--- ## author: Davis, Allison date: D:20260604164435-05'00' --- ## City Council Agenda June 10, 2026 | 7:30 PM 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 ## No Items Scheduled 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 the meeting. Typically, replies to the concerns expressed will be made via letter or phone call within a week. ## Watch the Live Meeting ## Woodbury City Council Agenda June 10, 2026 | 7:30 PM 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 - May 27, 2026 2. City Council Meeting - May 13, 2026 3. City Council Meeting - May 27, 2026 ## Staff recommends Council approve the City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes from May 27, 2026, and the City Council Meeting Minutes from May 13, and May 27, 2026. 6B.Approval of Electrical Inspection Services Agreement Renewal 26-121 Staff recommends Council adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor and City ## Administrator to execute an Electrical Inspection Services Agreement with Kohout Inspections, LLC, an independent contractor, as approved by the City Attorney. The term of the Agreement shall run from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2031. 6C.Approval of Acceptance of the Woodbury Community Foundation Grant and ## Approving the Associated Budget Amendment 26-122 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-72, a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Woodbury Community Foundation Grant and approving the associated budget amendment. 6D.Approval of the 2026 First Quarter Budgeted Fund Summary Report 26-123 Staff recommends Council review and accept the 2026 First Quarter Budgeted Fund Summary Report as provided with Council Letter 26-123. 6E.Approval of Labor Contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury ## Police (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services 26-124 Staff recommends Council adopt RESOLUTION 26-73, a resolution approving the labor contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services union and authorize required signatures. ## Woodbury City Council Agenda June 10, 2026 | 7:30 PM 6F.Approval of Designating Deputy Clerks as Responsible Authority in the Absence of the City Clerk 26-125 Staff recommends Council approve the designation of Deputy Clerks as the Responsible Authority in the absence of the City Clerk. 6G.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 May 15, 2026 in the amount of $6,183,265.73, May 19, 2026 in the amount of $10,028.11, and May 22, 2026 in the amount of $6,552,062.41. 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. ## No Items Scheduled 8.Discussion ## No Items Scheduled 9.Staff Reports ## 9A.City Administrator Update 10.Adjourn to Continuation of the City Council Workshop Meeting if Required ## Woodbury City Council Agenda June 10, 2026 | 7:30 PM 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. ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Workshop Wednesday, May 27, 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 27 th day of May 2026. Present: Councilmembers Kim Wilson, Jennifer Santini, Donna Stafford, and Steve Morris. Absent: Mayor Anne Burt Others Present: Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator and Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. ## Workshop Discussion Items 1A.Update of 2026 City and County Property Valuations by Washington County Assessor Lisa Young, Washington County Assessor, was present and provided a presentation and introduced several County staff also in attendance. Council questions, comments, and discussion throughout the presentation. Council provided no specific direction to staff. Presentation was provided for informational purposes. Administrator Comments and updates Dahl provided an update on planned future workshop agenda items. ## Mayor and City Council Comments and Commission Liaison Updates Council and staff briefly discussed the open forum process planned for the Council meeting. ## Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ## Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator Approved by the Woodbury City Council on ________________. ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Wednesday, May 13, 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 13 th day of May 2026. ## Call to Order Mayor Anne Burt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and she welcomed those attending the meeting both in person and virtually. Mayor Burt explained that members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may also join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone. She stated public comments will be accepted during the meeting both in person and virtually. Virtual questions should be submitted via the online Q&A feature within the virtual meeting link. Questions regarding the meeting will also be taken between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. via email at council@woodburymn.gov or at 651-714-3524. Questions received after 4:30 p.m. will be responded to in the next three to seven business days. Mayor Burt stated that meetings are recorded through True Lens Community Media and are broadcast live and replayed on cable channel 799. Meetings are also available on the City of Woodbury’s YouTube channel. Members of the public are welcome to join and have an opportunity to speak in person, or can watch virtually. Virtual questions can be submitted online, and the City Clerk will monitor them throughout the meeting. ## Pledge to Flag Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. ## Roll Call Upon roll call the following were present: Mayor Anne Burt, Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Donna Stafford, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. ## Absent: None Others Present: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator; Janelle Schmitz, Community Development Director; Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner; Gina McCormack, Senior Planner; Shelly Schafer, Community Relations Manager; and Jason Schirmacher, Chief Financial Officer/Controller. ## Special Order of Business ## A.Presentation by Metropolitan Council Member Mark Jenkins Metropolitan Council Member Mark Jenkins highlighted how the Met Council partners with communities. He reviewed the transportation services and noted that the Met Council has been able to develop more transit services in Woodbury. He stated there are other transit services, such as Transit Link, and consulting services for schools, senior centers, and apartment buildings. He noted the Met Council provides transportation planning and financing. There are about seven to eight projects that the Met Council partnered with to help fund. He pointed out the community engagement the Met Council does, such as comprehensive planning. The Met Council recently approved its water efficiency grants. He explained that the Met Council is a silent partner for the City and the surrounding area. He expressed his gratitude for the partnership with the City. Mayor Burt noted that the Met Council provides affordable housing for more than 7,200 qualifying low-income households, but Dakota and Washington County have their own HRAs. Jenkins replied that he does not do housing in his district, but if someone were to get a voucher in a county that provides housing through the Met Council, they could use the voucher to move to a property outside of the area. He stated the Met Council does not sponsor or fund affordable housing outside of the specific areas they work with. Mayor Burt asked what the revenue stream was for the Met Council. Jenkins replied that it varies from service to service. Environmental services are mainly funded through sewer access charges and fees. Transit funding comes from motor vehicle sales tax or sales taxes. Mayor Burt asked if there was a property tax component; Jenkins replied that there is. Mayor Burt wondered if the residents in Washington and Dakota County had a lower fee schedule since they are not utilizing the housing service the Met Council offers. She requested that the Met Council provide additional information. Councilmember Morris asked if the Met Council was a recipient of the LAHA funding. Jenkins replied that he did not know and would follow up. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 2 of 10 ## Open Forum Catherine Wegener, City resident, expressed concern that the Council did not understand the importance of the proposed ICE Resolution. She added her concern that members of the Council believe that the community members who are showing up at the Council meetings are a small group of people who are trying to be a horn in the Council’s side, just because the people are not getting what they want. She explained that she is part of a large group of people who are organizing within the City, State, and Country who are passionate about protecting neighbors and the Country’s democracy from lawlessness and authoritarianism. The proposed Resolution is more than a Resolution specific to immigration. The Resolution proposes a thoughtful legal action to protect the City from the federal government. The administration sent an army of untrained, masked, and armed federal agents to the City, who then violated fundamental constitutional rights, committed human rights abuses, and believed themselves to be above the law. There have been immigration officers who have enforced immigration laws without issues for decades. She noted she is an immigration lawyer and worked alongside ICE officers in Texas for many years. She stated the armed agents sent to Minnesota under this administration are not the professional, law-abiding ICE officers are not the ones she knows. The agents sent during Operation Metro Surge invaded the State and ruled with terror instead of law, and were given explicit policies and orders to use undue force, disobey court orders, and ignore legal rights and protections. Members of the community fears to leave their homes for weeks and months, and others were physically assaulted and detained. She explained that the Council had difficulty protecting the City from an attempt to build a detention center in the City. She mentioned that the City is afraid to pass local laws out of fear that the City will be helpless when the federal government tramples them. She explained that the community continues to show up because they need to know where the Council stands. When the Councilmembers took office, their job was to run the municipality. The constituents are at risk, and their safety and fundamental rights are at risk. The community is looking to the Council to defend Woodbury and its residents. She asked that the Council take a vote on the Resolution and allow each Councilmember to demonstrate how they plan to lead. Samantha Wolf, City resident, expressed her excitement about seeing the results of the community survey since there was a question about backyard chickens on it. There was an increase in approval by 14% for backyard chickens. 