Okay. Good evening and welcome to the city of Woodberry's city council meeting for today, August 12th, 2026. It is 7:31. We are a minute late in starting this meeting. I'll explain it in just a moment, but this meeting is taking place virtually. Um, it's always available to to view online and we are here in council chambers. As I said, the meetings are recorded by True Lens Community Media. They're the people behind the door. Um, they're all broadcast live. They're replayed on cable channel 799. Um, and you can also find them on the city's YouTube channel. Um, we are just slightly delayed. Many of you may not know that prior to every meeting, we have a workshop that starts at 5:30. Um, and there's always a myriad of topics that are being discussed. You're welcome anytime to come and listen to those. It's more of a discussion meeting that we have. Um, but we had a lot going on tonight, including uh, city administrator uh, annual review um, and some other things. So, we do our best to be here on time. So, thank you for your patience. Um, as is our norm, would you please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance? [clears throat] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Um, Angel, would you please do the roll call? >> Morris >> here. >> Council member Santini >> here. >> Council member Wilson >> here. >> Council member Stafford >> here. >> Mayor Burke >> here. We are all here tonight. So, we're able to conduct tonight's business. Uh, we've got two special orders of business. I'm going to turn to our city attorney who's going to report on the close session that was held on July 22nd. Thank you, Madame Mayor and members of the council. Uh to summarize, the city council held a closed session at your last regular meeting on July 22nd, 2026. That was pursuant to statute 13D.05, subdivision 3B. That's a closed meeting for purposes of the attorney client privilege to discuss litigation matters. litigation matter that was discussed was the estate of Raymond De Lee versus the city of Woodbury, a prop real estate property dispute that's been long ongoing in the city. Um at that last close session, the council we discussed the status of ongoing settlement discussions in that matter and uh the city council gave city staff some additional guidance and input on what you thought on ways in which we might get that matter resolved. And so that's the summary of uh that closed matter. And I will in fact report back to the council in the intervening weeks. In fact, just yesterday, we've achieved a tenative settlement uh on that matter. Um and because it was just yesterday, it was uh too new to actually get it on tonight's agenda, but we would anticipate bringing that back for formal council approval in terms of a final settlement agreement at the next council meeting. >> Terrific. Good. Thank you for that update. Um and then secondly, um I'm going to turn back to their attorney because we had a um closed session review of a city administrator and I'll let turn it back to Kevin for an update on that. >> Thank you again, Madame Mayor. Uh that closed session was held tonight at your workshop meeting on August 12th. We had a close session pursuant to statute 13D.05 subdivision 3A, which allows for a close session in relation to a performance evaluation of a city staff member. And tonight's uh performance evaluation was of city administrator Jeffrey Dah. Um and I will provide a summary of that. Uh the close session evaluation was led by your consultant Chad Weinstein who has been for several years now the city's consultant used for performance evaluations. So along with Chad uh and myself, we went through the performance evaluation. Um there was a report by Mr. Weinstein that was prepared based upon uh collection of data from city staff as well as the city council. That report was uh reviewed and adopted by the council. Uh there was a discussion of administrator D's performance for his first year with the city here. Uh and pleased to report that the council and staff have both found uh Mr. Dah's performance to be very good. uh and you know in in particular for our first year of employment with the city where it's a steep learning curve um you know standard kind of rating on a five scale I think every virtually every uh ranking he got was three fours and fives uh very very well um and so kudos to him on his uh performance. There was also discussion of his uh a set of strategic goals for him to look to uh in the next coming year in terms of things that the council wants him to focus on uh from a big picture. Um and then finally uh talked about compensation uh for 2027. In particular, the council looked at not only a merit-based increase based upon Mr. all's good performance, but also a review of uh market comparison of other comparable cities uh their city managers and city administrators and what that might warrant. Um and in light of all of that, uh the council is uh going to uh recommend and has approved a 6 and a half% in merit-based and market rate adjustment uh increase for administrator for next year. Great. >> That's the summary of that matter. >> Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate those updates. Um, we'll now move on to the open forum. I have just slightly new language in the open forum. Of course, it's present on the agenda. If any of you have that, I'll just read it for clarification here. Um, I don't think you're going to feel any different about, you know, it's kind of the standard. The open forum is an opportunity for the public to share comments, concerns, or input on subjects that are not part of the meeting agenda. Persons wishing to speak must complete a signup sheet prior to the start of the meeting. And by the way, right now I have four of those. Um, all speakers must provide their name and their city of residence with their question for the official record when you come up to the mic. Each speaker is limited to three minutes with a maximum set aside of 20 minutes for open forum. No more than three speakers per topic. It looks like right now we have four different topics. Uh, council will listen to comments but typically will not respond during the meeting, but in most cases followup to concerns raised will be provided by email or phone call within a week. Um, I would just like to point out too, we have a timer system going. Uh, there's a clock over here that, uh, Angela will start. It does counts down from 3 minutes. There is a green, yellow, red light. Green means keep talking. That's and it lasts for two minutes. It turns yellow with one minute left. And, uh, when it hits red, your 3 minutes is up and you will now have an audio uh, some sort of buzzer sound. It's not that obnoxious, but it's a reminder that your three minutes is up and we'll give time then to the next person. So, uh, with that, I would like to invite up Amy Steedman as our first speaker. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening. Um, my name is Amy Steedman and I am a resident of Woodbury. I'm here tonight with concerns about the street assessment process. When door knocking in Woodbury, we heard consistent and alarming feedback from residents about the cost of assessments whenever road improvements are being made. The amounts are alarming. In many cases, running approximately 13,000 per household for older residents on fixed incomes. This is not a minor inconvenience. This is a fiscal or financial crisis. And yet, the information and options residents need to navigate this are nowhere to be found on the city's website. This is unacceptable. So, I have three questions. First, regarding commercial properties, are adjoining commercial properties, including apartment buildings, being assessed for this infrastructure work. Our review suggests they may not be. If this is the case, we need to know why. Residents deserve to know if they are shouldering the cost that commercial property owners are not. Second, regarding partial payments, does Woodbury allow residents to make partial payments on their assessed amount before the 30-day deadline? This would allow a residents to reduce the interest they would otherwise pay on finance financed assessments. We could not find published policy anywhere on this. The city of Egan allows partial payments. We so we know it is doable. If Woodbury does not allow this, we want to know why not. We are asking council to consider adopting a similar policy immediately. Third, regarding deferment policies, why does Woodbury not publish its assessment deferment policy and applications online? These policies set age and income thresholds that could provide real relief to elderly and fixed income residents facing a $13,000 bill. A letter that can be misplaced is not enough. Every resident deserves easy access to this information, especially for before an assessment arrives at their door. These are not complicated asks. Publish your policies, be transparent, and trans and protect your most vulnerable citizens and residents. Whether the issue is a $13,000 assessment hitting a neighborhood on a fixed income or an unanswered question about ICE and our new public safety building, the council owes residents transparency and accountability. We deserve answers. Answers. We are paying attention. we are showing up and we are not going away. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um anytime we get some comments with there if there's the need to provide some additional information to clarify some things, I'm going to go ahead and do it where we can. I don't think we can answer all those questions directly tonight. But I would just like to address uh commercial properties that yes, commercial properties are assessed. They have their own assessment. In fact, it's important that we assess commercial properties because they do not pay any property tax or I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me clarify those non the the nonprofits, the churches, the schools and all that do not pay. So, they just as an FYI, those properties are also assessed. But yes, commercial properties are absolutely assessed. Um, and regarding, you know, you you mentioned the $13,000. It's really important to know that the assessments differ depending on the project under under scope. Um, the uh most recent Royal Oaks properties and what's happening in Woodbear Heights is a full reconstruction. It is removing and replacing water, sewer, and the entire street system. In many cases, in most cases, uh you'll see I forget the neighborhood that sits right behind us here, Britney Drive, and those are being done. and those assessments are quite different because it's just a simple recon mill and overlay not a full reconstruction. So that's an important clarification. Um I don't know about reg policies and all that. So I just want to answer those up front now and as I stated we'll get back to you with uh with phone call or letter within a week. Now I'd like to invite up Nikki Nika or Nicola Sakira and again if you could just for the record state your name and city of residence for the record. Welcome. >> So my name is Nicholas Aura. Um we so I and my husband Andy we are reciting on Crackleberry Trail in Woodbury and uh well actually it's our anniversary but we chose to come here to address [laughter] >> exactly to address a topic which is really close to our heart. So it's about speed limits, adhering to them and also ignoring them and distracted driving and well also the outputs or outcomes of those. So as you can hear, I'm not Minnesotan, not born and raised. We are Austrians. I came here with our children. We love everything about Minnesota except for this one thing. And it's I we find it concerning. We find it disturbing. And it hasn't been just one time that we stopped for children who had been uh compromised or their health had been compromised by cars dashing by not adhering to the legal distance that legally defined distance that they are supposed to keep. We've been tending to grace knees and other things and soothe them comforted them. Lucky for us and for the children there is no major casualty where we have experienced those was in animals and that is something so this is why I like to focus on that because um like almost every day when I go out there I really dread it because I'm taking animals off the streets be it coyotes be it turtles if they are still alive I take them to uh wildlife rehab and release and this is I also why I'm here because an officer uh who I called he pointed out that this meeting would be here today and he asked me to particularly address the fact that officers or the law they can take animals who are injured to that facility because he didn't know it himself and he asked me to yes kind of pass on that information. So the other thing since I'm running out of time um is well I know all these places in Woodbury now where animals cross for instance. So, I would like to put up science, but once in a while it's a wild goose chase because I addressed the city hall and then I was transferred and transferred and then I ended up at an engineer who told me, "Well, we are only responsible for those signs who'd been run over or um or or you know kind of became bent or something." So, that is one thing signs putting up signs. Let me just consult with my notes. Uh thank you. And um also how to fund those signs. I can fund them to some extent but I would also need help for that. Also the permission to set them up especially now during fall season right for the turtles and other animals and also well that's me and yeah well the [laughter] the police I already referred to that information that might be passed on. Well, thanks for your attention. >> Thank you very much. Yeah, >> thank you so much. We appreciate you. [applause] >> I would now uh bring up the third speaker which is Chris Chris Hullbrook. >> Hello again, [clears throat] Chris Hullbrook. I live here in Woodbury. I was here three weeks ago to talk about flock cameras. Um, I sent forth 20 red flags, I called them, which I [clears throat] submitted and I shared last time. I submitted a freedom of information request and I got the information. So, I appreciate that very much. What I found, I shared with you guys like a week ago in another email. I shared it with police. Uh, it's equally uh bothersome. So, I'm here to repeat my request for a privacy study, uh, public hearing, and a vote on this flock contract. the transparency portal settings uh have been false. It has said we don't share information outside of 100 miles. I found in the 45,957 searches um that we've been accessed by Lacrosse 150 mi away, Grand Rapids 200 miles away, the Paul Bunan task force which includes the BCA, tribal police departments and federal task forces at the borderline of Canada. Some of the entries are carboncopied Canada. So that setting of 100 miles and 67 departments is not true. Nor are the limitations on search request requirements saying that immigration searches and traffic enforcement was not allowed. Both of those appear in the database, the log I received. Woodbury has been searched for immigration. Um, honestly, 35,000 of these entries seem legitimate to me. There are warrants that appear. 