[4:51] Good evening. Welcome to the city of Woodbury City Council meeting for today, August 27th, 2025. It is 7:30 p.m. This [4:59] meeting is being held here in council chambers. We also, all these meetings are also streamed online with our lovely [5:05] uh um True Lens Media. Um, and you can watch it online. If you've had so much fun here tonight, I encourage you to [5:10] come back to another meeting or just watch online every other Wednesday night, 7:30. There's truly a lot of fun. [5:17] Um, but it's good to see so many people in the audience tonight. Thank you for coming to this meeting. Um, we always [5:22] take public comments at the meeting. Uh, there's uh opportunities for uh green sheets or blue sheets depending on what [5:28] topic you have. That information should be sitting on your chairs and more information out back. Uh, we do always [5:33] take uh comments and questions virtually as well. So Ashley will be monitoring that. Um in case you do have fun tonight [5:38] and you want to do this more in the future and you want to do it from the pleasure pleasure of your own home, you can always tune in. Um these uh this is [5:47] like I said broadcast live by Trillens Media. It's also uh communicate or reshow and on channel 799 or you can [5:53] always go to city of Woodberry's YouTube channel. Um and we that's okay that's it for that. [6:00] Okay. As is our norm, please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the [6:07] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation [6:13] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [6:19] Okay. Ashley is our um assistant city administrator/city clerk and would you [6:24] please do the roll call? Ashley. Council member Morris here. Council member Santini here. [6:30] Council member Stafford here. Council member Wilson here. Mayor Bert here. We are all here tonight, so we're [6:36] able to conduct tonight's business with a full quorum. Um, our first item of business tonight is a report on our [6:42] August 27th, 2025 close session. This had to do with litigation status and strategy discussion with special [6:49] litigation council from the Taft law firm to discuss the 3M PAS and AF [6:54] litigation. Our attorney uh for Taft is not with us tonight, but our city attorney, Kevin, is going to give us a [6:59] brief update on that. Sure. Thank you, Madame Mayor. And just as we always do a brief update on these closed sessions, it was closed pursuant [7:05] to Minnesota statute 13D.05 under the basis of the attorney client privilege for pending litigation. And so this Taft [7:14] law firm, the city's special counsel in relation to all PAS and uh firefighting foam relating litigation came in and [7:21] gave the council an update on the various status of the litigation matters before the city. no official action or [7:27] was taken uh during the course of that meeting and the law firm continues to work on the matters. [7:34] Thank you, Kevin. I appreciate that. Um all right, the next order of business is um League of Minnesota Cities um is here [7:40] to present an emerging leader award. Luke Luke Fischer and Wendy Barry. Luke [7:46] Fischer is the are you the president, the chair, the executive director? Executive director executive director of the League of [7:52] Minnesota Cities. I would love because many people here don't know what the League of Minnesota Cities is. Maybe you just give a little brief background on [7:59] that and Wendy Barry is here as well who is the current president of the League of Minnesota Cities and council member [8:05] from West St. Paul. So, not a far drive for you which is good. Thank you. It's great. Thank you so much, Madam [8:10] Mayor, members of the council. Uh I'm really excited to be here. I know Wendy's excited to be here tonight to recognize uh you, Mayor Bert. And I was [8:18] actually going to do exactly what you're asking me to do to provide a little bit of context because that's helpful when [8:23] you're getting recognition. You all know who we are as an organization. We see you at our trainings, at our conferences, at our events. That's [8:29] great. But the public doesn't. They deserve to know just so they know how significant the recognition is that you [8:35] received. As an association, we represent 841 of the state's 856 cities. [8:41] Our largest member is the city of Minneapolis. Our smallest member is the city of Barry. Any guesses on Barry's [8:48] population? 42. Would you say 42? Okay. Interesting. Interesting guess. [8:54] Council member, any other guesses? 612. 612. [8:59] 126. 126. 57. 57. She's going to guess $1. You got to get on the board. [9:08] 213. 213. If we were playing prices right rules, you're all out. They've got a population of 19. Um, so as an [9:16] association, we should $1. Should have done the $1, council member. [9:21] It was right there. You had the you had the heads up. Uh, but as as an association, we get to see everyone [9:27] across the state. We really do in our work from big cities uh, like Minneapolis and St. Paul, large cities [9:33] like Woodbury and small cities like Barry and all points in between. And in that work, we get to see the best of the [9:38] best. And so when we give an award or when we give recognition, it really truly is someone or something or a [9:45] project that exemplifies things that we want to see emulated uh actions, leadership that we hope other people can [9:52] follow. Um and that's why we're here tonight, Mayor Burke, to do that for you. Um but I think your leadership has [9:58] has shown true here in Woodbury, and we all know that. We also want to recognize just for a second to your city administrator who's on our board now, um [10:05] serving as the metro city's president. So, we've got a good leader here, too, and we just wanted to congratulate you as an association on behalf of a good [10:12] hireer in that spot, too, and a good reflection of your commitment to leadership. So, congratulations, Jeff. [10:18] But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Wendy to talk a little bit about the award. Perfect. Yeah, thanks for having me. Uh, [10:24] Wendy Barry, current uh president of the league's board and also city council member in West St. Paul. And, uh, I'm in [10:30] Woodbury a lot. Uh, so we like that, Wendy. Um, I really am. I don't know how I've [10:36] never run into any of you. probably have. Um, so I'm very pleased to be here this evening to recognize uh Mayor Anne [10:41] Bert, winner of the emerging leader award presented by the league of Minnesota cities. The award was first presented to Mayor Bert earlier this [10:46] summer at the league's annual conference in Duth. Uh the emerging leader award is given in recognition, encouragement of [10:51] elected or appointed officials who are early in their service to municipal government, eight years of experience or less. That's not how long it feels, how [10:58] long it actually is, right? um have made meaningful contributions to their city [11:03] and to the larger community of Minnesota cities and show promise for continuing service and leadership. Nominations are [11:09] submitted by staff or elected officials from cities where nominees serve. Minnesota's fortunate enough to produce [11:14] many outstanding public servants dedicated to working in local government and the league is particularly pleased to recognize Mayor Bert with the 2025 [11:20] award since she so closely exemplifies the very qualities that define it. As an emerging leader, Mayor Bert is already [11:26] well on her way toward an impressive record of achievement. As her nominators notes, in times of challenges and [11:31] celebrations, obstacles, and opportunities, Mayor Bert's leadership has never wavered. Her continued commitment to the community and seeking [11:37] equitable policy solutions has advanced Woodbury's profile as a welcoming and vibrant community. The mayor was tested [11:43] early in her term as she first came into office came into office in the midst of the CO 19 crisis, the threat of civil [11:49] unrest following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and PAS contamination in several of Woodberry's water wells. Her leadership excelled [11:55] through these initial challenges. During Mayor Bert's tenure, the city of Woodbury has received recognition from organizations such as the Government [12:01] Finance Officers Association, Money Magazine, and Minnesota Greenstep Cities, underscoring her effectiveness [12:06] in helping to manage city operations and sustainable sustainability efforts, which often aren't really on the same [12:12] page of things, right? Um, the mayor's work is admired and appreciated by her counterparts as well. As co-chair of the [12:18] regional council of mayors, she has worked with her peers on issues critical to regional communities. One of Ant's nominators representing [12:25] that council wrote, "Mayor Bert is a forward thinker, and her grounding in today's relevant issues helps to define our monthly agendas like water, public [12:32] safety, housing, and regional growth in the future. Much has already been accomplished early in the mayor's few years of service. But perhaps the best [12:38] is yet to come. Her attributes and accomplish and accomplishments demonstrate the breadth of leadership that the League of Minnesota set out to [12:44] recognize when we when we established the Emerging Leader Award a few years ago." Let's uh hear more now from some [12:49] of Mayor Bert's friends and colleagues. I think we have video. [12:58] Great leaders are great learners. And Ann is a learner. She loves information. [13:03] She cares deeply about what she does. She's a people person. And those [13:09] characteristics just bring a natural enthusiasm and you want to go with that enthusiasm. The mayor's just been [13:16] amazing in the city in my opinion. Just being out there and connected with the community and just leading various [13:22] initiatives. Just been a very vocal point and an active participant in the various initiatives. Not just uh cityled [13:29] but also community led and never views her herself as the smartest person in the room. She's a [13:36] humble leader and she is so willing to learn and put in the work that's required to be the best in the field. [13:42] One of the projects she helped initiate was a crisis fund that would provide [13:49] some additional financial assistance to public safety officers who were meeting people in the community in a time of [13:55] need. When social services isn't available, those officers were often going into their own pocket to buy [14:02] diapers or a tank of gas or maybe an emergency hotel stay. and the crisis fund um helped establish a way for [14:09] residents to donate to support and help those public safety officers help others [14:14] in need. Some of the things that has come up in some of the challenges when we talk about our particular community which is [14:20] seen as very affluent is the housing. So some of the challenges that the mayor has helped us talk us through is what [14:27] are the challenges around housing equity and housing affordability. our biggest uh project here in the city is having to [14:34] do the long-term water treatment plant. And so Ann with her background has been such a wonderful asset um to really help [14:40] us move that project along. Um it has been a heavy lift and she has been such a strong advocate as it relates to [14:46] trying to get more funding for the city to combat the PAS issues. Moran is not just a good leader, she's a [14:54] person of character. She has such a passion for our residents and a passion for doing things the right way, but it [15:00] always comes down to when you meet her and when you speak to her, you know that she means it. And she's a lot of fun to [15:06] be around on top of it all. And it has been such an honor to work with you. You've been a great leader. [15:13] Again, the best uh mayor that any city administrator could possibly want. Congratulations, mayor. We think that [15:19] you are such a strong and positive asset to the community. We couldn't ask for a better person to serve. Um, it has been [15:26] an honor to serve alongside of you and we look forward to celebrating your great success. [15:39] A long outro. Uh, Mayor Bur, it's Mayor Bert, you [15:45] obviously bring energy and promise to inspire new generations of public service and congratulations on a job well done. Um, [15:58] [Applause] [16:08] [Music] [16:17] thank thank you very much. I it is uh truly humbling um and really touches my [16:23] heart. I appreciate all of you who come tonight. Um when this first happened, it was came as quite a surprise. We're up [16:28] at the League of Minnesota City's annual conference in Duth and my husband was able to come with me, which is not always the case, but we had a great time [16:35] and ended up at this lovely award banquet. You guys always do such a great job hosting that. And um it just came as [16:41] a true shock to me that this was happening and I was without words at that night um just trying to get up and [16:46] come up with something to say. But um truly it is very humbling. I find it such a privilege to serve in this role [16:52] as mayor. We have such a phenomenal city. Um and my whole goal from the [16:58] moment I decided to run many years ago was to make sure our city continues to be a strong and welcoming city, a great [17:05] place to raise a family. Um it's been such a great privilege for my husband and I to have moved here and to raise [17:10] our family here and we just want that for everyone. And I wanted to continue on that legacy. I have found how great [17:16] it is working with our city council here. I think we work well together coming up with different I you know [17:22] ideas and concepts and thoughts uh to make decisions for for this city that are important to our all of our [17:27] constituents going forward. What a privilege it's been and continues to be to work with all of our staff. This group of people are the most [17:33] professional and amazing dedicated people and I can't tell you this city runs so well because of it. Um many [17:40] thanks to Clint Gridley who um was here for 21 years. We now have Jeff Dalan replacing him. Uh just started a month [17:47] ago. I think you're a month in, maybe a month tomorrow. Um and just, you know, it's we're just going to continue doing [17:53] great things. Um it's been important for me this whole water treatment project because of my professional background [17:58] that we do this thing. And we just came back from a plant visit just to see not a plant visit, construction visit to see [18:04] how the plant is coming along. Um yes, we've got construction, yes, we have road construction, but we're going to [18:09] make this water wonderful and it's going to be great for decades to come. Um, so again, I'm just really honored to serve [18:15] and just so appreciate this um this award. And I know I've got to come down and grab that. And then we'll do um just [18:22] a few pictures. And um I'm just going to invite I only have one family member here and that's my husband. Um but I [18:28] have a lot of friends and my friends are like my family. So I'm going to we'll do something quick with just you guys, but [18:34] then I would love all of my friends to come up here in a quick photo with me. And then what's cool is you could be on [18:39] TV so you can go watch yourself. [18:44] So, okay. So, this is a Okay, I should No, you're good. This is a beautiful like I don't even [18:52] know what the It's some some professional photographer created this thing. And um anyway, it is a beautiful [18:58] um gift. So, I very much appreciate that. So, what you guys want to do up here with us, you need to stand so that [19:04] you can walk out. [19:14] Well, Wendy said, "Hold on." Keep going. Here we go. [19:31] Okay, now here's what we're going to do. Okay, I need staff. Everyone, staff has to stand up over here, too. Um, all the [19:38] friends, everyone, you got to do this quick. got a lot of business up here. Oh man, I love this. [19:44] Because here's the deal. I may not have this many people showing up until it's my funeral. [20:00] Yeah, we'll take it for you. Yeah. Come on. You got to be in the picture, [20:05] Stephanie. All right. A lot of people here. [20:12] [Music] Let's go. All staff. All staff. [20:20] Oh, yeah. [20:31] Okay. Here we go. Three, two, one. [20:36] All right. Thank you. [Applause] [20:46] You guys look [20:58] Oh, I got like a little mini chair here. [21:08] It's going to be all quiet. See, it's going to be like the officers. You're going to want to go out with all of them. They're all going. [21:14] I was just going to say they're all they're all going to the wick or [21:23] So, yeah, we were commenting that's a lot like when we swear in police officers and we get all of their family [21:29] to come and it's all this ruckus and then they all leave and we carry on with our normal meeting. So, party without [21:34] you. They're going to go party without me. They are cupcakes or drinks. I'm not sure which. But anyway, uh thank thank [21:40] you again. Really quite honored. Thank you both for for coming and I really appreciate the honor from all of you. [21:45] It's really