92% of metro municipalities already allow chickens, and none of the cities that she has contacted have had significant issues or complaints regarding licensed backyard chickens. She added that it is included in the Woodbury Environmental Stewardship Plan. The Hastings City Planner noted that Hastings has approved about 30 applications and explained that they could no longer ignore the success other cities had with small backyard flocks, despite the catastrophes some predicted would follow, and the number of complaints does not even compare to the number of dog complaints. She explained that it is time that the City catches up with the neighboring communities regarding backyard chickens. Mayor Burt explained that there would be more information regarding the community survey during the meeting. She added that the Council is deliberate and careful when they look to make changes to Ordinances. A few years ago, the City allowed chickens on larger lots, and it has been going fine. In addition, a few weeks ago, there was a joint Council meeting with Cottage Grove, and they had a discussion regarding chickens. The Council has directed staff to explore and come back with some recommendations for the Council to discuss during a Council workshop. She explained that the Council has to weigh both opinions and concerns from each side. Shannon and Felix Johnson, City residents, expressed support for allowing backyard chickens. Felix shared that chickens are quieter than a dog, with dogs being 90 decibels and chickens being 60 decibels. It takes 10 chickens to make one large dog poop. Chicken poop is compostable. Ms. Johnson added that backyard chickens are not a hobby or passing trend. It is about trying to live by values every day by reducing one's carbon footprint. Allowing chickens would be another thoughtful and practical way for families to reduce waste, care for the environment, and take a more sustainable way of living. Backyard hens offer real environmental benefits. They help reduce food waste, their manure can enrich the garden soil, and they can provide eggs. She noted that the City can do this in a responsible manner. She expressed support for banning roosters, limiting the number of hens, requiring a proper coop placement, and maintaining cleanliness. She added that she hoped the Council would support a balanced Ordinance that allows backyard chickens. Simon Johnson, City resident, stated he is an eighth grader at the Math and Science Academy and explained that he has many animals, including dogs and fish. He expressed his support for backyard chickens in the City. He noted that animals teach people things. Caring for animals requires patience, responsibility, and empathy. Animals teach that a living thing depends on a person, and actions matter. He noted that he hopes to work with animals someday. Backyard chickens would allow people the opportunity to learn more about animal behavior, health, and care in a way that is real and memorable. He noted that experiences like caring for animals can shape who people become. He stated he hoped the Council would support allowing backyard chickens in Woodbury. ## Consent Agenda Item A1. Approval of Council Workshop Minutes – April 22, 2026 2. Approval of Council Minutes – April 22, 2026 3. Approval of Council Workshop Meeting – April 29, 2026 Item BTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 3 of 10 Item CTo approve the Settlers East 4th Addition, Final Plat, Project No. 01-2026-00608 subject to the following conditions as listed in Council Letter 26-92. Item DTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item ETo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item FTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item GTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item HTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item ITo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-54 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Long-term Vegetation Maintenance Program Consultant Selection with Stantec. Item JTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item KTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item LTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item M1. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. 2. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 4 of 10 3. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-60 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the purchase of life and long-term disability insurance from Symetra. 4. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. 5. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 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. Item NThe 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 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. Councilmember Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Councilmember Wilson pointed out item D and explained that she is mostly in support of the 2026 Annual Action Plan. She expressed her objection to the land banking portion of the plan. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye ## Public Hearings A.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 Mayor Burt declared the public hearing open. Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Ashleigh Sullivan stated 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. The two owners of Marks Café LLC are Kimberley Marks and Alex Meyer. As required by City Code, a criminal history check as it pertains to liquor licensing was conducted on each owner with a 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. 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. 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. Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt ## Absent: None Councilmember Morris explained that the Council had a discussion regarding liquor licenses and ensuring that the licenses are reviewed. He added that the Council takes compliance seriously. He suggested that for license renewals, that the compliance check results be included in the Agenda Packet moving forward. Ms. Sullivan replied that staff could include that information with the application materials. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to 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. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 5 of 10 Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye ## Discussion ## A.Presentation of 2026 Community Survey Results Community Relations Manager Shelly Schafer stated the resident survey is conducted every two years and is administered by Polco. The survey is a tool for the City to evaluate opinions and service levels, and it looks at trend data and national comparisons. The survey provides a snapshot in time. She noted that the survey was taken during a period of time, and depending on what was happening, it may have influenced the survey results. She gave an example of timing impacting the survey results, such as snow removal services. If it snowed during the time residents filled out the survey, it could impact the results. In 2024, 49% of residents identified water quality as a serious issue, and it decreased in 2026 to 44% of residents identifying it as a serious issue. The quality of water rating went up by 7% between 2024 and 2026. Residents are seeing that the City is prioritizing the issue and acting. Ms. Schafer noted that there was significant growth of 7-10% from 2022 to 2024 in treating all residents fairly, demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems, and valuing residents from diverse backgrounds. In 2026, the numbers remained or slightly increased. The City has seen an increase in the category “helping new residents feel connected and integrated”. However, the number could be even stronger. The City will continue to add ways to engage new residents and make it a focus area. Ms. Schafer stated the main themes from the public comment portion of the survey included taxes and government spending, traffic, driving behavior and road safety, growth and development concerns, affordable housing and cost of living, community amenities and recreation, water quality and environmental concern, and public safety and enforcement. Residents expressed concern regarding rising taxes and government spending, cost-of-living pressures, and overdevelopment. The theme aligned with survey findings, identifying taxes as the top issue facing Woodbury overall. Residents expressed frustration regarding roadway safety and traffic enforcement. Residents commented frequently on rapid growth and development, and preserving Woodbury’s suburban character and infrastructure impacts associated with continued development. There were several comments that noted challenges related to finding affordable daycare. There were recurring concerns about affordable housing availability, senior housing needs, and livable wage jobs. Mayor Burt pointed out that there is a difference between affordable housing and housing that is affordable. Mr. Schafer agreed that the survey does not differentiate between the two. Ms. Schafer explained that residents expressed interest in additional community events, more affordable family activities, and expanded dining and entertainment options, particularly in the southern portion of the City. Residents continue to identify water quality, environmental stewardship, stormwater management, and natural resource protection as issues in the community. There were comments with varying perspectives regarding crime and drug concerns, traffic enforcement, code enforcement, and government regulation and ordinance enforcement. Some comments asked for stronger enforcement, while others expressed concern about overregulation. Mayor Burt asked how many survey results the City collected from the statistically valid versus the open participation. Ms. Schafer replied that there were 969 from the statistically valid, and 585 from the open participation. Ms. Schafer reviewed the open participation themes from the public comments. The themes included: walkability, transportation and urban design, community identity and “charm”, affordable housing and community change, youth and family amenities, recreation and facility capacity, code enforcement and neighborhood standards, and backyard chickens and residential flexibility. Under the themes, some of the strongest concerns were related to car dependency, lack of walkability, bicycle safety and infrastructure, large roads and parking lots, and better connections between neighborhoods and businesses. Residents consistently expressed interest in more pedestrian friendly ad connect development patterns in the theme of walkability, transportation, and urban design. Residents repeatedly discussed the desire for a strong downtown feel, a greater sense of community identity, and more vibrant and recognizable destination areas. Many comments pointed out that Woodbury functions well operationally but lacks a central or community gathering place. Residents expressed concerns about density, neighborhood character, impacts of future growth, and balancing affordability with quality of life. Residents frequently requested community gathering spaces and more informal spaces and activities for older children and teens. There were concerns regarding recreation facility demand, pool availability, aging infrastructure, and maintaining parks and amenities as the community grows. There was a recurring concern involving perceptions that neighborhood ordinances are inconsistently enforced and property maintenance standards vary across neighborhoods. There were multiple comments about backyard chickens, and they reflected the strong resident engagement on the issue. Ms. Schafer noted that residents consistently expressed their appreciation for Woodbury’s overall quality of life, safety, parks, and City services. She introduced the Director of Survey Research at Polco, Jason Neumeyer. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Neumeyer shared the background of Polco and noted that it is a communication and analytics platform that works to unite people, data, and government leaders to help communities make more informed decisions that improve residents' overall quality of life. Polco provides surveys, budget simulation tools, and advanced analytics. One of the key benefits of this survey is the ability to compare the City’s residents' rating with those from communities across the U.S. The national database currently sits at around 400 communities. The City opted to receive custom benchmark comparisons to two other cohorts. Mayor Burt asked for additional information regarding the 400 comparison communities. Mr. Neumeyer replied that the 400 communities have either conducted a national community with Polco or have worked with others internally with universities. All the surveys have been conducted within the last five years. He added that the City is being compared to high-performing cities. Mr. Neumeyer stated that this is the 17 th time that Woodbury has conducted the resident survey. The survey was conducted from January 7, 2026, to February 23, 2026. He reviewed the mailing approach and noted that a probability-based sample of 5,000 randomly selected households was conducted. The two points of contact were through a postcard, followed by a hard copy of the survey. There were 969 total responses received (406 on paper and 563 online). There was a 20% overall response rate with a 95% confidence interval with a +/- 3% margin of error. The non-probability, open participation sample had 585 responses. The results were statistically weighted to reflect Woodbury overall. Mayor Burt asked how the 20% response rate compares to other communities. Mr. Neumeyer replied that it is excellent and that the average response rate in 2025 was 12.73%, and the margin of error is typically between 3-6%. Mr. Neumeyer reviewed the overall survey results. He explained that there were 25 ratings that were higher than the national benchmarks, 19 ratings that received similar ratings to the national benchmarks, and 1 that received lower ratings than the national benchmarks. He noted that there were 8 ratings that were higher than the Minnesota community benchmarks, 36 ratings that received similar ratings to the Minnesota community benchmarks, and 1 rating that was lower than the Minnesota community benchmarks. The quality of drinking water received lower ratings than the Minnesota benchmarks. He stated the last comparison group looked at communities with similar populations. Woodbury received 14 higher ratings, 30 similar ratings, and 1 lower rating than with similar populations. He reviewed the ratings from previous survey results and mentioned that there are 10 ratings that received higher ratings, 111 that received similar ratings, and 7 that received lower ratings. Mr. Neumeyer reviewed the key takeaways. One key takeaway is that Woodbury remains strong, connected, and highly rated. In 2026, Woodbury residents continued to rate their quality of life highly, with roughly 9 to 10 residents providing excellent or good marks. The 2026 survey results were on par with previous surveys in Woodbury and similar to the three benchmark groups. Residents assessed other aspects related to quality of life, such as Woodbury as a place to raise children, the neighborhood as a place to live, shopping opportunities in the City, overall quality of business and service establishments in the City, Woodbury as a place to work, dining opportunities, Woodbury as a place to visit, and Woodbury as a place to retire. Woodbury received higher than national benchmarks in the categories of Woodbury as a place to raise children, shopping opportunities in Woodbury, overall quality of business and service establishments in Woodbury, and Woodbury as a place to work. Dining opportunities in the City received higher ratings in 2026 than in 2024 and have continued to trend upwards over the years. Mr. Neumeyer explained the neighborhoods and community by year. He noted the survey evaluated the neighbors and neighborhoods. About 90% of residents agreed that they have good relationships with their neighbors. 83% feel connected to their neighborhood, 81% believe they can rely on their neighbors when they need help, and 75% feel connected to the overall Woodbury community. Mr. Neumeyer reviewed the characteristics of the community and showed a graphic of the survey results from 2022 and 2024. The characteristics of the community themes included overall feeling of safety, health and wellness opportunities, overall image or reputation, overall economic health, fitness and exercise opportunities, variety of housing types, and overall ease of traveling to locations. All of the themes exceeded the three benchmark comparisons. Mayor Burt mentioned that fitness and exercise opportunities have been trending down. Ms. Schafer mentioned that there were some private entities that closed around the time of the survey and could have impacted the results. Mr. Neumeyer stated that city services remain a strength for Woodbury. Roughly 88% of respondents rated the overall quality of services provided by the City as excellent or good and scored higher than the comparison communities across the U.S. He reviewed the highest rated City’s services and noted that the services that were rated were fire services, ambulance or emergency medical services, condition of City parks, M Health Fairview Sports Center programs and facilities, Eagle Valley Golf Course and its facilities, Central Park, Lookout Ridge, Police services, and sanitary sewer services. The lowest rated city service was drinking water. 14% of respondents rated the drinking water excellent, while 20% rated it poor and 29% rated it fair. The rating was lower than the national, Minnesota, and population benchmarks. Mr. Neumeyer stated the residents continue to see a strong value in city services, though support for tax increases has leveled off. 68% of residents rated the value of services for taxes paid to the City as either excellent or good, which is rated higher than the national benchmark. 47% of residents supported an increase in property taxes to maintain City services at their current level. The rating was slightly below the 2024 results. Mr. Neumeyer noted that residents appreciate many aspects of the City’s leadership and staff performance. The survey reviewed various aspects of leadership and governance, such as job performance of City staff, approval of the job of the mayor and City Council, treating all ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 7 of 10 residents fairly, the job Woodbury government does at welcoming resident involvement, acting in the best interest of the community, overall confidence in Woodbury government, and the overall direction that Woodbury is taking. The aspects that scored higher than the national benchmark included treating all residents fairly, the job Woodbury government does at welcoming resident involvement, acting in the best interest of the community, and overall confidence in Woodbury government. Mr. Neumeyer stated Woodbury maintains high marks for inclusivity and respect for all residents. The themes that were in the survey included providing a safe and secure environment for residents of all backgrounds, treating all residents fairly, demonstrating respect for different cultures or belief systems, valuing residents from diverse backgrounds, openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds, making all residents feel welcome, and helping new residents feel connected and integrated. The City rates higher than the national benchmark on openness and acceptance toward people from diverse backgrounds. He noted that there are crosstabulations throughout the report, and he reviewed the results comparing residents of different demographic or geographic characteristics. He showed the Council a graphic comparing white and non-white respondents. There were no statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic responses in the category, except for the ratings of demonstrating respect for residents of different cultures and belief systems. Hispanic respondents gave higher marks than non-Hispanic respondents. There were no significant differences in the category between white and non- white respondents, except for the item helping new residents feel connected and integrated, which was rated higher by non-white respondents. Mr. Neumeyer noted that residents hold steady views on code enforcement, as opinions split on backyard chickens. Residents were asked about their familiarity with residential code enforcement. 74% of respondents reported that they feel somewhat or very familiar with code enforcement. 53% of respondents reported that the level of residential code enforcement is acceptable. In 2026, respondents were asked how much they would approve, if at all, of the City allowing residents to have chickens on any standard single-family lot. Around half of residents somewhat or strongly approved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single-family lot. The other half somewhat or strongly disapproved of backyard chickens being allowed on a standard single-family lot. He mentioned that the language of the question was different from that in 2024, which could impact the results. Mr. Neumeyer stated that the summary of the key findings is that the community life in Woodbury remains strong, connected, and highly rated. The City services remain a strength for Woodbury, with many ratings exceeding national norms. Residents continue to see strong value in City services, though support for tax increases has leveled off. Residents appreciate many aspects of the City’s leadership and staff performance. Woodbury maintains high marks for inclusivity and respect for all residents. Residents hold steady views on code enforcement as opinions split on backyard chickens. Mayor Burt expressed appreciation to the residents who took the survey. She added that she believes the City is premier and the only way to remain premier is to get feedback from the residents and to make changes. She acknowledged that water quality has been an issue for years, and the City is working on a solution to fix the problem permanently. There is a temporary solution in place, but the City is currently building the long-term water treatment plant in order to provide the best quality water possible for the next century or more. ## B.Consider Approval of Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan Senior Planner Gina McCormack stated 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 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 Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road and is located south of Bailey Road and west of Manning Avenue. Ms. McCormack noted that 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. Ms. McCormack explained that the review process has included a Planning Commission Workshop on February 2, 2026, a City Council Workshop on February 25, 2026, and