10,000 are questionable with purposes um including littering, parking tickets, city planning. Um there's an really extended list. I don't have time to get into any of it, but that's also a false setting on the transparency portal from Flock that they provide to Woodbury. I question the independence of the audit that was also shared with me that was done in February. Um, on the board of this independent agency is Robert James, uh, the information communication and technology director for this city. There also three local police chiefs on that board. They state on their website that they know local government because they are local government. So, I don't consider that an independent audit. They also reference Woodbury policy uh 431, which doesn't exist. I believe they meant 425. Um uh fourth thing uh I also found that in addition to the Flock uh ALPR cameras, we also have purchased Condor cameras which do facial recognition technology as described by Flock. They are an AI powered object tracking technology that includes automatic pan, tilt, zoom for live and recorded video of vehicles and humans. So that was the new information. Lastly, I just want to point out in the last week alone, all the other issues that you guys have seen in the news. Yesterday, DUTH ended their contract. The day before West St. Paul in North Branch, last week, a woman in Milwaukee had guns pulled on her, mistakenly accused of being a homicide uh uh target. Um there have been more police fired. There have been in in Georgia. And um I again, I just want to repeat how important I think this is. and ask for a input session and a vote. >> Thank you. >> UM [applause] [applause] uh last time we had chief here to answer a few things. Is there any clarifications you want to make? Administrator Dah, I'll just turn to you on this or if not it's uh get back. >> Uh yeah, Mayor just want to just reiterate a couple things. One is we did recently just completely restrict access to our data um in terms of it. It needs to go to our police department to get access and then we review the request who the entity is. Um and then in addition we are looking at a third-party audit as well. The BCA did do an audit with a con with a consultant essentially earlier this year to ensure that we were meeting their standards. Well, you know, their standards are one thing, but what's the standards for our community? So, we are looking at ways to um come uh consult with a third party vendor who doesn't have any skin in the game to ensure that we're meeting our standards versus the the the state or, you know, obviously whatever the federal government's standards are. So, uh we're working on that and I think there'll be more opportunity for engagement and taking in feedback down the road. State and clarify that first part. Can you can you can you say the first part of that again that the change that was just made to the access because obviously the the foyer requested did return some information to that but the policy change now moving forward. Could you just want to restate that again because you flew through that but that's important change >> hap happily. Uh so previously our police department had set the sharing radius to 100 miles around Woodbury similar to you know almost all the other cities that have these uh cameras. Uh earlier this summer we because of hearing some of the issues that we've heard that other cities have been having with uh access uh we we restricted immediately um all act all all you know unencumbered access to our data from law enforcement jurisdictions to have to go through a specific request to make sure they're vetted by our own police department. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Um before I bring up our fourth um green sheet speaker, I just want to circle back to the assessment piece because um just to clarify as well that the assessment policy for road reconstruction rehabilitation is a policy that existed since Chris when >> 2014. So it is a policy that exists and we apply whatever the reconstruction or rehabilitation is to a road that a policy gets applied to it. So it is a consistent use of how an assessment is determined. It is not arbitrary every single time we do it and we're going to assess these people this much and these people that much and these people that much. It's based on policy. So and policy exists that would you like to say more about the task force and how that was created. >> Just for clarification >> I can briefly bring up um there has been obviously road reconstruction in Woodbury since development. uh the most recent iteration of the road rehabilitation task force set forth the bones of our assessment policy and that's been modified in 2017 2019 um but the basics of that have been in place for a long time I know a lot of the questions about partial payments uh uh deferments for uh age or income restricted all of that is available on our website so um >> we need to make it >> yep so if you I after this meeting, we'll connect and I'll follow up and make sure that we can point you in the right direction. Um, but I would say almost everything that was asked in that is publicly available and we share that pretty frequently >> so we can improve communication on that. Thank you. All right, I'd now like to invite up the fourth speaker, Katherine Katherine Wagner. >> Good evening. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Katherine Wagner and I am a resident of Woodbury. This summer, Human Rights Watch released 180 page report documenting widespread human rights abuses committed by federal agents during Operation Metro Surge. Human Rights Watch is a globally respected >> ask a question. It says you're talking about elections. >> I will be talking about that >> in addition, correct, >> to what you're speaking about. >> Correct. Yes. I'll be tying it together. I promise you. Reclaim your time. >> The green light still on. >> Um, Human Rights Watch is a globally respected international um organization. It's relied on by journalists and by countries around um or by governments around the world, including our own. The report details agents surveilling, harassing, and arbitrarily arresting people engaged in lawful activity. It documents ICE destroying property, throwing non-resisting people into the onto the ground, and deploying chemical irritants at short range without warning. None of this should surprise the council. It corroborates what Woodbury residents told you directly in this chamber back in January. I raised this because the previous deployment of ICE connects directly to our upcoming elections. When Minnesota sued to stop me metro surge, Attorney General Bondi red offered to reduce federal agents in our state not for public safety reasons, but in exchange for access to our voter roles. ICE agents were operating in our city, not just for immigration enforcement, but as a bargaining chip to obtain protected voter data. And since that time, senior officials, including the president, have repeatedly refused to rule out sending armed off federal agents back into our cities and to our polling places this fall in order to win the election. This threat is serious and state election officials are actively planning for it. Minnesota's Secretary of State is developing protocol if federal agents are near polling places