amazing. Um okay, we will now move on. Oh, I forgot to mention earlier. The original agenda item had 6E [21:52] and 7 C that were on there. They've been removed. So, I just want to say that. So, now we see we did 4 A, 4 B, 4 C. [21:58] Okay. This is a review of the 2024 audit and annual comprehensive financial report. [22:04] And uh with Jason, were you going to kick us off here with Yes. what we're talking about and then we got [22:11] a special guest to deliver the news. [22:17] Thank you, mayor, and uh members of the council. Um as you stated, I'm joining you tonight to bring forward the audited [22:24] 2024 financial statements and the corresponding reports. Um, these items were presented to the audit and [22:30] investment commission at their August 20th uh meeting at which time they [22:35] accepted the audit and gave staff approval to move forward with bringing it to council for approval. Um, joining [22:41] us tonight from the city's audit firm, uh, Bergen KDV is Ryan Engelstead. Ryan's going to give a brief [22:46] presentation on the audit and some financial indicators. And at which point at the end of the presentation, I will [22:52] just need a motion to accept the audit. And with that, I will kick it over to Ryan. Great. Thank you, Jason. Uh, first off, [22:59] uh, congratulations, Madame Mayor, on the wonderful award, welld deserved. So, and it's, uh, great to be with you all [23:05] here uh, this evening to present the results of the audit work that we did for the 2024 year uh, for the city. And, [23:13] uh, as Jason mentioned, I I did have the opportunity to meet with the audit uh, commission and spent u north of an hour [23:20] uh, going through all the details of the deliverables that that we provide as part of the audit process. Uh with the [23:26] understanding then um following that detailed review uh the presentation um [23:32] and comments to the council tonight uh will be at a much more abbreviated uh level and uh condense that down into a [23:39] slide deck uh 10 or so slides here. So uh I'll move through that and certainly if there's any questions as I'm going [23:46] through the information or on the back end please please raise those. So with [23:52] that uh we'll get into first the details as far as what's included in in our [23:59] portion of the overall financial report being the the independent auditor's report uh that comes towards the [24:05] beginning. Uh and then there's a couple additional reports that we issue as well uh that are summarized on this first uh [24:12] slide. Uh first off as a as a just kind of high level uh refresher type comment [24:19] uh uh as far as the responsibilities of us as as um the auditors versus uh [24:25] management's responsibilities uh at the city. Uh management is responsible for the fair presentation of the financial [24:32] information to us uh providing us with the necessary documents and so forth so we can complete our testing. Uh and then [24:39] also in addition to that maintaining appropriate internal controls um around the financial um the the sign [24:46] significant um uh activities as it as it pertains to the financial uh operations [24:52] and then our duty as the auditor is to come in and uh perform an audit that adheres to the professional standards [24:58] that will put us in a position where we can provide reasonable assurance that there would not be any material misstatements that would go undetected [25:05] as part of the process. Uh so all the work that we do uh throughout the various uh uh testing that's performed [25:12] ultimately gets us to the point of uh the opinion that we can provide uh with regards to the financial statements for [25:18] the city. Uh the terminology that's often used is an unmodified or clean opinion. Uh and that is indeed the the [25:25] type of opinion that we're uh rendering again this year uh for the city's audit as as expected. Uh but that is the [25:32] optimal result when it comes to a set of financial statements. That's what the bond rating agencies look towards. Uh [25:37] state auditor's office, all other uh outside users of the information and then certainly the the council as well. [25:44] Um so so that's the high level recap on the financial statements and and then in [25:50] in addition to that I I referred to internal controls. We do a walkthrough of various controls that are in place [25:56] things around segregation of duties. All of that checked out checked out fine. So the city is doing a great job with the resources in place to have good checks [26:03] and balances. uh from a internal control reporting perspective. One of the other things that we do have to consider as [26:08] part of the audit is if if as part of the uh uh engagement process if there [26:14] are instance if we identify uh the need for um an an adjustment or adjustments [26:21] to be made to the financial information and depending on the the significance of [26:26] the amounts involved in those adjustments. Um it it could put us in a situation where we have to report a [26:33] internal control matter as it pertains to the need for reliance on us as the outside party, the outside auditors to [26:40] propose that adjustment in order for the financial statements to be um materially correct. Uh so one of the unique things [26:48] that uh local governments have to deal with uh is in in the area of capital assets. So you think the capitalization [26:54] of of not not just buildings but infrastructure and so forth related to could be both [27:01] the public works department but also extending more specifically into the utilities and and such. uh there's a [27:07] technical somewhat narrow accounting requirement uh around uh the need to allocate those uh costs that are done on [27:14] a joint basis between say uh the public works department and utilities which [27:21] cross over between governmental and business type activities. So, not to get too far in the weeds, but uh that was [27:26] the nature of one of the adjustments that we had in that area was to to do that allocation on some of those joint [27:33] costs on on on some specific projects. And then in addition to that, uh when [27:38] there's development projects, uh it's not uncommon for the developer to at the conclusion of the project to contribute [27:45] a portion of the overall uh cost or the asset to the local government. uh which [27:50] then the local government uh brings that contribution on to your financial statements and depreciates that out. [27:56] That was another piece that uh we were involved in assisting with the uh proposed adjustment that was needed uh [28:02] in that regard. So uh in the grand scheme of things uh fairly narrow matter that was involved but it's unfortunate [28:08] the internal control reporting standards require us to uh communicate that in in such a fashion. Uh but uh there's a lot [28:16] of course of financial matters to tend to uh for the city and especially when it comes to the uh the accurate um [28:23] accounting and reporting for those. Uh so uh all in all, city staff again did a [28:28] did a great job of um um handling the the necessary bookkeeping and reporting [28:34] and had things in good order uh for us when we came in uh for the audit. But these, you know, one-off kind of things [28:40] do tend to surface from time to time, but certainly nothing uh of a, you know, pervasive nature uh that's any any [28:46] particular concern. So, okay. Uh so then a couple other areas that we have to look at as part of the audit relate to [28:52] Minnesota legal compliance. So, the state auditor's office publishes a a guide that we have to go through in [28:57] addition to our other audit programs. Uh really hones in on the the applicable state statutes that have financial [29:03] pertinance. Uh so think uh areas around bidding and contracting um with your with the city's deposits [29:10] ensuring that the the depositories have uh if the deposits are in excess of FDIC [29:16] coverage that there's appropriate levels of uh pledge securities there in place to cover uh that that uh exposure. So [29:25] the work we did in that regard all checked out well. Uh there were no findings to report as it pertains to [29:30] state statute compliance. And then the last part here uh just relates to uh the [29:36] federal awards compliance. So uh anytime a a uh local government or nonprofit [29:42] receives and expends more than $750,000 in in federal grant uh monies in a in a [29:49] given year. There's a need for this separate compliance audit uh um that comes into play. And uh with the [29:56] significance of the pandemic relief funding and a lot of that was still coming through and being utilized uh in [30:02] 2024 uh that uh that along with some other uh grant programs that the city has [30:09] collectively you know certainly put you over that well over that threshold. Uh the the the continued use on the [30:15] pandemic relief funds was to the tune of a couple million dollars. So that was the focus of our testing and the the [30:21] work we did there all checked out well too. uh no no findings uh to report [30:26] there and of course the reports get submitted to the federal agencies and so forth. And that's a a good result uh [30:32] when it comes to then pursuing other grants in the future uh showing that the city's got uh good good uh procedures in [30:39] place to adhere to uh the the myriad of compliance requirements that that come in uh to those arrangements. So okay. So [30:47] then real quick uh from a financial analysis perspective uh with the audit commission I went through in addition to [30:53] some of the information we'll focus on here also covered details around the general fund uh and then the enterprise [31:00] funds as well uh really took a deep dive into those those segments uh to to make [31:06] this uh more high level and a summarized fashion uh the focus here will be more so on the the governmental funds which [31:12] the general fund is a big part of that uh of course and then it it does bring in other funs for debt service and [31:18] capital projects and and and the like. Uh so we'll look at both of the uh we'll [31:25] look at both revenue and expenditures on a per capita basis here. Um again for [31:30] those governmental funds specifically uh and the there's a lot on the on these [31:36] in these tables and basically what's included here is a three-year trend uh [31:42] uh for the city of Woodbury specifically uh and then also doing a comparison to [31:47] other similarsized uh cities in the Twin Cities metro. the uh comparative data. [31:54] Uh it is a bit um um dated. Uh there [32:00] there's a annual process that the state auditor's office goes through to gather all of this data and then puts it [32:07] together in a report and uh the the work that they're doing for the 2023 year is still it's in progress. Uh so we did not [32:14] have comparative data yet uh for for that year. So we are still looking at 21 and 22 for that information. uh but I'll [32:22] just provide some quick comments here uh in regards to that. So first off uh in looking at total revenues on a [32:28] governmental funds basis the city of Woodbury is about at level about 70% of [32:34] where the averages for other metroized cities. So thinking both property taxes [32:39] intergovernmental revenue whose special assessments uh and the like. So on property taxes alone the city's at about [32:46] 80% of what the average is for metro cities. So good uh good position there. [32:51] and and certainly favorable for the um residents in in the city. Uh and then in [32:57] addition to that uh on the intergovernmental revenue line, you can see that the city is well below the [33:03] average and the big part there is uh tied to local government aid. The formula that's used uh at the state [33:10] level for determining what uh amount cities are to receive uh in that form of [33:15] funding. um you know the city would city of Woodbury gets very very minimal uh on [33:20] that front so that let's be honest zero zero um so that so that sticks out and then [33:27] the other piece is special assessments with all the development that's happening in in the city uh certainly above um where the average is for um you [33:37] know where the average shakes out for other metro cities of similar size. So, and then looking at uh for the city [33:44] specifically going from 2023 to 2024, I just wanted to mention the overall [33:49] increase revenue per capita was about 5%. Okay. So then moving forward to the [33:54] expenditures uh summary here uh the top part focuses on current expendit expenditures. So [34:01] think operating a lot of that of course is tied to the general fund and then the bottom uh portions look more at the [34:08] capital project activity as well as debt service. Uh so here uh just because I [34:14] made that comment at the tail end of the um previous slide about the year-over-year increase on the [34:21] expenditure side. If you look specifically at current expenditures, so again operating uh and operating look uh [34:26] the the year-over-year increase was about uh about 3.5%. Uh so great cost containment efforts uh [34:34] in place by the city uh especially considering with um uh labor contracts renewing uh all those types of things uh [34:41] to be able to keep it um uh contained to that level. Uh certainly a a a great [34:47] result uh as as the city is experiencing as well as many other cities there are [34:53] staffing uh shortages things like that that have also uh kind of led to that u [34:59] u u coming out and where it has uh for the most recent year. Uh overall uh the [35:06] city of Woodbury is uh from a current operating expenditures is at about 2/3 of the average of the uh similarsized [35:13] cities in the metro. And then on the debt service side towards the bottom uh you can see the city is very well [35:19] positioned there at about onethird of the average um again for that [35:24] comparative set or comparative uh pool of cities. The last item I'll mention on [35:29] here you can see the capital outlay cost on a per capita basis did jump up quite a bit in 2024. Much of that is tied to [35:36] the central park renovation project uh coming through. Uh so that was the the driver behind that. Okay. And we'll [35:44] finish it up with just one more uh graph here quick. Uh so this looks at uh does a comparison of the trend in the tax [35:51] capacity uh for the city uh based on the growth in the market value. So with the [35:56] uh significant development happening as well as u valuation increases uh some uh [36:02] tremendous growth on that front uh over the years. most recently looking at from 23 to 24 is about a 13% increase on the [36:10] capacity side and the levy is going up at a slower rate. Uh it was about uh 9% [36:17] from 23 to 24. So the end result when you're when the capacity is going up at a at a more significant clip than the [36:24] levy, your tax rate is going down. So you can see there uh that continued trend for the city of Woodbury uh going [36:31] from about in the 32 to 33 range uh from 2020 to 2022 then dropping down quite [36:38] significantly 28 and a half now 27 and a2. So again kudos to to all involved in [36:44] in being able to to drive that result uh both from development side of things as well as uh keeping that levy um uh those [36:52] levy increases intact as as much as possible. So, okay. Uh, so that is it uh [36:59] in regards to the financial analysis. Contact information is there. Uh, certainly feel free to reach out anytime [37:05] throughout the year if anything should come up that you'd want to visit uh with us about. But, uh, it was a pleasure uh, [37:11] working with city staff again this year uh, through the audit process. Uh, it's a great team in place. They take the [37:17] audit process very seriously and and terrific stewards uh, for the city of Woodbury. So, uh, thank you and we [37:24] appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Great. Thank you. Just a couple of comments. So, um, we [37:29] receive as council members all of this information that's sitting in front of us lots of lots of data. We've had a [37:35] chance to review it and look at it all. So, the overview has been great, but uh, combing through the detail and seeing [37:41] all the work that's been done and, um, you know, this is a well run financial [37:46] machine here in the city of Woodbury. And Jason, you and your team, thank you for that. Angela, Angela's not here. Oh, [37:51] there's Angela. For all that you guys do uh to make this do so well. I mean, just sharing some of that information about [37:57] how we compare to other cities. We really are doing a phenomenal phenomenal job. Um so, thank you for all that. [38:03] We're just very good financial position. You know, we pay much of what we need to do out of cash and um we're just [38:08] financially strong and thanks to council members. We work very hard to do this for our constituents. So, um it all [38:14] takes teamwork. So, thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Council members, anybody have any comments or questions based on [38:19] uh Ryan's report or anything you saw in the in all of this info? [38:26] No. Okay. Well, then we need to adopt if nobody has anything, we do need to adopt this report. Would like somebody like to [38:32] put forth a motion. I'll move to accept the 2024 annual [38:38] comprehensive financial report, the communications letter, and the reports on compliance with government auditing standards and legal compliance. [38:45] Second. Motion a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. The roll call, please. Council member Santini. [38:51] I. Council member Stafford. I. Council member Wilson. Hi. [38:56] Council member Morris. Hi. Mayor Bert. I. Um that passes. And uh thank you again [39:01] and Jason and Angel. Thank you again for all you do to keep us operating efficiently. [39:08] Um okay. I don't have any open forum sheets. These I have sheets for Ranch Road which is coming up later. And then [39:15] item 8A. Um, so nothing for the open forum. Um, anything Ashley online. Okay, [39:20] then we'll skip that portion. We'll move on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are [39:26] considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion and affirmative vote by roll call [39:32] of the majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member or a [39:37] citizen so requests in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject [39:43] of discussion by the council. Um so I always ask uh anyone here in the audience if you wanted anything removed [39:49] from consent and I always get the same look. No. Okay. Anything online? Ashley, [39:54] I have to go through the process. All right. Um council members, anybody want to remove anything? [40:00] 6 A. Remove 6A. Anything else? Okay. Would [40:06] somebody want to put forth a motion for all but 6A? Did you say something about an item that's not? [40:12] Yeah. Let's see. 6E has already been removed and it says [40:17] so in the current updated agenda or so I'll move to approve items 6B, 6 C, [40:24] 6D, and 6F. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion on [40:30] that hearing? None. on the roll call, please. Council member Stafford, I. Council member Wilson, [40:36] I. Council member Morris, hi. Council member Santini, I. Mayor Bert, I. Uh, that passes. Council member [40:43] Wilson, is this something? I'm trying to decide if we should handle your We can do it at these people out of here. Okay. So, okay. I got to put this [40:50] I mean, I didn't mean to that did not that will be noted in the minutes. [40:55] You're welcome. You're more welcome to stay and hear it, but um I will I'm moving it to [41:01] discussion and uh if I have it marked, help me not forget. Yes, I'll get it. Okay, great. Okay, we now are going on [41:09] to we have several public hearings tonight. And because I have a couple green sheets, I need to read aloud how [41:15] the public hearing works. So, those of you that are wanting to speak on Ranch Road, listen up. This is how the rules [41:21] work. In order to allow for a full airing of all speaker comments, individual remarks may not exceed 10 [41:27] minutes each. If a speaker determines that more time is necessary, they're advised to make a special request in [41:33] writing to the mayor at least 3 days in advance. Of course, you would have wanted to know that before you got here, [41:38] but um if there are more than three green sheets, and I don't. I only have two. Um we could reduce the time. We [41:44] would do a total if we had more green sheets or if someone decides they want to speak as someone else is speaking, we're going to do a total of 30 minutes [41:50] for this one. Um, remarks or points already made by someone else should not be repeated unless simply to state that [41:55] they're opposed or in favor. Uh, remarks should be limited to the subject at hand. Speakers are encouraged to [42:00] coordinate presentations to the extent possible. Um, those in attendance at the public hearing will refrain from [42:07] applause or other expressions of emotion whether in favor of and or opposition to any particular application or argument. [42:14] Inappropriate language, outburst or criticism aimed at individuals or groups are not allowed. Um so with that the [42:20] first item we have is the ranch road edition. This is resoning and preliminary and final plat and Eric Sles [42:27] is here to tell us more about that project. Um I do also just need to comment this is a continuation of a [42:32] public hearing. It gets a little technical but we started it because it was on the agenda last time but it was [42:38] delayed so we call it a continuation. So we are continuing this public hearing. Thank you mayor and members of council. [42:45] Nate Labat has submitted an application for a reszoning and preliminary plat to create three additional single family [42:51] lots at the property located at 8040 Ranch Road. The property is currently [42:56] zoned R1 Urban Reserve District and is guided as low density residential on the [43:01] land use plan. For context and location purposes, the subject site is located to [43:07] the north of the Bridalwood Farms development, which was approved in 2017, and that project included 320 [43:14] residential units. The city of Woodbury owns the property to the north, and the [43:20] properties to the east and west are privately owned single family residents. As you see on the graphic, the water [43:25] treatment is just a little bit further to the east of the subject site. [43:31] The entire five acres is currently zoned R1 urban reserve as and that is [43:36] highlighted in red uh arrow on the screen. The applicant is requesting again to reszone that property to R4 [43:42] urban residential with the request to reszone being consistent with the 2040 [43:48] comprehensive plan as the site can be served by municipal utilities which I [43:53] will show on a future slide. As council is aware, state law requires that zoning [44:00] of a property needs to be consistent with approved land uses as identified in an adopted comprehensive plan. The [44:08] Metropolitan Council recommends communities change zoning to match the adopted land use immediately following [44:14] the adoption of the comp plan, but as council is aware, historically Woodbury has not done that activity. And the [44:20] reason for that is it can lead to unintended consequences to properties that do not wish to develop at the time [44:28] the comprehensive plan is approved. So these are what we call exception parcels. They're parcels that may be between three and 10 acres in size, but [44:35] they are homesteads for individuals. Few examples that of unintended consequences [44:40] could be a 5 acre parcel that's wanting that's not wanting to subdivide but wants a larger accessory building. The [44:47] R4 maximum is 400 square ft. The R1 is 2,000 square feet. So if we were [44:52] proactively reszoning, those residents who are continuing to live outside of the comprehensive plan activities would [45:00] would be uh regulated differently. Another example would be uh a same 5 [45:06] acre parcel uh would like to have agricultural uses such as chickens. Um [45:11] that would not be permitted in the R4 district. They would continue to have that 5 acre piece. So again, the the [45:17] best practice from that council recommends to reszone that. We don't do that. Instead, it becomes a procedural matter as part of subdivisions uh in [45:25] advance of approval of a subdivision. As stated previously, the proposed site [45:31] is served by municipal utilities via the extension provided by Bridalwood Farms. [45:36] You can see in the bottom right hand corner that has been stubbed and that stub was utilized for the utilities to [45:43] serve the property to the east as part and to facilitate the house move as part of the water treatment plant. So again, [45:49] those utilities were extended as part of a phase of and are located north of Ranch Road. [45:56] The land use of the property has remained low density residential through the last two comprehensive plans. The [46:02] lowdensity land use category allows for a maximum of 3.5 units per acre or a [46:08] maximum of 17 units. The application in front of you this evening requests four [46:14] total units or a density of8 units per acre. [46:20] As we move to look at the preliminary plat again, it creates three new single family lots in the platting of the [46:26] existing homestead. That would be on lot one. No zoning flexibility is requested as part of this application and all [46:33] setbacks are met. As we look at a little bit closer view that should not say your [46:39] text here, but the uh the lot widths are the key [46:44] aspects on this and that is summarized on the chart on the bottom of the screen. The R4 ordinance has a minimum [46:51] lot width of 80. The proposal is a minimum of 90 and the lot depth minimum [46:57] is 125 with the preliminary plat identifying 184 ft of lot depth. [47:04] As we look at access, the proposed lots are provided by the existing ranch road which is a private currently gravel [47:10] road. Uh the that is proposed to be paved and wholly the pavement costs [47:17] wholly funded by the applicant as part of this application. Ranchro does connect with Radio Drive and is [47:24] currently a full access point onto Radio Drive. That will be modified as part of the Washington County upgrade to Radio [47:32] Drive. Uh that is slated to begin in 2027. And as part of that, again, it will become a rightin, right out for [47:39] Ranch Road. Two neighborhood meetings were held for this project. Staff would like to thank the residents that [47:44] attended those meetings and provided their input. um it was valuable to the process and you'll see later in the slides some [47:51] modifications that occurred from those conversations. Questions overall were raised regarding the sufficiency of [47:58] Ranch Road to handle the additional trips, landscaping, density, loss of rural field and concerns regarding [48:04] drainage. Following the neighborhood meetings, uh there were again modifications that were made, including [48:11] updates to the landscaping plan that increased the amount of plantings on the east and west side for screening [48:18] purposes. The paving of Ranch Road uh by the applicant was was added as well as a [48:24] slight widening as you move further to the east of Ranch Road from what it currently is. So, it'll be widened and [48:30] paved in those areas. Another area that was discussed and a graphic has been [48:35] created and is supported by conditions of approval is an area for construction parking and stages as part of the [48:42] conditions of approval. And um finally, uh significant modifications and input [48:48] again from on-site meetings with adjacent property owners regarding the grading plans. You can see on the east [48:54] side quite a bit of grading activity that's proposed that was done to assist in um managing the drainage within the [49:02] area. Make sure it is moving north and then ultimately into you can see the contours that move through this site [49:07] pretty predominantly as you move to the north. Uh that is an item that staff will continue to work with the applicant [49:14] surrounding neighbors to make sure that there's comfort on. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their [49:19] August 18th meeting and Marcia Kennedy is here to provide the planning commission liaison report. [49:28] Hi Marsha. [49:39] Thank you Madame Mayor. Council members, we did have a robust discussion on the [49:45] 18th about Ranch Road. Um and the application the change from R1 uh to R4. [49:52] Um the excuse me discussion centered on three particular areas of concern um uh [49:59] that were addressed by this the owners who had attended and spoken. Um those [50:05] three areas are the site access from Ranch Road which as Eric said is a gravel road and um uh felt a little uh [50:13] narrow in order to to contain the the access uh needed. The other one was the [50:20] storm water flow path part of which went through some of the neighbors the [50:25] adjacent owners yards. And the third one was the parking of overflow um vehicles [50:31] um which were encroaching on neighbors owner the neighboring owners land. [50:36] Excuse me. As Eric said, some of that has been changed based on on what was said during the during the meeting. Um [50:44] there were some suggestions about how to address those three issues and um and [50:50] that's that really contained the the um [50:55] the the largest portion of our discussion on that day. The voting was taken and it [51:02] was a split vote three yay and three nay to recommend to the council. Um [51:10] that was that's in a nutshell that's our discussion. Any questions? [51:18] Um can you just share a little bit about why the vote was the way it was? What was your read on your fellow [51:25] commissioners? Um and I can can't I I don't know that I can share this who voted which because [51:32] there wasn't a a tally taken. I can tell you what I voted but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. [51:37] Um, do you think it's a summary of how others were thinking based on the discussion? I think so. Um, there were two issues [51:44] that that drove some of the people not to um recommend an R R4 um change, the [51:52] zoning change. They were the fact that um inclusion of these homes, these new [51:57] residences would not to our in and of itself, the inclusion of those would not [52:03] alleviate any of the issues currently being experienced by the other owners and might exacerbate a couple of them, [52:09] the parking and the storm water, although storm water flow is indeterminate yet until those those are [52:16] are addressed. but more um the the the onus was on the rural feel that's [52:24] included in R1 but not in R4. The vote was perhaps not as much a vote against [52:30] an R4 zoning as it was for what would be lost if we lost if we did not maintain [52:36] the R1. And I the the pertinent sentence in the R1 definition is [52:43] excuse me the main purpose of this district is to encourage existing productive agricultural areas to remain [52:49] in agricultural uses. And here's the kicker and to allow limited rural residential development of the large [52:56] parcels of land. It's that rural feel that a lot of the owners said that the other owners said was important to them. [53:04] And it may not be enough to offset what might be gained with an R4 designation, but that's that's the primary reason [53:13] that um that I voted no. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. [53:18] Um that that does it for me. Um we will now [53:24] um invite up the uh residents here um one at a time. Just [53:30] FYI, we're going to we do have a timer going. I mean, if you probably won't talk for 10 whole minutes, but in case you do, we we will have a timer going. [53:37] So, first um Arlland Marcus, if you would like to step forward and um if you would just state your name and [53:43] your city of residence for the record. I'm Arlland Marcus. I'm the property [53:48] owner in Woodbury. just to the east of the proposed development. [53:54] Um I'm asking the council to vote no on the the proposal. Um I understand that [54:03] the comprehensive plan had these parcels eventually becoming [54:09] R4, but I don't think it was intended that it would be done in a peacemeal [54:15] fashion. There's no overall plan. There's 15 acres across four parcels [54:23] and right now it's to put three houses in the most convenient location off [54:29] Ranch Road and as mentioned it it doesn't fit in with the existing rural [54:35] nature. Um there's other issues that we have also um the storm water runoff. I [54:43] probably be repeating a lot of these, but I'm the recipient of all the storm [54:48] water runoff. Um, just in the past what, 10 days, we had 5 inches of rain. [54:55] I walked out immediately after that rain, I don't have any water running onto my property, even though the [55:02] contours all put the water that direction. And the reason that I don't is because it's all pvious surface right [55:09] now. Everything soaks in. It's grass. Um 5 inches of rain over two days and it's [55:17] not even mushy in my tree line that's right adjacent here. The plan is to [55:24] collect all of that water from now impervious surface, run it down a [55:29] channel that's going to become saturated and can't take any more water when we have these large rains. Immediately pass [55:36] the parcel. They end the burm and the water all runs through my property. [55:44] We've lived with situations like that with the bridalwood. We were promised we [55:49] wouldn't have those kind of situations, but we did over and over and over again. [55:56] I don't see anything preventing that from happening here. Um, another thing [56:02] is the road. As mentioned, it's going to be paved, but right now, ranch roads [56:09] built on a clay base with a gravel top. Every 5 years, we add more gravel, [56:15] recrown it because it loses it just continually compacts just with the [56:21] residential traffic that we have. Now, we're going to add three more houses [56:27] with a lot more traffic. And I'll say most of us don't do the 10 trips per day [56:34] I think that that's allowed on a city street, but this isn't a city street. It doesn't have the same base. And the the [56:42] neighbors have had um