March 25, 2026, and a Planning Commission meeting on May 4, 2026. Ms. McCormack stated that the master plan report covers a variety of considerations for the project area. The Master Plan components include a regional stormwater management approach, housing diversity (new small lot type – 24 feet minimum or townhome, and preservation of high-quality woodlands via zoning flexibility), park and open space network, and street trail connections. She reviewed the 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 in the Agenda Packet. Ms. McCormack noted that 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 that a majority of the project area (approximately 249 acres) could be served by a regional stormwater management system on one property. Ms. McCormack reviewed the housing diversity component. Multiple comprehensive plans, ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 8 of 10 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 sizes, including 45-50’, 55-60’, 65 ’ +, and 100’+ lots. Ms. McCormack reviewed the concept plan highlighting what the different colored areas meant on the plan. She stated the light yellow was for the 100 foot lots, the vibrant yellow was for the 65 foot lots for traditional single family and the orange represents 55 foot lots for smaller lot but still traditional single family. She stated 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 to rising homeowners' association (HOA) fees and increased insurance costs. The Plan is intended to provide flexibility to allow either 45’ lots or townhomes, within the dark orange/brown areas , to ensure diversity of housing products and prices can be achieved regardless of market conditions. Ms. McCormack then discussed the maximum sale price for the 45 foot lots through a planned unit development. She indicated the specifics on the price cap to be: •Master plan intends to leverage single family lot width flexibility to small lot dimensions (45- 49 feet) through the planning unit development (PUD) process. •In exchange for lot size flexibility, the PUD would require a sale price cap to ensure a direct correlation between lot size reduction and attainability. •Anticipated range to be between 110-120 percent Area Median Income (AMI). Firm price range is not recommended, establish with each development. •Townhomes and single-family lots 50 feet and above would not be required to have a maximum sale price, but PUD flexibility would be required by ordinance findings of fact. Ms. McCormack reviewed the preservation of high-quality woodlands with zoning flexibility. She stated the five property owners identified a variety of different development interest and timing which lead to the decision to create individual subdivision potential. These properties would be allowed to create 100-foot lots, connected to City services and accessed from private drives which would also allow the preservation of the existing homes and trees. In exchange for the zoning flexibility needed to allow more lots on private drives and access points on Dale Road, the City would obtain an easement over the high-quality wooded area. Ms. McCormack reviewed the park and open space network component. The Plan thoughtfully laid out greenway corridors to create a north and south connection and an east and west connection- connecting Woodbury Drive to Andy’s Bark Park. The plan also identifies two location options for one park to be determined with development applications. Ms. McCormack reviewed the street and trail connections within the plan which showed how existing trails would be connected to proposed trails in a thoughtful manner. She also stated the roadway network within the plan was designed to connect into existing road connections to the west and ensure properties are interconnected and meet access management for Cottage Grove Drive and Dale Road. Ms. McCormack noted that there were two formal property owner meetings for those within the plan area. There was one neighborhood meeting for surrounding property owners. There were 20+ individual property owner meetings. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the master plan on May 4, 2026, with a 6-0 vote. She introduced the Planning Commission liaison, Marcia Kennedy. Planning Commissioner Kennedy provided a report from the Planning Commission meeting and noted that the Commission passed the item unanimously. Some of the discussion included the retention of trees, especially along Andy’s Bark Park, if it were paved. The Commission’s focus was to ensure the trees were retained or moved. The stormwater management is located all on one property. The Commission had asked if the property owner had given approval for it. Staff had confirmed that the property owner had given approval. The Commission had a discussion about letting future homeowners be aware of the shallow bedrock throughout the area and potentially on their property. Mayor Burt asked what the implications of karst properties would be. Ms. McCormack replied that it could mean additional soil borings could be necessary, and it could also lead to not being able to create basements. Planning Commissioner Kennedy added that another major discussion was about the price cap in exchange for reduced property width. The Commission learned that the price cap was not for qualifications for the purchasers but for the sellers. Mayor Burt asked staff to describe the regional stormwater concept. Ms. McCormack replied that Barr Engineering conducted a future environmental study of numerous areas throughout the community to identify whether the City’s standards approach was appropriate. Due to the challenges of karst in the area, the ability to serve numerous properties, and the existing FEMA conveyance easement- staff approached the property owner to see what her vision was for her property. The property owner expressed a desire to maintain an open feel and appreciated the idea that the property could be owned by the City and include native plantings creating a win-win situation for both the City and the property owner. Councilmember Morris mentioned he wished the City’s State Senator were still in the meeting because the item is a perfect example of Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) and Woodbury doing what it says it is going to do. He added that putting the tool into the City’s toolbox ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 9 of 10 allows the City to facilitate the attainable housing goal and see projects to fruition, especially when the tools are used properly. He stated he could not be happier about the master plan. Councilmember Wilson asked what the price would be with the AMI exchange for the 45 to 49-foot size. Ms. McCormack replied that today it would be between $445,000 to $490,000. Councilmember Wilson asked if the original sale price needed to be within the price limit. Ms. McCormack confirmed that was correct. Councilmember Wilson asked if a millionaire could purchase all of the homes, make upgrades, and then sell them for a higher price. Ms. McCormack agreed that it was possible. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was an easement over the properties to care for the trees. Ms. McCormack replied that the easement would be to memorialize that they could not be removed. She added that they would need to look into the type of easement to ensure that home improvements could still occur. Councilmember Wilson stated that the master plan is a great step in coming up with creative ideas to offer what is considered attainable housing. She noted that there are not enough safeguards in place for the 45-foot lot. She expressed her concern that the City is offering builders an opportunity to build more houses and make more money, instead of offering more attainable housing. There are no income requirements or a turnaround resale price on it. Councilmember Morris pointed out that it is private property. Councilmember Wilson explained that when there is a variance involved, it allows the Council an opportunity to make stipulations and controls over it. She added that the Council has decreased the required lot sizes in previous years, and all it will do is create more houses closer together, and the builders make more money. Councilmember Morris asked Councilmember Wilson what recommendations she had. Councilmember Wilson replied that she expressed her concerns during the Council workshop, and it would have been a more appropriate time to ideate ideas during that meeting. She explained that there are not enough safeguards, and there are no income requirements. She noted that during the workshop, she was not in favor of the idea because the lot sizes would be reduced to 45 feet with no safeguards in place to protect the attainable housing. It is the original sale price, and that is the only thing that makes it attainable. Councilmember Morris pointed out that it is a private transaction. Councilmember Wilson expressed her understanding of what a private transaction is and explained that the Council is giving a variance to build attainable housing, and the Council is not putting any safeguards in place to ensure that it remains attainable. She wondered why the Council would approve it, with the hopes that someone would not come in to upgrade the home and sell it for a profit. She added that the Council has the authority to say no to development. Councilmember Morris explained that if the Council denied the master plan, then a developer would have to develop based on the City’s current Code, which would mean the AMI would be nowhere close to what is presented in the proposed master plan, since the developer would not be requesting flexibility. Councilmember Stafford added that townhomes could also be included in the development. Councilmember Wilson stated that she expressed her opposition and hoped that she was wrong and that people would not try to resell the properties at market value. City Administrator Jeffrey Dahl mentioned that the idea is innovative, and it is not guaranteed that it will work the way the City hopes it will, but at the end of the day, since the lots are smaller, they will be less expensive than a 65-foot lot. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that the City changed the standards on lot sizes, and the housing prices remained the same, even though the lot sizes were smaller. Councilmember Santini asked about deed restrictions and wondered if they were owner or rental-based. City Planner/Assistant Community Development Director Eric Searles replied that the only ownership product that he is aware that has a restriction is Habitat for Humanity products. There was a townhome development in the early 2000s that had a point of sale requirement with some affordability layered in for the buyer. It was challenging to implement. He noted that there will be time to refine the concept terms of the price cap as individual developments come in. He noted that staff is asking the Council to approve a framework within the master plan, with more information to come. Councilmember Morris noted that the land banking policy would memorialize and provide restrictions. He added that land banking would provide everything Councilmember Wilson is looking for. Councilmember Wilson stated she is not in favor of land banking because it should not be the City’s responsibility. ## Councilmember Stafford moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-63 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting the Cottage Grove Drive Master Plan. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – no Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 13, 2026 Page 10 of 10 C.Consider Approval of Issuance and Sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A Chief Financial Officer/Controller Jason Schirmacher stated the item would authorize the City’s finance division and the City’s financial adviser, Ehlers, to move forward with a June 24 th bond sale of general obligation sales tax revenue bonds. The bond sale is being done as part of the financing plan for the City’s public safety campus expansion project. He introduced Senior Municipal Advisor with Ehlers Jason Aarsvold. Mr. Aarsvold explained that the Council has the authority to issue the bond by virtue of the special legislation and sales tax that passed. He noted that they would be able to keep the bond down to a 10-year issue. He added that they anticipate that the revenues are going to exceed the debt service. He stated they would have the bonds rated. The bonds are sold on a competitive basis, and the lowest bidder for the debt will be the one who will be awarded. Mayor Burt asked when the Council would know about the rating of the bonds. Mr. Aarsvold replied that it would be on June 24 th . ## Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-64 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota 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. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – aye ## City Administrator’s Report Mr. Dahl recognized the Central Park project for being selected by the Minnesota Recreation Park Association (MRPA) to receive the award of excellence. He noted the Parks and Recreation Department would attend a future Council meeting to share more about the award. He congratulated the Parks and Recreation Department and all of the collaboration that it took to receive the award. Mr. Dahl noted that the City has recently been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) distinguished budget presentation award. He mentioned that Michelle Kemper is retiring and gave kudos to her. He recognized Scott Richardson for working with the City for 25 years and is retiring at the end of the week. Mr. Dahl stated the Upper Afton Fire Station open house would be tomorrow between 5:00 and 7:30 p.m. He added that on May 27 th , the Council would be at the sports center for the Miracle League opening. He noted that the Council workshop would be pushed back later on that day. Councilmember Wilson asked if the community survey was posted on the City’s website. Ms. Schafer replied that the entire survey will be posted on the City’s website tomorrow. Mayor Burt stated the Memorial Day Service would be at Veterans’ Memorial at 11:00 a.m., and there is typically free Culver's ice cream available. ## Adjournment Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 9:33 p.m. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini, Burt ## Absent: None Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ ## Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on June 10, 2026. ## Minutes ## Woodbury City Council Wednesday, May 27, 2026 ## 6A3 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 27 th day of May 2026. ## Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Santini called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., and she welcomed those attending the meeting both in person and virtually. Mayor Pro Tem Santini 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 Pro Tem Santini stated that meetings are recorded through True Lens Community Media and are broadcast live and replayed on cable channel 799. Meetings are also available on the City of Woodbury’s YouTube channel. Members of the public are welcome to join and have an opportunity to speak in person, or can watch virtually. Virtual questions can be submitted online, and the City Clerk will monitor them throughout the meeting. ## Pledge to Flag Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. ## Roll Call Upon roll call the following were present: Councilmembers: Kim Wilson, Donna Stafford, Steve Morris, and Jennifer Santini. Absent: Mayor ## Burt Others Present: Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk; Kevin Sandstrom, City Attorney; Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator; and Chris Hartzell, Engineering Director. ## Special Order of Business ## A.Recognition of Woodbury Residents for First-Place Congressional Art Competition Awards Mayor Pro Tem Santini noted that there are two City residents who have earned first-place awards for the Congressional Art Competition. Every year, Minnesota’s eight Congressional District Offices participate in the annual Congressional Art Competition sponsored by the Congressional Institute. The competition is open to high school students, and each district selects one winner to have their artwork displayed in the U.S. Capitol building for a year. Mayor Pro Tem Santini stated that this year, the City of Woodbury has two residents who were selected as first-place winners. Alyssa Wang of Woodbury was selected as the first-place winner in the Fourth Congressional District held by Congresswoman McCollum. Alyssa attends East Ridge High School and won for her graphite piece entitled “Color Me Happy.” Woodbury resident Will Kongdara previously attended East Ridge High School but is currently a student at the Perpich Center for Arts Education. Will was selected as the first-place winner in the Fifth Congressional District held by Congresswoman Omar for his piece entitled “Bowl of Unity.” She congratulated the winners and asked them to share about their artwork and what inspired it. Alyssa Wang, City resident, shared that she used graphite for her piece, and it was inspired by a photo that her mother took at a Chinese spring festival. She noted that the photo was a picture of her face painting a girl’s face, and she wanted to capture the moment when the girl went completely still while getting face paint, even though the girl had been full of energy before the face painting began. She noted her preference is to have a reference photo to be able to create copies of elements from it. Will Kongdara, City resident, shared that he created his piece digitally and explained that the piece demonstrates that food brings his family together. Mayor Pro Tem Santini asked about the school Kongdara attends. Kongdara replied that he attends Perpich Center for Arts Education and has enjoyed the experience. He added that he was able to live in the dorms and liked the community and the teachers. B.Presentation by the League of Minnesota Cities Recognizing City Administrator Jeff Dahl’s Service on the LMC Board ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Mayor Pro Tem Santini introduced Luke Fischer and Evan Vogel from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Fischer noted he is the Executive Director of the League of Minnesota Cities, and introduced Mr. Vogel as the Second Vice President of the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors, who serves as the City Administrator for the City of Cambridge. The League of Minnesota Cities represents 842 of the State's 852 cities. The largest city they serve is Minneapolis, and the smallest city is Barry. One of the ways the City has contributed to the League of Minnesota Cities is through legislative advocacy. There are 175 legislative policies that impact what cities do. Every year, 250 members from across the State come together to help craft and shape the policies. He noted that they also advocate for cities through the National League of Cities. The League of Minnesota Cities board includes 19 members from across the State. He pointed out City Administrator Jeffrey Dahl’s leadership and noted that he is well respected on the city management level. Mr. Fischer recognized Mr. Dahl for his service on the League of Minnesota Cities Board. He emphasized Mr. Dahl’s impact through collaboration and his thoughtful participation. Mr. Dahl has been helpful in continuing the strong partnership between metro cities and the League to help cities work together effectively to address the issues that communities are facing. The League is grateful for Mr. Dahl’s leadership and perspective. Mr. Dahl thanked Mr. Fischer and Mr. Vogel for the work they do and noted that it was a privilege to serve on the board. Mayor Pro Tem Santini added her gratitude and explained that it is helpful for the community to hear about what the League of Minnesota Cities is doing. ## Open Forum Justin Ropella, City resident, spoke about the proposed ICE Resolution and explained that the City has been lacking governance around the Resolution. The Mayor has said some objectively false things, such as “Operation Metro Surge has gone away”. He noted that there are 230% more border patrol agents in the Twin Cities than before the surge. The Mayor also said, “You’re asking the City to do something that no other cities have done”, despite there being formal ordinances and local protections put in place in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, Mendota Heights, Chicago, Boston, Portland, San Jose, and other communities. The Council has a responsibility to the citizens of Woodbury to take action when the residents demand protection from the egregious federal actions now and in the future. In addition to the statements, the community has heard justification in defense of the current Proclamation, which is unable to establish a single binding piece of policy. The Council has expressed concerns about legal risk and enforceability. If the Resolution does not seem to be able to be enforced, then it should be put in a workshop to discuss. Avoiding a vote on the record is not a strategy for risk management; it is an avoidance of responsibility and an absence of leadership. He asked the Council to bring the Resolution to an Agenda, state the position clearly, and vote on it on the record. Marni, City resident, thanked Mr. Ropella for his comments and explained that it is a large issue in the City and urged the Council to take it seriously. She expressed her concern about the lack of response from the Council regarding the proposed ICE Resolution. She added that she is concerned about ICE and 287(g) agreements. She asked law enforcement in the City had 287(g) agreements in place. She explained that she saw a social media post on the City’s page that noted that there would be plenty of space for law enforcement partners, and wondered if one of the partners was ICE. She noted that it is important to know where the Council stands on the issue. Councilmember Wilson stated there are residents in the City who feel the opposite on the issue. It is up to the Council that everyone is heard, not just one group. She added that as far as she knew, there were no 287(g) agreements with ICE and the City or the County. ## Consent Agenda ## Item AApproval of Council Workshop Minutes— May 13, 2026 Item BTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-65 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving the replacement purchase of one Ford Utility Police Interceptor Vehicle for an amount not to exceed $83,865 and approving budget amendment. Item CTo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-66 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Application submittal for Lake Road 4-3 Lane Conversion (Tahoe Road to Woodlane Drive) Project and Active Transportation Grant Application for the Hudson Road Trail Gap Project. Item D1. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-67 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of Coordinated Capital Improvement Program Grant from South Washington Watershed District for purchase of a replacement street sweeper and amending the 2026 Capital Improvement Fund Budget. 2. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-68 ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Page 3 of 6 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of Coordinated Capital Improvement Program Grant from South Washington Watershed District to purchase a hydromulcher. 3. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-69 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of Coordinated Capital Improvement Program Grant from South Washington Watershed District for the Interlachen Parking Lot Improvement Project and amending the 2026 Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Budget. 4. To adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-70 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing acceptance of Coordinated Capital Improvement Program Grant from South Washington Watershed District for upgrading roadway pre-treatment equipment. Item ETo adopt the following resolutionResolution 26-71 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota amending the Storm Water Utility Fund Budget and authorizing use of the Ramsey Washington Metro Trunk Storm Sewer Fund for the Windwood Passage Stormwater Lift Station Project. Item FTo adopt the following ordinanceOrdinance 2078 Ordinance of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota Repealing and Recreating Chapter 9 Franchises, Section 9-6 CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.-Gas Franchise Fee, Schedule A, Franchise Fee for Com/Ind B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr. Item GTo adopt a motion to review and accept the 2025 Fourth Quarter Budgeted Fund Summary Report as provided with Council Letter 26-115. Item HThe 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 May 8, 2026 in the amount of $3,053,771.58. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – absent ## Public Hearings A.Consider Approval of 3rd Act Brewery LLC dba 3rd Act Brewery, 4120 Radio Drive, On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor License including Sunday and Patio Sales, Manufacturer’s Intoxicating Liquor Brew Pub License, and Brew Pub Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor ## License Mayor Pro Tem Santini declared the public hearing open. ## Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Ashleigh Sullivan stated Ms. Sullivan noted that 3 rd Act Brewery LLC dba 3rd Act Brewery has submitted an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor License, including Sunday and Patio Sales, a Manufacturer’s Intoxicating Liquor Brew Pub License, and a Brew Pub Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for their business located at 4120 Radio Drive. Ms. Sullivan shared a location map showing the location of the business. Sullivan noted the business has been operating with a Micro Brewer License, Tap Room On-Sale Sunday License, and Brewer Off-Sale License since 2018, but intends to begin offering wine and hard cider, which requires the business to apply for new license types. Ms. Sullivan explained that 3 rd Act Brewery LLC has two owners: Stephen Long, 50 percent, and Debra Long, 50 percent. As required by City Code, a criminal history check as it pertains to liquor licensing was conducted on each owner with a financial interest, and no violations that ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Page 4 of 6 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. Mayor Pro Tem Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini ## Absent: Burt Mayor Pro Tem Santini opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to approve an On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor License, including Sunday and Patio Sales, Manufacturer’s Intoxicating Liquor Brew Pub License, and Brew Pub Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to 3rd Act Brewery LLC dba 3rd Act Brewery located at 4120 Radio Drive. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – absent B.Consider Approval of LTF Club Operations Company, Inc dba Life Time, 675 Commons Drive, On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor ## License including Sunday Sales Mayor Pro Tem Santini declared the public hearing open. Ms. Sullivan stated LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., dba Life Time, has submitted an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor License, including Sunday Sales, for their business located at 675 Commons Drive. Ms. Sullivan shared a location map showing the location of the business. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc does not have any owners with 5% or more interest in the business, but a background check was completed on the onsite manager with no findings. 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. 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. The on-site manager, Jeremy Sandigo, was present and addressed Council. Mr. Sandigo stated the intention is to elevate the member experience by offering beer and wine sales throughout the week. Mayor Pro Tem Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini ## Absent: Burt Mayor Pro Tem Santini opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Morris asked if this was Life Time’s first application for a liquor license. Mr. Sandigo replied that it is the first license for the Woodbury club, but that other locations have licenses and serve alcohol. Councilmember Stafford asked if the patrons were asking for the liquor license. Mr. Sandigo replied that there are some patrons who have expressed that they would enjoy it, but there is no strong opinion on it. Mayor Pro Tem Santini noted that there are spaces at some Life Time facilities that are meant for work or lounge spaces. Councilmember Morris asked if the license is allowed within the commercial or business district. City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom replied that the commercial and business district does not specify hospitality versus non-hospitality uses in the zoning. Councilmember Morris explained that Life Time’s core business is fitness and not hospitality and asked what was in place to ensure that they were in compliance and that they were running the liquor license by State and law enforcement standards. Ms. Sullivan replied that the City would conduct compliance checks at the business, along with other licensed businesses selling alcohol in the city. Mr. Sandstrom added that Life Time is required to comply with state law as it pertains to alcohol sales, and it is not the City’s job to educate them on the law. ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Councilmember Stafford asked if there would be training for the people who would be serving the beer and wine. Mr. Sandigo replied that all State laws are followed, and there would be training. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be a designated spot where the alcohol would be consumed. Mr. Sandigo replied that there would be designated areas in the café and workspaces. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to approve an On Sale Intoxicating Wine and Beer Liquor License including Sunday Sales to LTF Club Operations Company, Inc dba Life Time located at 675 Commons Drive. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – absent C.Consider Approval of Main Event Entertainment, Inc dba Main Event, 540 Bielenberg Drive, On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including ## Sunday Sales Mayor Pro Tem Santini declared the public hearing open. Ms. Sullivan stated Main Event Entertainment, Inc., dba Main Event, has submitted an application for an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, including Sunday Sales, for their business located at 540 Bielenberg Drive. Ms. Sullivan shared a location map showing the location of the business. Main Event Entertainment, Inc does not have any owners with 5 percent or more interest in the business, however a background check was completed for the onsite manager with no findings. 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. 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. Legal Council for Main Event Entertainment, Inc., Daniel Christians, was present and addressed the Council. Mr. Christians expressed excitement to be in the City. Councilmember Stafford asked when the anticipated opening date would be. Mr. Christians replied that it would be August 3, 2026 and the business is already working on bringing on staff and training them to work at the Woodbury location. Mayor Pro Tem Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to close the public hearing. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini ## Absent: Burt Mayor Pro Tem Santini opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council. Councilmember Morris moved, seconded by Councilmember Stafford, to approve an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales to Main Event Entertainment, Inc for their business located at 540 Bielenberg Drive. Voting via voice: Kim Wilson – aye Donna Stafford – aye Steve Morris – aye Jennifer Santini – aye Anne Burt – absent ## Discussion No items scheduled Transportation Report (2nd meeting of the month, May-October) Engineer Director Chris Hartzell stated the current construction projects in the City include the Water Treatment Pipeline Project, the Valley Creek Road Trail Project (Colby Lake Park underpass to Dancing Waters Parkway), Bailey Road and Fairway Drive traffic signal, 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project, Woodlane Drive pavement rehabilitation project, Bailey Road and Settlers Ridge Parkway intersection improvement, and the Bailey Road and Manning Avenue intersection improvement. Mr. Hartzell updated the Council regarding the projects. The Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline Project is impacting traffic on Valley Creek Road. East of Woodbury Drive is reduced to one lane through the end of June. Westbound Valley Creek Road is closed from Woodbury Drive to ## City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Page 6 of 6 Interlachen Parkway with phased reopening throughout the summer. Side streets north of Valley Creek Road along the closed section will be closed intermittently. Colby Lake Drive is closed from Valley Creek Road to Courtland Road until late June. Bailey Road has been reopened to traffic. Southbound Pioneer Drive is closed from Bailey Road to Hargis Parkway and is anticipated to reopen to traffic in the next week. Radio Drive is closed between Bailey Road and Cobblestone Ashford Road through early June. Work on Hargis Parkway is scheduled to begin on June 8 th and will be completed before school starts in the fall. The project will be conducted in two phases to maintain access to East Ridge High School driveways. Mr. Hartzell