on election day. Counties across the state have updated election judge training in preparation for confrontation at the polls. But civil rights experts warn the greater risk is voter intimidation in the days and weeks before November 3rd, a time when the government may likely deploy ICE simply to create fear and chill voter turnout, much like this it did during Operation Metro Surge when it deterred people from work, school, medical care, and even buying food. This is why our city council needs to prepare as well. You cannot ignore the danger to Woodbury residents if the federal government sends ice back to Minnesota. You need to start planning. In March, community members pushed for a resolution that would limit the federal government from staging in our parks and public spaces. Ramsey County post signs in their park entrances prohibiting stages staging and the use of public lots as an operation base. Fulcon Heights, Minnesota has adopted a similar resource stewardship resolution. Other communities have built response plans with their police departments preparing for this scenario. I ask you, protecting your constituents against human rights abuses is about public safety, not immigration, and it transcends party lines. There's no downside to planning for election interference and the escalation of ICE. Thank you. THANK YOU. [applause] >> [applause] >> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of the majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member or a citizen so requests in which event the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the council. That said, we have consent agenda items 6A through 6G. Would anyone like to put forth a motion? >> If you want to see >> if anybody wants to pull >> I'm sorry. What? Oh, pull. Yeah, sorry. Or you can pull now. >> Yeah. >> You want to pull the audience first? >> Oh, >> sorry. >> I always do. Nobody ever says anything. >> Got a little distracted with everybody leaving us. >> Anybody want anything pulled? See none. Council members, anything? >> 6D is in David. >> Poll 6D. Anything else? Council members? Not >> the fourth motion. I have a question. >> I'll move to approve consent agenda items 6A through 6G with the exception of 6D. Yeah. Second. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. The roll call, please. >> Council member Santini. >> I. >> Council member Wilson. >> I. >> Council member Stafford. >> I. >> Council member Morris. >> Hi. >> May >> I. Those consent agenda items except for 60 pass. Um, we have no public hearing. We do have discussion. Um, Council Member Wilson, would your 60 go quickly or should we go ahead and do the uh >> Let's do your discussion first because whenever I say it's quick, then >> Okay. All right. Uh, they'll move on to item 8A, which is the review and acceptance of the 2025 audit and annual comprehensive financial report. And Jason Shermacher, our CFO, is here to kick us off. Welcome, Jason. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. As you stated tonight, I'm bringing forward the 2025 uh financial statements and the results of the audit of that those financial statements. Um the financial statements and the audit results were brought to audit and investment on August 4th, at which point they had voted to accept the audit and the audit results and directed staff to move forward with bringing them to city council for official acceptance. Um joining us tonight from the city's audit firm, ABDO is Tyler C. Tyler was the lead on our city audit. He has a presentation going over the audit results and some key financial results from 2025. >> Great. Welcome back, Tyler. >> Yeah, thanks for having me. So, like Jason said, I'm going to be going over the financial statement audit presentation tonight. Uh, so the audit presentation is meant to be essentially a highle overview of the audit. So, giving you the main information that we feel like you should be aware of without getting lost in the details of the of the full audit report. So, I'll first of all go over the audit results. I'll then go over the results of the general fund as well as your other governmental funds. So your capital project funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds. Um we'll then move on to the enterprise funds from there and then I'll end the presentation with some KPIs. So our responsibility as auditors is to issue an audit uh opinion on the city's financial statements. We are issuing what's called an unmodified opinion which is a clean audit opinion. Um we also do some testing around state statutes that are relevant to the city during the course of the audit. Uh and we had no instances of non-compliance to note there. Uh and then this year because of the federal funding that the city received, we performed what's called a single audit. Uh so this was specifically looking at some of your um controls and compliance around um some federal funding you got for the water treatment plant project. Uh and we also have no instances instances of non-compliance noted for the single audit portion of the audit. This year we did have to issue one internal control finding um for this year's audit. Uh this actually was relating to a error correction from the 2024 audit. Uh so essentially staff while getting ready for the 2025 audit realized that a mistake had been made during last year's audit and they made an an adjusting entry to fix that mistake essentially. Um so because of the size of that mistake for that error correction we had to report this as a finding but again staff corrected it. This is not necessarily an uncommon type of finding that we see um and it shouldn't be an issue moving forward. So then getting into the general fund results um here what we're looking at is your general fund fund balance in comparison to the city's general fund balance policy. Uh so the city's fund balance policy is maintain an unassigned and assigned fund balance of 20 to 30% of the following year's budget. Uh and what this graph shows is that the city has been meeting or exceeding that fund balance policy over the years. And at year end 2025, you're at about 36.5% of your following year's budget. General fund budget to actual here. So on this slide, what you're looking at is your final your original and final 2025 general fund budget. Um the actual results and the variance of that final budget. Uh so for 2025, the general fund did have positive budget variances for both revenues and expenditures. So revenues above that final budget as well as expenses under that final budget. uh revenues mostly due to more development. So more build permanent revenue than in that final budget as well as uh investment earnings above that final budget and then expenditures you were mostly un under that final budget due to personnel costs. So just a lot of departments with staffing under 100% essentially. Um so overall the fund balance did increase about 3.5 million and that 26.6 6 million at the bottom of the slide. That's your total uh general fund fund balance as of the year end 2025. Here just a quick review of your general fund revenues by type over the last three years. So looking at your property tax levy, license and permits, intergovernmental grant revenues, charges for services and then other revenues would be things like transfers in from other funds as well as investment earnings. And then same format to this slide here, but just looking at your general fund expenditures by type, broken out by department over the last three years. So