the same base put in for their driveway. They've replaced [56:49] their driveway. The um Hendrickson's to the west had to replace their driveway because it all became concaved and it [56:55] was paved. So, I think the the asphalt paving will give it a little bit more life, but with [57:02] the additional traffic, I don't see it being much more than the five years we get out of it now as gravel, but it's a [57:09] lot less expensive to do it to to repair the road as gravel. This will be money [57:14] out of our pocket again because it's a private road and we'll be the ones who have to pay for it. I'm the one who will [57:20] have to pay for fixing any damage of the runoff. We've had to pay for it out of our pocket from the bridalwood. [57:28] We'll have to do it with the with the um paving of ranch road also. [57:35] So, I ask you to to vote no on it for those reasons. Um, if you do absolutely [57:44] feel you have to approve it, that it be done with conditions that meet the [57:50] residents, I won't say wish list, but concern list [57:56] because we do have a concern list of things, damage and costs that we will [58:02] incur. There's no benefit to the neighbors, only a cost. [58:09] Any questions? That's that we don't normally ask questions and have a dialogue at this [58:15] point, but thank you. Right. I appreciate uh your information. Uh the other person I have is Tom Harter. [58:21] And thank you again. Just state your name and uh city of u residents for the [58:28] record. I will. Thank you, madame mayor, counselors. Um my name is Tom Harter. My [58:34] address is 8020 Ranch Road. So I'm not adjacent. I'm the furthest west. So I [58:39] border on the juncture of Ranch Road and Radio Drive, the ever expanding Radio Drive. So the [58:49] the point I want to I won't repeat, but that Arland made is the lack of planning to this development because right now [58:54] there's a plan of three new houses. But in theory, there's I have five acres, my [59:01] neighbor has five acres, Arland has five acres in addition to the 20 I think he [59:06] sold for the water treatment plant. we could all build. Now you add nine more houses and now you have 16 houses on [59:12] what's a gravel road. There's no curb. There's no gutters. We're all in wells and septics. At least I am and Willie [59:19] is. It's a narrow road. And by definition, there's barely room for cars to pass. And if you're parking, you're [59:25] parking on somebody's lawn. That's it. And the water runoff is a huge concern, [59:30] but water flows downhill to him and not to me. But parking on Ranch Road, a [59:37] small, quiet, rural road, is going to become three busy houses and maybe nine [59:42] more busy houses with 10 trips and people coming and going and pizza [59:48] deliveries and all. And it just is very inconsistent with this Ranch Road [59:54] edition from our point of view is it destroys what is Ranch Road. I've lived [59:59] there since the turn of the last century and we oppose this development for those [1:00:05] reasons. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's all I have for green [1:00:10] sheets on this. Is there anybody online, Ashley? Okay, then I make a motion that we close the hearing. [1:00:17] Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I closed. So, what that means just for [1:00:24] the public is now council can talk and ask questions and ask staff questions and deliberate on it, but we don't take [1:00:31] any further public comment. Uh, so with that, uh, council members, comments and [1:00:36] questions, can you go to this the storm water runoff and show me exactly where that's [1:00:43] how that's going to flow? I'm a little confused here. The graphic on the screen identifies [1:00:49] kind of two flow patterns that we would anticipate. the water would shed off of Ranch Road, off the north side of Ranch [1:00:55] Road. You can see these are culverts that are proposed. Those are also plan modifications that occurred through the [1:01:02] neighborhood review process. So, basically, the water will move through from an east, excuse me, from a west to [1:01:08] east perspective. You can see the grading activities. This is a uh a a [1:01:14] slight burm that identifies and as Mr. Marcus identified the the goal is to [1:01:19] kind of swale this back through and move that north. It then ties back into existing grades and ultimately then [1:01:25] moves back to the north and to just can clarify to the north then is that's the city property or or [1:01:33] no it's still the property of this parcel. Yeah, there it would it it sheet [1:01:38] flows both through um it certainly the the goal is to keep it from moving into [1:01:43] the treed areas and that's what we'll continue to work with the applicant to work through um the adjacent trees to [1:01:51] the to the Marcus homestead. Okay. Um I think moving it back and moving it [1:01:56] into the treat area on the north side. Okay. Go ahead, Kim. Oh, and then just one more question. You [1:02:01] had mentioned the county has this road slated as a right in right out for 27. [1:02:08] Yes, that is correct. Ranch Road has always been identified as a right in right out as part of the county roadways [1:02:14] due to access management. Bailey Lake Road is the full access point. There's also a full access point to the north as [1:02:20] part of the city property um also near Five Church. I see. So, you're saying they would cut [1:02:26] through the Bailey Lake? I'm confused how they would get to it. You're saying cut through the Bridalwood neighborhood [1:02:31] to the south? There's no How are they going to get to that? I mean, I know that this is maybe off of [1:02:39] topic a tad bit, but roundabout. The intention was a roundabout at and [1:02:44] go ahead. Yeah. So, they would have to utilize the roundabout at radio and Bailey and then utilize the roundabout [1:02:51] way down at Military and the Washington County in 2027 has proposed reconstruction radio drive. the [1:02:59] right in right out that would be created with a center median at Ranch Road um would be installed that would force um [1:03:05] all traffic to access Ranch Road in from going northbound. There is a proposed uh [1:03:12] roundabout at Dale Road which would provide U-turn movements if they're traveling southbound and would like to turn into Ranch Road. [1:03:20] Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? I don't have any I'll have [1:03:26] I'll save my comments till everybody's done asking questions. I had a general question about where in [1:03:32] the process the city would talk about turnover of a private road because this is not the only private road left in in [1:03:39] Woodbury that we're waiting for development on. I'm thinking um Dale [1:03:45] east of No, that's p is that private still Dale east of [1:03:51] Yeah, we have of cottage. I don't think so. which is just gravel. Okay. What this would be a first for me [1:03:58] in my tenure. What what's the process look like for the turning over of a private road either requirement or [1:04:04] voluntarily? Well, first of all, the roadway would need to be constructed to city standards. So, there's a significant [1:04:10] cost to doing so, especially on properties where like this is right now [1:04:16] 18 approximately 18 ft wide. Um, it's currently gravel section. The proposal [1:04:21] in front of you this evening based on feedback during the neighborhood meeting process was to pave that roadway section [1:04:28] for the additional units that are proposed here. In order to bring that to a full public se section, you'd need [1:04:34] right ofway at a minimum of 50 ft minimum. This could be viewed, I suppose, as a culde-sac. So minimum of [1:04:41] 50 ft of rightway. You'd have property acquisition. You'd have full reconstruction costs. Um that's why we [1:04:48] really have not seen that. Mhm. occur. Um there's another Allen Drive. [1:04:53] If you recall, there was a subdivision. You can see these two yellow lots right [1:04:58] here. Those are also off of a private access that was recently approved adjacent to the West Wind development. [1:05:04] Um that was in front of council to split. It used to be five parcels of [1:05:09] similar size. They did a subdivision to subdivide that in half last year. Um that remained a private access road. I [1:05:17] cannot recall, maybe Tony or Janelle can, I cannot recall a time in my time where a private road has transitioned to [1:05:23] a public street because of the cost and overall property limitations. [1:05:30] Janelle looks like she's trying to access the back annals private. Yeah. Okay. [1:05:38] So in the event that that would occur, the cost [1:05:44] to make it a public road goes to the as assessed the homeowners. [1:05:49] That is that is correct. There's no city cost involved. It would generally be a public [1:05:54] improvement process and it would follow our normal assessment procedures. Okay. [1:06:00] So shared but significant. Yeah. Can we talk about just [1:06:06] property owner rights and what they what what the right of that property owner is especially [1:06:12] that we already have it identified in the comprehensive plan to move it to R4. [1:06:17] You're asking of the applicant property rights or of the I'm asking Eric to explain it of the property owner's property rights. [1:06:24] Yes. Okay. Yes. This the particular difference the applicant. Yeah. Okay. Yes. uh statutes would identify that a [1:06:34] subdivision application that meets all requirements from a lot width, depth, [1:06:40] infrastructure should be approved by a municipality. [1:06:46] Um the city has there is and council has seen and in fact I have it in my presentation the pyramid of discretion. [1:06:52] So I will bring that forward. Oh so this is the from the league of Minnesota cities. Um and this is a best [1:07:00] practice. So we are in the yellow area which is a subdivision application. So we do have the city does have some [1:07:06] discretion but we need to bring it back to very tangible reasons for a denial. [1:07:13] Um not having appropriate infrastructure in place. Um things prematurity. Our [1:07:19] subdivision ordinance covers prematurity quite a bit and we you see those in conditions of approval on a regular [1:07:24] basis. The other thing that is not in front of council this evening is but is usually in front of council is the [1:07:31] planned unit development process which is asking for flexibility that gives council additional discretion than what [1:07:37] is commonly to referred to as a byight subdivision. I don't know if Kevin wants to supplement that. [1:07:43] Sure. Thanks Eric. Um, generally speaking, as as I think Eric pointed out in his presentation earlier, the [1:07:49] expectation under Supreme Court case law says that a property owner has an [1:07:55] expectation and a and an entitlement likely to have their zoning match up [1:08:01] with what the comprehensive plan otherwise indicates and um, expects. And [1:08:06] as Eric pointed out, our comprehensive plan expects this to be R4 zoning. And notwithstanding the discussion, for [1:08:13] example, by the neighboring property owners about, well, this is an R1 area and there's a rural character to it. [1:08:19] Well, the expectation here is it's supposed to be R4. We want it to be R4. Uh, one of the other comments I heard, I [1:08:26] think from both of the opposition folks was, well, we want this, we were thinking or expecting this should be [1:08:32] developed as an entire neighborhood process, but I don't think that this particular owner uh has any um [1:08:40] expectation or requirement that they have to wait on their neighbors to decide that they all want to move to R4 [1:08:45] before this applicant can choose to do so. He wants to do so now and I think he has some entitlements to do that. [1:08:56] So, I was the council member who was the liazison at the planning commission and um I really did not envy planning [1:09:03] commission to be honest. I really did struggle for a bit listening to them. Um but I I'm glad actually have had some [1:09:10] time from that meeting. For me, I think I had a little bit of the struggle at first was understanding the I was coming [1:09:17] at it also as sort of a party to this private road agreement and so the stake [1:09:24] that the city possibly has on it and whether or not this causes any additional financial burden or impacts [1:09:30] to the city. We just for the public's purpose, we use that road mainly is really going to be more from an [1:09:36] emergency perspective to the uh water treatment plant that we just visited [1:09:41] today. Um and so just understanding what would that be, you know, to an overall [1:09:47] somewhat indirect but cost to the rest of the city. um and seeing that truthfully it's not terribly impactful [1:09:55] to us particularly given that the developer is considering you know is going to be paying for the um the [1:10:02] pavement of it. Um just for my own personal view I think at some point the neighbors may want to [1:10:09] consider I I think I do struggle a little bit that you add three additional property owners. um [1:10:16] less structured agreements I think work when you don't have a lot of parties but I think the more parties you add on to it so I wonder at some point of doing [1:10:24] more of an association to ensure that none of the owners um possibly at some [1:10:29] point don't cough up the money when that when that is needed. So I think just from a going forward standpoint, so I [1:10:36] felt more comfortable again from the city's exposure um I guess to say um financially with regards to it the some [1:10:43] of the concerns I just want to make sure are highlighted from the planning commission that um are addressed in the [1:10:49] conditions and then I had one I did want to sort of follow up on but is condition number 17 um is regarding that um [1:10:57] security deposit. And so there was a lot of conversation about the drainage and um uh I par apologize Arlland your last [1:11:05] name okay Marcus. So Mr. Marcus was saying is, you know, it is a struggle. And I think we also had something [1:11:11] recently from another neighborhood where development happened and in sort of in the backyards, you know, and it's hard. [1:11:17] And so, um, you know, I do think that that is important to, um, and I was glad to see, um, was put in [1:11:24] for conditions of approval for the fact that a security deposit would be there. It would be there for I think a term of [1:11:29] years that will get figured out to ensure that as you know, because you may have a year where your rain isn't as [1:11:35] significant. So to ensure that we see what that drainage is and that that can be rectified um and make sure that there [1:11:41] is security with regards to that. Um so again I really it is a little bit of a [1:11:47] struggle. It's always a struggle when you there is sort of a smaller group that you are impacting. Um but I felt [1:11:54] that you know it what we were addressing you know some of the the items um in these conditions. The only one I wanted [1:12:01] to follow up on is did we not discuss that having I know that there was a lot of conversation about the construction [1:12:08] vehicles and so that there will be signage where the construction vehicles would be also who they should call if [1:12:15] you know they're parked in the wrong place but I was there not something then about having no parking on the private [1:12:21] road because it's a private road we did not layer that in as a condition of approval because the neighbors can make that [1:12:28] decision as the owner From a city standpoint, we're although we're slightly a party because [1:12:34] we have an interest in it, from a regulatory standpoint, it's a private road. Gotcha. So, I think that's another thing [1:12:40] to be aware of is that that is an option of the owners of the road um to enforce [1:12:46] that and to post that as a no parking road to address some of the additional [1:12:51] parking with regard to that. So, so I just wanted to sort of add that in um [1:12:57] about some of those items and and how they are addressed with regards to that. [1:13:06] Thank you, Jen. Appreciate those comments. Anybody else with comments or questions? If there's no questions, I just have a [1:13:12] couple comments then that I would like to share. If you can go back to like the overall map showing the roads, the [1:13:18] development to the south. Um Yep. [1:13:23] So I think a Martin Gale that's that's actually not a deadend road at this point that maybe was slated to go [1:13:31] through to a future development there. Am I correct? Yes. Martinale is currently a a [1:13:37] barricade. It does have a sign that says future road connection. [1:13:42] We received strong feedback during both the development process of Bridewood [1:13:49] Farms and also during this process that one of the concerns was if this if Martale connected that there'd be new [1:13:55] traffic from the Bridalwood Farms neighborhood that would connect. So correct there's been a strong request to [1:14:01] keep Martinddale not extended. Oh, I agree. I wasn't suggesting we extend it. Just so everybody hang on [1:14:07] here one last I was looking Yeah, go ahead. We we