in every blade of grass. Too much traffic and traffic congestion • Too many new buildings, homes, recreational places are being built & ruining the beautiful natural habitat we used to have.The bus line was a complete waste of tax money.Our roads need fixing. Since the repaving of our streets they are far too narrow & dangerous to park on, especially Montrose. We told the city we did not want more narrow roads, but they did not listen and insisted it was "safer." I highly disagree. Taxes continue to rise, with no benefit. Water quality will always be an issue. Mixing tainted water with good water is not an acceptable solution. • Too many people and not enough roomDriving is awful The schools are packedNot enough private school options The public schools are 100 percent focused on anything but actual education • Too many people are blowing though stoplights and speeding is a problem. Looking forward to the water treatment plant. Consider have developers put aside land or money for public schools, we have plenty of parks. People come here for the schools. • Too many roundabouts in very low traffic intersections - they make no sense given the expenditure to put them in. Takes too long to get from one end of Woodbury to another on certain routes. Endless road construction last couple of warm seasons makes it difficult to navigate through town - why close so many roads all at the same time? Water quality and restrictions on use continue to be an issue. Too much residential growth with not enough supporting business growth - endless sea of 2-story home neighborhoods and not a good mix of other types of housing as the population ages. • Too much development of apartments & rental hosing, so much traffic congestion, difficult to travel from one end of Woodbury to the other, • Too much development. Housing is overpriced. Stop lights should be synced to reduce congestion ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 292 • Too much growth opportunities to leave old developments empty and abandoned. • Too much growth too fast. Not all growth is good. • Too much growth. People drives crazy at times and can be very rude. Taxes have increased a lot. It's a good suburb and accessible, easy to get places. Busy on weekends. • Too much traffic, people are often above the speed limit and the number of people running red lights is unbelievable. • Too much. Not much entertainment. Not much for kids to do. • Traffic congestion - The light at Tamarack and Radio going East/West is just too short. Water Quality - PFAS. Taxes because their taxes! • Traffic congestion is increasing year by year. This is most evident at the roundabouts on Bailey Road in the morning and afternoon commute times. • Traffic congestion: Traffic is always so bad. Traffic lights that don't take forever would help with this.Growth and development: I believe Woodbury is growing at a pace that risks outpacing thoughtful planning. Growth itself isn't the problem but growth without strong standards can erode the character and sense of community that make our city special.I'm concerned that some recent development prioritizes speed and volume over long-term quality. When we approve large-scale projects from national builders like Lennar or D.R. Horton, we should ensure they meet high standards for craftsmanship, durability, and architectural design that reflect Woodbury's established aesthetic. If I had it my way, I wouldn't allow them to build in our city at all, I would much rather allow local builders to invest.If we are going to continue expanding, we owe it to residents current and future to partner with builders who are committed to preserving our land, maintaining design integrity, and investing in the long-term value of our community.Speeding traffic: I live in Interlachen, and all hours of the night people are speeding by. It feels like there are no cops monitoring our neighborhoods where children and the elderly are at. • Traffic has gotten unbelievable since Covid. We've lived here 32 years and can't believe the change in the past five. • Traffic is so bad at times it takes three rounds of lights to get through an intersection. Then you have frustrated people running lights. Housing is out of reach for many just starting out and I love living in Woodbury but don't want it to get so big it's now longer the community we have. • traffic is terrible, drivers are rude - drive too fast, don't stop at stop sign and often charge through a red light. don't use turn signals, speed on residential streets, wide turn, pull out in front of oncoming cars. Taxes are high. too much growth. • Traffic on Woodbury drive is way too fast and dangerous. More roundabouts are needed. Please put a roundabout or traffic light at the intersection of Woodbury drive and Antrim rd. Also please start to soften the water at the new water plant. • Traffic seems to get worse with each passing year. When family and friends come to visit, they often comment on the poorly timed and long traffic lights throughout Woodbury. • Uncontrolled growth is taxing our infrastructure and resources. • Unmanaged rapid growth • Very few drivers stay within the speed limit. Most go way over. • Villas with basements, transportation for seniors in all of Woodbury ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 293 • Wages are low based on inflation. Home insurance has sky rocketed being in hail zone and due to metro car theft. Tree grants should also include Woodbury HOA. Why just homeowners. • Water efficiency: Public spaces and home associations seem to be watering indiscriminately of recent rains while residents are limited to 2x per week. Everyone should be limited to watering 2x per week for better efficiency. Also, that rule is not really enforced as we regularly see neighbors watering when it is not their day. Speeding traffic: cars are driving faster and faster, and electric scooters are becoming dangerous for pedestrians on our wonderful path system. • Water is main issue • Water is quite contaminated and from what I have read, won't be fully cleaned with the new filtration system. Taxes are pretty high, please just focus on essential city services with our money. People drive way too fast. • Water quality is a serious concern. • Water quality is being addressed with water treatment plant; but it's not here yet and I do have concerns about PFAs and contamination to our water supply. • Water quality is far and away the most important issue listed. The Gold Line, non-listed, is my least favorite development in 15 years of living in Woodbury. Unneeded, unused and wasteful. • water quality issues are top of mind - specifically bought a house that had an RO water system in place already because of this. affordable housing - prices of homes were high relative to the rest of the metro - without help from family the dream of buying a home would have been out of reach for a teacher and engineer with good stable positionscharm - woodbury is great in that everything you could need is possible to find. But its all chains and there's a challenge finding "local" options. I would love for the city to put an effort into elevating the truly local-to-woodbury small businesses and local-to-washington-county businesses to help instill that sense of pride in the community beyond having the big chains. • Water quality of our lakes and streams needs more attention. City water quality issues are too slow in being corrected (PFAS). Traffic is a mess in Woodbury, prompting many to take routes through residential areas at unsafe speeds. Work to find ways to smooth out traffic on main roads. • Way too many red light runners, there has been an increase in trash thrown about the cities roadways and sidewalks. • We (and other older retirees with financial security) have become outsiders and the focus of hate in Woodbury. I think you should be more concerned with this group of people who are silently giving up and moving. • We absolutely have to stop all the building of the stack and pack housing and these multiple huge giant apartment complexes. There's no rationale for this. We're supposed to be a community and we can't be a community when stuffing 1000 people into an apartment building. Also, we have to stop all the building of crap that we don't need. We don't need a public safety building. There's a building perfectly good building that shouldn't be torn down that can be accommodating. Also just endless construction and needless redoing of things that don't need to be done for example Lake Drive did not need to be redone at all. We want our four lane roads back now we're gonna put a roundabout in an area. That's not even that busy just stop. There needs to be a five year moratorium on any and all building we need to ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 294 reevaluate the public health building spending $50 million on that. We need to re-look at all the taxes why on every utility bill their city taxes and fees and ongoing bills when we're already paying a bill. When I get a paycheck, I have to live off that paycheck. The city needs to do the same. We need to stop with all the social issues and stuff that is just not needed we just need to stop • We continue to allow new housing developments to proceed at breakneck speed without ensuring the infrastructure can support it. Dale Road is a prime example. The road and pedestrian paths should have been upgraded before all the housing was added on both sides of CR19. • We have an isolated lot; more chickens on our property would be helpful to our landscape health, provide natural tick control and natural fertilizer for my many gardens, plus eggs for neighbors. • We have lived here over 30 years and have watched the development around us - the city has a good mix of housing types thanks to wise policies and good planning, Now, as we face significant change in the decades ahead, we need to build in more density and flexibility. Disruptive technologies like A.I. may upend traditional work - are we going to be ready? Or will we be a city of empty malls and vast parking lots? • We have lived in Woodbury for over 30 years. I believe our quality of life has declined, not improved. The city has grown way too fast for the population. Taxes are out of control. Traffic is terrible! The hospital situation is horrific. Woodwinds used to be a jewel - not any more. Seems like the city has become greedy for growth; too much low-income focus; not enough focus on seniors. • We have to be good stewards of the tax dollars. Rising property taxes are reflective of the state and surrounding communities ability to manage budgets and make tough decisions to control spending. • We have too many high speed roadways within city limits where people have to cross to get to businesses and schools. We need more mixed used development that promotes walking. You have to drive everywhere in Woodbury. Most trails and sidewalks are for purely recreational purposes. We need more areas that developed mixed use so multimodal sidewalks and trail are used for a means to get somewhere. • We keep raising taxes. When is it going to end. Government needs to do more with less. • We need a community center. This will create jobs for many people • We need to continue to find ways to increase affordable housing and manage growth and size of the community - possibly through upzoning or allowing for more multi-family housing opportunities. • We need to ensure that Woodbury offers positive opportunities for all, and does not just cater to wealthier families • We need to plant more trees on the boulevards. This will cool down the place in peak summers and make the air fresher. We need to involve ourselves in making the larger city, state and country safer by creating opportunities for people of different faiths, colors to hang out with eachother; I enjoyed being at the Hmong new year celebration at WHS; we need more such opportunities. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 295 • We've lived here 13 years and it has become more and more crowded - a dozen more stoplights added, apartment complexes popping up everywhere, farmland destroyed, traffic congestion issues, and now we're going to build more huge low-income housing complexes? Stupid. • We've spent way too much money on busing, upgrading Central Park (some components of this will require more future funding to maintain and sustain). Also, some neighborhood streets like Settlers Ridge have seen increased high speed traffic and too many signage (some near misses have occurred). • While we don't crime anywhere near the cities, but since the metro transit garage went up, I've had the privilege of seeing prostitutes, lone children, druggies, the homeless, and one man having serious verbal altercation with the wall. Our garage has also been broken into and we've had golf clubs and a bike get stolen. • With the number of people moving to the area, it would be great to have more commerce between Woodbury and Cottage Grove. • Woodbury desperately needs a community aquatic center like Shoreview, Rochester, even Eagan. This would open more opportunities for team sports, recreation, and would potentially be an additional revenue source for the city. I don't understand why we have two ice rinks at M Health sports center but no aquatic centers. Additionally, while I know that the city does not have control over what the Department of Education does, the city certainly could use its reach to help support math and science academies goal of increasing in size so that it can support more of our students. This would have the added benefit of alleviating some of the overcrowding pressures that the Woodbury schools are facing. • Woodbury does not have a community center. This is a big hole in the community. • Woodbury has become WAY too congested. There doesn't seem to be that rural and city balance anymore that was so attractive to so many who moved here years ago. It takes a long time to get even to a Target 5 miles away. Way too many traffic lights and congestion everywhere. Taxes sure don't reflect the care given to parks or steeets or safety. Our faces increase constantly, but what do we residents see from the increases? Too much new construction taking up all of our land when we have dozens of empty buildings all over the city. Why do we keep building? Why are we tearing up every square inch of open land?Why are businesses allowed to have every light in their buildings on all night?Watering restrictions are ridiculous when we pay massive taxes Where is the cozy, quaint but abundant town we used to have? • Woodbury has no strong central hub of community. It is full of chain eating and shopping options as the commercial rent is ridiculous. You keep building multi options such as apartments with no infrastructure to support it. Woodbury likes to state they have great exercise facilities but that is expensive chain workout facilities. Have you visited Stillwater's PAC? That is how to offer options to a community. • Woodbury has way too many apartments and townhomes. This has created way too many people and traffic! Stop the growth! Also, the roads are in horrible shape, we pay way too high of taxes to have these kind of conditions! Also, the speed limits are extremely high for the amount of residences and parks, trails, etc. Sooooo UNSAFE! Way too many people allowed to speed and run red lights and stop signs. We built what we x planned as our ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 296 retirement home 8 years ago, but now will be leaving Woodbury, sadly because of the changes that the city council has allowed. We do all our shopping, gas, etc now in Cottafe Grove because of the traffic congestion, and convenience, and safety. So so sad to have to leave our town of 23 years. • Woodbury is a great place to live however, we need more of a center of town a landmark or destination park. • Woodbury is a great place to live, but would love to see more small businesses versus big box stores. • Woodbury is great if you want to live in a shopping mall. Chain stores and chain restaurants are not my personal idea of a great time. But that seems to be all that is here. The homes are almost all the same. Other than that, it's lovely. • Woodbury is growing too quickly. 833 public education has become too political and has lost focus on education. We are overburdened with taxes, at all levels. I don't think there is a focus on driving down costs, all I have seen is my tax bill increase ever more, and greater than inflation. • Woodbury is growing too rapidly without thought for future use expansion for native areas. Parks are not native spaces, there is not enough green space for nature to thrive among multi-housing complexes and businesses. • Woodbury keeps spending money when it's not needed. • Woodbury need to build community pool and indoor playground • Woodbury needs to be more equitable, protecting residents from ICE, taking a stand. Need more affordable housing. • Woodbury needs to do more. They shouldn't be on any public space. • Woodbury needs to lower taxes as this benefits all residents. If this means limiting or discontinuing some services, that is fine with my family and friends. Do not limit essential services such as police, fire, maintenance. With all the new businesses and housing our property tax base should have increased. There should be no need to increase tax rates again. • Woodbury Public Works, snow plowing specifically is out of touch with the needs of residents. • Woodbury should focus more on building and maintaining affordable, multifamily housing units. A higher population density should come with more environmentally-friendly transit options like expanded Metro Micro service and maybe self-driving taxis someday. Existing HOAs and homes have had their dues and insurance costs rise way too much, so either costs need to go down or jobs should pay more to keep up with inflation/price gouging. • Woodbury used to be known as fiscally conservative, with outstanding safety and infrastructure. Last five years and especially last 3 it's gone substantially downhill. Infrastructure is almost as bad and sometimes even worse than St Paul's. I do not feel my tax dollars are being well spent on us taxPAYERS but are instead spent attracting and supporting section 8 and related "clients". • Woodbury would benefit from creating a real downtown area - right now there is no area for residents to go to that is truly a downtown, central area of Woodbury. Education is good in Woodbury, but the school districts don't make a lot of sense. I don't understand why many residents of Woodbury are in the Stillwater schools - separates kids in the communities. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 297 • Woodburys taxes are signifiant. My purchasing choices have been effected as I will go outside of Woodbury and actually MN for larger ticket items to avoid the metro housing and transportation taxes that are now in place. If I was purchasing a house today, I would buy in WI or outside of the cities to avoid to the ridiculous taxes. In addition, jobs in Woodbury are very low paying. Lots of business growth, but with 3M continuing to be lay off, there are very few comparable jobs available on the east side of the twin cities- especially when compared to the west side of the cities. Woodbury and other east side cities, should consider trying to get more large companies in this side. Growth in retail is fine, but if the growth of higher paying professional jobs with decent benefits are mostly on the west side that is concerning. 3M will continue to reduce their headcount and I see no replacement to the quality of jobs they offered 5+ years ago. • Worried about 3M pfa's • Would it be possible to invest in a community pool facility at MHealth that can serve the public and be used for competitions? • Would like to see some type of jncentive/rebate for whole house water filtration/reverse osmosis systems. Better policing of speeding traffic and people driving through red lights • You are cramming in too many low income and multi family homes. This is going to destroy any chance at a future school levy. Please build a outdoor aquatic center. Question 5a: Do you have any comments related to any of the items in question #5? • As a white upper middle class retiree, moving here from metro St Paul, I was pleased to see the diversity around Woodbury. I was also happy to see the number of well maintained, good looking apartment and multi unit housing opportunities that exist. I strongly believe the strength of the community lies in its ability to safely and affordably embrace a diverse population. I am also very pleased with how well Woodbury develops, maintains and encourages use of its multitude of green spaces. • A lot of very hateful comments from community members right now when discussing ICE involvement. A harder stance on federal government activities from leaders would be appreciated. Our family is not an immigrant family, but I am watching them be mistreated in public and online often. • All tax payer residents should be treated with appreciation and respect. Responsible use of tax dollars is the most respectable thing our city can do for residents. • Allowing ICE activity and shelter in Woodbury doesn't make for a safe environment • Although Woodbury has become more diverse over the years there still seems to be a general stigma to people of color and diverse backgrounds. • As a 30+ year Woodbury native, Woodbury has always felt diverse and welcoming. • As a 40+ year resident, I've felt that our community has become less accepting of people below a certain income. This feeling has increased in the past 15 years. • As a conservative, i do not feel safe to state my beliefs in Woodbury without being insulted, or assaulted. I want more diversity of thought than skin color because I care more about the character of someone than the color of their skin. • Could have used a more forceful condemnation of ice in our community. Lots of business dollars lost and POC feeling unsafe. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 298 • DEI policies and leftist inclusion is destroying this community. • Diverse background residents are ruining Woodbury. Stop the invasion • Diverse means ALL..all races, all religions. • Diversity is a fact. Treat EVERYONE respectfully. There is no need to give special attention to any specific culture. • Diversity is not our friend. Diversity has weakened and separated our American traditions and security in every aspect of our lives. They are taking over our country. Open your eyes to the truth!! • Don't over focus on DEI just value everyone equally. • Don't understand One Woodbury as we already have Woodbury Days and the Expo. • Ethnicity is accepted and allowed, but cultural values particularly politically is not acceptable if its not of a particular bent. This is largely the populace, but attitudes can reflect leadership. • Focused way to much on diversity • For one thing "previos" isn't a word. For the other, yes. I feel Woodbury's leadership is prizing attracting a "diverse" demographic over prizing actual contributors to making Woodbury a safe and attractive place to live and visit. • Fraud is in Woodbury in certain immigrant communities. It's spreading • Great diversity • HOA could be a trouble maker. • I am making these selections as a white, cis male, so take them with a grain of salt. • I am white, so Imy answers on diversity may be not what people of color might see and feel • I applaud the Mayor and City Council for taking a strong stance against ICE building a detention center in Woodbury. Hate has no place in our city. • I do think the City and Foundation have gone a little overboard on DEI for instance - it used to be the Citizen Academy not the Community Academy. That should be changed back. Citizenship should be a goal; people would still be able to participate. The ONE Woodbury event feels like an exclusionary thing, not unified with Woodbury Days. Could some adjustments be made to bring the two together? I fear the anti-police groups are getting heard the most, but public safety should always be supported - so far it seems the City and Council have stayed strong on public safety, but it concerns me. • I feel like I cannot answer the questions fairly because I am not a minority. I'm sure my view is not a direct reflection • I feel the circles I am in welcome and accept people of all backgrounds but I'm not sure of the community as a whole and not sure what they do to welcome new residents as I'm a life long resident. • I feel Woodbury is welcoming to all & appreciates all of their residents. I hope it stays that way. Affordability is an issue. There's been improvements made in these areas and I hope it continues. • I have been impressed to see how people showed up for our neighbors in these times of need. • I have lived in Woodbury for four years and have yet to meet my neighbors or feel welcomed. The vibe is very standoffish and exclusionary. Someone called the city on us for our native perennial yard. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 299 • I have no idea on many of these things. I think that Woodbury does a lot to provide activities for families with kids but not for adults to meet and mingle. • I have tried but have not madefrornds with neighbors. I have lots of close friends but none live in Woodbury. • I just don't know • I live in an established townhouse community and really don't have any insight into new residents. • I love culture night at my kid's school, I'd love to see something like that more broadly • I moved back here during Covid. I since learned you do a welcome thing once a year for new residents. And the One? Celebration once a year. • I often hear about racist comments within our schools. • I require all immigrants to accept the US and local laws in order to be allowed to live in this community. These laws are considered to override any religious beliefs, customs and politics outside the United States. • I think parts of the community do excellently. I am not sure what I see the city do that supports this. We need to continue to stand up and out for all of our community, including speaking out when members of our community are being unkind or disrespectful to people from marginalized communities • I think Woodbury does a better job of being inclusive than the metro gives it credit for, but there are still improvements that can happen for sure • I would love to see more cultural events in the community centers since we don't have a real downtown • I would not worry so much about diverse backgrounds. That's not the city's mandate. Certainly all are welcome, but the city doesn't need to engineer diversity. • I'd love to continue to see Woodbury take a stance like other communities have that prioritizes protecting its citizens, their constitutional rights, and ensure that businesses and warehouses are zoned appropriately and utilized for the intended purposes. Transparency and advocacy should be a priority. • I'm delighted by the number of people who are speaking up against the cruelty of ICE. I'm crushed every time the Gold Line comes up and people complain that it's bringing "those people" to Woodbury from the inner city (REALLY?) or that homeless people take refuge on the bus to sleep and stay warm. • I'm taking this as a CiS white female. My answers carry little weight when it comes to how a POC feels about diversity in Woodbury. • I'm unclear what the city of Woodbury does for new residents and welcoming them. We've lived in Woodbury for 15 years - but when we first mover here I don't recall the city sending us anything as a welcome. • I'm white and not sure how minorities feel • I'm white, but I know of minorities who have been stopped for driving while Asian, Black, etc. • I've been a resident since 2019 and am white - so I don't have a good idea of these questions. • ICE has really divided this community. We use to be a place where I felt those rankings were higher, but these past few weeks have shown a light on the root of some of these issues. It ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 300 stems from the top and trickles down. We need council members that value this community and it's diversity over immortal and illegal federal government overreach. • ICE presence in Woodbury is not safe for anyone. • If all people are created equal- why do you have to ask this style of question? • If city staff concentrate on providing best services and reducing costs, then they are serving all fairly. • Immigrants are overwhelmingly taking over by being welcomed but not being assimilated into American culture. Most are rude, unapologetic and basically a detriment to society. At the moment they are just a nuisance, but more will come with your recruitment and "welcoming" attitude. Look at much larger cities that are a mere image of what they were before muslims flocked to the city. I know this is still an unpopular opinion at this time but trouble will come with unchecked policy. • Isn't everyone diverted and from different backgrounds? Just treat everyone fairly we don't need DEI initiatives. • Keep ICE out of our community • Keep ICE out of our neighborhoods and businesses. • Lived here since 2009. Seen attempts at community building. Don't believe most people care. • Low SES and people experiencing homelessness aren't really welcome, both structurally and legally. • Needs to be more inclusive in hiring, city council and communication in diverse ways to reach and represent growing diverse Woodbury community. • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No • No but previous is misspelled. • No, but you spelled previous wrong. • None • None • Nope • Other than the recent presence of ICE terrorizing our communities, I think we are a safe and inclusive place to live. • Our city feels dangerous with unlawful federal agents living here in our hotels, eating at local restaurants while terrorizing the people who work and live here. • Police should enforce ALL laws and not just ones that fit a current agenda. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 301 • Previos?Woodbury could do better on issues related to being a welcoming and accepting place to live - should look to other area suburbs that do a good job at this, including Cottage Grove. Woodbury has a very snobby vibe. ## • PREVIOUS • previous is misspelled • Providing the sense of place is hard without a downtown and major road construction projects in last few years. The event's activities are building this slowly. Keep at it! • Question - is there a current problem for any of these situations? • Real estate taxes are going to become unattainable for many families, especially seniors. The seniors who have been in this community for 50+ years, cannot afford the taxes any longer. With all the new businesses and housing, we do not understand why taxes need to go up. • See the affordable housing comment. If you don't have housing available for less than $400,000- you lack diversity and you are not inclusive. You welcome rich white families. • Special interest groups get preferential treatment over average, longtime residents. • Spelled previous wrong ;) • Stop with the diversity and "feeling" stuff. When people move in, they need to incorporate themselves themselves. We don't need the city to do that and it does a piss poor job of it. • The city council and current mayor's lack of support for our neighbors of color worried about being harassed by federal agents is troubling. I'm hoping neighbors willing to take a firmer stance primary individuals in the current positions. • The city has gone overboard in their diversity and inclusion efforts. The emphasis ahould be on assimilating so we are all Minnesotans and coming together as a Woodbury community. We don't need special days or events devoted to certain races only. • The City leadership did NOT actively participate in supporting residents with ICE concerns. The City actively protected ICE agents by diffusing non-violent noise protests at hotels. Either stay neutral or take action, don't hang flaccidly between the two legs of choice. It's embarrassing. • The city needed to support the minority community by taking a stance against ICE. Despite it being a lose/lose situation • The city's website talks about diversity, equality, and inclusion. What's really needed is action, real action! • There are a lot of roads and paths but the connection of all the non-motorways is poor and the safety for non-motorist is only fair. • There have been incidents of profiling of people of color by police regarding stopping them for no reason and using speeding as cause. • There is a huge "not us" feel to Woodbury. • There is a typo in this question • There is a Woodbury Facebook page that could use a city admin or two moderating it. Some of the casual racism is a little out of control. • There is an undertone of snobbery and racism in Woodbury. As a fairly new resident from another twin cities community, I noticed it quickly after relocating here. • These questions are embarrassing and meant to divide. I'm an American Indian, I don't expect the city to host a pow wow to appease me. Focus on your core functions and reducing crime. • These things should be a top priority. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 302 • This community is very welcoming to immigrants. The American Black population is ignored and suspected. I am still followed in stores, stared at when I go into grocery stores or am in my yard. My neighbors steal plants out of my yard, I had to get security cameras to curtail it. I have lived here for years but it still feel like it's the 1950s. • This entire question is DEI and is bs. Woodbury needs to focus on the issues facing the City and stop trying to push the DEI agenda. • This focus on background acceptance is entirely overkill and appears to care more about that then other key items. I just want a safe place to live with the ability to interact with my neighbors. • This is obviously a very white, Christian city but hasn't seemed UNwelcoming, just not particularly diverse (no other churches, festivals, etc) • This is the whitest, richest, unfriendliest conservative hellscape I've ever lived in. It isn't as bad as it was in the 80s and 90s but not much progress has been made to make this a welcoming place for all different people and family types. • This obviously started as a white community and housing cost is going to keep it that way. Housing costs out here are not sustainable • Too much business growth on the east side of Woodbury. Too much low income bring built. • Too much focus on woke issues. • Too much low income housing increasing crime rates • Typo,?you cant control many of these things but the recent ICE activity showed the city nit standing up for residents or their safety • Very woke policies • We have been here 33 years. I have heard from newcomers that this can be a a hard community to • We moved here from out of state 6 years ago. This is the 12th city ive lived in. I know the city can't control this but I've never lived among a more closed up unfriendly bunch of people. We are a racially and ethnically diverse family. And I'm going to be honest. Your focus on DEI is BS. That doesn't bring real acceptance and community. It makes you as city admin feel good and have something to talk about but it doesn't actually do anything. People are only surface level friendly here. We had a better sense of community in the southern part of the country. Where white people didn't focus so much on making themselves feel better through DEI. People were more genuinely friendly and welcoming. The white savior progressives here come up with all these ideas and policies but they don't genuinely want to connect with you, form genuine friendships. They want you to be equal..just do it "over there". Luckily my job has opportunities back there. We are actively planning to move back. • We moved into beautiful Woodbury development after having lived in Saint Paul for much of our adult lives. We don't find that the majority of our neighbors are very friendly or outgoing. It feels like many people keep to themselves and are not very neighborly. Typically, they wave and say a brief hello but beyond that., the relationship relationships. We have are nothing like those that we enjoyed when we lived in the city of Saint Paul. • We need to involve ourselves more in. the larger city, state and country to make the places safer for diverse people. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 303 • We were new residents and didn't receive any greeting, etc from Woodbury or neighbors. We had to work at it and seek out people and answers. Have been here 9 years now. • We were treated poorly by the city government in particular the council when dealing with the idea of an apartment structure jammed into our neighborhood. • What kind of community are we striving to become? Do we want to be another inner ring suburb? Do we want to subsidize low income families and provide programs for these families? Are you expecting retirees to help fund these subsidized initiatives? How have the current programs (like busing, warehousing, affordable housing, etc helped improve our property value? • When this question states "Woodbury community", I'm going to assume that we are talking about city employees and volunteers. I've read comments about ICE coming into certain Woodbury neighborhoods and I don't know the results of those circumstances, whether Woodbury police was involved in those situations. • While the city leaders and politicians seem to think diversity is a common goal for residents, it is far down the list of what residents desire. Diversity should happen organically and not be something recruited and subsidized. • White male is not going to weigh in on diversity questions. • WHO CARES. You are forcing all of the Wealthy Whites to flee this disgusting 3rd world city that you people have turned this city into. NO ONE WANTS FOREIGNER HERE. If this keeps up for even one more year, me and my entire WEALTHY White family will be leaving this disgusting cesspool. We moved here half a decade ago to flee the twin cities and you imbeciles have turned it into a 3rd world **** hole. Not only are we all going to leave, but you will be robbed blind by sending any remaining wealth to foreigners. Either cater ONLY to RICH WHITES or we are absolutely gone and taking all of our money with us. This is your only choice. • Why are even asking these questions?? • Why is this asked at all? Racism much? Woodbury Libs want to import crime and illegals. • Woodbury does not feel like it has a strong sense of city community. It feels more like development communities where each one has its own parks and pool. I think that is a bummer! • Woodbury does not have to cater to low incomes as it is not who we are. • Woodbury has a schism between the old people who have lived here forever and the new people who pay for it. • Woodbury has been growing in the wrong directions for the wrong reasons over the last decade +. Stop the multi family homes. Please build a outdoor aquatic center. • Woodbury has done a poor job protecting residents and businesses from ICE. Woodbury needs to stand up for its residents. • Woodbury has not come out strong enough against ICE. • Woodbury is a welcoming place for people of various cultures. • Woodbury needs to do more to protect residents, stand by people of color from ICE and be more welcoming to people of lower incomes • Woodbury offers no respect or sense of community to its over 55 residents. Especially ages 60-70. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 304 • Woodbury seems more interested in their diversity optics than taking care of long-time residents and senior citizens. • Working with ICE detainers shouldn't be an issue for our local law enforcement • Would be better to take a stand for all people. I don't feel safe with armed psychos at chipotle. • WTF police arrest the ICE thugs • Yes. You preach about diversity but you only care about "oppressed" groups that can further your political agenda. • The community only celebrates foreigners, not people who were born here. It's very hard to live here if you are any Asian, black, African, or Indian. • You asked about the community, not the city. I believe the city does much better in each of those areas than the community itself. This is a problem. The city needs to set the tone. • Your survey questions show that you are more concerned about diversity than just everyone in general. One has to wonder why it seems more important to the City of Woodbury to be concerned for people of "diverse backgrounds" and "different cultures and belief systems." It should be that everyone is treated equally and leave it at that; your questions suggest that people are not treated equally. These questions come up in every survey. Question 7a: To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job the Mayor and City Council are doing? – Why? Strongly or Somewhat Approve. • Again would appreciate a public demonstration of support for ALL public service personnel. • Again, I would like to see some of the priorities shift while I agree that a new City Hall is great and needed, there are many other places where those millions of dollars could also be used to help more community members. • Agree with direction Woodbury is taking; appreciate strong communication skills of leadership • Always keep everyone informed • Amazingly, we went to our first City Council meeting a few weeks ago and were blown away by the council members and all the residents who spoke. Woodbury is a unique place to live. We are so fortunate to have the leaders we have and the community we have! • Apolitical, focused on making Woodbury a better city. No focus on national politics. Good response when ICE was rumored to have holding facility in Woodbury. I'm very against that. • Are focused on our communities- good job of keeping "Politics " out of their decision process. • As a fairly regular attendee of city council meetings, I feel like it's not always easy to feel like residents have a voice. There always seems to be an abundance of red tape that sometimes prohibits what deem to be common sense.That all being said, I DO believe in and support our Mayor and current City Council. • Banning ICE was huge • Because Woodbury is a top ten place to live in not only in Minnesota but the country! • Capable adults, concerned for the common good over party or business. • Certain issues just don't seem to get addressed quickly ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 305 • City council is nonpartisan however Kim Wilson brings political viewpoints vs being nonpartisan. Additionally she has made racially charged comments in open meetings which is concerning. City council members should not make racist comments towards people the are representing. • City Council seats should represent wards. • City remains safe and parks are still accessible. • Concerned about there commitment to uphold immigration law and support of ICE activities. ICE is upholding a mandated federal law and should be supported. • Council member Wilson politicizes city concerns. • Disagreed with their stance on not cooperating with ICE and immigration enforcement. • Don't like narrowing of streets, and reduction of main roads to intermittent single lanes. Lake Road is horrendous major access road. • Enforce woodbury parking policies • Enhanced cross walk signage would significantly help me feel safe and feel safer about my young teenage kids moving around the neighborhood. Encourage relook at the tree removal assistance program. It is not having intended affect to assist with financial cost of removing diseased trees. Several contractors informed us they artificially increase the price if they know the homeowner is applying for help because they think the city is paying. They dont realize is just a low cost loan. • Excellent city-planning for the future. • Extremely happy they wouldn't accept the ICE facility in Woodbury! • Focus on how you're supporting your citizens. We want schools and parks; not police training areas. • For the most part doing good - however would have like to see them take a more vocal stance on ICE in our community and ensuring local police were not helping or protecting them. • Forward thinking. • Full confidence in the Mayor and most of the city council, not Kim Wilson. • Great communication and listening and responding to the community • Great with communication on city business • Growth is not being responsibly managed. • I appreciate the mayor's level of communication. I believe she truly cares about our city's reputation and future growth. Thank you for not making social media platforms the only way to hear from the mayor (not everyone wants to be on social media). • I appreciated the mayor and city councils strong position and community engagement during the ICE detention center conversation. • I don't agree with everything they do but specially when it is liberal ideology that drives their decision • I don't have any issues with them. • I don't really have anything to complain about. • I feel like most have been responsive to recent events (ICE) etc. which is very appreciated. • I feel they are doing a good job but always room for improvement ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 306 • I heard that at a city council meeting it was made clear that no Ice facility would go up in Woodbury. That made me proud to live here. I had multiple friends and family send me texts about the rumors that there would be an Ice Facility in Woodbury. • I honestly don't even know who the mayor is, and I feel like I'm pretty tapped in. • I like the mayor she is great. However, a public hearing last year about roads made me feel the council had no clue about my area of Woodbury. I am not sure most of them have ever been on this side of town. • I like what I have seen • I love all of the work the city has done in planning for environmental stewardship for the future and the opportunities it gives residents to participate in that, I wish the city would get with the times and allow chickens like every other City in the surrounding area does • I observed the water pipes replacement construction last summer and I think it is very good action. • I personally am not happy with the political leanings of one or two of the council members - but balanced leadership is important for fair representation. • I really wish there was more statements against our neighbors being kidnapped by ICE and all of the scared residents and employees in our city. There has been some statements, but seems like more should be said. • I see the effort and I appreciate the hard work • I think all politics have groups pushing for one thing or another.The city does its best • I think development is happening too fast for the economic reality of the moment • I think government band schools in Woodbury and Minnesota goes overboard on diversity and inclusion. • I think they are fair and transparent. • I thought the response to a potential immigrant detention center was too lukewarm. There needed to be more urgency and outrage • I was impressed with how the city handled the potential ICE detention center on Hudson Road, I felt that the community was heard and certainly that the right decision was made. ICE and CBP activities have and will make our community LESS safe. • I wish more time was given to resident concerns. The mayor is very rarely available for public interaction, and it is nearly impossible to make it on a city agenda since it's set so far in advance. • I wish the public had more say in some of the projects the city council has approved (gold line) • I wish we would focus on local residents and how to increase their quality of life • I would appreciate a stronger relationship with the people of Woodbury. Listen to us. • I would like to see the city join the suburban consortium that are working together to address ICE presence in our communities. • I'm disappointed in statements (or lacktherof) that have been made in support/disagreement of ICE and the proposed ICE facility. They seem to be straddling a line at a time when the community needs to know clearly where they stand and what measures will be taken to protect the residents of this city. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 307 • I'm glad they blocked the ICE facility, but more needs to be done. I'm not as up to date on other actions as I only recently moved to this area within that last 6 months. • I've been to several City meetings, she works with people, listens and has their (our) best interest. • ICE in our community does not make me feel safe. • Id like to see Woodbury follow the federal laws and work with immigration enforcement • Increase in high density housing, bus lines, sprawling single family home communities densely packed, etc. are continuing to overflow the population of our city • It appears that they don't take all of the interests of the community into decision making • It feels like there is a lot of growth without sustainability plans on how public services and the city can adequately and safely support. Water quality being intricately tied into this. • It seems like they are doing the best they can with the resources available • Kim Wilson is awful and does she even live here? • Lack of response on ICE. not taking a stronger stance on The Royal Oaks road project causing unnecessary delays. Allowing some council members to continuously vote no on just about everything as well as wanting to "work shop" everything. • Mayor and city council address the issues that come up. • Mayor Burt has been very proactive on the water quality issue with the PFAS; she is showing up at many community events, showing that she genuinely cares; she communicates the State of the City with an in-person option. Most recently , she inquired immediately when the topic of the possible ICE detention center came up and communicated in a clear and timely manner about the situation. She is a wonderful person! • Mayor Burt is calm, open, and kind with great leadership skills. I appreciate that she seems very supportive of environmental stewardship issues and I respect how she handles the public comment aspects of the City Council meetings. • Mayor Jacob Frey is highly appreciated for the way he stood against ICE along with the common people. I appreciate Governor Tim Walz for standing by Minnesotans in their protests against ICE. We need to build our community by creating opportunities for diverse backgrounds of people to come together. I enjoyed having a meal with the Hmong community at WHS at thir new year celebration. Everyone should feel connected and sharing a meal is a perfect way to loosen up to each other and make new friends. • Metro micro and the new bus lines have been great. I would like to see a higher population density and less money spent on policing, though. • More public spaces & facilities are needed here. • Need ICE ban in the city • Needed to say more to stand up against ICE in our community. • No concerns from my viewpoint • No issues • Ofc raising taxes hurts some people but otherwise everything they do seems to be for the good of the people. • One City Council member is very racially discriminatory in her comments and I don't approve of her behavior in the meetings. • One council member always seems divisive and confrontational and less than honest ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 308 • One of the Council people is too much of a difficult person bringing her personal feelings and pains to the public forum. This is not productive. • Open to ideas & recommendations • Overall I agree with most of what is done, not everything • Overall I have not had any complaints nor have I had a reason to complain about our city council or Mayor. • Overall they are doing a good job, but they keep pushing out a better decision about backyard chicken and ducks. • Please just go use on what made Woodbury unique and different rather then try being like any other suburb. We used to be one of the top in everything or the Westside on the East but less and less now days. • Rarely hear from mayor or council. • really appreciated the advocacy for NOT having an ICE detention facility in Woodbury • Regarding the safety questions above, the main reason for my answers is regarding dogs not being leashed and rushing/attacking others. • Responding to detention center • See above comments regarding development • Seems fine. • She seems ok, she sometimes doesn't stand strong enough on inclusivity concerns in the community. • She seems overly concerned about diversity. • She's doing a fine job! • Slow new home construction permits - especially high-density housing. Let the city catch a breath instead of such fast growth with already limited resources like water restrictions. • So proud of our Mayor! • Some excellent • Sometimes they lack transparency and seem out of touch with residents • Spend too much tax money on projects like the bus line that do not seem beneficial to the greater good. The buses are nearly empty when I see them big waste of tax payers money. The amount of road closures and detours were ridiculous this past summer with the water projects. Woodbury has allowed to many new homes to be built in a short period of time then try to limit water use for yards and charge a lot for water if you fall out of lowest tier. Most families of 3 or more will not be able to stay in the lower cost tiers • Standing up to ICR • Still mad Gold Line didn't go to residents to vote. I feel like we were mislead • Stop raising taxes • Stoplights and traveling with the city of Woodbury as a whole. • Strongly supporting Woodbury's good fiscal management and response to the dangers ICE presents. • Taxes are going up too fast • Th mayor and most of the council make the right decisions based on professional staff and community input • Thank you for communication on the status of ICE and its activities. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 309 • The bottom line is, any mayor is just a person trying to do the best they can in an extremely large, and complicated job. • The city development is lacking. • the city is run good • The drivers in Eagle valley neighborhood go way too fast for narrow roads. Someone will get hurt or killed. Should be patrolled more, easy ticket area. • The Mayor and Council Members are hard working and honorable people. I'm not sure though if the city policy would work for non white residents. • The mayor and council respond to citizens both through their outreach and their response to citizen queries. • The Mayor was disrespectful to the League of Women Voters at recent City council meeting. Kim Wilson is an extremist and didn't hear what all the community speakers had shared for over an hour about the atrocities of ice. • There was one remote city council member at the last large meeting, not in Woodbury, who was so detached from the current activities in our community. Not only was she not physically in our community for a very important meeting, she is not representative of overall tone and opennness that I would hope a city council member would have here in Woodbury. • They do a fantastic job and have been through a lot in the past few years. They work well together as a team and make good decisions for the community as a whole • They focus on the basics: water, roads, public safety, business growth and economic development. • They have been active and forward about working toward good things for the city and making plans to continue that upward growth. • They need to take a stronger stance against ICE • They seem okay with the exception of the one city council member who is in favor of ICE. • Timely and swift action re ICE detention facility issue. • Too much emphasis on environment and social diversity. Focus on safety/security and economic development. • Trying too hard to stay neutral on micro-politics on the streets. Council meetings are one thing, but again, take a stand. The hispanic community is the backbone of the construction, entry level, restaurant and retail workforce in this City- with them afraid to work local businesses are doing poorly with customer service and efficiency. • Very well run city that tracks key metrics and reports progress on them. • Water quality needs to improve. Taxes are too high • We appreciate the mayor and the city council standing up against the proposed ice detention facility in Woodbury. • We could use less taxation • We have good, reasonable, consistent and thoughtful leadership. • We have the 4th largest hockey club in the state, yet the city of Woodbury does absolutely nothing to help with that growth. We're struggling to find ice (even with Woodbury Ice opening), we're struggling to get sponsorships (due to zero advertising availability within Mhealth), and our pricing is so high now we're actually losing membership from our community. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 310 • We've grown too fast and the city has not built more restaurants, retail, gas stations and roadways to handle the volume • We've lived in Woodbury for nearly 40 years and have always felt safe and that our leaders were doing a good job. We are growing very fast however, and we need to be very Cargill to maintain high standards and quality. • What are you looking for here? We like Our townhome area which is pretty private. Yet we are exposed to a moderate amount of traffic • Woodbury has added way to much high density housing • Woodbury is lacking in community-owned amenities compared to similar suburbs. Others have community centers with pools, fitness equip, theaters, etc. • Woodbury is thoughtfully executing a strategy for controlled growth to ensure economic prosperity and excellent parks and trails, along with stability of city services and environmental stewardship. • Work very hard together and open to the community for any questions • Would like to see a more moderate/bipartisan approach to city issues. Often feels left leaning and it should not lean left or right. Strongly or Somewhat Disapprove. • Address the taxes. They should not be this high • Again ICE showed true colors • Aggressive development plans making taxes unaffordable for retirees • An increase in property tax rates impacts all property and business owners in a negative manner. Simply discontinue unnecessary services and practices that do not benefit ALL residents to maintain tax rates at the current level. Stop expanding the reach of city government and allow citizens to spend their hard earned money to take care of their family and property. • Approving too much growth. • As a conservative voter, there is very little that I agree on with a liberal mayor. • As part time people, the City has become too big for them to be responsive to residents. They are not accessible. • Because there is one mind and one mind only it's to spend and tax the people. There's no financial responsibility no understanding of how families are struggling with bills and just more and more useless projects that we don't need to be done. Woodbury needs to have a 20% reduction in administrative staff and useless double programs. We don't need all the city planners we don't need Any more transportation issues just stop. • Because you won't stop trying to make us Edina. We don't want to be big. Stop it. • Build a bus station in Woodbury waste money ## • Bus Line • Cares to much about diversity • City council and Mayor spending too much money. Not everyone makes $200,000. Give those that have never had children a break on taxes or rebate. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 311 • City Council has been ignoring safety concerns regarding ICE in our community and specifically ignoring diverse population safety concerns. We trust fellow citizens protecting minority population in Woodbury rather than our law-enforcement. • Continued focus on building while not enough clean water for current residents is shameful and dangerous. Quality of Woodbury decreasing fast driven by low income housing push and uneeded bus lines. Police sirens are becoming a daily occurrence, Woodbury well on its way to becoming Brooklyn Park. • Council should have stopped the Gold line. It is a clear misuse of our tax dollars. MOST EVERYONE feels this way! • Expensive gold bus no one rides. Traffic congestion with increased housing developments that aren't affordable for singles with normal paying jobs. • Extremely slow pace with changing the ordinance to allow backyard hens in Woodbury city lots when ALL neighboring cities allow them including Minneapolis and St. Paul. Many neighbors and so many friends think Woodbury is prissy and stuck-up because they are dragging their feet with this. • Extremely unhappy with Kim Wilson's response to ICE. Stating that she is in support of ICE. Honestly disgusting and was the first time living in Woodbury that I was disappointed in what the city stands for. ICE has murdered two people in Minnesota, they have created fear in our own community, and their presence has deeply impacted many residents feeling of safety in Woodbury. Kim Wilson represents residents of Woodbury. She represents the city council and their image as a whole. I can say for myself and many others we have lost a lot of trust in Woodbury because of her comments. What should have been the response to community members concerns with ICE:https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/02/12/mankato-moving- to-require-federal-agents-to-demask-wear-ids-and-body-cams • Fiscal responsibility • Fix the roads • GOLD LINEtaxesMigrant population explosion Welfare housing, way to muchExpansion. Be more like Lake Elmo not Minneapolis More street lights needed Time the stop lights better • Had become too woke • Heavy taxes, Empty Bus cost vs benefit ratio waisting tax dollars, inflated home prices thus inflated property taxes. • Help non-chain restaurants grow. • Her stance and dismissiveness on chickens • Housing is too expensive and very little is done about crime. My car has been broken into 3 times in the past 6 years. I cant get out of here fast enough... • I believe the Mayor and city council have there own agenda, not what the Woodbury residents really want, it seems growth and bringing in as much taxes is all they want not a safe and tight net community. • I don't feel my explanation would make any difference. • I don't see any property taxes relief or environmental protection. Woodbury is overdeveloped and has no % mix of small family owned businesses vs big box. Woodbury is now at the point of pushing elders and retirees out of their homes due to ridiculously high property taxes. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 312 • I have seen racism on city council and believe motives of some leadership may not be in the best interests of a diverse community. • I just feel the projects they have carried out have not had Woodbury's best interest in mind. • I wanted a strong opposition stance to the possibility of a detention center being created in Woodbury. Other city mayors have done this. • I wish the city would take an actual stance on the kidnappings happening in our community. Unfortunate time to have a survey come out, but when leadership doesn't show up when fascism does, that's a problem. • I've have heard unwillingness to hear from community members from people in city council. It's also sometimes hard to get ahold of people via email • I've stated it already. Kim Wilson is a disgrace to the community with her stance on ICE and we have too many council members watch this government torment our once desirable city without taking strong stances against ICE. It's destroying our community (businesses and residence alike). • ICE allowed to use HERO Center • Increased taxes with minimal increase services. • It seems that the Gold Line bus project was a huge waste of money. Every time I've seen a bus, it's empty. That money could have been used for something much better for the community; like fixing our water issues faster; giving the public works a better location that isn't right in the middle of a neighborhood that is woken up every time the plows go out in the early morning hours. • Lack of any policy to prevent further ICE escalation • Lack of leadership on several core issues this year, including ICE and fare housing. • Lack of transparency and not actually listening to community members. Changing rules in "workshops" rubber stamping at council meetings without input from community. Not taking a stand against racism and discrimination. Allowing council members to speak that promotes racism and other members on the council not calling it out. Not protecting our vulnerable citizens. Acting nonpartisan when it is obvious from which lens council members are operating from. Overall very disappointing. • Leftist policies are destructive to our city. Tough on business progress, and destroy a safe community. • Management of the city. Taxes. • Massive spending and increasing taxes with nothing to show for it. • Mayor is out of touch with community as is Kim Wilson. • More notification, communication. Like when plows will be out. When you are thinking of changing roads. Telling people to take their trash cans off the roads after trash day. One lady just keeps hers out on the road all week. Let us know why the plow trucks drive around just putting salt down every 50 feet without plowing. Makes the roads horrible. Layers of compacted snow that turns to ice. Help promote fun things going on in the city. The polar plunge this past weekend when it was 50 degrees out sure didn't have many people. Done early and fast. They even asked if anyone wanted to jump again. • Need stronger anti ICE position. • Need to be leaders in a crisis ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 313 • Need to take a stronger stance against ICE. See what other cities are doing. • No attempt to lower taxes • Non white residents should feel that the city is a home/sanctuary and has things to offer them. • Oakdale declined the bus line, Woodbury should never have taken it. Those funds spent could have gone to residents for RO systems and more. The schools split between Cottage Grove, Stillwater, and Woodbury are outrageous. • Overdevelopment and significant tax increase while services are eroding • Please prioritize our safety (crime, water quality, snow removal, traffic conditions) and not wasting our money. • Poor decisions like the Gold line for example, taxes are out of control making it harder for people to afford living here. Too much growth requires more money. It used to be the developers absorbed it but now it seems like that is not the case. • Poor planning, wasted money, high taxes • Poor road construction choices resulting in terrible traffic. • Re-read my summary above. • Rubber stamp "staff" recommendations. Do not ask high quality questions. • See above. The building of homes ridiculous. • See above. You've let your constituents down when they needed you most. • See comments related to increasing taxes • Seeing the excessive designs in roads and buildings being built and wasting money on the process. Our taxes continually rising year over year. • She doesn't know what she's doing and is never even seen!! • Stop upping our taxes. All of us have to budget and figure out our expenses without asking for more money. We have to make cuts to our spending and be smarter with our money • Stop worrying about the image and start putting money back in my pocket as a resident here. • Street renovation has been poorly managed. Leaders have lost touch with what is important as the area expands. • Take a stance against ICE. • Taxes are too high. Tired of paying for every low-income pet project. • Taxes taxes taxes - that's all you know how to do and you will never ever reduce them- it's become a drug to our city. In fact I am currently searching for a home in Wisconsin because of our city, county, state taxes, including the outrageous sales tax. • Taxes! To worried about social issues. • The city council needs to take a harder line against ICE presence in Woodbury. • The City does not well represent the different geographical precincts, and cultural diversity and modes of communication. Mayoral meetings with community are not diverse and inclusive and do not represent our diverse communities. • The city needs to stand for the constitution and for the privacy of its citizens. Having a backbone and standing up for the law are not easy or fun but needs to happen. • The constant deli bs is maddening. • The constant spending of money to look good at the cost of residents ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 314 • The Council and the Mayor seem to believe growth at any cost is desirable. It