general government, public safety, culture and wreck, public works. Then other would be things like transfers out to other funds and community development. Now moving on from the general fund here, we're looking at your special revenue funds that the city has currently has open. So this slide just shows essentially the fund balance change in all the special revenue funds between 2025 and 2024. Uh for the most part your so your special revenue funds overall increased by about 1.5 million uh in fund balance this past year. The main reason being uh more local affordable housing aid received from the state. And then here just a quick view of your debt service funds. So showing all your current uh governmental debt service funds open the cash and investments available in each fund as well as the outstanding bond liability as of year end 2025. And the next slide here just shows the future 10-year debt service obligation broken out between principal and interest. And again this is just the governmental debt service portion. Now similar format here is the special revenue slide but just looking at your capital project funds. Uh so again the cap all your current capital project funds open the change in fund balance between 2025 and 2024. Uh so overall here you know your capital project fund balances largely stayed pretty consistent. Some of the larger changes being that community investment fund decreased a lot due to that central park improvement project. Um and then the public safety expansion fund increased a lot and that was where the local options sales tax revenue uh was reported. So now here we're looking at your enterprise funds. So all the enterprise funds are going to have a format like this where top half of the slide we're looking at your operating activity over the last four years. And then the bottom half of the slide we're looking at your cash balance compared to what we like to call a minimum target balance. This isn't any kind of requirement, but it's a good operating target. So in this case in the water sewer fund, that would be 6 months of operating cost plus debt service. um it's good to be above that operating target, but um one thing to also keep in mind is the the capital needs in these funds and the fact that they're going to have to, you know, selfund these capital needs. Uh so, and then another thing to point out for the water sewer fund. So, your cash bonds did increase significantly this past year, but that's mostly due to the timing of your grant funds and unspent bond proceeds and the timing of when you know you're spending those proceeds on your water treatment plant project. Can I can I offer just a a note there that in the previous slide there Chris that that is primarily due to the 2026 sorry 2027 um road projects that that bal that balance is going to be needed in in a significant amount due to the road projects. Is that right? >> I mean there is going to be a significant amount but I think the vast majority of this is the water treatment plant. Oh >> okay. So, this is more water treatment plant than it is the fact that we've been having to grow for the second largest road rehab project that we've done. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Jason, do you want to add anything? >> Water treatment. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And then, you know, similar format to these next slides, but here we're just looking at the storm water fund. So, the past four years of operating activity up top and the bottom half shows the cash balance compared to again a minimum minimum target balance. I think this is kind of the good illustration of the the capital needs um point where back in 2022, you know, there was a lot of capital happening in the storm water fund which, you know, decreased that cash balance significantly, but you still are above that um target balance, that operating target balance. And then just more enterprise funds here. So here's a street light fund. Again, operating activity up top and then the cash balance for the street light fund, which has been, you know, meeting exceeding that target balance. And we're going to see a similar story moving forward here um for the rest of the enterprise funds if you want to just keep going here. So here's the sports center fund operating activity up top. Then last few years the sports center fund has been able to increase that cash balance and be above that target balance. And then we also have the Eagle Valley Golf Course Fund which again similar story uh meeting and exceeding that target balance of six months of operating costs. Excuse me, just for clarification, the sports center fund just I believe the the um naming rights is included in that which would have bumped up that total. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> And then here, this slide just shows your total cash and investments by fund type over the last three years. So just your total cash investments on hand as of year end last three years. Um most of your cash currently sits in your enterprise fund and capital project funds. And again, main reason for the increase in cash balance from last year would be some some of those unspent bond and grant proceeds in the water sewer fund. So this is the key performance indicator section of the presentation. So here what we're doing is we're comparing the city of Woodbury to class 2 cities which is cities of of a population between 20,000 and 100,000 all across the state. Uh and then as well as other cities in Washington County. Um as you see as you will see in the presentation we have some comparison data all the way up until 2024 and then some in some categories we don't have comparison data um since 2023 actually. So we try to get the most relevant information we can in these presentations but so this tax rate uh is the first one on the left here which just shows city of Woodbridge's tax rate uh in comparison to those two peer groups. So a little bit below the um tax rate for other cities in the county and class two cities statewide. And then the one on the right is a tax rate mix. So, this is kind of the tax rates that a taxpayer in the city would see from all different sources. You know, not just the city, but also the county uh school and special districts over the last four years. And then next slide here, we're just looking at your long-term debt per capita. And again, in comparison to class 2 cities and cities in Washington County, uh so kind of similar to that tax rate graph that the city would raise below the averages on those uh in comparison to those two peer groups. And then the last comparison here is your current expenses per capita and capital expenses per capita. Um, so current expenses being, you know, your typical day-to-day operating costs and then capital expenditures being your big ticket projects and equipment purchases and things like that. Um, so capital expenses per capita, you know, very similar with the county slightly below as well as below the class 2 city group. And then capital expenses per capita. What you're seeing there is a pretty typical trend where there is going to be volatility in that category because it does depend on when your big projects take place and big equipment purchases take place. So the last two years have been busy capital years in the city >> again due to the water treatment plant project. Correct. Or more Central Park >> and Central Park. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And that's actually my last slide. So I'll open up for any questions on the audit. >> Council members. Any questions? >> I do have some. So, I sit on the audit and investment commission >> because I like mornings [laughter] >> and um they did make some recommendations that that it get changed. Now, I see that those recommendations maybe didn't get changed in this report that's presented to us. So how do we go about doing that or you know they put time and effort into it and we have these meetings recommend changes and then they're not coming forth >> the changes I mean we will implement the changes that were suggested for the next year but we're so far in the process now to make incremental changes but the timing and the way everything flows um we had audit investment on Tuesday at the same time I was submitting stuff for this meeting to get it into the packet. So, >> all right, then I'll just maybe I'll just make some of those uh just so we can get into the minutes then. on August 4th was the um audit and investment commission meeting and um um I I won't name who but member one member suggested that on page 19 of this report that a footnote be added that um administrator Dah was actually hired um at whatever date that was and that um you know Clint Gridley e exited at that time. So, that was just a good footnote that they thought would um be be beneficial to the readers of this report. On page 20, the organizational chart is upside down. >> Um and that's page 20 of the report, not of our packet. Um >> can I make a comment on that? >> Yeah, >> it's always been established upside down with the entire purpose that we are all here to serve the community. The community is on top as opposed to a lot of times org charts you see CEO, president all and on down to customers. Here we put the residents at the top and work downward. >> Yeah. But in this organizational chart, it shows that the departments are reporting to the citizens and that is not true. So engineering, public works, public safety all report to the citizens and that's not how the organizational chart is. And other cities also don't organize it that way. The citizens 100% are at the top. Below them is city council. Below city council is administrator and below the administrator are the departments. So they recommended that this be flipped, looked at other cities um and so that that org chart should be flipped. Um page 29 there were dash and solid lines and there was little some confusion on what on what those meant and thought maybe a key or an explanation on what each of those lines meant. And um there was another suggestion on page 182 of this report, table five, um that um maybe um it talks about agricultural land and market value changes and maybe the available land for development would be beneficial to include in this report. And that those are that's it, right? So I'd like, you know, just want to make sure that that's in the in the minutes. um that those were the recommendations that the audit and investment commission did recommend to be made to this report before it was presented. Thank you. >> If I could just clarify one point, I think those were brought up at the commission meeting, but I just want to re Jason's our CFO's point that I think we take them into consideration for next year's report. There was not a vote necessarily of the audit investment to make those changes. It was recommendations from individual members that were brought up. Uh, that is true, but I thought that maybe it was did not they adopted the report with the recommendations. >> That's how I took the minutes. No. >> Well, thank you first of all for being the representative that goes to those meetings. It's hard to get up at for 7:30 meetings about dollars, [laughter] >> budgets. Uh, so thank you and for grabbing those notes and sharing that. Thank you. Um, is there anything else anyone wants to speak? Okay. Well, thank you very much for the overview of the report and for all the work you've done. >> Thank you, Don. And everybody, if if everybody thought I was angry, I'm not angry. [laughter] >> I just want to make sure. >> Um, do I [clears throat] can I'll move to uh adopt a motion accepting the 2025 annual comprehensive financial report, the communications letter, and the reports on compliance with government auditing standards and legal compliance. >> Second motion. second. Any further discussion? >> I'll add a discussion point if I could that I mean we're it feels like we're flying through this, but obviously the the these are not new numbers to us. We've seen them before. We've seen the packet before the the the work of the auditing group. Thank you very much for all that. and then particularly Kim A for getting up at OD dark 30, but for the audit and investment commission and the public, those are volunteers, members of the public with with finance experience and and investment experience and having another set of public eyes on on on the auditing eyes that are completely separate from the city's eyes. It's just just levels of of review. And I know it feels like we fly through this this evening, but we've seen these reports before, but there's a ton of work that goes into this. And I from a transparency standpoint, I really appreciate all the work that we do that staff does and that the commissions do before it ever comes to us for the very quick vote that we make. It it it I don't want to diminish the amount of significant amount of time that goes into this and and it deserves that significant amount of time and and I know it's your last round, but um the all the work that staff does um uh on the budget all year round, that's my only discussion point. Thank you for >> And so what about these? Can I can I make a recommendation that we make these changes or adopt these these things that the audit and investment commission who is I mean I'm only going to speak for myself, but their intelligence far exceeds mine. Um they know this stuff. This is the stuff that they you know that this this is this is what they live for is early morning meetings um regarding numbers. M uh mayor, council member Wilson, if I may, I think a good um kind of way forward is to, you know, review those recommendations internally. Uh take action on the ones that we really think are important. Um and make sure between for the next audit that there's enough time to you know in between this meeting and and uh the audit investment committee meeting that those recommendations are reviewed and then we have enough time to make any changes if we need to uh before it gets to the council meeting >> and then to be able to get consensus then from the investment commission as well. >> Can you clarify on the last Yeah. item because what I basically my point was >> what page was it? Yeah, I have written down. I'm not looking at it. I'm page 182. >> That's correct. I'm looking at it. >> Okay. Table five. >> Yep. >> It talks about agricultural land market value change and Washington County. We get the numbers from Washington County. Um but possibly maybe having um available land that's for development. How much >> open for development? >> Yes. >> Yeah, >> that was just that was just something that was brought up. >> Yeah. And I think that that's a moving target because that that number is different every year. So that valuation change would need a large asterisk around it. >> Sure. But don't but isn't this report done every year? >> Well, but the amount of land available that's open for development changes every year >> and throughout the