are working right now with the developer to [1:14:12] add additional bridalwood lenar adding additional landscaping. Those barricades will be removed and the current [1:14:18] condition that you see as a dead end culde-sac will remain on both Martinale [1:14:23] as well as steel view. I guess my point I guess my my future thinking was um building off of the PUD [1:14:30] prospect which is one of my notes that I have here which we like to have the PUDs. We like to come in and not have a [1:14:36] mismash of homes and sidewalks or no sidewalks or trails or no trails. And it looks like [1:14:44] we had planned on at eventually Ranch Road. My guess is if we're proposing a [1:14:50] right in Well, we're not the county is proposing right in right out. At what at some point Ranch Road was probably going [1:14:56] to be non-existent and Martingale was going to be utilized as that new [1:15:02] development for those acres in there. Yes, as as the the timing of Bridalwood [1:15:07] is important because that was in 2017. That was before the city acquired the water treatment plant. So what was being [1:15:13] positioned by having Martindale and Stable View was that ultimately when the Marcus [1:15:22] property if that would have been a normal 25 acre development that that could then have access within that [1:15:29] location also could allow for the subject parcel to develop and hypothetically Ranch Road could have [1:15:35] continued to be a shorter access drive for the two existing. That was the [1:15:40] original thought process of ending those culde-sacs, keeping those options open. As we know, the city has acquired [1:15:47] that property, no longer needing that access point, and that's changed the [1:15:52] the approach. So, I um I never know how to approach [1:16:00] this. Like, do I say tell me what I'm supposed to like? In my mind, I if if [1:16:06] there barring no other questions or comments for me to change my mind, I have this in my head, but I would also [1:16:12] feel like I need to explain why. So, is that at the end [1:16:18] about your reasoning vote? Well, I think we need to call. That's what I'm asking. If there's no [1:16:24] other comments or questions. Yeah. I can I mean, I guess I would just let me just figure this out. Can you give me [1:16:30] one minute so I can make make a case maybe to council then? So there's We don't have existing infrastructure [1:16:36] there. We do. We do. It would have to uh utility infrastructure we do. Yes. [1:16:42] But um the water and sewer. Yep. Those are both stubbed to the north side. Okay. So um we have the pause on [1:16:50] development, but this would because it's within or ready to go. It's we can do [1:16:57] that. Okay. Okay. [1:17:05] And I don't I don't know what to say until after I vote. So because I can't I don't like to let anybody know how I'm [1:17:10] going to vote. We know. You can't possibly know. No, I mean we know that we know we know [1:17:16] that we're going to wait till the last minute is is what I which is which is also part of of doing this in a public [1:17:22] process. But um and so it's difficult. It's difficult for us to do that because [1:17:27] we can't talk to each other to understand what we're thinking until we're right here. So that your point of [1:17:32] and and so so if anybody would like to continue to discuss this I I've got two points. [1:17:38] Perfect. Thank you. Right there for you, Kim. My um council member Santini, I appreciate pointing [1:17:44] out number 17 on the conditions of approval and I would like like to take a little look at that. Um, I guess my uh [1:17:52] my thoughts in hearing some of the testimony on the uh number 17, which is the developer agreement and the [1:17:58] applicant and the security deposit for the grading and drainage. Um [1:18:04] I wasn't at the planning commission and I didn't watch the planning commission meeting so I I didn't have all the techn [1:18:10] but that that's a little loose for me is my is my concern and understanding that [1:18:16] we have seen this in previous developments and and from the property owner I can I can appreciate the [1:18:23] bridalwood impact as well. So there's personal experience on this on this property and and and years of experience [1:18:30] in this property. I would like to see 17 beefed up a little bit. That is putting [1:18:36] or memorializing either a time or value [1:18:41] and to understand that, you know, one or two years may not be adequate enough to understand the total drainage impacts on [1:18:48] that because we may have two exceptional years, you know, dry or wet or what have [1:18:53] you and to fully understand that. But to appreciate that but not for this development, this the property owner [1:19:00] would not be impacted is my concern. Right. But not for this development. And so I would like to protect that a little [1:19:06] stronger in in option in in condition number 17. Is that any thoughts from the [1:19:12] council on that? I I do appreciate that and I truthfully at planning commission was surprised that it hadn't been [1:19:18] specified but I also don't know if it's appropriate for us to specify because I [1:19:24] the process of sort of going through the developer agreement. I just don't know [1:19:29] from a legal standpoint whether we really want to be waiting into that [1:19:36] here and now versus directing. Eric, do you have a question? Eric, are [1:19:42] you Kevin? Well, so what I could see and I think what maybe you're getting to, Steve, Council Member Morris, is perhaps that [1:19:49] condition is altered just slightly to to make more explicit that the intent is [1:19:55] not just to um the language being um achieve the grading as approved by the [1:20:02] planning division, but maybe something to the effect of in a manner that doesn't adversely ensures at no adverse [1:20:08] impacts to the neighboring properties. I mean that's that's the real concern here and that's part of the purpose of conditions and these sort of approvals [1:20:15] is to minimize problems minimize adverse impacts yeah to neighbors [1:20:20] and that's and that's council member Santini I don't want to get dick into the details but best impents from the [1:20:27] planning requirements may have may have done so what what Kevin said yep is what I would [1:20:33] Eric here hearing the feedback from council staff would propose a modification as [1:20:39] part of the develop ment developer agreement. The applicant shall post for no less than 24 months from the [1:20:45] completion of all homes in the development because the drainage pattern will change as hard surface or is added [1:20:51] to ensure proper grading and no adverse conditions on adjacent to properties [1:20:57] occur as approved by the planning division. Okay, [1:21:03] that one's reasonable. My my other comment was around the road [1:21:09] and and I think that [1:21:15] because I mean this this goes into item 17 a little bit because we are adding [1:21:20] impervious surface to this and there's a little bit of advantage on the gravel road but then there's the comments that [1:21:25] we heard from from the adjacent property owners of cost of that maintaining forward and all we're doing is adding [1:21:31] three three houses to this but that's a significant change from dollar value on on maintenance from gravel to asphalt. [1:21:38] Um particularly if this isn't to to our specs, if this is not a a lined road [1:21:45] lined mean curbed and gutted um deterioration on on asphalt um is [1:21:51] problematic. Um I would just like to hear the council's thoughts on that on [1:21:56] the road part of that. I don't know that I have an opinion yet. Yeah. Well, I just I feel we ran into this a little bit of this private road [1:22:02] situation when it came to the car wash up off of Hudson Road. Okay. Private [1:22:08] road. But in the end, help me understand that there's a there's an agreement in place existing. And to your point, you [1:22:15] were making points. I thought I heard you recommend to memorialize that a little bit better. [1:22:21] I think that, you know, good, you know, sort of agreements, um, friendly agreements, um, even though I know it's [1:22:27] in writing, I think work well. But I think the more parties you add to it and particularly now new parties that at [1:22:32] some point do you do it in a way where it's almost like an association where you require you know [1:22:38] annuals or that you don't find yourselves in a situation that somebody doesn't count but that would be a situation [1:22:44] independent of the city that's for property owners to work through. Help me understand a little bit where the re where the paving is coming in and [1:22:50] not maintaining gravel. Was that an can you answer to how we got there? Yeah, as part of the original subdivision [1:22:56] application, it was a gravel roadway as part of the process. Um the request and [1:23:02] frankly there was quite a bit back and forth between the neighbors within on what was beneficial. Um what we framed [1:23:08] from a city standpoint was our recommendation is is now is the time for the city to be able to require it as [1:23:13] part of the infrastructure analysis. If we don't require it as part of the subdivision, it's then back to you as [1:23:20] private owners have to go back and forth. So our recommendation to the neighborhood at that time was make a [1:23:26] decision as a group and we would can then memorialize the neighbors as a [1:23:32] collective responded to the applicant that they would request that the roadway be paved. The applicant and they are on [1:23:39] hand and probably can comment better has through the process communicated that it was not critical to them whether it was [1:23:45] or was not paved. They wanted to be a good neighbor and I would say that that has been the stance from the ne from the [1:23:51] applicant's perspective. Okay. But it wasn't coming from it's a private road so it wasn't coming from us as the requirement. We were simply [1:23:57] memorializing it. That is correct. Understood. Much like Allen Drive which continues to be a gravel section even though another [1:24:02] lot was added. Yeah. Right. Okay. Do you have more? I have one just a general comment but go [1:24:08] ahead. Well, I was just going to ask a question about the timing of construction and like, you know, are these homes that are going to all go up [1:24:15] within a year, year and a half, you know, normal like get it all done and move on or might this drag on for years [1:24:22] one at a time and partially done? How do we manage that? Maybe I'll have the applicant uh answer [1:24:27] the timing expectations. Okay. If you could um state your name and just the city of residents for the [1:24:33] record. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh Todd Olen. with Land and Resource Consulting. You're here on behalf of with Nate Labat. Uh I'm in 14260 23rd A Plymouth. [1:24:42] Um thank you for the question. Uh with it only being three lots, um and the [1:24:48] desire we're already seeing from just the word of mouth. Um we don't expect that it's going to be stretched over [1:24:53] several years. It is market driven like every development, right? Uh but we think within within a year they'll be started. [1:25:00] Uh then it's whatever the house takes to construct it. Yeah. Yeah. And then of course we want to we want to put the patunous pavement on after that [1:25:06] so that the equipment from the houses, deliveries, trusses, concrete, whatever doesn't destroy it. Mhm. [1:25:12] So, thank you. Okay. Can I just make some com I just I'm going to not I don't want to reserve my [1:25:18] comments for the end. I want to try to um make make it now. So then therefore [1:25:23] um afterwards if I were to say it go gee Kim that was a good idea. Um, you know, we as a council have pride [1:25:32] taken pride in the PUB process. And if council member date were sitting next to me, that's one thing we could probably [1:25:38] agree on. Um, is that, you know, that's that's what we do is we want things to [1:25:43] feel cohesive. Um, they're supposed to go together. You know, we had issues with the Copper Oaks. Um, Copper, is [1:25:51] that what it was called? The 21 Oaks and Copper Ridge. Copper Ridge. Copper Ridge. Thank you. [1:25:57] that that yeah the Copper Ridge development where we said it doesn't fit with what we had [1:26:03] um what we had thought was going to go there. It doesn't fit with the neighborhood and and I am feeling like [1:26:10] this is we're taking this these acreage lots and we're dividing them up and we're putting three city lots on this. [1:26:17] Now granted it might be slightly bigger than the bride of wood farms. They look more like [1:26:24] like my lot where the older part of Woodbury is. But but nonetheless, you're taking um the possibility and and and of [1:26:35] a PUB in this whole area um and tying into the existing neighborhood to the [1:26:40] south and we're was somewhat isolating it or throwing it out and it becomes not [1:26:46] very cohesive. It also doesn't fit in with the um architecture that's going on [1:26:51] on that road. I understand that in future development it, you know, we have it future for R4. I do know that there [1:26:59] are um other properties in Woodbury that have been looking to build um they are looking to retire and they needed uh [1:27:07] we're counting on um to be able to develop their land and for and they're not able to at this point um even though [1:27:15] in the future there's going to be R4. So we as a council do have the ability to [1:27:20] say it it's not appropriate. This one lot is not appropriate to do that. It doesn't fit in with the surrounding [1:27:26] areas. So, um, can you clarify with those possible land owners? Are there [1:27:34] public is it, you know, within the municipal services area [1:27:39] within the municipal? Yes. Yeah. Uh, well, are they, you know, who I'm talking about. Yeah. My understanding of the residents, [1:27:46] they are in a later phase within our comprehensive plan. Yeah. And and uh Yeah. So, um I guess [1:27:54] I'm I guess I'm looking at this and saying I I see this as an as an add-on to the [1:28:01] um Bridal Wood, not as three lots on a 5acre lot. Um it doesn't it does not fit [1:28:08] in. And trust me, I am all for property owners rights, but but as a city, we we [1:28:15] do have um we do put limits on what property owners can or cannot do with their [1:28:21] property, right? We have parking restrictions. We have garage sale ordinances. We don't allow chickens. And [1:28:27] we certainly wouldn't allow somebody to come in and put up an apartment building in the middle of a neighborhood if they [1:28:33] bought three lots. Um so, so I do think we do have the ability to um make sure [1:28:40] that this area, this is right in smack dab in the middle of everything that all [1:28:46] the rest of the PUDs. And I think that um that we should preserve this um for a [1:28:51] future PUD. Can I ask a process question? Not of me. [1:28:57] Is this is a reasonzoning? This is a 4-1 requirement. This is a 70 75% requirement vote. [1:29:02] No, it's just a majority vote. If it was a reszoning from residential to commercial, it would require a [1:29:08] supermajority vote. But because this is just residential zoning to residential zoning, it's a simple majority vote. [1:29:14] Okay. Okay. Can I want to talk about the process about sort of the PUBG process? [1:29:19] So, just a couple of context points for council to contemplate. Uh, in December, [1:29:25] council approved a policy regarding master plans. I think that's really maybe what the term [1:29:31] um the the PUD is at the actual property level and Bridalwood was a PUD. That's not a overall surrounding land area. The [1:29:39] master plans is the process and council did give staff policy direction that [1:29:45] properties that are over 100 acres in size will require a master plan. This of [1:29:51] course in front of you even the collection of all of the properties does not measure 100. So that's the reason [1:29:56] why this was not done as part of a master plan. I will go back in time to [1:30:01] 2016 as part of Bridalwood. We had a lot of dialogue with the surrounding areas [1:30:07] as we almost always do as part of the development process, the normal development process to explore kind of [1:30:13] the needs and the wants of adjacent properties. There was significant dialogue at that time of actually [1:30:19] Martinale coming around and looping back and having public street access because [1:30:24] at that time Mr. Labbat was very clear that he was interested in development. What that would have created was the at [1:30:31] the time the Marcus property would then have to access through Martin Jail to get down to Bailey Lake Drive and that [1:30:37] was not what was beneficial to them. Um and the uh other two property owners [1:30:43] also at that time said they're not interested in connecting with the residential traffic whether it's driving through it to get to Radio Drive or [1:30:49] having the adjacent properties drive through it. At that time, the council and planning commission staff were able [1:30:56] to get comfortable with the road layout and that's in front of you