is not! Under their leadership many view the reputation of Woodbury to be rapidly degrading. The focus on diversity at any cost is the core element of the degradation. • The emphasis on bringing more affordable housing and section 8 residents to the city has directly correlated to the necessary raise in taxes for public safety costs and the decline in road quality, maintenance and clearing. • The goal of bringing "diversity" is driving more strain on our services and is an unintended but obvious side affect. • The gold line is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. The fact that any of you who supported that can look in a mirror is sad.Stop allowing growth until the water and schools can keep up.The cops are great in this city.The fact that a community like Woodbury doesn't have a public pool is sad.The parks are great but we don't need anymore. • The mayor and city council are focused on issues that focus on demographics that do not relate to all residents. Affordability and safety should be primary concern. • The mayor did not sign on to the letter from over 100 mayors asking the Governor and legislature to stop the fraud and rethink the policies that are bankrupting cities. The mayor does not support federal authority doing their job to remove illegals from our city. I do appreciate her focus on water quality, but that is about the end of mutual agreement on her decision-making and the majority of the board. • The only one that seems to have any sense over there is kim wilson. The rest are always pushing wokeness as far as i can tell. • There is a disrespect on the city council. Most of the council are not very open to the community questiins • There is seemingly no effort in making Woodbury more affordable for all when taxes, and property taxes consistently increase. Woodbury used to feel warm and welcoming and now it is so commercialized, that is gone and that is a direct reflection on our leadership. Bringing in more and more and taking more and more isn't the leadership style I like. You are to represent the ENTIRE city - and I don't see that happening anywhere • They are approving way too many dense housing developments and low income housing developments. Stop the growth and preserve green space. Lower city spending on frivolous things like the new city buildings which has gone way over budget. We do not want to pay more taxes to fund your mismanagement. We are seriously considering moving out of state due to high taxes and mismanagement due to the ineptitude of our leadership. • They only care about looking good to the state's governor and others. They don't care in the least what the community thinks and feels, unless they have the same political affiliations. If you don't agree with the mayor and council, they don't feel you matter. • They only seem to have the time/resources/interest for large projects and not smaller projects/interest that would actually create a sense of community. Big projects cover a large # of people; smaller projects actually create a vibrant community. • They're thinking more about tax revenue from hotels and restaurants than the safety of our wonderful immigrant neighbors. • This government used to be run by an amazing strong woman who actually listened to the people wanted instead of just trying to get money. The bus line is useless, and a waste of ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 315 money. Also the new townhomes are not nice, and do not fit in with our neighborhood. We all did not want it to happen, but the government pushed it anyway because of money. The budget is so bloated, and should be shrunk, and the taxes are terrible. School choice should be a thing. I do not want to pay for public school when my children will not go to public school. • TO much development. They listen to citizen input and ignore it. To much emphasis and support for business • To worried about social issues, provide good quality city services. • Too fast on growth and not enough thought on how it affects traffic, water and services. • Too much "woke", not enough attention paid to traffic and overbuilding issues. • Too much building of homes and buildings. Taxes increasing every year. It's becoming unaffordable to live here • Too much focus on woke issues. Not enough respect for upper level in come earners. Too much respect for Walz. • Too much growth too quickly straining resources and increasing traffic. • Too much housing development • Too much population, too many apartments • Too much spending! Property taxes should be decreasing with all the housing and commercial development. • Too political. She needs to take a stand. Example: Do you support an ICE facility in Woodbury, or not? Wishy washy political answers to that question is all we heard. Step up. Get a spine, quit trying to please everyone because in the end you'll simply piss off everyone. • Unaware of all neighbors • Unchecked growth outpacing resources. • uninvolved with community • Very disappointed that the city does not seem to be willing to stand up on behalf of residents against ICE activities. I am ashamed that the city's businesses are hosting ICE • Voices from the community have been ignored during meetings. City council does not reply to speakers at meetings, city staff is directed to do so and uncertain if city council or mayor is listening to community feedback. • We are expanding too quickly and pushing out the history of our city. Not everything has to be developed • We could come down and ask for changes but we have never been heard, they just plow ahead with their own agenda always • What are they doing to help people with lower taxes and job opportunities? Nothing. • With the gold line and the cost to out in and maintain - bad decision/wasted taxes. I am reminded everyday that I drive bielenberg and see the nearly empty buses. With the taxes in Woodbury. We keep spending and spending. Need to live within means and quit taxing. Should be enough with existing taxes to not have to pay a Woodbury transportation tax. Especially, when there is already a metro Transporatation tax. Insane. • Woke, tax and spend with zero common sense ## • YOU HAVE LET NOTHING BUT FOREIGNERS INVADE THIS CITY. YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOU ## SEW. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 316 Don’t Know. • Are they keeping ICE out?? • Don't know much about her • Don't know what they are doing • Honestly don't know what you are doing • I do not follow council activities. • I have no idea what they are doing - more communication would be great. • I have seen cars being stolen stopped walking around neighborhood Neighborhood smell of weed • I like some of the statements she has made about anti ice but I don't know anything else about her. • I'm new to the community. • Just moved to woodbury and haven't gotten to see what the mayor is doing. • Not familiar • Not sure what they are doing • Only see them right before voting if that • Really not aware of what happens on city council or who the mayor is. • See comments above. Please build a outdoor aquatic center. • Unaware • what exactly do they do? Question 8a: From what you know, how would you rate the job performance of the ## Woodbury City Staff? – Why Excellent or Good. • Again, I've seen them in person, and all care about our community. • All city depts do great work. It shows at the meetings with limited questions making approvals go smooth because of all that has been done up front and behind the scenes leading up to the approval item. • All contact has been good • All interactions with city are good • all interactions with city staff I have had are wonderful • All my interactions have been positive • Always been very happy with any help I've needed at city off. • Always helpful • Always very helpful! • Answer any questions given • Any time I have called or written an email, I get a useful response and usually pretty quickly, too. I have been impressed w the city staff overall • Are open to citizens comments and concerns. • As they should be for the equitable salaries they are paid • City hall employees are friendly. • City staff I've encountered have been excellent (DMV, parks, street repair, police). ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 317 • City staff is always great and ready to help. • City staff seems great. • Clean • Comprehensive consideration of all information pertaining to current and future city planning; positive engagement with citizens. • Dealings with city staff are positive and professional, from City Hall to the golf course, etc. • DMV are usually pleasant even when busy • Employees are always friendly and respectful • EMTs are consummate professionals • Enforce woodbury parking policies • Engineering team is awesome! • Every interaction I have is top tier. The Park and Rec team constantly impresses me and my family with their creativity and professionalism. • Everyone I have interacted with has been friendly and knowledgeable • Everyone seems friendly and helpful when visiting City Hall. • Everything is clean. • Few times I called the city to ask questions, the staffs were courteous, knowledgeable, and helpful! • General cuty maintenance is excellent • Good communication • Good experienced in my interactions with city staff • Good experiences with city staff • Good work clearing snow and keeping streets in good repair. • Happy we finally got maps again! • Have always had excellent service • Have no issues, rarely interact. • I am glad that I could think of calling 911 to call the local Woodbury police if ICE showed up at my door. Otherwise I would be very scared for my family. • I am not aware of any problems • I am very upset with the redesign of the roads through the Powers Lake neighborhood. The narrowing of Waterfront drive has created less safe, not more safe, conditions for pedestrians and bikers. Cars still race through the narrow sections going both directions. Vehicles park in the narrowed sections rather than parking at the wider sections. It reduces visibility. It pushes pedestrians farther into the street. The little sections of sidewalk are not connected through the narrowed areas and look ugly. The bright yellow posts are an eye sore. Adding a bike or pedestrian lane, or better yet an actual trail, along Waterfront would have been a much safer choice. We have children and elderly people who have to walk in the middle of the road in order to access trails. Please do not do this to any other neighborhoods! It makes us feel less safe, not more safe. Drivers not from the area don't expect the narrowing, and others know about it but choose to drive in ways that prioritize their own efficient travel over the wellbeing of those who have to walk, run, or bike along those stretches of road. Narrow roads do not enhance safety! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 318 • I believe we have some of the best and most qualified staff in the state of MN and perhaps even the entire country. • I have had excellent communication whenever I have needed questions answered. • i have had good experiences with woodbury parks and rec programs • I have had no problems with city staff • I have worked with and emailed individuals from the Central Park and I loved how responsive and cheerful they are. Always willing to help. • I haven't had much contact, but what I have had has been good • I think many city employees are wonderful and caring people, especially the police and firefighters, excellent and they are all so very supportive. • I've always been impressed with city employees and I've lived here for about 4 decades • I've had positive interactions with city staff, thus far. My issue sits primarily with administration (City Council). • I've only had to communicate with them three times. Two were great one the person messed up but someone at the county fixed it. • In the best sense of the word, they are bureaucrats -- professional staffers that do their jobs efficiently and impartially without getting in the way. • Interaction's have been good • Interactions with staff have always been professional and kind. • It is hard to respond to this one due to limited interaction. • Minor interactions have been positive • Most people are nice • My overall experience with city staff has been positive. Even when dealing with g with an issue they were professional, kind, and helpful. Great job! • my past interactions have been very favorable • My son works for the city ## • N/A • Need to Push back more against met council high low income density housing • No complaints or concerns. • No known issues • Nothing to add • Our city employees are FABULOUS! They are knowledgeable and always attentive. • Our city is well maintained, clean, plowed, etc. Our police and fire departments are the best of the best! I am always impressed by their speed and accuracy in situations that arise in our city • Overall I think things are going well. • Parks are a strong area in the city. There are opportunities for most and the additional parks make it more accessible • Permits and inspections are easy. • Professional, courteous, capable! • Proper communication. • Public Works rep gave me bad information with a rude attitude on top of it. It took weeks and multiple contacts to get a reply to begin with. The bad information cost me about $500. • Responsive with inquiries and ordinance compliance issues. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 319 • Seem aligned with mission to make Woodbury an excellent place to live. • Several staff have reached out to me when council would not. • So far so good. • Sometimes face obstacles with completing roads / parks, etc, and adequately servicing the south side. • The city has professional staff that have the community's best interest at heart. • The few folks I know there go out of their way to help you. • The landscaping throughout the city is outstanding. • The local parks seem to be in good shape as well as the roads. Idk about any other areas. • The Metro Miracle League is great! • There is always room for improvements • they always been very good when i have contracted them • They appear to keep up with what is needed. • They are diligent and take pride in how their job impacts Woodbury. Unless the city bosses restrict them. • They are very responsive and helpful. • They are very responsive. • They do a good job, but you can tell they don't love their job • They educate the public • They have always been helpful and very responsive to any requests that I have made. • They respond back to you in a timely manner if you call them. • They seem nice and knowledgeable • They so a good job • Things appear to be running smoothly and communication is clear with the City's newsletter. • Things seem to run well in the city with minimal conflict and drama. • those who I've had interactions with do their jobs but may not be overly friendly • Very efficient • Very little drama around city services. Communicate consistently through multiple channels. • Very professional • We have a nice well-kept city with amazing outdoor spaces. Roads are typically in good shape. City hall staff are helpful and friendly. • We have a well maintained community . • We have the absolute WORST snow plow drivers. We have had friends visit from neighboring towns and comment about how poorly our streets are plowed in the winter and how the lows come by and block in resident's driveways. Other communities have processes and equipment to divert the snow away from driveways while doing an excellent job of clearing the street. Also, I've gone through this survey and at several points you ask for elaboration or comments but there is no way to make a comment so I'm adding it here. No chickens, please! That's doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Keep them in the zones you already have but do not expand chickens to other areas! I cannot imagine chickens in Wedgewood, Stonemill Farms, Dancing Waters, or any of the new, upscale neighborhoods. Please do not expand the chicken zones. That opens up a potential for so many problems for citizens with ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 320 regard to the quiet enjoyment of their properties and for the city as well. No chickens!!! Neighborhoods are not farms! • We've had good conversations with city staff about environmental issues in our HOA and local storm water pond. • Went to a meeting about the Woodbury Heights road project and the manager of the project was not a great person to talk too. • When I've had an occasion to interact with them they've always been helpful. • Whenever I encounter staff, they are professional and knowledgeable. • Whenever I've worked with City staff they have been helpful and knowledgeable. • With my experience I would say the vast majority of city staff are excellent at their jobs. A few very biased outliers drop my rating to good. • Would have been ideal to keep the Woodbury High School pool open. Compared to other suburbs, Woodbury lacks in aquatic options and quality. • Your permit department staff is awesome. The electrical inspector is my favorite. Good advice before hand and always punctual. Fair or Poor. • Again, we seem to be in spend thrift mode. Road infrastructure and community needs get put aside for flashing dressing (perforated panels at central park) inconvenient trends ( like rotaries). When where is a new communty rec center with a pool to replace the ones SowashCo is closing. • Again. Allowing too much building of homes and buildings. Too much traffic and congestion • Can't keep roads clean in winter and way over staffed. • City staff used to be responsive. Now they hide behind email and are mostly inaccessible. • Don't know all that they do, just the hockey side • Forcing growth in the wrong areas. Please build a outdoor aquatic center. • I don't believe Destination Woodbury tourism belongs in city government.Too much money was spent with ad agency. We don't need bigger local government. • I dont think they to give feedback to the citiz • I feel like some departments are over staffed. • Increasing taxes and prices • Like the majority of elected officials, they get a little carried away with they money they've been given (that isn't theirs) • Na • Negativity from Steve (along with other members) and complete disregard to the petition collected regarding allowing backyard hens in city lots • Not enough local companies/businesses hiring for high schoolers. • Not responsive to the needs of residents. • Not seeing growth in retail, gas, convenience stores with so much housing getting built in southern Woodbury. • Please just go use on what made Woodbury unique and different rather then try being like any other suburb. We used to be one of the top in everything or the Westside on the East but ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 321 less and less now days. Loosening the codes and standards aren't great making things cheap and not fit with what's around. So many violations sad to see the city on decline. • Poor communication. Increased budget with minimal improvements. Street projects are way above budget and poorly communicated. • Prioritize the wrong things, not your job to make diversity happen • Reduced quality of city/county services (ex snow clearing, lines for city/county services, increased speeding, lack of return of phone call regarding a big concern over road safety on St John's Dr - no one ever even bothered to call back) • Reporting sidewalks and areas that need attention has gone unattended. • Same as previous answers • See above comments • Smart spending and making our city attractive and a premier place to visit is not on their minds • Systems are outdated • The budget is to bloated, and is spent on stupid things! • The dmv is slower than molassas • There's no common sense except for a very few people in the city government. Again, we need to look at every program. We need to look at the ridiculous taxes that we are required today we need to stop programs that are not needed. For example, the schools need to teach arithmetic, reading and writing not all the gender stuff. Our kids can't even write and do math at grade level, and we are still pushing all this garbage • They are adequate. • They aren't listening to what we want on above matter. • They focus too much on making themselves feel good than doing the hard work necessary to reduce crime. • They're focused more on getting more housing approved so the can collect more taxes than servicing it the existing people of the community. Our roads, schools and healthofacilities cannot handle more people moving to Woodbury. Please stop the growth. • Too much focus on buzz words and feelings, I want to see focus on good services and lowering our taxes. • Very difficult to deal with staff. Rude • Woodbury police, fire departments and road crews (maintenance, snowplow, etc) appear to be doing an excellent job. Public safety and the enforcement of city ordinances and laws is essential to all Woodbury residents. • Working with the water services department was very difficult. ## • YOU HAVE LET NOTHING BUT FOREIGNERS INVADE THIS CITY. YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOU ## SEW. Don’t Know. • Also don't know what they do • Don't know much • Don't know what you're doing or how it affects the city or me • Have not been involved with any staff. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 322 • Haven't had any interaction • Haven't interacted with city staff • Haven't interacted. • I don't know what city staff does • I don't work with them or even know their job responsibilities. • I'm new to the community • I've only seen a few council meetings • If they are the ones who plan the schedule for the construction on roads, then it's "very poor" rating. • No contact • No idea • Other than a specific individual, I feel the city staff is doing a great job with the resources they have to work with. • Police are good! What other staff? • There are far too many of them • Unaware • We don't know because we don't spend the entire year here. But we keep track of what's going on. Question 17a: Please elaborate on any comments or thoughts you have related to your answer to question #17. Very or Somewhat satisfied. • Allowing backyard hens is literally pro environmental stewardship. That recent video you guys put out on Facebook informing residents about "free Chicken Grit" they can get to help with icy paths/driveways was very cringe seeing that backyard hens are still banned in Woodbury. • Allowing HOA to incur more stringent rules on yard and nature has disabled our ability to renature the earth. Take a stand against rules that prevent sustainability • But still too many businesses watering on hot summer afternoons! • can see you are trying • City should sell trees have curbside pick up's for types of garbage • Doing very well. Thank you very much! • Far too much "left" agendas. The fact that running the gold line without a public vote. I feel the city does whatever it needs to do to keep the government tap flowing and make sure that they shine in the eye of the liberal left. • For a city the size of Woodbury it would be nice to have home compost pickup services • Going too green will cost us money, solar and wind aren't reliable, still need fossil fuels. • good communication on water system • Good response to PFAS problems. • Happy to have the direction come from within city experts and city residents, the study was enlightening and a necessary part of public and city government cooperation. Now we need to see the plan implemented and a timeframe in public communications, please! ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 323 • I am for allowing chickens in any residential lot. I think they would enhance communities, provide fresh eggs, minimize waste by using food scraps as chicken food, among many other benefits. • I appreciate that environmental concerns are given some thought. • I appreciate the efforts to conserve water and educate and assist residents on safe disposal practices. • I don't really care about environmental stuff, that has no actual value to me, lower taxes and more money in my pocket does. • I enjoy what Woodbury has done over the years with parks and prairie restoration. I love the flowers and the parks. • I feel they could do better. They need an option for recycling yard waste - the county location is a ridiculously long drive for those in the southern portion of the country/Woodbury where there is a heavier population concentration • I have participated in environmental stewardship council meetings and I appreciate the opportunity to do that as well as all of the goals the city has, how many resources it's putting towards the effort • I know Woodbury is moving forward with backyard and environment initiatives, I want to see more inclusive backyard poultry ordinances • I participate in the composting program. I really appreciate it. • I think that efforts to demonstrate and encourage composting could improve. Incentives to encourage water conservation and solar energy could improve. Low interest city loans for solar energy projects for businesses and residents would be good. • I think the city is following guidelines of Washington county. • I would like more studies done regarding environmental impact of the multitude of fertilisers, pesticides and bio-chemicals we are currently using throughout the city. The green areas around housing developments look gorgeously lush - but at what environmental cost? • I would like to see more opportunities for citizen participation. • I would love for the city to use dark sky friendly street lights to reduce light pollution (and encourage businesses to do so as well). • I would love to see ways the city could encourage folks to move away from mown & blown landscapes that are highly "drenched" in insecticides. Last year we were visited by 9 different pest control salesmen (yes, they were all men). I was appalled at their ignorance beyond the info given them by their companies. Yes, I asked many basic questions. Their answers ranged between copy/paste of the company info (which they could not explain further) to complete falsehoods. One man told me that his company sprayed for mosquitoes because mosquitoes transmit HIV! At that point I told him his information was incorrect; when he insisted he was correct, I asked if he would like to speak to my husband, who is a physician! The "pest guy" quickly departed. My bigger concern? Many people in our community are not knowledgeable about the potential environmental dangers, which I believe is likely leading to an excess use of insecticides. • Increase communication with HOA residents what the expectations are for watering vs HOA rules. • It feels like they are doing a good job. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 324 • It's fine • Keep green space. • Love the green spaces and the trails with set backs around the lakes. Plantings and maintenance • More should be done to discourage chemical fertilizers, forever chemicals etc. Allow bee hives on non rural lots. Encourage non traditional lawns. Bee lawns etc. There wasn't an option to answer the chicken question. Fine with chickens in the city. • More trees and better landscaping would be better. • More trees! • My kids are grown now but we participated in all of the preschool and school aged programs when they were little and they were excellent. These are vital to Woodbury being a great community for families! I do wish we had a community pool & more areas for older teenagers to hang out. High schoolers like to go to Jerry's, Kowalski's and the library to hangout and study with their friends but this isn't always welcomed by community members. There's not much for young adults to do. • Need a community pool • Need more emphasis on environmental issues • None • One of the counselortried to hand wave the nurse of a citizen by federal agents. That is unaccaptable. This isn't Afghanistan. We have due process for a reason. • Over development of the city has changed the city & the idea of developing every square inch, as I was told, does not appeal to me. We are inching our way to the congestion of Edina. • Please build a outdoor aquatic center. • Poor clean energy investments. • Regarding Woodbury's government performance, I feel that it's becoming too crowded with all the new housing being allowed. • Rules related to lawns an open areas are outdated. They prioritize suburban uniformity at the expense of the environment. • Slow down building and keep open land that is left. Plant more trees when possible. • Some access to the natural preserves can use better signage. • Sprinkling restraints number if wells. • Street sweeping is excessive. In working from home, I counted up to three times per week in my non-new neighborhood with no construction. • The city , despite farcical public "listening sessions" is doing what it wants to do regardless of resident input. • The City does significant work in this area...but often does not receive the credit they deserve. Also, we don't need to be like Europe and dig ourselves into a black hole...there are other pressing issues in the City • The City is thoughtful without being too aggressive in this area. Stay the course. • The City makes effort • The programs are good and helpful • The water situation is unfortunate m, but the city is actively taking steps to improve that. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 325 • There is excessive affordable housing that has decreased property values and has introduced more crime in the community. The new gold bus line is a waste of taxpayer money and has also decreased property value in that immediate vicinity by causing increased police vigilance. • There is more work to do to incentivize energy conservation for businesses and residents. Improve food scraps program administered by county. • They have adopted a stewardship plan. Their effort in the area are. Admirable. • This survey is really too long to be honest. People will not complete it. We. • Too much corporate influence, not attractive location for small businesses. Restaurants close too early. • Too much development. Would be nice to have a waterpark • Too much salt on roads that goes into lakes each winter.Composting program is good. • Try to keep chemicals out of the lakes and ponds. Nice environmental center • Very happy with the amount of water management and native plantings etc in the city! Really great job in my opinion. Also thank you for not spraying weed killer on grass areas that don't really matter. • We are only allowed to water on 2days( great idea) but people and businesses pay no attention to the rules. • We can always do more. Use more native perennials in landscaping. Stop over developments. • We need more opportunities to test our drinking water • we need to spend more money on another Bus line to drive up and down streets empty • We need to stop building and save some land fir open space and the wild animals that are being forced to to move i to the neighborhoods. It is green spaces that influence weather and air quality. • Wish drinking water was safe to drink like it is in other cities. Also wish we had a community center like Eden Prairie or Shoreview. I would greatly use that. Even cottage grove does a better job with parks and rec facilities as I'm next to the nice new rentable facility that the built on the Ravine Pkwy. That is so nice and attached to my Woodbury neighborhood but don't think I can use it as I'm not a resident. Wish more things like that were done for all the thousands of South side new owners and residents. • With the closure of the Woodbury middle and high school pools we have section of our community that is missing out on access to swim lessons. This is our most vulnerable population where they do not have community pools and often do not have the financial means to pay for private lessons or ability to get to them. This is something our community needs to address. Either adding a pool back at the middleschool or getting a community pool in that part of Woodbury. • Woodbury didn't ask for the PFAS problem. The city is making lemons out of lemonade by using 3M money to complete a once-in-a-century overhaul of the water system. • Would like even more focus on sustainability and renewable energy. Would love for Woodbury to lead Minnesota in this • Your water lift thing makes very loud noises around 5am, waking up our whole house. NOT HAPPY! This was never discussed with neighbors. Our quality of life is greatly diminished. Very or Somewhat dissatisfied. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 326 • A bit to much focus. • Again, the building is a drain on resources such as water which we already have a problem with. • Again, this city pushes development and it's too much. Stop wasting tax payers money on things they don't even use (like the goldline) • As previously noted the ponds and lakes are polluted. More should be done to prevent this and bring awareness to it. Need bike stands everywhere, even shopping areas. Bike stands are hard to find and discourage environmentally good and healthy options of biking. Need sidewalks in retail areas where there are none (for safer and healthier walking and biking). • City workers are not proactive in regularly sending notices with city ordinance violations such as multiple trailers and or boats, trash bins, winter street parking etc. • Constantly increasing taxes when the city continues to grow exponentially and at a ridiculous rate. Seems out of line Seems that the median or average wage earner is being taxed to death for the city's decision to continue constant building and growth. Where is the equality in tax distribution. • Continued development and use of water. Not promoting more native grass and low maintenance lawns, as well as commercial watering. • Diminishing amount of undeveloped green space • Don't overplay environmental stewardship as an issue. • Dont waste money on green initiatives like swapping city vehicles out for electric versions. • Environmental stewardship is very important and should be considered a top priority. • Excessive road salt being used. • Focus on core city functions. No one cares about the constant fluff projects for the politicians to get their pictures taken. • Get rid of sprinklers!!! • I do care if I get in to a wreck bcuz you are no longer using salt to de ice the roads. I don't care about the ponds as much as being safe and I don't see you regulating the golf courses using all the chemicals they do to save the ponds. • I don't believe that money, energy, or time should be spent worrying about environmental stewardship at the city level. I would much prefer that is left to state/federal level. • I know there have been a lot of work with environmental stewardship but it's not enough. The environment is the lifeblood of a community's health and well-being. Poor restrictions on businesses and housing developments are probably the largest mitigatable local facors. But the federal government is putting the whole country at a net negative for baseline protections so if Woodbury wants to be a leader in this aspect they would have to 'overcompensate' to counter the current/past federal subversion. • I might not be the perfect person to answer this, I came from a smaller town that was on top of everything. Even with part time employees. We have beautiful lakes in this town. We should be utilizing them. Kayaking paddle boarding has become very popular, but yet these lakes seem to have issues with blue green algae. My understanding is our storm drains Go directly to the lakes. I am all for using salt on roads. It's better than people dying and accidents, but why is meth being done when people mow grass clippings into the city streets and it's the same people every week over and over again. I've watched people blow their grass clippings ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 327 out of their yards into the streets blow, their leaves out of the yards and into the streets. All that ends up in the lakes, causing blue green algae. So then you end up driving over to Lake Elmo, Oak Grove, Stillwater Egan to utilize their lakes because they're clean. Square Lake is become very popular for paddle boards. Maybe the city should have somebody that actually goes around and gives people citations when they're putting their grass clippings in the street. It also gets very slippery when it's raining out. • I think the day will come when we look back and realize we were overzealous about PFAS mitigation. The cost and disruption to reduce PFAS water concentrations at the parts per trillion level is not justified by the scientific or medical evidence. • I think we need full transparency on every program - maybe a complete audit like we're doing statewide. • I understand the need/desire to expand and develop, but I have watched the city develop what feels like every square foot of land at an alarming rate. It feels like housing developments, strip malls, and office parks get built before the impacts on roads and schools and nature is considered. Green space, beyond city parks, is important. • I would like to see Tamarack nature preserve actually preserved. It is being chipped away at, most recently by the addition of a disc golf course. This is an absurd place to add a course. The water treatment plant at the edge of it, the removal of trees and widening of the paths that allow work vehicles to drive in the northern edge all add to the degradation of a unique and precious environment that Woodbury should be preserving. • I'm not rich enough to care about environmental stewardship • Increase trash pick up in public places, water quality, green rebates • Its more wasted money on green initiatives, again Woodbury is good at burning money • Live on a pond in Woodbury that is so green with algae in the summer it's not pleasant to look at and smells bad. Asked about getting help from the city and got no where. I would hope the city would be willing to help out residents in this matter. • More effort needed in this area • More public trash and recycling receptacles need to be out. • My drinking water is testing very poorly. • Need more nature, less development • Other than water? What other activities do you consider under this role? We need to have a lower density city than where we are headed. Families per acre is way too high than we can support, and it shows. We have great, numerous green spaces, but need to also slow the growth, and reduce the density within that growth. • Our taxes are too high for everything! Council does not consider what the residents want. Leave the natural habitats alone! • Our water issues • Please share how the Environmental Stewardship Plan adopted by the City Council and Mayor will be followed for all identified goals. • Progress is being made but our lakes and ponds are too green. • Recycling not done well • see my previous comments about pollinators and fruit trees ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 328 • So your parks people come through with these huge grass cutters and cut along Valley Creek; some species of birds have their nests in the tall grasses. Last summer my worst fears about that came true; and I have wanted to walk much since as it was very traumatic. There had been a nest of baby birds that they, and their parents, had been decapitated. Bodies, feathers, and heads were all over the sidewalk. Imagine a child swing that?? I get you need the grass trimmed for fire risk, but can't you look for and mark nests, first?!! I'm sure volunteers would even do it. ## • STOP TRYING TO PUSH EVIRONMENT PROPAGANDA ON US. FIX THE CLEAN WATER ## PROBLEM AND THAT IS IT. • Stop wasting money on environmental stewardship boondoggles • The basin by Markgrafs Lake has not been maintained and is an eyesore. The invasive species by the lake has become overgrown obscuring the view of the lake. • The environmental stewardship plan that was put in place doesn't seem to be followed. I.e: allowing backyard chickens • The trees in Pioneer Park are not regularly trimmed/maintained. There are scrub trees that have been growing inside the pine trees for years, resulting in killing the pines. • The use of excessive salting in winter and lack of ordinance around environmentally friendly landscaping is worrisome. The water wasted on city properties that don't require lawn watering or even sidewalk watering is disheartening. • They need to do better job of managing growth and costs so our property taxes don't increase so much each year. Do a better job of fiscal management. Very unhappy with the trajectory of our property tax bills and not getting anything better each year as a result. • Too many McMansions. • Too much focus on culture, low income, and woke issues. • Too much government - new vehicles, buildings, sidewalks, employees... • too woke on climate change • Water issues. We spend a lot of money on bottled water so we don't drink the water in our own home. • We are not getting the value of the money spent • We don't need to spend more money trying to be more environmental friendly. Taxes are going to drive people out and you'll have nothing. • We need to plant more trees on the boulevards. There is lot of space between consecutive trees. It will cool down the city during peak summer and provide fresher air. It will help mitigate climate change to a small extent that our city can provide. • Where are the trees?!? • Woodbury development is overreaching. There is too much development and not enough larger portions of land for wildlife land recreation Way too much development • Woodbury has systematically built on top of every "buildable" piece of wetland that flows from Tanners Lake and Battle Creek Lake down through Valley Creek to the St. Croix River And 3M has been poisoning our water since the 70's. Yay us. • You have allowed too much growth too fast. Don’t Know. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 329 • I am not aware of the city's environmental programs. • I don't know anything about the environmental efforts Woodbury is taking. • Idk what the city is doing for the environment • If I am not aware of environmental stewardship efforts then they may not be highlighted enough. I do see a lot of tree removal/dead trees or tree planting with questionable placement for the long term along roadways and medians. • Very disappointed in how the city handled ICE in our community. Made me have lower faith in government acting in the best interested and fairly to our community. • Winter snow plowing has been very slow & poor over the last few years. It can be 6+ hours before their first pass. And I've noticed this year they are not cleaning to the curb, which is important for the neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks. After the last snowfall, after the snow plows cleared the streets, they missed a large section, which covered a metal sewer grate. This resulted in my dog falling into the grate and being very badly cut, requiring emergency veterinary care. • Would be great to get more communication from the city. Question 25: What types of contact, if any, have you had over the last year with ## Woodbury Police? – Other • A few medical responses to my neighbors • A neighbor shooting squirrels from one of his windows. • Asked a question of what's acceptable, and lawful • Assistance with an elderly and confused driver. • Casual conversations in public ## • Causal Coffee • Cert volunteer • Child called by accident • Community conversation/ Committee meeting • Community events • Community service officer for off leash pet • Cops showed up for unknown reasons, then again bc my son was taking in groceries and it looked suspicious per the report, just randomly coming with no valid reason, being harassed for unknown reasons, cops couldn't address the caller or validate the claims so they left but continued to keep coming back, had to tell the officer to please stop interfering with our lives and trespassing on our property if there are no valid reasons, officer just kept stating he had to report to the call but had little to no information or knowledge. Told them you are mostly at the wrong house, had to stop answering door bell and allow ring and security cameras to do the work. • Crazy neighbor. Alley about my dog. My son in law who is a Police Sergeant in another district had to report the fake cop to his supervisor for his unprofessional conduc • Domestic issue • Emailed police officer for recommendation of a law enforcement staffer to speak at our church about online safety for kids. ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 330 • Have had them in to speak with our HOA members about community involvement, have encountered them at a protest, have emailed with them regarding follow up questions from a city council meeting I attended online. • Have personal relationships with many Woodbury officers. • Help with car not starting • Help with possible computer scam. Done very great! • I formations inquiry in person at police station • I reached out to the city about the gun incident at Woodbury High School. I was instead referred to the Woodbury Police. I spoke with a policy officer, which was great, but they handled the situation very well. It was the elected city officials that I wanted to speak with but they brushed me off. • Ice protests • Injured duck, recommended we take to nature center hospital. Police looking for report of coyote howling (it was & this is normal nightly - not a bother) while we were out looking at northern lights. • Interfacing with the Chief on veteran events • Involved when police were called for a pedestrian-car accident. • Limited engagement at community events • Medical situation first to arrive ## • Member of Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee • My son goes to East Ridge high school and he LOVES the officers at the high school! He talks to them often and would love to be a police officer one day! • My son was involved in a fender bender at Woodbury High school, police were called by other driver • Neighbor of police call/incident • neighborhood night out • Night to unite • Officers at city events. • Permit to purchase application • police were in the neighborhood on a domestic call and were very pleasant to other neighbors • Positive interaction with my child while biking. They approached us at a stop sign and talked with her about wearing her helmet and following the rules and gave her a coupon to Dairy Queen. • Questioned by officer • Received services as a suicidal person. • Report others • Reported a youth brawl in Starbucks parking lot. • Reported loose dog, running through Neighbourhood ## • Reported Something • Requested police report • Responded to parents personal alarms • Ride along ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 331 • social conversation at pubic events • The Police Chief spoke at a League of Women Voters online event about how to interface safely and legally with ICE. • There was an incident at my son's school and I talked to an officer to see if there were any additional steps I should take. • They returned an item that belonged to me found and reported by another resident • They sometimes respond to 911 calls for EMS at the clinic I work at • Violating parking restrictions • Was threatened with arrest for participating in a protest • Witness to a traffic accident • Woodbury days! Also city hall during city council meeting. Both experiences excellent. • Work for a different law enforcement agency that directly works with and around Woodbury ## PD. Question 28: In addition to responding to emergency calls, which of the following, if any, do you think should be the top policing priority for Woodbury Police – Other • All are very important • All of the above • All of the above. • Citizen safety when unconstitutional searches and seizures occur • Driving around and being seen in the community • Ebikes and scooter regulations enforced re places to use and age of users. I've been mowed down by kids on those things on trails more than once! • enforcing laws broken by federal agents within woodbury - prime example is the swapping of license plates on vehicles on properties within the city • In case of emergencies • Keeping our city safe whether it be through traffic violations, or patrolling parks and other public areas. Preventing crime • Protecting us from ICE • Protecting Woodbury residents from ICE • Really all of the above • Rebuilding trust and community understanding following the recent ICE actions of Minnesota. I'm concerned that the actions by many of the ICE agents (when they have not followed due process, or certain laws, or the Constitution and when they have not worn standard uniforms; not driven standard, clearly labeled law enforcement vehicles; not been identifiable (particularly because of masks); not worn body cameras - until (supposedly) recently) have potentially made the work and safety of our local police more difficult. I really appreciated the participation of our police chief in the recent LWV webinar. Great information! I'm strongly hoping that resources (time, money, experts..) will be devoted to our police department to address issues that have likely arisen, through no fault of their own. ## • Shoplifting and Organized Crime • Support citizens with ICE's violation of constitutional rights ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 332 • WORKING WITH ICE TO ARREST AND DEPORT ILLEGALS. NO ONE CARES ABOUT "promoting a positive relations" THESE ARE COPS WHO PROTECT THE REAL COMMUNITY NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS YOU DISGUSTING WOKE PIECES OF GARBAGE. You will reap what you sew. • Would love to see them interact more with the community as community service officers. Before COVID there was a "competition" where they had bingo cards and one item was to come in and play basketball with the youth in the community. I remember them coming in and playing basketball with the teens at the Y, it was really cool to see! Also love when they stop and give kids wearing bike helmets DQ gift certificates. Great to see them in community Question D7: What is your gender?– Identify in another way • Does it matter • this is problem in America there are only 2 sexes in America female or male and I am a male ## City of Woodbury Resident Survey March 2026 ## Report of Results Page 333 ## Appendix H: Survey Materials The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Woodbury. ## 8B ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-105 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Consider Approval of Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan ## Summary The City of Woodbury has prepared the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. The intent of the plan is to document existing conditions, provide guidance on lot and home types, roadway design and access management, stormwater management approach, parks and open space, and pedestrian movements. The attached report provides additional information on the master plan. ## Recommendation At their May 4, 2026 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. At that time, they recommended approval of the plan by a 6-0 vote. Staff concur and recommend Council approve the attached resolution adopting the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. ## Fiscal Implications All necessary improvements identified within the master plan will be reviewed with each residential subdivision review and within the Capital Improvement Plan. ## Policy ## 2040 Comprehensive Plan ## CD-COMDEV-3.26 Master Plans ## CD-COMDEV-3.1 Phase 2 Growth Management Strategy ## Public Process April 7, 2025Property owner questionnaire July 28, 2025Property owner meeting kick off January 22, 2026Property owner meeting concept review ## February 2, 2026Planning Commission Workshop ## February 25, 2026City Council Workshop March 2, 2026Surrounding area neighborhood meeting ## March 25, 2026City Council Workshop May 4, 2026Planning Commission approval ## Council Letter 26-105 May 13, 2026 Page 2 Due to the variety of interests and parcel sizes within the master plan area, staff facilitated numerous one-on-one meetings with property owners within the plan area. ## Background CD-COMDEV-3.26 Master Plans provides policy requirements and direction for the creation of master plans. Master plans are required: 1. Prior to opening a development phase or sub-phase. 2. Prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development for properties with common ownership that are within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and measure more than 100 acres. The proposed plan area is highlighted in red above. The Cottage Grove Drive Area Master Plan (the Plan) includes approximately 370 acres of land with varied ownership, development interests and timing. The master plan contains the remaining area of Sub-Phase 2D that has not been previously studied with a master plan, along with some areas of Phase 3 to ensure future design consistency when those phases are opened for development. The Plan provides guidance for land development from home types and sizes, and interconnectivity ## Council Letter 26-105 May 13, 2026 Page 3 between properties in terms of roadway connections, utilities and infrastructure, and trails. For additional details please see the attached staff report and draft master plan report. ## Written By:Gina McCormack, Senior Planner ## Approved Through:Eric Searles, City Planner/Assistant Community Development Director ## Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director ## Attachments:1. Resolution ## 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Mary 4, 2026 ## 3. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan ## 4. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan Report ## Council Letter 26-105 May 13, 2026 Page 4 Resolution 26-63 Resolution of the City of Woodbury ## Washington County, Minnesota ## Adopting the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted CD-COMDEV-3.26 Master Plans to guide the creation of master plans to implement the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodbury wishes to guide development patterns and memorialize policy decisions in advance of opening the next sub-phase (Sub-Phase 2D) for development; and WHEREAS, a guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to provide for planned and orderly growth by managing timing, location and characteristics of growth; and WHEREAS, a guiding principle of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to meet community housing needs by encouraging the development of diverse housing to accommodate people of all ages, income levels and family status while maintaining high quality standards and amenities; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan is to align property owner goals for development with efficient extension of municipal services, anticipate transportation network needs, provide a network of trails and open space to enhance the plan area, and preserve key natural resources prior to the opening of Sub-Phase 2D for development; and WHEREAS, detailed planning and engineering analysis has occurred in the areas of stormwater management, transportation, and trunk utility planning and said analysis have informed ## the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan evaluated the opportunities for greenway corridors, park opportunities and for the preservation of high-quality woodlands as identified within the site plan; and WHEREAS, property owner engagement was held to gather development interest, timing and property owner vision for the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 24-208 of the Woodbury City Code identifies a finding that future Planned Unit Development (PUD) Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be contingent on compliance with the adopted master plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan and recommended approval by a 6-0 vote. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan is hereby adopted. Resolution 26-63 May 13, 2026 Page 2 of 2 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 13 th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## CITY OF WOODBURY ## PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 4, 2026 ## Project No.:2025-00604Prepared By:Gina McCormack ## Senior Planner 651-714-3531 gina.mccormack@woodburymn.gov ## Project Name: Cottage Grove Drive Master PlanRecommendation: Approval Request: Master PlanSite Size:370 acres ## PROPOSAL The City of Woodbury has prepared the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. The intent of the plan is to document existing conditions, provide guidance on lot and home types, roadway design and access management, stormwater management approach, parks and open space, and pedestrian movements. The attached report provides additional information on the master plan. ## BACKGROUND City Council Directive 3.26 provides policy requirements and direction for the creation of master plans. Master plans are required: 1. Prior to opening a development phase or sub-phase. 2. Prior to the approval of a Planned Unit Development for properties with common ownership that are within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and measure more than 100 acres. The proposed plan area is highlighted in red below. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 2 of 6 The Cottage Grove Drive Area Master Plan (the Plan) includes approximately 370 acres of land with varied ownership, development interests and timing. The master plan contains the remaining area of Sub-Phase 2D that has not been studied with a master plan, along with some areas of Phase 3 to ensure future design consistency when those phases are opened for development. Public Engagement – - In advance of beginning the master plan work, staff sent out a questionnaire to property owners in the area to understand the current use of their property, if development was an opportunity, and timing for future plans. These questionnaires led to several individual property owner meetings with staff. Due to the variety of interests and parcel sizes within the master plan area, staff has coordinated: -Two (2) formal property owner meetings for properties within the boundary -15+ individual property owner meetings -One (1) surrounding area formal neighborhood meeting Components – The master plan report covers a variety of considerations for the project area. For the purposes of this staff report a summary of the report highlights are included here, for additional details please review the attached report. 1. Development context The Plan identifies a study area of approximately 370 acres in both Phase 2D and Phase 3 within the southeast portion of Woodbury. The area has a variety of ownership including 19 different property owners and 13 homesteads. While some of these are anticipated to be sold to developers, other owners are interested in remaining on their properties for years to come. The utilities to serve the future development will extend from the low density residential subdivisions directly to the west. The surrounding areas adjacent to the master plan are identified within the context map below. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 3 of 6 2. Regional Stormwater management approach The City of Woodbury consulted with Barr Engineering for an environmental planning study to identify natural resource areas and future stormwater management approaches in areas with future development in the City. One of the subject sites was this master plan area and the findings indicated a majority of the project area (approximately 249 acres) could be served by a regional stormwater management system on one property. The regional approach has numerous benefits for the subject area including: Removal of individual basins by development Improved efficiency for maintenance and design This area may contain karst topography throughout the area which would make individual stormwater management per site challenging to design and implement. Ability to expand the adjacent stormwater management system from the development to the west (Sienna Grove). Ability to use the regional system to expand greenway corridor viewshed. The graphic below represents the concept stormwater management for the project area with the regional stormwater basin shown in the red box: ## 3. Housing Diversity Multiple comprehensive plans, including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, have established a vision for Places to Live to offer housing choices to people in all stages of life. One of the consistent land use policies looks to ensure diversity of housing is provided with a mix of 50% single-family units and 50% multi-family units. The master plan proposes a range of lot ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 4 of 6 sizes include 45-50’, 55-60’, 65’+ and 100’+ lots. The areas identified in dark orange are for townhomes or small lot single family (45 foot minimum) to meet the need for multi-family units. The housing market has identified challenges with constructing townhomes at this time due rising homeowners association (HOA) and increased insurance costs. The Plan is intended to provide flexibility to allow either 45’ lots or townhomes, within the dark orange/brown areas above, to ensure diversity of housing products and prices can be achieved regardless of market conditions. The master plan also identifies areas for the creation of 100 foot wide lots. One area is based on property owner feedback to create an area of potential custom lots for non-national builders and to establish a unique neighborhood with robust landscaping and screening from nursery plants. The other area is adjacent to Dale Road. It was identified that each property owner in this location has a variety of timing and development interests so the large lots provide two solutions: Allow each property to create value on the property while being able to retain the existing home. 100 foot lots would be accessed from private drives on Dale Road. Preservation of the existing high quality woodlands on the northern portion of the lots in exchange for access management flexibility through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. ## 4. Park and Open Space Network The Plan thoughtfully laid out greenway corridors, a neighborhood park and natural resource preservation within the context of the uses and surrounding property uses. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Greenway corridor: The extension of the greenway into the master plan boundary will essentially connect Woodbury Drive to Andy’s Bark Park. The corridor will incorporate the regional stormwater management system, trunk sewer alignment, and trails before heading south to Dale Road and an existing drainage way on the properties to the south. Neighborhood park: The comprehensive plan identifies a neighborhood park to be established north of Dale Road, east of Cottage Grove Drive. The master plan shows two potential locations where this park could be developed along with performance standards for the park including a tot lot, setback from adjacent roadways, tie to the greenway corridor and review of bump out parking stalls if feasible. High quality woodlands: The previously mentioned Barr Engineering study identified natural resources within future development areas of the community. The woodlands located on the north half of properties 13-17 were identified as high quality and home to 300 oak trees in excellent condition. The City seeks to preserve these natural resources by providing an alternate development pattern and requirements for these lots in exchange for an easement for protection. ## Planning Commission Staff Report May 4, 2026 Page 6 of 6 ## 5. Street Typology The master plan establishes access management requirements for Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road along with concepts of how these roads could be interconnected property by property. These connections and final roadway design will be completed with subdivision applications. The purpose of the master plan is to establish the sections for the major collector roads (Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road), right-of-way requirements, residential road design standards and private drive standards. ## RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan, project number 2025-00604. ## ATTACHMENTS ## 1. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan ## 2. Draft Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan report ## H e r m a n ## La n e ## DALE RD ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## COTTAGE GROVE DR ## DALE RD ## DALE RD ## EXISTING LARGE ## HOMES SITES ## EXISTING ## HOMES SITES ## EXISTING ## HOMES SITE ## REGIONAL ## STORMWATER ## NEEDED ## SOUTH ## PARK ## OPPORTUNITY ## PARK ## OPPORTUNITY ## POTENTIAL GRADE SEPERATED ## CROSSING OR RRFB ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE ## MASTER PLAN ## DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ## STORMWATER BMP ## WETLAND ## RESTORATION ## STORMWATER BMP ## FUTURE ## INTERSECTION ## CONTROL LIKELY A ## ROUND-A-BOUT ## POTENTIAL GRADE ## SEPERATED/UNDERPASS ## - GRANT FUNDED ## Street Right of Way ## Pipeline Easment ## Trails ## Project Boundary ## Water Bodies and Wetlands ## LEGEND ## COLOR Greenway and ## Park Areas ## LOT DIMENSION ## 100’ + W 65’ + ## W ## 55’ -60’ W 45’ - 50’ W or ## Townhomes 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 12 13 14151617 18 21 22 19 20 11 ## 0200400 FT ## N ## Street Right of Way ## Full Intersections ## Round-A-Bout ## Pedestrian Underpass ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Trails ## Sidewalks ## Pedestrian Underpass ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Stormwater Basins ## LEGEND ## Owner NameNet AcresNumber Minimum - 2 ## Unit per Acres Maximum - 3.5 ## Units per Acre ## 1 TMT Land Xi LLC11.672341 ## 2 LAEMMLE WILLIAM & MARLENE A16.473358 ## 3 ROACH CHARLES & EZRIEL4.27915 ## 4 TMT Land Xi LLC8.651730 ## 5 CLANCY ANNE M3.61713 ## 6 ROUSE ELISABETH D4.44916 ## 7 3M CHEMICAL OPERATIONS LLC26.225292 ## 8GEHRKE VAUGHN L & KELLY J 5.071018 ## 9 GORDON D TANK LIV TRS ETAL62.11124217 ## 10 LAMBRIDES JACOB J2.3658 ## 11 SPRINGER THOMAS J & JULIE L4.42915 ## 12 RYGH WOODBURY LLP25.295189 ## 13GLORIA J SHARP REV TRS & COLIN M 5.211018 ## 14 LIKES WILLIAM W3.15611 ## 15 MANION KARLY M3.13611 ## 16 LOE DOUGLAS MICHAEL3.09611 ## 17 MOORE KEVIN W & ROXANNE M3.8813 ## 18 TMT Land Xi LLC17.483561 ## 19 IGI 14.292950 ## 20 SPQR WOODBURY SOUTH LLC3.32712 ## 21 IGI 21.014274 ## 22 IGI 10.282136 ## Totals 259.34519908 1 ## MASTER PLAN AND ## DESIGN GUIDELINES ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE & DALE ROAD 04.24.2026 ## DRAFT 2 ## Acknowledgments ## Prepared for: The City of Woodbury Prepared by: ## •Woodbury City Staff •Planning Commission •City Council ## 800 Washington Ave N, Suite 207, ## Minneapolis, MN ## 8301 Valley Creek Rd, Woodbury, MN Overview 3 3 3 4 ## Project Purpose/Background ## Design Guidelines ## Plan ## Location ## Development Context 5 ## Existing Conditions 6 6 ## Master Plan Area ## Background ## Site Mapping 7 ## Proposed Development 12 Context 12 ## Proposed Plan 13 ## Master Plan Goals 14 ## Development Typologies 15 ## Lot Sizes/Products 15 ## Street Typologies 20 Streets 20 ## Intersections 22 ## Open Space Network 24 ## Trails/Park/Open Space 24 ## Stormwater 26 Appendix 27 ## Table of Contents 3 •Focused on guiding development that creates a strong sense of place. •Used alongside the required design standards in the zoning code. •May be altered in the future as part of development review. How should the design guidelines be used? •Property owners and developers should review these guidelines prior to submitting a development application. •Design guidelines and master plan elements will be reviewed via subdivision application. Consistency with the Plan will be reviewed as part of the findings of fact for future planned unit developments. ## Design Guidelines The Cottage Grove and Dale Road Master Plan (the Plan) provides guidelines for development planning. The following sections provide guidance for land development from home types and sizes, and interconnectivity between properties in terms of roadway connections, utilities and infrastructure, and trails. What are design guidelines? ## Project Purpose This master plan aligns with development phasing in the 2040 ## Comprehensive Plan, guiding properties within the master plan area for development between 2026 and 2040. The Plan seeks to align property owner goals for development with efficient extension of municipal services, anticipated transportation network needs, provide a network of trails and open space to enhance the plan area, and preserve key natural resources. ## OVERVIEW 4 ## Plan Location ## 370.41 ACRES Figure 1. Project area map ## Existing Non-conforming Uses ## The master plan area contains existing business uses in the form of greenhouses, plant nursery and a landscape contractor. These uses were established in the 1980s under the nursery, horticulture provision within the R-1, Urban Reserve District ordinance. These uses are regulated under the nonconforming uses section within City Code. The greenhouse use and nursery use are permitted to continue with normal maintenance permitted, however they cannot be expanded or enlarged and must be removed if the use is discontinued for a period of more than 12 months, or with subdivision and development of the property. The landscape business is considered nonconforming but due to ordinance requirements, must apply for an interim conditional use permit to ensure the site is being maintained in good condition until such time the property is residentially subdivided and the use is required to cease. 