year. So you're looking at a >> correct. But so would all the numbers in this report would change throughout the year because we don't sit on these numbers for an entire year? >> What would be the what would be the intrinsic value of doing that? >> You know, that's something that you could come to the audit investing commission [laughter] and ask >> move it to 2 in the afternoon. Um >> I mean I don't know. It was it was that was something that I I don't feel as passionately about that as I do about the other things which of course the organizational chart if you look at that that's just kind of like that should just yes I see a finger by the >> so if I'm looking at the right table five here what I would note is this is data classifications on what the tax roles show for these categories of properties and I don't know that the tax roles have an open for development category so that is probably a big ask to try This is data just pulled from the county. Correct. We get the numbers from the county. Yeah. >> And so I that's probably a a big ask and a big challenge to try to create a new category in that table. That's fine. So my my point is is the few items while I think they are um good notes and I don't for me it doesn't impact the substance of the audit report and so that's why I was okay approving it as it is. um the org chart while you know whether whatever the opinion is whether it's prop or not that to me doesn't imp impact the actual audit you know in the report of the audit >> and that's why you put forth your motion >> and we had a second and we've had discussion is there any further discussion because what again the proposal before us can you just re restate the um motion so that we're clear on what we're voting on is I mean I wasn't >> it was asis correct >> as Okay. Yeah. >> As presented. >> As presented. Okay. >> As presented further. >> Yeah. I just Yeah. I didn't >> And I appreciate that. I appreciate that >> um council member Santini because you're 100% right. So thank you for bringing that perspective forward. I just am hoping that going forward if the audit investment commission puts this much time into a report like this that we could take their recommendations >> and make those changes. Um if they felt it was that important. And next year I feel like we're going to I think it happened last year too where they made recommendations and then they didn't that they don't get done and every report is different and so um um we need to make sure that we have enough time >> because their work their work is valuable extremely >> give it more time. >> Okay. So any further discussion hearing none the roll call please. >> Council member Wilson >> I. Council member Stafford >> I. Council member Morris. >> Hi. Council member Santini >> I. >> Mayor B. >> I. That passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh and now we'll turn to staff reports. City administrators >> discussion. >> Oh yeah. Thank you. This is why I have help. Um 60. 60 was pulled. >> 60. I pulled 60. It's the approval of joint powers agreement between city of Woodbury and the city of Maplewood for water and sanitary sewer services. I'm going to caution the council that we're going to find ourselves in a situation that we just pulled out of or we got into or however it is that we're tangling ourselves up into services that we are providing or are being provided by other cities to residents within Woodbury or outside of Woodbury. In this case, they're residents outside of Woodbury looking to connect up into our Woodbury water and sewer system. And although that may be beneficial to Maplewood residents because they're right there on Sentry and it's right there, I don't know that it's beneficial to Woodbury other than as has been discussed, you know, we have more sales, so to speak, but that's not really that's not really up to us. We have the situation for um residents in Woodbury that are hooked up to Newport and uh we just untangled from that. We had been I don't want to use the term and I'm sure everybody's going to harp on me subsidizing the water bill um because the water rates in Newport are higher. Um we pulled out of that. So now the Woodbury residents who are hooked up to Newport water have to now pay Newport prices >> and they have no voting rights. They have, you know, they have nothing that they can go back on. And I do think we are also entangled up in something else in another development on the border of Cottage Grove Woodbury >> where those residents are receiving Cottage Grove water and and so I just I I'm going to caution council. I am not in favor of this at all because I don't think it is beneficial to Woodbury. Um, and actually I think it does th those residents a tad bit of disservice to have them hooked up to our system and not have any rights. >> Um, I would like to turn to uh director um of engineering to see can you just provide some clarification around why does this practice exist? >> Yeah. So, mayor, members of the council, it's a fairly typical practice when you have two communities that abut each other. And typically what happens is one of the communities develops before the others and provides the sewer and water services. But when you're on a border, it's best to coordinate all of those activities with the other agencies. So, for instance, in this particular situation, we have water main that goes up Century Avenue. We do have longstanding uh connections to Maplewood residents on that water that's been there for decades. This agreement just memorializes much of that effort. If we didn't have that, that Maple would have to build a whole new sanitary system along the same lines and there just physically isn't room. So, in all of these agreements, the attempt is is we don't want to subsidize another community. It's usually memorialing the roles and responsibilities of how do how do the payments begin, how do we prevent subsidizing, who has plan review authority, who has identifications and all the things that come with those agreements. Um, and in the instance that where this is in particular benefiting a Maplewood development for sanitary sewer, we have the opposite where we have Woodbury residents where the only way they can connect is to Cottage Grove Water and so it's a benefit to those Woodbury residents for those connections. So I was going to say I took this as this is something that's been going on. So this is actually not really approving whether we do it or not. This has been going on and this is just cleaning up these agreements because it's the fact that we've had these agreements but they're outdated or they've maybe been >> what happened was as little developments, right? They they went and did a little agreement for development and they did another agreement. All of these have been existing for a long time with the exception of converting the golf course now into a development uh for Maplewood which is adding to that sanitary. But if we did nothing today, you know, those existing agreements would still take place, but it'd be confusing because there's multiple agreements and they wouldn't be necessarily coordinated and with the latest language to prevent some of the issues that we've had in previous agreements. >> And I just want to clarify because I did ask this question earlier in the day because I had questions about this. Um, we are not providing water, drinking water service to those new that new home development in Maplewood. It is only sanitary sewer >> that we're not providing