this evening. But that's leading to these somewhat [1:31:01] separate now aspect of Ranch Road. So, there has been significant decisions [1:31:07] along the way that have led to this point. So, I'll add my comment as we get close [1:31:12] to a vote then. And council member Wilson, I I think I'm I'm pretty locked step with you in this and my I am very [1:31:19] disappointed that the overall collection of properties didn't develop at the same time. I know that that was certainly [1:31:25] would have been the intention and the hope from the city. That's why in the comprehensive plan, these parcels were [1:31:31] not individually noted for R1, R, R2, R3, R4. These were all part of a block as we headed there was a vision of what [1:31:39] this is going to look like as development um development occurs and these u through time through bridal wood [1:31:46] and through the subsequent um developments these have become exception [1:31:51] parcels and I and I and I can express my disappointment for that but at the end of the day these are the property owners [1:31:57] property it's it's their right to do that and I can be disappointed all I want that's my problem u it's their property they can do with it what they [1:32:04] wish In that same argument, this property of the applicant can do what he [1:32:10] what they they want to do within the code, within the ordinance, within the comp plan is the very same things that [1:32:16] I'm saying is that I'm disappointed about and that and that the property owners can do what they want with their property. And that includes holding on [1:32:23] to it and doing absolutely nothing with it. That same argument has to be applied for me in my application of this of my [1:32:29] decision for the applicant, saying that, well, I can be disappointed all I want. It meets the requirements. It follows [1:32:36] our comprehensive plan. I don't I can be disappointed all I all I and I am disappointed that the collection is not [1:32:43] developed. But that's their that's their right. I don't I can't in my mind defend a decision to say no that this [1:32:50] individual property owner cannot develop as as per the per our ordinances and processes. So, I can be disappointed and [1:32:56] I'm I'm with Council Member Wilson um fully, but at the same time, our my my [1:33:03] oath and our requirement is to follow the law and follow the requirements and follow and and at this point, each [1:33:08] property owner has rights. And so, my my my decision is going to be to go ahead and approve this. And I I'll make the [1:33:15] motion if we want to get there at this point before other comment, but that's where I'm at from [1:33:20] for transparency. Okay. Am [1:33:26] I I'm looking. Eric, do you have the slide? Do you want me to do it? [1:33:32] I'll move to adopt ordinance 2069, an ordinance reszoning certain property from R1 urban reserve district to R4 [1:33:39] Urban Residential District. Uh [1:33:44] R17 amendment is going to be in the second motion. Correct. Correct. Okay, I second. I'll second as as [1:33:52] offered. motion to second. Any well for any [1:33:57] further discussion? Well, and I just I echo I I think with council member Morris I um I think [1:34:02] that's part of it or that I did struggle with is if I had this property I wouldn't but that's because you and I [1:34:08] have talked about you know wanting sort of these larger lots and and so forth. But I agree that's within the right and [1:34:14] in the purview. So it I Okay, go ahead. Are we Is this discussion? [1:34:20] Yeah, it is. Okay. I just want to make sure I was Um I I agree that that uh yeah it's they're [1:34:27] larger lots but they're not the acreage lots. Um I I am going to um say that I [1:34:33] am against this and it and it's and it's not because I'm against property owners rights. It is because I believe that we [1:34:42] as a city council also can as in the [1:34:47] pyramid of whatever it is uh we do have the ability to say this is [1:34:54] not the time uh to do that. We believe that in the future this is going to end [1:35:00] up being folded into this Bridalwood development. We had it planned for that. [1:35:05] Um and and it doesn't go with with what is there. Um so yes, uh I believe in [1:35:13] homeowners landowners rights, but I also believe that the council has the um [1:35:20] responsibility to make sure that that things progress in a orderly fashion. [1:35:25] And um and I do know other cities have said no to developments or I guess do we [1:35:32] call this a subdivision or yeah to subdivisions because it doesn't go with [1:35:37] what they were picturing or what they had intended or it doesn't go with the surrounding areas. So I do know we do [1:35:44] have that ability to say no. I realize I have a question I meant to ask before and I didn't. It has to do [1:35:50] with um item 18 and this is maybe a Tony question. So it has to do um we're [1:35:56] talking about draining and gra and uh drainage and grading but 18 is review [1:36:01] the ability to connect to the storm sewer off of stable view drive engineering we shall review [1:36:06] and Tony can you address that or or Eric can Mayor Bird I can answer that based on [1:36:11] this was coming from a suggestion from a planning commissioner who was looking at the grading plan and was curious on [1:36:18] whether some of the existing infrastructure within Bridalwood would be able to uh pick up some of the storm [1:36:24] water. So, as part of the technical analysis, we will take a look at that. The engineering division will take a [1:36:29] look at that and if it's feasible, there may be a plan modification. Um, but that [1:36:35] was the intent of that condition. Okay. Thank you. So, Council Member Wilson, I would offer [1:36:41] because I I I think now that you said this and this is the problem with the four of you because I tend to listen to you and then have to agree with you and [1:36:49] I said change change my minds. Um, in the conditions of approval, which would be [1:36:55] the next one, is there maybe additional dis? So, we have a motion in a second. Let me get to the next one. Yeah. [1:37:01] Okay. Yeah, we have a motion in a second on this ordinance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, the roll call, please. [1:37:07] Council member Wilson, no. Council member Morris, I. Council member Santini, I. Council member Stafford, [1:37:16] I. Mayor Bert, I. That ordinance passes. [1:37:21] I'll move to um adopt a motion approving the ranch road addition preliminary and final plat project number 28-2025-00574 [1:37:32] uh with the added language from city planner Surl um as record on the minutes [1:37:41] uh and authorize the mayor and city administrator to execute the de developer agreement with all approvals subject to the following conditions [1:37:47] listed in council letter 25-212. I should have done this before you did that. So, I would I would ask the [1:37:55] council to consider additional with with what council member Wilson was saying is additional um requirements as part of [1:38:02] this. understanding that the disappointment that I have in this project is the fitting in of that of the [1:38:09] of the smaller sub community with on within Ranch Road architecturally from [1:38:15] and that's what that's one of the things that we do with a PUB is we ensure that the that the buildings are part of a our [1:38:21] master plan and our PUD that the architectural requirements are s same or similar and that they fit into the area. [1:38:27] I didn't notice any of that in these conditions of approval. So in a little a little bit in my appeasement of of my [1:38:33] disappointment that this isn't developing as a as an overall parcel would to be to add a condition that [1:38:39] would require the individual approvals through planning commission because the [1:38:45] these individual permits won't have to come to planning commission again. Correct. That is correct. Um and just as a point [1:38:52] we have not approved single family architecture through PUD processes. We [1:38:57] focused on multifamily. Yeah. And this is but this is three units. So it's not [1:39:03] a single unit. These are three single units. Three single family. Correct. Yeah. But it's three units. So it's a collection of units. So [1:39:10] but what he's saying we don't approve the architecture when we get like a big [1:39:15] a single family home. That is correct. But we have three single family homes. But but he's saying but he's saying when we get 20 single [1:39:22] family homes. We didn't approve the architecture of Bridalwood Farms. Correct. Not on the single family side. [1:39:27] Not in the single family side. what we did overall of the PUB and the architecture that there are requirements that they have in their PUB [1:39:34] not not on the single family side only on the multif family I just built a house that's maybe on the [1:39:41] HOA that's your HOA you didn't just build you've been here long for 10 years but I my sighting has to be [1:39:48] the same but do do you understand what I'm trying to get at though to council member Wilson's point of fitting in with the [1:39:54] area what can we do who are you going to fit in with the properties or are you going to fit in [1:40:01] with the the single family properties? Or the water treatment plant. Okay. [1:40:06] Or the water that let's have it match that little mini. I'm just trying to figure out who are we going to I mean it's like your [1:40:12] I don't I personally don't agree with that. I know I just recently saw the divided property over by um [1:40:19] elementary school. Um my kids used to go there crossing and the architecture those that was a [1:40:24] subdivided property and there's a beautiful home going in there. very different architecture, very contemporary. It's lovely. I don't think [1:40:30] we control it. That's my opinion. I'm against that. And I would assume that if somebody's [1:40:35] trying to sell these, they're going to they're going to want them to look look nice. Yeah. But but the existing My point of [1:40:41] is the existing property owners that are going to maintain and stay in their properties now. They've got I understand [1:40:47] the intention. They're already different. Okay. I should have no [1:40:52] four against one. Voted no. Then you want to add this problem. We had Okay. We had a We had a motion. [1:40:58] A motion. Do we have a second? Does anybody I'll second that. Okay. Motion and a second. Any further [1:41:05] discussion hearing? None. The roll call, please. Council member Morris. [1:41:10] [Laughter] You had to start with me. Move on. [1:41:18] No. Council member Santini. I. Council member Stafford. [1:41:23] I. Council member Wilson. No, Mayor Burch. I that is approved. And I would just [1:41:30] like to say again, I go to property rights owners and um I don't know that we have a legal ground to stand on. So [1:41:37] it passed. Um it passed. One comment that I did want to make at the end of this that I think it is very important for a lot of [1:41:43] residents to recognize is this is a very important process and whether at the legislation next year there are bills [1:41:51] that want to remove this process from this. It is important for residents to understand how important it is that [1:41:58] people have the opportunity and all of the residents that came to planning commission and that were here. Please [1:42:04] know that your presence and your voice and your feedback is very valued and [1:42:10] that it is such a part of this public process. So, um I just want people to be aware of that because that is go that is [1:42:16] a struggle that we are having as a city that there is legislation out there that wants to change this process. So, [1:42:22] where we don't have the ability correct this process doesn't happen. Correct. But is it [1:42:27] but is it Yeah, we can have this discussion in it. The public hearing goes away. I [1:42:34] understand that. So some of these conditions to meet way. Okay. You're saying the conditions [1:42:39] the conditions to be able to to uh take the neighboring residents feedback and [1:42:44] put those as conditions in here and to have that process that would go away. And the hours and hours of discussion [1:42:50] trying to make it better and work through it. Yeah. Would go away. So very good point, Council Member Santini. All [1:42:56] right. We'll now move on to item 7B, Alma, Florida, conditional use permit. and um Janelle is going to be speaking [1:43:03] on this. The hearing is now open. Thank you, Mayor Bird. Members of the city council, uh Gold Ridge Companies [1:43:11] has submitted an application for a conditional use permit and site and building plan for a 14,470 [1:43:18] square foot new daycare called Alma, Florida. The property is located um just west of [1:43:27] Balenberg Drive and south of Tamarack Road. It is in the Tamarack Center second edition. The property is zoned [1:43:34] GW, Gateway District, and is guided as places to work on the land use plan. [1:43:39] Elma, Florida currently operates a daycare here in city center just across the street, but it is about roughly half [1:43:45] the size of the U proposed daycare and about half the size and the number of students as well. [1:43:52] So, this is a PUD as part of the request. Um, [1:43:57] sorry, I need to go back up one moment. Y, so this is a PUD, a [1:44:04] planned unit development, and this is part of the again launch Tamarack planned unit development, which was [1:44:10] approved by the council back in 2019. The PUD established parking requirements, storm water management, [1:44:17] pedestrian access, landscaping, wetland preservation, and architecture and traffic control, including the extension [1:44:23] of Steven's Way. The PUD also authorized the transfer of permitted retail uses um [1:44:30] from this site and taking that square footage and actually transferring it to [1:44:35] the um Costco site. So that was a way that we allowed Costco to happen was by removing the ability to do retail sites [1:44:43] um in other areas. And as a result, the remaining areas within this PUD are limited to places to [1:44:48] work land uses. At that time in March of 2019, the council also approved site and building [1:44:54] plans for both Salute Dental and Premier Bank. And then um daycare facilities um [1:45:00] have been allowed as a places to work historically. And so in March of 2024, [1:45:06] the council approved a site plan for Kitty Kennedy Academy, um, which is currently under construction. And then [1:45:12] here you can see where the proposed Alma Flora Daycare Center would be in the [1:45:18] site. As I mentioned, daycare uses are considered a conditional use within the [1:45:23] PU or within the gateway district. there's a resolution within your packet that has the required findings of fact [1:45:29] um that that support the authorization of a a CV for this use. In terms of the [1:45:35] site plan, um the facility would be using the existing private driveway off [1:45:40] of Steven's Way um with two access points. So, if I can find my cursor here [1:45:46] at both C and A are two access points off of Steven's Way. And then access [1:45:52] point B indicates how the site would access uh that private driveway. The [1:45:57] pedestrian connectivity um is through a series of sidewalks that are throughout the development and this um Elma Florida [1:46:04] would continue that extension of those sidewalks. There's also a future sidewalk shown in red that would connect [1:46:10] over to the trail on Beenburg Drive that would be completed when the property to the north um is developed and that's due [1:46:17] to some of the elevations on the site. And then you can also see that the play area that is proposed for Alma Florida [1:46:25] is adjacent to SE uh Stevens Way which is very similar to the orientation of the U Kitty Academy daycare. [1:46:34] In terms of parking, the ordinance requires one stall per 200 square feet of building area. The building again is [1:46:41] just over 14,000 square feet. So therefore 73 stalls would be required. [1:46:46] The applicant is proposing 67 stalls. um and has shown some proof of parking um [1:46:52] on the north side of the site and there is a cross easement that is proposed so that um again the access and parking [1:46:59] between the properties would be allowed. Traffic patterns also show an a one-way [1:47:04] drop off aisle for the um on the north side of the building and that would allow um families to drop off or pick up [1:47:11] children um within that north area. Janelle, can you just go back real quick [1:47:17] and just So, then they're routed this way and then they're looping back across the top. Yeah. So, let me just again find my [1:47:22] cursor. So, they come in off of this private drive, come in one way, stop, let their kid off, and come back [1:47:29] out that way. Okay. So, just want to double check. Thank you. Because what as far as architecture [1:47:36] goes, the zoning ordinance requires commercial buildings to be constructed with 65% class one, primarily brick, [1:47:42] glass, and stone. The launch Tamarack PUD also requires that all buildings have complimentary materials including [1:47:49] one common masonry building material on 