5 ## Development Context ## Trunk Utilities Currently, rural lots within the master plan area are served by individual septic treatment systems and private wells for sewer and potable water. Future development will require extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water utilities to accommodate increased densities and demand. Figure 22 in the Appendix PG 32 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies future trunk sanitary sewer routes within the master plan area to support development phasing. Two gravity trunk lines will drain westward and meet at a node along Cottage Grove Drive. Figure 23 in the Appendix PG 33 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies two future 16 inch potable water mains within the master plan area, one along Cottage Grove Drive and the other along Dale Road. ## Stormwater Study ## The City of Woodbury has contracted with Barr Engineering ## Co mpany for a environmental planning study to identify future natural resources, greenways and recommended stormwater management approach options for a variety of sites in the community, including the master plan area. The final environmental planning study recommends a regional stormwater management approach for 249 acres generally north of Dale Road within the master plan area. The study identifies the use of the property owned by Ezriel Roach for this system. The regional system is approximately 11 acres in size, and ties into the stormwater management system within the Sienna Grove development to the west. This is identified in Figure 17 in the Appendix PG 28. Refinement of stormwater management design and requirements will be completed with development applications. ## Karst Karst geology is a sub-surface feature formed by the dissolution of soluble bedrock by water, which allows cracks and fissures to form underground. The cracks and fissures expand over time, creating underground passages and caves, posing potential sinkhole risks, especially when stormwater retention ponds or other stormwater infrastructure are located in karst sites. For example, during a heavy rain event in Woodbury in 2005 that exceeded a 100-year storm event, excessive rainfall and flooding caused a sinkhole to form in a regional stormwater pond. The sinkhole was likely caused by the weight of the pond water collapsing an existing cave. Figure 9-5 from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies "Near Surface Karst Features", sites with 50 feet or less of cover to St. Peter Sandstone. Much of the master plan area is above karst features, requiring careful consideration in development siting and intensity, especially as it pertains to stormwater infrastructure which further supports the need for a regional stormwater management approach. New developments in the project site will be required to take soil borings in locations with proposed stormwater treatment systems to identify potential sinkhole risks, which may impact stormwater infrastructure siting and methods per the City’s Stormwater Guide. ## Greenway Corridor According to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, greenway corridors should be used whenever possible to link parks and open space areas. Greenway corridors may integrate trails to allow active living or nature uses. While planning development patterns for the master plan area, identifying potential greenway corridors connecting stormwater infrastructure, wetlands, and parks, such as Andy’s Bark Park, is a priority. The design goal for the project was to connect the existing trail and greenway system at Woodbury Drive to Andy's Bark Park. 6 ## Master Plan Area & Context The area is located in the southeast portion of Woodbury and is currently owned by several property owners (19 total). The area consists of approximately 13 existing homesteads, agricultural fields, nursery/greenhouse uses and woodland or open space. Some of these rural properties are anticipated to be sold by the owners for development in the coming years when the sub-phase opens for development and municipal utilities are available. It is also identified that some of the property owners do not intend to develop regardless of these improvements. The area is surrounded by low density residential land uses to the west and north. Adjacent to the east of the area is an existing city owned dog park, Andy’s Bark Park. To the south are existing agricultural fields guided as Urban Reserve land use. ## Site Factors Natural factors impacting future development include steep slopes, k arst geology, FEMA-mapped floodplain, and existing high quality woodlands. Other factors include existing homes, utility easements, proposed and platted developments, and planned future road improvements. ## Proposed Development The area is anticipated to deliver low density residential land uses; greenways and trails; parks and open space; and stormwater management. As part of the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Places to Shop land uses were reviewed at the intersection of Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive. At that time, and still true today, the existing and future vehicle trip counts were not high enough to support these uses. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan identifies future mixed use (retail use opportunities) at Cottage ## Grove Drive/Bailey Road and Manning Avenue/ Bailey Road. The proposed development patterns and timeline align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which guides the site for low density residential use and development. The maps on the following pages further articulate the existing site conditions. ## EXISTING CONDITIONS ## Master Plan Area Background Looking east off of Cottage Grove Drive towards the exiting tree farm ## Looking SW off of Dale Road 7 ## Existing Property Use ## Figure 2. Existing Land Use Map 8 ## Figure 3. Property Ownership Map ## Property Ownership 9 ## Figure 4. Natural Resources Map ## Natural Resources 10 ## Figure 5. Development Constraints Map ## Dale Rd ## Dale Rd ## Cottage Grove Dr ## Development Constraints 11 ## Figure 6. Utility Easements Map ## Utility Easements 12 ## PROPOSED PLAN ## Connection to Background ## The master plan utilized the background information of the site, maps, property owner feedback, market conditions, and staff guidance to develop a preferred plan. This Plan works around the natural features that exist on the site such as wetlands, woodlands, and topography. It incorporates the regional stormwater management planning from the BARR study as well as integrates other stormwater management best management practices south of Dale Road. There are several existing homesteads and this Plan identifies these have the ability remain in the near-term or long-term. The intersections accommodate the necessary access management for future roadways set at a 1/8 mile spacing, per the corridor design principles. ## Context Figure 7. Context map in relation to surrounding developments Surrounding the master plan area are several different uses including a nursery/container field, a ˊashington ʶounty public works facility, electrical su bstation, future developments and urban reserve land areasʡ This ˃lan is designed to align with e˫isting development points and establish areas for connection to future development areas. 13 ## Proposed Plan ## Figure 8. Proposed Plan 14 ## Master Plan Goals Land use patterns and development typologies The 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision for Places to Live to offer housing choices to people in all stages of life from first homes to dwellings that allow graceful aging. One of the policies within the Places to Live section establishes a policy to maintain a mix of housing which includes 50 percent single-family and 50 percent multi-family/ attainable housing types. The Plan identifies areas for townhomes or small lot single family (45-50 feet) to meet these diversity needs. The market has identified challenges with constructing townhomes at this time due to rising homeowners association (HOA) and insurance costs. The Plan builds in flexibility to allow either 45 foot minimum lots or townhomes, to ensure diversity of housing products and prices can still be achieved regardless of market conditions. Land use patterns and developments must align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides the project site for Low Density Residential uses. Housing types aligning with Low Density Residential include single- family homes, twin homes, townhomes, and detached townhomes. Open space preservation/ conservation design strategies Future development should protect identified natural resources as identified in Figure 9-4 of the 2040 Comprehensive plan. Identified natural resources in the Plan include existing woodlands just south of Andy’s Bark Park. Park/open space connections and trail system To align with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, pedestrian and open space connections should be provided to achieve a relationship with the larger Woodbury community. Future developments should include connections to the nearby Andy’s Bark Park, future trails identified in Figure 8-11 of the Comprehensive Plan, and proposed greenways identified in Figure 9-4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Ideally, connections will be in the form of accessible multi-use trails, which will provide connections to the broader pedestrian network. Development magnitude and density Land use patterns and developments must align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides the project site for Low Density Residential uses and identifies the density range as 2-3.5 units per acre. The proposed development patterns meet the density threshold by providing a range between 519- 908 gross units within the Plan. Further, areas will be removed from this calculation including tree protection area, regional stormwater management basin, major road right-of-way, and greenway corridors to calculate net density. ## DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES Lot sizes ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions ## 45-50 Foot Lot Layouts ## Figure 9. 45 Foot Lot Layout ## 45 Foot Minimum Product Type Woodbury has a commitment to housing choice diversity through multi-family and single family which supports 45 foot minimum lots/townhomes. It also allows for flexibility due to market conditions. 45 foot lots may allow for building pads (30 feet wide x 50 feet deep) while providing adequate area for future investment into the property such as additions or accessory structures. Additionally, reduced driveway width may be required to accommodate snow storage and lands cape area. Maximum Sale Price (45 to 49 foot lots) The City is committed to providing attainable housing options for residents of all income levels and backgrounds. Increasing housing costs have made it challenging for many, especially first-time homebuyers, to find suitable housing within their price point. This master plan intends to leverage single family lot width flexibility to dimensions not seen before (45’- 49’) through the planning unit development (PUD) process. In return for this flexibility, a future PUD would require a sale price cap to ensure a direct correlation between lot reduction and attainability, which is anticipated to be between 110-120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Due to uncertainty of when the development is known, a f irm AMI price point is not recommended, and instead should be established within the PUD. Townhomes and single family lots 50 feet and above would be required to meet PUD flexibility requirements but would not be required to have a maximum sale price. ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from RO ## W 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 16 ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions 55- ## 60 F ## oot Lot Layouts ## 55 Foot Product Type House dimensions can vary within the 55 foot lot but space is provided to fit a building pad at the size of 35’ by 60’. 55 foot lots have been established throughout the community to allow for single family homes with 2-3 car garages and villa homes ## with HOA maintenance. The Plan identifies a variety of areas where these could be established within a neighborhood or as a standalone development. ## Figure 10. 55 Foot Lot Layout ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 17 ## 65+ Foot Lot Layouts ## 65 Foot Product Type The house dimensions can vary within 65 foot lots but is provided to fit a ˕˨i˟din ̊ pad at the size of 45 feet by 70 feetʡ ʿots ʩʨ feet and above represent a more standard single family home lot size d˨rin ̊ the last 20 years. This lot size allows for a variety of home products, garage ˦i˭e˦ , accessory structures, villas, and the like to be constructed. ## Figure 11. 65’ Lot Layout ## Setbacks Dimensions ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 25’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ ## Key Map 18 ## 100+ Foot Lot Layout (IGI Ownership) ## Figure 12.1. 100’ Lot Layout ## Setbacks Dimensions ## Key Map ## 100 Foot Product ## Type Overall, the building pad dimensions can vary as these lots are anticipated as custom home sites. The property owner has identified a unique vision for this site to create 100 foot lots for non-national builders. The owner is the long time operator of the nursery and is looking to create robust landscaping and screening onsite as well. Staff respects each property owners decision to develop and establish property goals with this vision. ## House Pad Front Yard ## Setback from ROW 35’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from ROW 20’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard setback 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum 125’ 19 ## Figure 12.2. 100 Foot Lot Layout 100+ Foot ## Lot Layouts (Private Drives off of Dale Road) ## Key Map ## Setbacks Dimensions 100 ʹoot Product Type Overall, the building pad dimensions can vary within the lot as these lots are anticipated as custom home sites. 100 foot lots are shown located off of Dale Road, allo˪in ̊ c˨rrent ˣroˣerty o˪ner˦ to ˣartially develop their property (the open areas south of the larger woodland and existing homesteads). Adding these lots will retain value in the existing homesteads and ensure the high quality woodlands can be retained. During the engagement process for the Plan, staff met with the property owners of the 10-acre properties highlighted above. During those meetings a variety of development interest and timelines were expressed and it was determined it would be a benefit to each property to control their own development and eliminate the need for all lots to be developed together. Based on that feedback, it is identified that each property would connect to City utilities, when available, and subdivide a few lots on the southern portion of their land- if development is desired. It is anticipated flexibility will be needed to allow for private driveways to serve these lots and the number of access points on Dale Road. The PUD process will be utilized for this flexibility, and in exchange staff would work with the homeowners to establish an easement over the high quality woodlands on each property. ## House Pad Front Yard Setback from private drive 35’ ## House Pad Side Yard ## Setback from Dale ## Road 50’ Garage side yard setback 5’ House side yard set back 10’ Rear yard setback35’ Major roadway setback 50’ Lot depth minimum125’ 20 ## LEGEND ## Major Collector Roads ## Residential Roads* ## Private Drives/Driveways Master plan area boundary ʹinal design and alignment of this section of ʷale Road shall be dictated by ## Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway standards with steep grades and other constraints consideredʡ ## STREET TYPOLOGIES ## Figure 13. Street Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. 21 •provides connections with and among neighborhoods •access management restrictions for driveways •no parking •trail on each side of roadway •trees within boulevards to calm traffic ## Residential Streets “Residential Streets” are identified as STl-8 in the City’s Roadway Corridor Design Principles. A residential street typically has a 60 foot ROW. Some of the principles that should be included with in these ROWs are as follows: •sidewalks on one side of roadway •trees within boulevards •50 feet of ROW for cul-de-sacs ## Private Drives A private drive is not a street type incl˨ded ˪ithin the ## Roadway Corridor Design Principles. However, the ʶity requires all private drives to be constructured at a ˠiniˠ˨ˠ of ʥʧ feet in width. ## Private Drive Example ## Major Collector Road Example ## Residential Street Example ## Street Types and Layouts ## Major Collector Roads The major collector roads in the Plan are Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive. Based on staff review of the vehicle trips and right-of-way (ROW) needs, these roads shall be designed to meet a D1 street specification within the City's Roadway Corridor Design Principles. Dale Road is identified to need 160 feet of ROW and Cottage Grove Drive needs 120 feet of ROW. Cottage Grove Drive design provides opportunities to preserve existing trees through the use of roadway medians and meandering trails where feasible. Some of the principles that should be included with in these ROWs are as follows: 22 ## Intersections ## LEGEND Full Intersections (1/8 mile spacing) Controlled intersection likely a roundabout Pedestrian Crossing (refuge or grade separated if feasible) Master plan area boundary ## Figure 14. Intersection Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes . Future dog park entrance re- alignment with a full access intersection. 23 ## Roundabout The City has reviewed the intersection of Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive and determined this will need future intersection control which is likely to be a roundabout. The traffic volumes will be reviewed and ROW will be acquired in order to facilitate this future control. The Engineering Department will lead the design and review of this corridor. ## Full Intersections ## Th e Plan establishes full movement intersections with a minimum of 1/8 mile spacing, as required by the Roadway Corridor Design Principles. ## Pedestrian Intersections The proposed trail within the Plan incorporates two different primary pedestrian crossings. At the Dale ## Road pedestrian crossing location, the City may review an opportunity to seek grant funding for a grade separated crossing, for trail user safety. If this option is not funded by grants, the trails will be directed to an intersection for crossing instead of creating a mid-block crossing. ## Intersection Amenities Typical intersection amenities could include the following: high visibility crosswalks, truncated domes, and pedestrian crossing signs. ## Intersection Types and Layouts 24 ## OPEN SPACE NETWORK ## LEGEND ## Street Right of Way ## Trails ## Roadway Adjacent Trails ## Sidewalks ## Potential Underpasses or Pedestrian crossing treatment Master plan area boundary ## Figure 15. Trails and Open Space Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. 