stated a new trail will be constructed on the north side of Valley Creek Road. The project has been in the CIP for almost seven years. The Bailey Road and Fairway Drive traffic signal utility work, lane modifications, and paving are complete. The signal mast and signal mast arms will be installed over the next month, and the signal will be operational in July. Mr. Hartzell reviewed the 2026 Roadway Rehabilitation Project. Phase two of the project is in process and is anticipated to be completed in early July. Phases one and three are anticipated to begin. The Woodlane Drive pavement rehabilitation project began on May 26 th between ## Wooddale Drive and Courtley Road. Starting June 8 th , construction along Woodlane Drive from Courtley Road to Bailey Road will begin and be completed before school starts in the fall. One-lane traffic will be maintained along Woodlane Drive. Councilmember Wilson asked when the Radio Drive and Bailey Road intersection would open. Mr. Hartzell replied that next week it will be opened. Mr. Hartzell noted the Bailey Road and Settlers Ridge Parkway intersection improvement project and explained that a new roundabout is under construction, and it is a Washington County project. Updates for the project can be found at Washingtoncountymn.gov/County18. The Bailey Road and Manning Avenue intersection improvement project is an MnDOT project, and a new roundabout is being constructed. Bailey Road will be closed to traffic in mid-June and will open in October at the earliest. Mr. Hartzell stated residents can view current road and trail closures and detours on the water treatment plant project web page at woodburymn.gov/WaterTreatment. He encouraged the community to sign up for InTouch to receive updates on projects in the City. Councilmember Morris asked about rejuvenation projects. Mr. Hartzell replied that he did not know when they would begin. Mr. Dahl noted that staff could send the information to the Council on Friday. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be coordination on the roads closing at Woodlane Drive, and Radio Drive, and Bailey Road. Mr. Hartzell replied that his staff would coordinate the detours between the projects. ## City Administrator’s Report Mr. Dahl stated the City hosted a Memorial event on Monday and thanked those who attended and who led and volunteered for the event. Mayor Pro Tem Santini threw the first pitch for the Miracle League at the M Health Sports Center. The City will host an educational Juneteenth trail walk behind City Hall with additional displays at Colby Lake in Ojibway Park. The holiday commemorates the emancipation of enslaved people in the US and was first celebrated in 1865, and became a State holiday in 2023. The walk will be available starting June 1 st and offers community members an opportunity to learn more about the holiday. City offices will be closed on June 19 th in observance of Juneteenth. The City is looking for volunteers for a weed pulling event at Hasenbank Park, from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on May 28 th . ## Adjournment Mayor Pro Tem Santini moved, seconded by Councilmember Morris, to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. ## Voting in Favor:Wilson, Stafford, Morris, Santini ## Absent: Burt Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________ ## Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Approved by the Woodbury City Council on June 10, 2026. ## 6B ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of the City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-121 June 10, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of Electrical Inspection Services Agreement Renewal ## Summary The City has historically contracted with a third-party firm for electrical inspection services as opposed to employing an Electrical Inspector within the City’s Inspections Division. The current contractor, Kohout Inspections, Inc., is under contract with the City through June 30, 2026. Staff has reviewed the terms of the current Electrical Inspection Services Agreement and proposes that the City extend the contract for an additional five years. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute an Electrical Inspection Services Agreement with Kohout Inspections, LLC, an independent contractor, as approved by the City Attorney. The term of the Agreement shall run from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2031. ## Fiscal Implications The City intends to continue its long-standing contractual structure of retaining 25 percent of the electrical permit fees received in connection with electrical permits issued and paying 75 percent of the electrical permit fees to the electrical inspector contractor. This percentage of payment method is common within the industry. The adopted 2026 budget reflects this revenue approach. ## Policy ## AD-ADMFIN-1.17 Purchasing ## Public Process This is the first public process for this contract. ## Council Letter 26-121 June 10, 2026 Page 2 ## Background Pursuant to the Purchasing Policy, the Building Inspections Division issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for electrical inspection services. The sole respondent was the City's current contract inspector, Kohout Inspections, LLC, which has successfully performed all duties under its existing agreement. Jason Kohout is the owner of Kohout Inspections, LLC. Mr. Kohout holds an Associate’s Degree from Saint Paul Technical College. He is a licensed Class A Master Electrician in the State of Minnesota and holds the EPA Refrigerant Certification. Mr. Kohout has worked in a wide range of professional capacities including running his own business since 2003 and serving as an Electrical Instructor at Dunwoody College of Technology teaching classes in Basic Electricity, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Wiring. He has been the contract electrical inspector since May 24, 2021. ## Written By:Richard Munson, Building Official ## Approved Through:Eric Searles, Assistant Community Development Director ## Attachment:None ## 6C ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-122 June 10, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Acceptance of the Woodbury Community Foundation Grant and Approving ## the Associated Budget Amendment ## Summary The Woodbury Community Foundation has graciously awarded a grant of $3,612 to the City of Woodbury to cover the expenditures associated with Woodbury Public Safety’s Project Lifesaver initiatives. Mr. Gonzalo Medina provided a generous donation to the Woodbury Community Foundation’s Public Safety Fund to specifically support the launch of Project Lifesaver. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Woodbury Community Foundation Grant and approving the associated budget amendment. ## Fiscal Implications The City was awarded funds in the amount of $3,612 from the Woodbury Community Foundation. It is necessary to amend the 2026 Adopted Budget to reflect this increase in revenue and associated expenditures in the General Fund Police Division – Operating Supplies-Small Equipment. ## Policy This program aligns with AD-ADMFIN-1.11 Grant Application and Management Policy. ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background Project Lifesaver is a non-profit organization that provides a search and rescue program, also called Project Lifesaver, utilized internationally by public safety agencies. Project Lifesaver is designed to protect and when necessary, quickly locate individuals with cognitive conditions who are prone to the life-threatening behavior of wandering away from home or their loved ones. The purpose of Project ## Council Letter 26-122 June 10, 2026 Page 2 Lifesaver is to save lives and reduce potential injury for adults and children who have wandered due to a cognitive condition. Project Lifesaver includes state of the art locating technologies, such as a bracelet worn by the individual who wanders and a location tool utilized by law enforcement agencies. Project Lifesaver also includes innovative and methodic search and rescue methods and community policing courses that educate first responders about cognitive conditions. Woodbury community member Mr. Gonzalo Medina provided a generous donation to the Woodbury Community Foundation’s Public Safety Fund to specifically support Project Lifesaver. The Woodbury Community Foundation is the charitable foundation that partners with the City of Woodbury to make positive impacts and enhance wellbeing in the community. ## Written By:Elizabeth Owens, Community Relations Specialist-Public Safety ## Approved Through:Tom Ehrenberg, Patrol Commander ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-72 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Authorizing the Acceptance of the Woodbury Community Foundation Grant and Approving the ## Associated Budget Amendment WHEREAS, Woodbury Community Foundation has awarded the City of Woodbury a Grant in the amount of $3,612; and WHEREAS, the grant is used to support the expenditures associated with Woodbury ## Public Safety’s Project Lifesaver initiative; 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 Woodbury Community Foundation Grant of $3,612 is hereby authorized in accordance with the terms set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota, to approve the following revenue increase to the 2026 General Fund Budget: ## Division/AccountAmount ## Police Division-Miscellaneous Revenue 101-20-225-00000-485015-000-$ 3,612 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following expenditure increase be made to the ## 2026 General Fund Budget: ## Division/AccountAmount ## Police Division-Operating Supplies-Small Equipment 101-20-225-00000-521030-000-$ 3,612 This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 10th day of June, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6D ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-123 June 10, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Subject:Approval of the 2026 First Quarter Budgeted Fund Summary ## Summary Per Council Directive CD-FIN-5.14 Financial Reporting to City Council, quarterly financial reporting is to be provided to the City Administrator for review and the City Council in an advisory role. For the first quarter, reporting is completed for the General Fund and for quarters two through four for all budgeted funds per the directive. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council review and accept the 2026 First Quarter Budgeted Fund Summary Report as provided. ## Fiscal Implications As provided in reporting. ## Policy ## Council Directive CD-FIN-5.14 Financial Reporting to City Council ## Public Process Not applicable ## Background Staff has provided such reporting to Council in the past through the Friday packet informational system. Starting in 2026, reporting is to be provided via the consent agenda at the first available Council meeting following completion of reporting by staff. As noted in the Directive, reporting is provided to assist the City Council to meet its statutory obligations over the City’s financial affairs including, but not limited to, levying taxes, adopting a budget, auditing and settling accounts, safekeeping and disbursement of public money, borrowing money and designating depositories. ## Council Letter 26-123 June 10, 2026 Page 2 ## Written By:Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator ## Jason Schirmacher, CFO/Controller ## Approved Through:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachment:2026 First Quarter General Fund Summary ## Adjusted20262026/2025% Variance ## BudgetYTD YTD Variance YTD % of YTD ## YTD Variance Increase 20262026of BudgetBudget2025 of Actuals(Decrease) ## Revenues ## Property Taxes44,349,498$ -$ (44,349,498)$ n/a-$ -$ n/a Licenses629,550 663,301 33,751 105%688,867 (25,566) -4% ## Development Fees and Permits4,334,884 778,467 (3,556,417) 18%1,199,487 (421,020) -35% ## Intergovernmental Revenues2,384,500 606,002 (1,778,498) 25%573,899 32,103 6% ## Charges for Services1,055,452 724,810 (330,642) 69%696,649 28,161 4% ## Recreation976,100 448,425 (527,675) 46%478,096 (29,671) -6% ## Fines and Forfeitures277,800 57,331 (220,469) 21%55,040 2,291 4% ## Investment Earnings650,000 668,693 18,693 103%285,040 383,653 135% ## Miscellaneous Income47,350 22,139 (25,211) 47%21,860 279 1% ## Transfers In from Other Funds7,276,700 1,819,175 (5,457,525) 25%1,565,750 253,425 16% 61,981,834$ 5,788,343$ (56,193,491)$ 9%5,564,688$ 223,655$ 4% ## Expenditures Mayor and Council256,200$ 119,886$ (136,314)$ 47%113,721$ 6,165$ 5% ## Human Resources 1,214,600 216,182 (998,418) 18%186,275 29,907 16% ## Administration1,854,800 384,218 (1,470,582) 21%343,957 40,261 12% ## Finance2,429,600 466,964 (1,962,636) 19%512,951 (45,987) -9% ## IT2,571,800 594,286 (1,977,514) 23%496,793 97,493 20% ## Community Relations1,111,000 259,615 (851,385) 23%229,908 29,707 13% Planning1,528,700 287,431 (1,241,269) 19%272,044 15,387 6% Inspections2,382,000 682,329 (1,699,671) 29%490,840 191,489 39% Police 19,895,450 4,183,500 (15,711,950) 21%3,522,104 661,396 19% ## EMS Fire8,432,200 1,752,069 (6,680,131) 21%1,357,366 394,703 29% Emergency Preparedness220,100 53,854 (166,246) 24%49,886 3,968 8% Engineering 3,421,084 656,999 (2,764,085) 19%496,878 160,121 32% Municipal Buildings1,812,400 341,284 (1,471,116) 19%347,875 (6,591) -2% Public Works Administration884,600 188,095 (696,505) 21%166,497 21,598 13% Street Maintenance3,966,000 841,657 (3,124,343) 21%631,211 210,446 33% ## Fleet Services2,761,700 508,688 (2,253,012) 18%559,162 (50,474) -9% Street Lighting *- - - n/a 17,384 (17,384) -100% Parks and Forestry5,315,200 815,576 (4,499,624) 15%739,332 76,244 10% Recreation 2,434,400 443,856 (1,990,544) 18%501,173 (57,317) -11% ## Unallocated: Unexpended(500,000) - 500,000 n/a- - n/a 61,991,834$ 12,796,489$ (49,195,345)$ 21%11,035,357$ 1,761,132$ 16% ## Allocation of Excess Revenue Over Expenditures - Operating Budget(10,000)$ (7,008,146)$ (6,998,146)$ 70081%(5,470,669)$ (1,537,477)$ Capital Improvement Fund500,000$ -$ (500,000)$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ (500,000)$ -$ -$ Over Expenditures(510,000)$ (7,008,146)$ (6,498,146)$ 1374%(5,470,669)$ (1,537,477)$ * Starting with the 2026 Adopted Budget, the Street Lighting Division is now accounted for in the operational budget of the Street Lighting Utility Fund Budget which is an Enterprise Fund that is not supported by property tax revenues but user rates. ## Total Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues ## City of Woodbury ## General Fund Summary ## For the Period Ended March 31, 2026 ## Transfers to Other Funds Page 1 ## General Fund: Fund Balance - December 31, 202526,604,245$ YTD 2026 Revenues 5,788,343$ YTD 2026 Expenditures (12,796,489) Operating Surplus / (Deficit)(7,008,146) Fund Balance - March 31, 202619,596,099$ ## Fund Balance Analysis - General Fund: ## Nonspendable: ## Prepaids530,503$ ## Committed (Per City Policy): ## For Emergencies (2.5% of Budget)1,541,679 For Compensated Absences (50% of total)2,230,545 ## Assigned: Next Year's Budget (carryovers and budget adjustments)40,000 ## Next Year's Budget Deficit470,000 ## Unassigned: ## For Cash Flow (1)14,783,372 ## Total Fund Balance19,596,099$ (1) Cash Flow is established as a range - Minimum - 20% of ensuing year's budget12,427,430$ Maximum - 30% of ensuing year's budget18,641,145$ ## General Fund Adopted Budget for 202662,137,150$ ## CITY OF WOODBURY Fund Balance as of March 31, 2026 $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 Millions ($) ## Quarter End ## General Fund Balance Starting with 2023, reflecting advance tax settlement posting to Juneinstead of July. Page 2 ## 6E ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-124 June 10, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Labor Contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police ## (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services ## Summary The labor contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) ended on December 31, 2025. An agreement has been reached for a two-year contract (2026 & 2027) with multiple changes. The labor contract was approved by the Union members and is described in this Council letter. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving the labor contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services union and authorize required signatures. ## Fiscal Implications The agreement calls for a general wage increase of 8.25 percent (8.25%) for 2026 and three percent (3%) in 2027. The general wage increase has a 2026 budget impact estimated at $106,000. The 2026 Adopted Budget for the Sergeant group did include a three percent wage increase. This agreement also includes an annual increase of $150 each year to the existing clothing allowance for an increased cost of $1,650/year or a total of $3,300 for this contract. ## Policy ## City of Woodbury and Woodbury Sergeants LELS Labor Contract ## Minnesota Statutes 179A.01 Public Employee Labor Relations Act ## Public Process The City Council meeting will be the first public process for this item. ## Council Letter 26-124 June 10, 2026 Page 2 ## Background The City negotiation and labor contract process is governed by Minnesota Statutes 179A.01 Public Employee Labor Relations Act. The City has an obligation to meet and negotiate in good faith with the intent of entering into a contract of terms and conditions of employment. The City of Woodbury has four bargaining units, the Woodbury Police Officers Association (WPOA), Law Enforcement Labor Services #578 (Firefighters) and Woodbury Police Law Enforcement Labor Services #543 (Sergeant) are essential units of employees under PELRA which mean that these groups are eligible for binding arbitration. The remaining bargaining unit is the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 (IUOE Local 49) (Public Service Workers – Streets, Utilities, Parks and Fleet Technicians). The bargaining unit is a non-essential unit of employees under PELRA and is not eligible for binding arbitration. All other employees are unrepresented. For 2026, the proposed settlement for the Sergeants’ union includes an 8.25 percent (8.25%) general wage increase. This increase is aligned in context with other recently approved labor agreements across the City and market conditions. Looking ahead to 2027, all union groups are scheduled to receive a three percent (3%) general wage increase, while adjustments for non-represented employees will be determined through the annual budget process. Staff researched and prepared for the bargaining sessions and then negotiated the contract with the Union. As is normal practice, once a settlement has been reached, staff brings the contract back to the City Council for final approval. The proposed contract includes the following changes. The Union has approved the contract. ## (1) APPENDIX A WAGES The following Step wage amounts to be implemented upon the beginning of the payroll that includes the start date of the contract. 1/1/25 01/01/2026 (8.25 %) 01/01/2027 (3 %) ## Step A$53.47$57.88$59.62 ## Step B $55.57$60.15$61.96 ## Step C $57.76$62.53$64.40 Step D $60.03 $64.98$66.93 Step E $62.40 $67.55$69.57 ## Step F$64.86$70.21$72.32 ## Step G$67.41$72.97$75.16 General wage increases of: 1/1/2026: 8.25 percent (8.25%) (already included in above numbers) 1/1/2027: three percent (3%, already included in above numbers) ## Council Letter 26-124 June 10, 2026 Page 3 ## (2) ARTICLE 34 – DURATION A duration of two years. January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2027. ## (3) CONTRACT CHANGES a. Removed reference to paramedic and firefighter as no longer applicable. b. Update pronouns throughout contract to be more inclusive. c. Corrected holiday language error from previous contract to align with practice. d. Added clarifying language under vacation at separation that the provision follows the Health Care Savings Directive for employee group elections as outlined. e. Added language under Sick time regarding employees waiving MN Statute sec 181.9447 subdivision 1, clause (4) to use Earned Sick & Safe time during a public emergency or weather event unless otherwise approved by the employer. f.Increase uniform allowance as follows: i. 2026 from $950 to $1,050 ii. 2027 from $1,050 to $1,200 ## Written By:Tammy Funk, Human Resources Manager ## Approved Through:Angela Gorall, Deputy City Administrator ## Attachment:Resolution Resolution 26-73 Resolution of the City of Woodbury, ## Washington County, Minnesota Approving the Labor Contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeants) ## Law Enforcement Labor Services Union and Authorize Required Signatures WHEREAS, the labor contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeants) Law Enforcement Labor Services union ended on December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been reached for a two-year agreement (2026 and 2027); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota to approve a contract between the City of Woodbury and the Woodbury Police (Sergeant) Law Enforcement Labor Services Union and authorize the appropriate signatures. This Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator this 10th day of June, 2026. ## Attest:Anne W. Burt, Mayor ## Jeffrey Dahl, City Administrator(SEAL) ## 6F ## City of Woodbury, Minnesota ## Office of City Administrator ## Council Letter 26-125 June 10, 2026 ## To:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ## From:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator Subject:Approval of Designating Deputy Clerks as Responsible Authority in the Absence of the ## City Clerk ## Summary Per MN Statute 13.02 Subd. 16, the Responsible Authority is the elected or appointed City Clerk. To provide continuity of these responsibilities in the absence of the City Clerk, the Council may designate a deputy clerk to fulfill this role. ## Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve the designation of Deputy Clerks as the Responsible Authority in the absence of the City Clerk. ## Fiscal Implications ## None ## Policy ## Minnesota Statute Ch. 13 ## Public Process This is the first public process for this item. ## Background The “Responsible Authority” has responsibilities for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data. The City currently has two individuals designated as Deputy Clerks. With action from the Council, these individuals would be designated as “Responsible Authority” in the absence of the City Clerk. ## Written By:Ashleigh Sullivan, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk ## Approved Through:Jeffrey J. Dahl, City Administrator ## Attachment:None