15% of every building. The proposed [1:47:54] building is 66.24% class one and is using some of the same brick that's on Salute Dental as well as [1:48:01] a black black brick that will be on Kitty Academy. [1:48:07] In regard to landscaping, the applicant is proposing to plant 32 trees, 60 [1:48:12] shrubs, and numerous perennials. There are additional plantings um that will be reviewed by the staff for the east side [1:48:19] of the retaining wall, which is over along this area. And then also there are [1:48:24] some existing plantings that are next to this storm water plan that are kind of shown in that lighter color. [1:48:31] So, we do have our planning commission representative, um Marcia Kennedy, here. I also have the applicant and the owner [1:48:38] um in the audience. They would like to say a few words if we could um ask them to come forward. [1:48:43] We'll have Marcia Kennedy first come up from planning commission and then we'll invite you up. Thank you. [1:48:55] Would you put the screen up that has the architecture picture on it? And I wanted to just a caveat. the Alma Florida was [1:49:02] um presented to us and and um we uh we had a a great discussion. The um [1:49:09] planning commission asked just a few questions. Um the building will be owned by the developer builder and leased to [1:49:15] the school and so the the existing school of course um is going to be about [1:49:21] half of the students that will be contained in this one about 229 students. Um during the neighborhood co [1:49:29] um meeting which I attended um they uh one question was uh from someone who [1:49:35] worked at Salute Dental or owned Salute Dental. The irrigation is shared with [1:49:40] Kitty Academy and so they wanted to make sure that that irrigation was overseen [1:49:46] by um the Alma Flora people as well as the others who who are sharing the irrigation. And that was um that was [1:49:54] addressed then and I think is um is not an issue but it was of note. [1:49:59] This particular one of the things the the um planning commission did bring up on the lower picture there to the lower [1:50:07] left. The parking lot um um meets right up with the play area with an open grate [1:50:15] there. And so the planning commission suggested that they might consider putting a wall up there rather than the [1:50:21] grate just to protect um from cars accidentally moving into the play area. [1:50:28] Um the other thing that the last thing that the the planning commission talked about was the parking. Um the 67 stalls [1:50:35] with 14 stalls shown as proof of parking to the north. And so staff confirmed [1:50:41] that they'll review proof of parking calculations prior to issuance of a land [1:50:46] disturbance permit. And so Eric Surles is the one who who worked with them on [1:50:51] that. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this and with [1:50:57] enthusiasm. Great. Thank you, Mayor Burke, members of the council. Just to um Commissioner Kennedy's [1:51:04] points, I did drop a slide just in case it came up. So they had proposed some ballards in that location and then [1:51:11] looking at can some of these or one of these stalls be removed so that the backing up movement is a little better. [1:51:17] So again we'll be looking at either one or both of those stalls. Okay. From a proof of parking. Terrific. Terrific. Okay. The applicant [1:51:23] would like to come forward if you just uh state your name and city of residence, not your whole address. City [1:51:29] of residence for the record. My name is Brad Coats. with Goldridge Development and I am currently reside in [1:51:36] Plymouth, Minnesota. And uh thank you madame mayor and council members uh for [1:51:42] hearing our project. Um and madame was it council member Kennedy? [1:51:48] Kennedy. Kennedy Commissioner. Thank you. She was right. And um one of the members brought [1:51:55] up that there was um we had four parking spaces that were contiguous to the [1:52:00] playground and there's only a fence that could stop a car. So um my that was my [1:52:06] miss. Um and I welcome the suggestion and we've already added it on the plans. [1:52:12] We're going to be using um ballards across that playground area and they'll [1:52:17] be installed at five foot on center and they'll be a large ballard filled with [1:52:23] concrete and a full concrete footing which we've put on our civil plans which was part of this [1:52:29] and and then I just wanted to point out um I've been in development for decades [1:52:36] and I've done a total of I think 18 national daycarees mostly in the Twin [1:52:41] Cities. ities, some in Woodbury and um the this is my first daycare where they [1:52:49] have a drop off and pickup zone. And I don't most of you have been to [1:52:54] daycarees. You go in, you park, it's doors opening, closing, kids coming and [1:53:00] going, and cars leaving and coming and it's a little helter skelter. Uh this is [1:53:06] the most organized I've seen it. And I've sat in front of the Alma Florida and watched the parents drop [1:53:12] existing building that where you have the same flow. Yeah. Yeah. And they drop off pick up the [1:53:17] teachers are standing right there making sure each kid gets in the car and I and [1:53:24] we have in the front there that building is 230 ft long and we have a canopy that [1:53:32] we have so that the which is shown on the picture here. That canopy is 84 feet [1:53:39] and it's 12 feet. It sticks 12 feet out from the sidewalk. So, the cars will now [1:53:46] be able to park under the canopy, be protected from the elements, and the teachers will be a lot more comfortable. [1:53:52] But, uh, across that 220ome, 230 ft, you can actually have about 14 [1:53:59] cars stacked along there. So, I really liked that process and I liked how it [1:54:04] worked at her existing school, which is right over at city center. So, we were [1:54:10] happy to find out that she would be interested in having Goldidge build her building and uh going and moving the [1:54:17] school that currently has been full with 105 kids for two years, moving them over [1:54:22] to the new location and adding with enrollment. And on that note, um, unless [1:54:28] you have a question for me, I'd like to introduce you to Lucila Dila, who's the owner or the operator of the school. [1:54:34] Lucila, thank you. Good evening, Mayor [1:54:40] and um, city council. Thank you for having me tonight. Um, I just came in from, you know, a quick little flight [1:54:46] from um, Oakbrook, M um, Illinois. As you know, I'm also a resident here in [1:54:52] So, I have residency in two states. So here in Woodbury and also in Illinois. [1:54:57] Um this project started six years ago and this is a very exciting time for us here at Admma Florida for the reason [1:55:04] that we start six years ago during the pandemic and we started with three students at that time and I sold my home [1:55:10] at Stolemill Farms to um have you know [1:55:16] this creation and one of the this creation not only came from me but it came from the community of Woodbury out [1:55:21] of a need because we um No Frontas as you know um public school um Spanish [1:55:27] immersion program. Um very um on demand um had a waiting list of 200 plus [1:55:32] students and personally my daughter who is 24 years old right now Sophia Yura [1:55:37] never got into no frontas way back then um when I had her on a waiting list and [1:55:43] I was um fifth or sixth in line waiting at 4:00 in the morning trying to get into the program as a parent. I'm a [1:55:51] educator at heart 30 years um in education. I'm a superintendent right now in the state of Illinois. I've [1:55:57] worked and created all of the Spanish immersion programs in Minneapolis public schools. Wendom Spanish immersion being [1:56:04] the one that I created and now it's a blue ribbon school. That being said, we put all of the best practices in [1:56:11] Florida. And one of the things that the community did was that they wanted me to create this program because of the need [1:56:18] and the demand. Um, back then I wasn't able to until 6 years ago. And as you [1:56:23] know, the pandemic hit. We only had three kids and I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm gonna go bankrupt." And now, six [1:56:30] years now into it, um, here we are expanding because we have an overflow of [1:56:36] students. And I have to say the community here has embraced our program. It's not just daycare. We are a family. [1:56:44] And we say familia to familia. Our family is your family. And we embrace our students, our families. and they go [1:56:50] into no florantas with a strong academic background because we do school readiness as well but also the social [1:56:57] emotional learning for students and the Spanish and as you if you know anything about society today that global learner [1:57:05] needs to be bilingual not my own lingua anymore so therefore we're creating bilingual students and creating a more [1:57:12] vibrant community for Woodbury it is already vibrant but even more so when you come into the workforce these [1:57:19] students they're going to be mono not monilingual but bilingual and very global in their aspects of thinking and [1:57:26] critical thinkings and seeing the world around them. So I thank you for you having us tonight and you know it's a [1:57:32] beautiful project as as you can see but there's a lot of heart and passion and a lot of commitment and hard work. So [1:57:39] thank you. Great. Thank you Lucila. Okay. Any other public comments? I no [1:57:45] more sheets and anybody on nine. Ashley not. Okay. Okay. Then I make a motion that we close the hearing and leave this [1:57:50] up to council for comments and questions. That was a quick second. Sorry. Yes. [1:57:55] Yeah. All in favor? Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Motion second. [1:58:04] All in favor closing the hearing. I Okay. Thank you. This is what happens [1:58:09] gets late. Okay. The hearing is closed. Now open to council members comments, [1:58:14] questions. We had questions on the previous [1:58:21] approval on the neighboring property. We had questions and I think on Salute Day [1:58:26] Dental too about height at in these properties. Um [1:58:32] are there height restrictions on this building? And and here's why I'm asking. I'm just going to skip ahead. um six [1:58:38] years hundreds three students to 100 students to 200 200 students [1:58:45] hoping for success for all of our businesses in our community. What are what are you [1:58:51] building the building envelope is only so big. So when she's crazy successful as I would [1:58:58] expect this to be, what are the height re what are the possibilities so she doesn't have to scrap this and go can [1:59:03] she go up cuz she can't go out from a zoning code standpoint the building would be able to go up. I think [1:59:10] the challenge usually in going up is the structural aspect of the building and we [1:59:15] have not inquired on the construction decisions that have been made but the zoning would not be a challenge. That's [1:59:20] yeah, structurally that's that's for them to have to figure out, but zoning wise we're okay. All right, that's all. [1:59:28] Anything else? I just want to comment that it is a beautiful building. Um, I know. Yeah, having visited your [1:59:35] facility before and knowing how the families are all so happy. I'm just thrilled for you as a business owner to take to this next step. I'm just really [1:59:42] pleased. Glad you're a Woodbury resident. Glad you're building your business and expanding it here. Um, and it looks great. And there again, like [1:59:48] you said, there's such a demand and a need for it. So, I'm all good. [1:59:54] I'll make a motion to approve. Sorry, anybody else? I'll make a motion to approve the Alma, Florida conditional use permit based on [2:00:01] the findings of fact and resolution 25-153 and approve for the site and building plan project number 05202500583 [2:00:08] subject to the conditions outlined in the council letter. Second. Motion and a second. Any further [2:00:14] discussion hearing? None. The roll call, please. Council member Santini, I. [2:00:19] Council member Stafford, I. Council member Wilson, I. Council member Morris, hi. [2:00:25] Mayor Burch, I. That passes. I'm glad that one was a little bit easier to do and we wish you [2:00:30] all the best. I know it's been a long time coming and looking forward to all the next steps. Good to see all the rest [2:00:35] of you all out there. Thank you. Okay. Um, item 7 C has been removed from [2:00:41] the agenda. We'll go on to 7D. This should be fairly straightforward, too. myburger operations uh about a um on [2:00:49] sale wine and beer and liquor license and Ashley is going to tell us a little bit more about that. The hearing is now [2:00:55] open. Thank you, Mayor Bert and members of the council. Uh My Burger Operations LLC [2:01:00] doing business as MyBer has submitted an application for an on sale wine and beer [2:01:06] uh liquor license including Sunday and patio sales for their restaurant located at 1960 Donnagle Drive. Uh, Myburgger [2:01:14] Operations is owned by Myburger USA Incorporated. Um, and the owner is Carol [2:01:20] Abdo, who owns 100% interest in the company. Um, as required by city code, a criminal [2:01:27] history check as it pertains to liquor licensing was conducted on um, each corporate officer and no violations that [2:01:34] would preclude the officers of the corporation from obtaining a liquor license were found. Um all necessary [2:01:40] fees were submitted. Um as per our process, the city attorney has reviewed the application materials and deemed [2:01:46] them acceptable. And we uh mailed public hearing notices to the surrounding [2:01:51] properties um in preparation for this evening. Uh and with that, um the staff [2:01:58] recommendation, uh is before you. Thank you. Thank you. And do is the applicant here [2:02:03] to make any comment or nope. Okay. I make a motion we close the [2:02:10] hearing. Second. Motion a second. All in favor? I I hear's closed. Open up to council [2:02:15] members. Where is the patio on this property? It's just to the It does face Volley Creek. Patio is like [2:02:22] three tables. Yeah, maybe four. Maybe four. Yeah. Okay. What's some grass? You want to expand it? [2:02:28] I just want to know um of course they're not here to comment, but do the other My Bers sell alcohol because their shakes [2:02:35] are so good. I don't know why anyone would waste their effort on alcohol when they just drink that shake. They do. You You can attest to that. [2:02:42] Not genonic though. Administrator. I think they do. Okay. I'm told they do. Yeah. [2:02:49] Alcoholic shake. Yeah. There's an opportunity. I'll make a motion to approve an on sale wine and [2:02:54] beer liquor license including Sunday and patio sales to My Burger Operations LLC DBA MyBer located at 1960 Donnagle [2:03:00] Drive. Second. Motion. Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. [2:03:06] Council member Stafford. I. Council member Wilson. I. Council member Morris. Hi. Council member Santini. [2:03:12] I. Mayor Bert. I. That passes. Congratulations. My burger. That's fabulous. They make great [2:03:19] burgers, great fries, great shakes. Just saying. Delicious. Mayor Bert. [2:03:24] Yeah. Would you like to do six before the next one? Um, is it quick? It's fairly quick. [2:03:30] Okay. You know me. Okay. Yep. We will tell now move um item 6A which [2:03:36] came from the consent agenda. So, Council Member Wilson. Yeah. So, I don't um I have to say my I [2:03:42] annotate isn't working very well tonight, so I'm going to go off my memory. Um I believe the workshop [2:03:47] meeting minutes do not reflect the fact that we had a discussion about the ebike and the trails and how that was going to [2:03:54] go to the parks um planning PNRC the workshop. Yep. [2:04:00] Did you say workshop? I think I did. Yeah. Yep. Okay. And so that that needs to be included in [2:04:07] that uh in those minutes that that was discussed. It was not on the agenda, but [2:04:12] it was discussed. It was discussed. It was brought up as a council item, right? Correct. Like at the end, right? [2:04:18] Correct. Um I go ahead, Madame Mayor, we can add We can add that [2:04:25] uh a couple sentences to reflect that in the synopsis, I'm sure. Yeah. And just as a followup, I I don't [2:04:31] know if you've seen I've seen all the many signs around on our parks and trails communicating that was their [2:04:37] first step that they were going to do is and that that was just one first step. Just pointing out that that's I have seen that. That was interesting. [2:04:43] Yes. Um and then for the record, I'm I'm hoping council maybe revisits the [2:04:49] workshop minute protocol. I know the workshop minutes are very abbreviated and they're the only the only meeting [2:04:56] that happens that has such abbreviated minutes and every other commission meeting and every other workshop meeting [2:05:03] has uh or um council meeting has a longer more in-depth um history of what [2:05:10] what's been discussed. So going forward maybe we can discuss it at a workshop sometime but um that would be my hope to [2:05:17] get some consensus on. Okay. So to gain clarity, I'm going to just propose that that gets moved aside. We have had that discussion. We have [2:05:23] instituted u some minutes or an overview. We do have that. So what you're asking for and that we will [2:05:30] um vote on here is are we going to adjust the meeting minutes from the [2:05:35] workshop to include the discussion about PNRC reviewing the trail use plan and safety of ebikes, etc. [2:05:43] Yeah. Do you want a motion to formalize that? Well, we I think you we have to approve the minutes anyway. So, with [2:05:49] that change motion with the addendum is what I'm saying. Yeah. So, I'll make a motion to approve 6A with Council Member Wilson's uh comments [2:05:56] and Jeff Administrator Doll's recommendation on inclusion of second [2:06:02] discussion. Motion second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. The roll call, please. Council member Wilson, [2:06:08] I. Council member Morris, hi. Council member Santini, I. Council member Stafford, I. Mayor Bert. [2:06:15] I All right, that passes. Okay, we are now going on to the discussion of uh [2:06:22] item 8A, approved city administrator recommendation to dismiss a city of Woodbury employee. So, I think you're [2:06:28] out there somewhere. I don't you. Okay. Hi, welcome. Thanks for sitting through [2:06:33] all of this. It's taken a long time. And I just want to state for all of us and anyone else, this is a this been a [2:06:39] complex issue. I have all kinds of I got a flowchart here of how I need to [2:06:45] go about doing this. So, let's make sure I do it right. I might just need a minute to pull it all together. [2:06:51] Okay, I'm going to start here. At this point, this is my opening statement. The city, and I have to do this because this [2:06:57] is a legal issue, so that's why it's going to feel a little stilted. At this point, the city council will be discussing preliminary consideration of [2:07:03] allegations against a city of Woodbury employee under Minnesota statute section 13D.05, 5 subdivision 2B and the [2:07:12] employee is Carl Olsen. So, Mr. Olsen, [2:07:17] um the city is not required, so you know, to take any public comment on this item. This city council has received [2:07:24] extensive information related to the matter. Um council will move forward and take [2:07:30] this to a close session. Um and we would like to invite you into our close session to hear your comments [2:07:37] and then um and then if we will make then and if they decide to hear your [2:07:43] statement. Okay. So I'm making the motion or the offer reading. Am I doing this right Kevin? Reading the statement. [2:07:51] This has been very complex. Um okay. So we council would prefer to move this matter [2:07:58] into a close session at this point under statutes 13D.05. five is my understanding. [2:08:04] Correct. And in that process, you're going to likely at for portions of it allow Mr. [2:08:13] uh Olsen to come into the meeting if he so chooses to address you. And I I will say under state statute for Mr. Olsson's [2:08:20] benefit, he has the entitlement to request that the discussion occur in open session if he so prefers. But if [2:08:27] he's fine with it, the council will go in close session. Yeah. And our intent right now is to offer a close session. When we do, we go [2:08:32] into that little room over there. No one else from the public attends. Just so that's that's what we're planning to do. [2:08:39] So, [2:08:44] okay. I will now then entertain a motion to close this portion of the meeting [2:08:50] because we're going to close the open session and move to close session. So, council members, motion. And do I have a [2:08:56] second? And all in favor? I I Okay. The city of Woodbury city [2:09:02] council will now go into close session. Only authorized City of Woodbury representatives may be present during [2:09:08] the close session except as otherwise offer authorized by the city council and [2:09:13] and madame mayor if I we could get an affirmation from Mr. Olsen that he's he's not insisting that this happen in [2:09:20] open session. He's fine with the council going into close session. And I do have Okay, I don't know where at one point the green sheet comes [2:09:26] forward. try and invite him forward to state that or no just wait till we go into the close session for his You're [2:09:32] good going to the close session. Yes. Okay. That's what we're doing. All [2:09:38] right. Now, what usually happens is we do our close session then we come back [2:09:43] and we have to wrap up and close our meeting. And we do actually have a few more agenda items. So, okay. So, Mr. [2:09:49] Olsen will now head into that room. [2:36:05] closed meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations against a city of Woodbury employee under [2:36:10] Minnesota statutes section 13D.05 subdivision 2B. The city council meeting [2:36:17] is now open. The time is 10:01. [2:36:24] Okay. Okay. I will make a motion [2:36:30] um motion that Carl Olsen be dismissed from employment with the city of Woodbury effective August 27th, 2025 for [2:36:37] but not limited to the reasons stated in city administrator Jeff Doll's letter to Carl Olsen on August 15th and August [2:36:44] 21st, 2025. Is that a second motion number two or is that a [2:36:52] and that the city administrator has provided Carl Olsen with the appropriate notices related to this decision. [2:36:58] I don't think there needs to be a second motion. Okay. I'll second. [2:37:04] Motion is second. Any further discussion? Uh, roll call, please. [2:37:10] Council member Morris. I. Council member Santini. I. Council member Stafford. [2:37:16] I. Council member Wilson. I. Mayor Bert. I. that has passed. I'm sorry for you. I [2:37:24] appreciate you being here. I think it takes a lot to to take these steps moving forward and to be here and for [2:37:30] that I give you a lot of credit. I do wish you all the best going forward. Same. Same. [2:37:35] Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Absolutely. [2:37:41] Okay. We'll now move on to uh I know Tony been waiting for you. Transportation report. We should do it at the beginning so you [2:37:47] wouldn't have to wait. Not close. He hasn't been here for a while. He's He's missed us. [2:37:54] Does Tony get them when they're late like this and Chris gets the early ones? Is that what the deal is? It seems to go that way. Yeah. Yeah. [2:38:01] I'll have a talk with Chris about that. Uh Mayor and Burton, members of council, transportation update. It has been a [2:38:07] busy construction season. There are six active projects um that are resulting in [2:38:13] uh road closures, uh lane closures, or detour routes throughout the community. And the water treatment plant and pipelines project is really a [2:38:19] combination of about five projects. Reminder that water treatment plant uh [2:38:25] work uh and the pipeline projects uh extend across the community. That's why we're seeing uh construction in in a [2:38:31] number of roadway corridors. All of them shown in orange are the current 2025 [2:38:37] project areas. We want to remind uh the residents and [2:38:42] council that all of our road closures and detour routes are updated on the [2:38:49] woodburymn.gov uh back/watertreatment uh project page. That project page has a [2:38:55] map that does show active road closures and a outlook to the anticipated uh [2:39:01] upcoming closures. We are happy to announce that uh there's been a lot of progress made on the project and I have [2:39:08] a lot of photos of those. I'm going to skip those um to shorten this up a little bit. Um but we can certainly [2:39:13] celebrate that we are moving into on Labor Day weekend the final phases of [2:39:18] construction for this season. So we will see some road reopenings and some road [2:39:24] closures. We'll start with the opening so we can celebrate a little bit. Um the Interlockan Parkway south of Val Creek [2:39:31] Road down to Pioneer Drive is scheduled to reopen on Saturday, this upcoming Saturday. [2:39:37] Uh also Pioneer Drive from the Interlockan Parkway roundabout down south to Juniper Drive is scheduled to [2:39:44] reopen on Saturday. And then that uh closure on Lake Road uh really limited [2:39:50] to the intersection at Piner Drive is also scheduled to reopen um Saturday. [2:39:56] that will provide uh access to the schools. We have provided a lot of communication and worked with the school [2:40:01] district on ensuring that parents who drive their kids to school, buses and the transportation department is aware [2:40:08] of how to get to the schools um located on the corner of Lake and Pioneer. [2:40:15] All of the westbound um lanes on Tamarack Road will reopen uh [2:40:22] for uh preparation for a detour route on westbound Tamarack Road between Radio [2:40:27] Drive and Belindberg Drive. Um we were able to complete all of the paving work west of Beimberg Drive. Um so that work [2:40:35] is done there near the interchange area. Uh there will be some additional work to [2:40:40] finish the paving between Beimmber Drive and Radio Drive upcoming. I will note also that uh today we were [2:40:48] able to reopen Pioneer Drive which was closed for an extension further south [2:40:53] from Lighthouse Lane. Um so this area down on the south end of town south of Dale Road is now open. And as of this [2:41:02] afternoon, we've also opened Cottage Grove Drive, which is uh basically completed now with the trail and uh [2:41:09] roadway repaving uh completed on on Cottage Grove Drive. So, that has been a lengthy project throughout the summer to [2:41:15] get the pipes in the ground and and uh get the road rebuilt and get that back open for residents. [2:41:21] Before you move on, wait, are you okay? So, we got the interlocking. So, is the [2:41:27] intersection at Interlockan and Valley Valley Creek open then or going to be [2:41:32] open? That intersection is ready to open, but we're going to get into some closure [2:41:39] impacts there offer westbound traffic. So, westbound will not be reopening [2:41:45] on um the Tuesday after Labor Day, uh September 2nd. It will not be. Okay. But [2:41:51] the south side of the roadway will be. So the south and you can go eastbound on Valley Creek. [2:41:57] Correct. Okay. Okay. And but then you can't go further north on Interlock and north of Valley Creek. [2:42:03] That is correct. Uh there is some additional work in that Vel vault that is on the north side of the intersection. Um that will be completed [2:42:09] here over the next two weeks and then the pavement will be put back in on that north side of the intersection to reopen [2:42:14] that um two weeks from uh September 2nd is the anticipated date. Okay. [2:42:22] Okay. So, some additional roadway closings that will happen uh on, [2:42:29] let's start here. Westbound Valley Creek Road from Kobe Lake Drive to Radio Drive [2:42:36] is anticipated to close here or scheduled to close on September 2nd for approximately two weeks. That is to [2:42:42] allow the finish work in the Velva and then also get all the paving done. You've seen a lane that's been sitting [2:42:48] out there unpaved. We do need to do a full roadway closure for westbound um in order to get that pavement done. Uh so [2:42:55] once that pavement's in and cured um that section of roadway will open approximately two weeks later. [2:43:01] Tell me is that going to be detourred or you're going to be moving traffic into a [2:43:06] eastbound I'm sorry the westbound. So there's two lanes. [2:43:11] Yeah. We're we're not planning to impact the eastbound traffic. We're planning to detour up to Tamarack Road uh during [2:43:17] that time. So westbound traffic on Valkyrie Road would be detourred to westbound Tamarack Road. [2:43:25] Also a closure from Radio Drive will go into effect at the same time on [2:43:30] September 2nd from Radio Drive west to Tower Drive. Um that is to allow the [2:43:36] pipe crossing at City Center Drive um which was omitted. We didn't have pipe [2:43:41] um on on on schedule uh delivered to the site to get that in the ground when it [2:43:46] was closed previously. So that will be dug in the ground and then the pavement will be repaved in that area. Um we do [2:43:52] anticipate about a fiveweek closure for that section from radio to um to T tower [2:43:58] drive for westbound only. That does mean city hall access would only be from [2:44:04] eastbound Val Creek Road. You would not be able to get across the intersection at city center drive as the north half [2:44:09] would be closed. Um, so that would uh mean that from Valk Road at Tower Drive [2:44:15] heading east would be the way to get into city hall and to leave you'd have to go east towards Radio Drive [2:44:22] for approximately a 5we period. Okay. So on radio at Valley Creek, can you go north southbound? [2:44:28] Radio drive would be open north and south through the intersection. Okay. Correct. That we did finish the pipe work across [2:44:34] that intersection. Making sure. Okay. On September 2nd, so the the [2:44:41] Tuesday after Labor Day, there is a planned closure of eastbound Tamarack [2:44:46] Road from Belenberg Drive to Radio Drive. That would be a full eastbound [2:44:51] closure that would allow the milling and repaving of that roadway. We anticipate [2:44:56] about one week to get that work done. Will that be conducted during daytime [2:45:02] hours or are we going to get permits to work? That's scheduled to be daytime hours. Correct. not not scheduled to be [2:45:08] nighttime work. All all of the other closures that are [2:45:15] in place um today would remain for a number of weeks yet. Um we'll have an update probably at the next session of [2:45:21] any additional openings. There is a a maintenance project that is scheduled on Tower Drive at the intersection between [2:45:29] so drive west to Metobrook Drive. um that section of roadway on tower needs [2:45:35] to be closed for approximately two weeks um to correct a sanitary sewer um issue. [2:45:40] So that is a maintenance project that needs to happen to ensure that that sewer line can be repaired and continue flow. [2:45:47] Where was that again? I'm sorry. Uh Tower Drive between Metobrook Drive and Radio Drive. So a short segment um [2:45:54] on the intersection at Metobrook Drive would remain open. So you get to see Paul, I'll go to Wood [2:46:00] Lane. Maybe. I know. That's what I'm thinking. 94 to South. [2:46:09] Borrow the chopper. Yeah. This next next phase um for two [2:46:15] weeks certainly Valley Creek Road westbound uh between Kobe Lake Drive and radio um will be a headache, but two [2:46:23] weeks later that will reopen and then following three weeks after that we'll get westbound opened up west of radio. [2:46:32] Okay, that's the main changes. I wanted to keep this brief. Um, and I did want [2:46:38] to put a plug in for name the street sweeper contest. Um, until September 1st, you can submit your um, names in [2:46:46] the contest and in September a winner will be selected. [2:46:51] Reminder to sign up for InTouch as that is the main way to get regular updates on projects and road closures. [2:46:58] And that's all I have. I do know that the sweet sweepers are named because as they drive by the house they they [2:47:04] actually decid [2:47:16] administrators report. Thank you, mayor. I'll keep it brief. Three quick things. One is the um uh [2:47:22] candidates for the special election for district 47 are set. Um so early voting [2:47:29] for that race will start September 19th. Election day of course is November 4th. [2:47:35] Uh and all early voting will be held at the the beautiful new uh Washington [2:47:41] County Service Center. Uh so folks who want to vote early uh can go there. [2:47:46] Um a reminder to the council workshop at the next meeting which will be September [2:47:52] 10th will be in the public safety building and it will be budget night. It's a budget workshop where you know [2:47:58] we're going to deep dive into the preliminary 2026 budget. Uh lot of discussion amongst the council in [2:48:04] addition to presentations by staff. Uh there is also an opportunity for the public to weigh in too. Um so uh check [2:48:11] our website for those uh viewing at home and uh feel free to come and participate. [2:48:17] Lastly, just wanted to uh uh announce if folks out there haven't heard, but we're [2:48:24] very proud that uh Woodbury's own and um East Ridge grad Taioa made the uh 53 [2:48:32] roster for the Seattle Seahawks. Uh, of course, more importantly, he's the son [2:48:37] of a very proud mother who al also happens to be our wonderful, fantastic, [2:48:43] amazing public or uh, parks and recreation director, uh, Michelle Okata. So, congrats to Tai and Michelle and the [2:48:50] entire family. Does she play the number one top 10 play in Sports Center on Sunday morning? [2:48:56] Yeah. Does it automatically play the Sports Center da da da whenever she walks into a room? [2:49:01] We can make that happen. I can We can. Yeah. Yeah. I get communications on. Outstanding. That's it. Thank you, mayor. [2:49:07] All right. Um, that covers our agenda tonight. I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. Second. [2:49:12] Motion a second. All in favor? I. We are adjourned.