25 •Two greenway corridors. One that connects Woodbury Drive to Andy's Bark Park and another that runs south to connect Andy's Bark Park to lots south of Dale Road. •Trail connection to Andy’s Bark Park at the northeast corner of the development through some of the existing vegetated and natural areas. •Trail connection along the utility easement. ## Greenways •Maintain 100 foot width to allow for a trail alignment with interest. •Include a minimum 8 foot wide multi-use trail. •Use native vegetation or other low maintenance plantings to provide visual interest, enhance ecological diversity, and reduce maintenance. ## Trails around Stormwater •Include a minimum 8 foot wide trail to serve pedestrians. •Provide small seating areas such as benches, picnic tables, or overlooks where feasible. ## Trails along Utility Easements •Include a minimum 8 foot wide trail to serve residential and community members •Offset the trail to one side to allow for larger native planting areas and landscaping for the trail on the outside/adjacent lots of the easement. ## Parks •New parks in the Plan are meant to enhance the existing natural aspects of the site and provide community members access to the natural areas. •The Plan identifies the creation of a neighborhood park in one of two potential locations identified. Park space should acknowledge performance standards of: -Located no less than 50 feet from an adjacent roadway. Not adjacent to a collector road or major arterial. -Tot lot component to be planned with Parks and Recreation. -Consideration for bump out or pull in parking. ## Typical Trails/Parks/Open Space Amenities New parks and trails through the Plan are meant to enhance existing park amenities and move pedestrians and cyclists through greenway corridors connected to a proposed trail and sidewalk network along streets. Parks and trails introduced in the master plan area include: 26 ## Stormwater ## Figure 16. Stormwater Location and Types Diagram *Residential roads within this exhibit are shown for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent actual development requirements, except for access management purposes. ## LEGEND ## Stormwater Locations ## Wetland Location ## Water Flow Master plan area boundary 27 ## APPENDIX ## COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE MASTER PLAN 04.24.2026 ## DRAFT 28 ## Infiltration Basin ## NWL = 914 NWL Area = 4.5 ac Depth = 2' (0.5 in/hr) ## Wet Pond ## NWL = 914 NWL Area = 3.5 ac Required Stormwater Treatment for 250 ac development (assumed 35.6% impervious) --Infiltration volume = 8.2 ac-ft --Infiltration top area = 4.5 ac --Wet pond dead storage volume = 19.4 ac-ft --Wet pond NWL area = 3.5 ac Total NWL area for stormwater treatment = 8 ac Existing floodplain storage to 925.5 ft = 129.9 ac-ft (not including outlot storage) Proposed floodplain storage to 925.5 ft = 190.7 ac-ft (+61.2 ac-ft) Berm Elevation = 922 Existing floodplain area west of Sienna Grove = 18.02 ac Proposed floodplain area = 11.18 ac Tie into existing ## Sienna Grove BMP ## BAI ## L ## E ## Y ## R ## D ## COTTAGE GROVE D ## R ## D ## A ## L ## E RD 95 ## BAILEY’S ## ARBOR PARK ## IDLE ACRE ## PARK ## STONEMILL ## FARMS SOUTH ## PARK ## ANDY’S ## BARK PARK ## WEDGEWOOD ## PARK ## EAGLE ## VALLEY ## PARK 01,0002,000500 ## Feet ́ ## WOODBURY CITY LIMIT ## PROJECT BOUNDARY ## STORMWATER FLOW ## 100’ WIDE GREENWAY CORRIDOR ## CITY PARK ## WOODLAND ## NWI WETLAND ## FILTRATION BASIN ## INFILTRATION BASIN ## STORMWATER POND ## DRAINS TO COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE SITE (249 AC) ## DRAINS TO SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA BMPs (238 AC) 0 1,000’ 500’ ## N ## Southeast Study Area + Cottage ## Grove Drive Site Catchments ## Woodbury Phase Three and Urban ## Reserve Environmental Planning Study ## 249 ACRES ## 238 ACRES ## BARR Study and ## Stormwater ## Calculations ## Figure 17. BARR Water Flow Diagram ## Figure 18. BARR Study 29 ## Potential ## Development ## Scenario Figure 19. Proposed Dvelopment at Dale Road and Cottage Grove Drive 30 ## Greenway ## Corridors Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 20. Greenway Corridors Map 31 ## Karst Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 21. Karst Map 32 ## Sanitary ## Sewer Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 22. Sanitary Sewer Map 33 ## Existing ## Water ## Utilities Map from the 2040 ## Comp Plan ## LEGEND ## Figure 23. Water Utilities Map ## New Bailey Road water tower under construction in 2026 ## 8C ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota Office ## of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-106 May 13, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Consider Approval of Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A ## Summary Staff is recommending the City Council approve the issuance and sale of General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A. Staff is recommending the City Council set June 24, 2026, as the sale date for the bond issuance for the Public Safety Expansion Project. Jason Aarsvold with Ehlers Inc. will review the proposed bond sale parameters with the City Council and provide background as to the role of the Financial Advisor to the City. ## $41,295,000 General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A The City needs to issue bonds to finance the local option sales tax portion of the Public Safety Expansion Project. The City’s Financial Advisor, Ehlers Inc., was provided with the 2025 monthly collection amounts of local option sales tax and based on their review have recommended we sell $41,295,000 of Sales Tax Revenue bonds. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution providing for the issuance and sale of General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A, in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $41,295,000. ## Fiscal Implications The collection of local option sales tax will fund the new money bond issuance. There is no impact on the property tax levy. ## Policy Not applicable ## Council Letter 26-106 May 13, 2026 Page 2 ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background The sales tax referendum passed on Nov. 5, 2024. The 0.5 percent sales tax began in April 2025. The collection of the Woodbury sales tax is being completed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The sales tax revenues will be exclusively allocated to this project and will not fund other building projects. It has a predetermined beginning and end, sunsetting in 20 years or once project funding of $50 million has been collected, whichever comes first. ## Written By:Jason Schirmacher, Chief Financial Officer/Controller ## Approved Through:Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator ## Attachments: 1. Resolution ## 2. Pre-Sale Report Resolution 26-64 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A, in the Proposed Aggregate Principal Amount of $41,295,000 WHEREAS, pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2023, Chapter 64, Article 10, Section 50 (the “Special Law”), the City of Woodbury, Minnesota (the “City”) is authorized to impose by ordinance, if approved by the voters at an election, a local sales and use tax of one-half of one percent (0.50%) in order to raise revenues to finance the construction and rehabilitation of a new public safety campus in the City (the “Project”) through the issuance of bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the “Act”), in a principal amount of up to $50,000,000, plus an amount to be applied to the payment of costs of issuance of bonds, which bonds may be paid from or secured by any funds available to the City, including a sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, a majority of the voters voting in the general election approved the ballot question relating to the imposition of a sales and use tax of one-half of one percent (0.50%) for twenty (20) years or until the Project is paid for, whichever comes first, to finance the Project (the “Sales and Use Tax”); and WHEREAS, the pledge of the Sales and Use Tax was imposed by Ordinance 2065, adopted by the City Council of the City on December 11, 2024, and the Sales and Use Tax applies to sales and purchases made on or after April 1, 2025; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the City to issue the City’s General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A (the “Bonds”), in the proposed aggregate principal amount of $41,295,000, pursuant to the Special Law and the Act, to provide financing for the Project; the principal amount of the Bonds is subject to adjustment in accordance with the official Terms of Proposal to be prepared in connection with the offering and the sale of the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that the City is authorized by Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) of the Act to negotiate the sale of the Bonds, it being determined that the City has retained an independent municipal advisor in connection with such sale; the actions of the City staff and the City’s municipal advisor in negotiating the sale of the Bonds are ratified and confirmed in all respects; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that the Ehlers and Associates, Inc. (the “Municipal Advisor”) is authorized and directed to negotiate the sale of the Bonds; the City Council will meet on June 24, 2026, or another date selected by City staff, to consider proposals on the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that the law firm of Kutak Rock LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as bond counsel for the City (“Bond Counsel”), is authorized to act as bond counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents, certificates and instruments relating to the Bonds; the officers, Resolution 26-64 May 13, 2026 Page 2 employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents, certificates, and instruments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that in the resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds, the City Council will set forth the covenants and undertakings required by the Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that in connection with the sale of the Bonds, the officers or employees of the City are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Municipal Advisor and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the “Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; the City expects to incur certain expenditures with respect to projects that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that the City has determined to make a declaration of official intent (the “Declaration”) to reimburse certain costs with respect to the Project from proceeds of the Bonds in the principal amount of the Bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations in the principal amount of the Bonds; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the ## Reimbursement Regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County Minnesota that this Declaration has been made not later than sixty (60) days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of the Bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or five percent (5%) of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) “preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of twenty percent (20%) of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred; the term “preliminary expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota that this Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. Resolution 26-64 May 13, 2026 Page 3 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator on the 13th day of May, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) Resolution 26-64 May 13, 2026 Page 4 ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. ## COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Woodbury, Minnesota (the “City”), do hereby certify that attached hereto is a compared, true, and correct copy of a resolution regarding the issuance of General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A, duly adopted by the City Council of the City on May 13, 2026, at a regular meeting thereof duly called and held, as on file and of record in my office, which resolution has not been amended, modified, or rescinded since the date thereof, and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof. WITNESS My hand this ____ day of May, 2026. ## City Clerk April 22, 2026 ## PRE-SALE REPORT FOR ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## $41,295,000 General Obligation ## Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A Prepared by: ## Ehlers ## 3001 Broadway Street, Suite 320 ## Minneapolis, MN 55413 ## Advisors: ## Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor ## Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor ## BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT’S WHAT WE DO. ## Presale Report ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota April 22, 2026 Page 1 ## Proposed Issue: ## $41,295,000 General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A ## Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for the remodeling and expansion of the City’s Public Safety Campus. Debt service will be paid from sales tax revenues. ## Authority: Pursuant Minnesota Session Laws 2023, Regular Session, Chapter 64, Article 10, Section 50 the State authorized the City to impose a local sales and use tax to pay for remodeling and expansion of the City’s Public Safety Campus. It also provided the City with bonding authority to issue up to $50 million in bonds under Chapter 475 to finance all or a portion of the costs. Voters subsequently approved the measure at a general election. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. ## Term/Call Feature: The Bonds are being issued for a term of 11.5 years (10 years of principal payments). Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2028 through 2037. Interest will be due every six months beginning February 1, 2027. The Bonds will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2034 or any date thereafter. ## Bank Qualification: Because the City is issuing more than $10,000,000 in tax-exempt obligations during the calendar year, the City will be not able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations. ## Rating: The City’s most recent bond issues were rated by S&P Global Ratings. The current rating on those bonds is “AAA”/Stable outlook. The City will request a new rating for the Bonds. If the winning bidder on the Bonds elects to purchase bond insurance, the rating for the issue may be higher than the City's bond rating in the event that the bond rating of the insurer is higher than that of the City. ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEBT ## Presale Report ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota April 22, 2026 Page 2 ## Basis for Recommendation: Based on your objectives, financial situation and need, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, experience with the issuance of Bonds and long-term financial capacity, as well as the tax status considerations related to the Bonds and the structure, timing and other similar matters related to the Bonds, we are recommending the issuance of Bonds as a suitable option. ## Method of Sale/Placement: We are recommending the Bonds be issued as municipal securities and offered through a competitive underwriting process. You will solicit competitive bids, which we will compile on your behalf, for the purchase of the Bonds from underwriters and banks. An allowance for discount bidding will be incorporated in the terms of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their compensation in the transaction. If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to reduce your borrowing amount. ## Premium Pricing: In some cases, investors in municipal bonds prefer “premium” pricing structures. A premium is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the yield to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered “reoffering premium.” The amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for new issues in the range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering may receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000 to $2,200,000. For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to determine the use the net premium on the day of sale. The resulting adjustments may slightly change the true interest cost of the issue, either up or down. The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium may result in fewer bids, but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City’s objectives for this financing. ## Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that, other than the obligations proposed to be refunded by the Bonds, there are no other refunding opportunities at this time. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City’s outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities. ## Presale Report ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota April 22, 2026 Page 3 ## Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt subject to a continuing disclosure undertaking (including this issue) and this issue does not meet an available exemption from continuing disclosure, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as providing notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports. ## Arbitrage Monitoring: The City must ensure compliance with certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations (“Arbitrage Rules”) throughout the life of the issue to maintain the tax- exempt status of the Bonds. These Arbitrage Rules apply to amounts held in construction, escrow, reserve, debt service account(s), etc., along with related investment income on each fund/account. IRS audits will verify compliance with rebate, yield restriction and records retention requirements within the Arbitrage Rules. The City’s specific arbitrage responsibilities will be detailed in the Arbitrage Certificate (the “Tax Compliance Document”) prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. The Bonds may qualify for one or more exception(s) to the Arbitrage Rules by meeting 1) small issuer exception, 2) spend down requirements, 3) bona fide debt service fund limits, 4) reasonable reserve requirements, 5) expenditure within an available period limitations, 6) investments yield restrictions, 7) de minimis rules, or; 8) borrower limited requirements. An Ehlers arbitrage expert will contact the City within 30 days after the sale date to review the City’s specific responsibilities for the Bonds. The City is currently receiving arbitrage services from Ehlers in relation to the Bonds. ## Investment of Bond Proceeds: Ehlers will assist the City in developing a strategy to invest your Bond proceeds until the funds are needed to pay project cost ## Risk Factors: Sales Tax Revenue: A portion of the debt is being paid with sales tax revenue. As currently projected, sales tax revenues are more than adequate to cover projected debt service. It should be noted that the amount of revenue is estimated at this time and the actual amount of sales tax revenue that will be available in the future is subject to legislative changes, economic conditions, commercial/retail businesses subject to the tax and actual annual sales subject to the sales tax. If sales tax revenue is inadequate and other funding sources are not available, the City may have to levy taxes to pay debt service on the bonds or appropriate sufficient funds from other sources. ## Presale Report ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota April 22, 2026 Page 4 ## Other Service Providers: This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement on your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to provide a service, we have assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will be paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from other sources. Our pre-sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, but the final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service providers or their role, or if you would like to use a different service provider for any of the listed services please contact us. ## Bond Counsel: Kutak Rock LLP ## Paying Agent: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association ## Rating Agency: S&P Global Ratings (S&P) ## Summary: The decisions to be made by the City Council are as follows: • Accept or modify the finance assumptions described in this report ## Presale Report ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota April 22, 2026 Page 5 ## Pre-Sale Review by City Council: May 13, 2026 ## Due Diligence Call to Review Official Statement: May 22, 2026 ## Conference with Rating Agency: June 1, 2026 ## Distribute Official Statement: Week of June 8, 2026 City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: June 24, 2026 ## Estimated Closing Date: July 16, 2026 ## Attachments ## Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds ## Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule ## Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bond Sale ## EHLERS’ CONTACTS ## Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8512 ## Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8506 ## Silvia Johnson, Lead Public Finance Analyst (651) 697-8580 ## Alicia Gage, Senior Financial Analyst (651) 697-8551 ## PROPOSED DEBT ISSUANCE SCHEDULE ## EHLERS’ CONTACTS ## Woodbury, Minnesota ## $41,295,000 General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A ## Public Safety Campus - 10 Year ## Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA plus 50bps ## Sources & Uses Dated 06/17/2026 | Delivered 06/17/2026 ## Sources Of Funds ## Par Amount of Bonds$41,295,000.00 ## Total Sources $41,295,000.00 ## Uses Of Funds ## Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)330,360.00 ## Costs of Issuance162,000.00 ## Deposit to Project Construction Fund40,800,000.00 ## Rounding Amount2,640.00 ## Total Uses $41,295,000.00 Series 2026A GO Sales Tax | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/25/2026 | 2:26 PM ## Woodbury, Minnesota ## $41,295,000 General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A ## Public Safety Campus - 10 Year ## Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA plus 50bps ## Debt Service Schedule ## DatePrincipalCouponInterestTotal P+IFiscal Total 06/17/2026----- 02/01/2027--871,771.31871,771.31871,771.31 08/01/2027--700,530.52700,530.52- 02/01/20283,580,000.002.900%700,530.524,280,530.524,981,061.04 08/01/2028--648,617.91648,617.91- 02/01/20293,680,000.002.950%648,617.914,328,617.914,977,235.82 08/01/2029--594,336.40594,336.40- 02/01/20303,790,000.003.050%594,336.404,384,336.404,978,672.80 08/01/2030--536,534.68536,534.68- 02/01/20313,905,000.003.150%536,534.684,441,534.684,978,069.36 08/01/2031--475,026.98475,026.98- 02/01/20324,030,000.003.250%475,026.984,505,026.984,980,053.96 08/01/2032--409,537.08409,537.08- 02/01/20334,160,000.003.350%409,537.084,569,537.084,979,074.16 08/01/2033--339,854.45339,854.45- 02/01/20344,300,000.003.500%339,854.454,639,854.454,979,708.90 08/01/2034--264,602.50264,602.50- 02/01/20354,450,000.003.650%264,602.504,714,602.504,979,205.00 08/01/2035--183,390.00183,390.00- 02/01/20364,610,000.003.800%183,390.004,793,390.004,976,780.00 08/01/2036--95,800.0095,800.00- 02/01/20374,790,000.004.000%95,800.004,885,800.004,981,600.00 ## Total$41,295,000.00-$9,368,232.35$50,663,232.35- ## Yield Statistics ## Bond Year Dollars$263,824.67 ## Average Life6.389 Years ## Average Coupon3.5509312% ## Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.6761507% ## True Interest Cost (TIC)3.6804559% ## Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes3.5363314% ## All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.7517092% ## IRS Form 8038 ## Net Interest Cost3.5509312% ## Weighted Average Maturity6.389 Years Series 2026A GO Sales Tax | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/25/2026 | 2:26 PM ## Woodbury, Minnesota ## $41,295,000 General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2026A ## Public Safety Campus - 10 Year ## Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA plus 50bps ## Debt Service Schedule ## DatePrincipalCouponInterestTotal P+I 105% ## Overlevy 02/01/2027--871,771.31871,771.31915,359.88 02/01/20283,580,000.002.900%1,401,061.044,981,061.045,230,114.09 02/01/20293,680,000.002.950%1,297,235.824,977,235.825,226,097.61 02/01/20303,790,000.003.050%1,188,672.804,978,672.805,227,606.44 02/01/20313,905,000.003.150%1,073,069.364,978,069.365,226,972.83 02/01/20324,030,000.003.250%950,053.964,980,053.965,229,056.66 02/01/20334,160,000.003.350%819,074.164,979,074.165,228,027.87 02/01/20344,300,000.003.500%679,708.904,979,708.905,228,694.35 02/01/20354,450,000.003.650%529,205.004,979,205.005,228,165.25 02/01/20364,610,000.003.800%366,780.004,976,780.005,225,619.00 02/01/20374,790,000.004.000%191,600.004,981,600.005,230,680.00 ## Total$41,295,000.00-$9,368,232.35$50,663,232.35$53,196,393.97 ## Significant Dates ## Dated6/17/2026 ## First Coupon Date2/01/2027 ## Yield Statistics ## Bond Year Dollars$263,824.67 ## Average Life6.389 Years ## Average Coupon3.5509312% ## Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.6761507% ## True Interest Cost (TIC)3.6804559% ## Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes3.5363314% ## All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.7517092% ## IRS Form 8038 ## Net Interest Cost3.5509312% ## Weighted Average Maturity6.389 Years Series 2026A GO Sales Tax | SINGLE PURPOSE | 3/25/2026 | 2:26 PM