new >> new new >> new water. It's providing new sanitary sewer. And the agreement the way it's stipulated is that we have first priority in terms of our needs from a sanitary sewer perspective. And so they have to work with us each and every time they do any sort of development agreement along this corridor that would add to the sanitary sewer. But no new water services. And the reason I bring that up is that we have [clears throat] been on a bit of a development delay because we do not want to add a whole bunch of additional residences to our water system. But so just to clarify, that is a fairly large development going in over there. They will not be getting Woodbury City Water. That's correct. It's just sanitary sewer. >> Yeah. St. Paul Regional. >> I think Council Member Wilson brings up a multiple good good I'm off tonight. um multiple good things, but >> we just end at that [laughter] >> the the conversation about um the individuals not having a voice andor not having I mean they don't have they don't live in Woodbury, so we we technically they're not voters. They're not technically our constituents. But I think that and that's a perfectly it's a very astute observation, but I think and and I'm hopeful that future councils continue this practice. But if we think about what we just did two meetings ago where the entirety of the room was filled with Maplewood residents about a development that was in Woodbury but impacted their lives and the consideration that this council made that I 100% and I would I would agree with you that that's a very concerning element is if you're not if you don't have the ability to to make change or impact change and I'm I'm happy and I hope that this council continues to We took those things into into consideration and I'm happy that we found a a path forward even though they don't vote for us. >> I I agree 100%. I'm just saying >> it's concerning. >> This is concerning to me and um and uh yeah and it was my understanding just for the record that we were hooking up new water to the new development. So but I don't understand. So why wouldn't they just hook up to what they have next door? because they're developed next door to it. Like they turned on their fire station and built built high density. >> No ability to connect to sanitary sewer in that location >> for their new development. This is really similar to Woodbury just approved a development uh some time ago. Cherry Meadows, >> that's the one right >> up in Cherry Meadows. We have an inter agency agreement because we're actually passing storm water through Woodbury into Newport. So, it's the benefit of the Woodbury residents who can develop and build properties and develop their homes, but somebody has to address the storm water component. And so, that's an instance where this works in the opposite where Newport's having to take care of some of the efforts from ours. But that's generally what happens when you have a border. Um, you don't build double the amount of utilities and other things. You find a way to collaborate. So Chris, just and I need to drill down because I'm some of this is new for me, but so these Maplewood residents that are hooked into our sanitary sewer are paying the same Woodbury rates as Woodbury residents. >> That would be correct. >> Okay. And then we build them administratively or does Maplewood do that and then reimburse us? >> It's in this agreement, but this guy would know even better. >> We'll be doing the billing. So they'll pay us directly. >> Okay. >> And they're subject not just but administration fee. All the fees that we're discussing in the budget, they're they're subject to like just as if they were Woodbury resident. >> Correct. Okay. >> And there's nonpayment allowed to assist them as well just like we do our residents. >> So would they be responsible then for street lighting? >> No. >> They don't have a shared system there. >> But they're on our utility bill >> just for sewer. >> But they they would not have the street lighting. >> Okay. Just like they won't have water. It's only it's only for the utilities that they use that they consume. >> Okay. >> So So not the franchise fee >> or is that would be cable and that would go that's cable franchise fees or gas electric and those go to the >> the city >> of residents really? >> Right. >> Okay. Well I I appreciate I do I love having relationships with our neighbors. I know it's, you know, we we've needed it for police, fire, you know, >> mutual aid. >> Yeah, mutual aid. Thank you. Um I do I do struggle with this because I know in 10 years this this could be an issue. And even though we're already doing it, that doesn't mean we should continue to do it in the future just because it's what we've done. >> Well, I can only imagine that staff doesn't really like this either. It adds a lot of complexity to billing and to negotiations and to figuring out agreements and all that. But it sounds like there it's like a matter of no choice. They >> This is the best alternative. >> Best now wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. >> There is a choice, >> right? >> There is a choice. That's why it's before council for approval. Okay, so council does have a choice. This is not uh Woodbury residents. These are Maplewood residents. So, council has a choice. >> I would agree with you there. My point is the bigger matter. Yes, council has a choice. When it comes down to the practicality of it, it makes common sense to do this even though it's difficult. That's my point. So, I appreciate your use of words, but that that was the point I was trying to make. >> One thing that I didn't notice here, >> Chris, how many properties are we talking about? >> Uh, for water, it's maybe two dozen. sewer. >> Oh, for sewer. I'm not sure. Um, it's part of the development. It's a big platted area. >> It's It's around It's under 100. It's 50 to 100. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> 67. >> Okay. Um, what I didn't see here in council letter was a term of the agreement. >> It's in perpetuity. >> Yeah. I thought we hated doing that. >> We love it. [laughter] >> Have to do it. We don't have to go back to council unless there's a major change in the agreement. So the way it's written is if something changes substantial to the agreement, we would go back to council to rectify that. Otherwise, we'd be coming back to council every time somebody I mean we have decades of existing water services. If we didn't have an agreement in place, it's not like we would shut it off and wait for the agreement to come back into to to place. And again, this is really protecting both agencies and providing clarity on who's doing what. >> I'm not I'm not I'm not opposing the the purpose of the agreement. I'm not opposing any of that. What I would consider is that I mean, we we got in this problem where we had we had agreements in perpetuity and they they weren't addressed. we started uh not necessarily following all elements of the agreement and it just kind of got out of control until we looked at it and said we're not even close to the agreement and what I would and that's that's part of the problem I would think in in agreements in perpetuity that if there would be a consensus to perhaps ensure a review at some point without having to renegotiate all the ter I get that there's going to be constant changes to it but for the general terms of the agreement the general understanding of who who's responsible for what is that we would at least consider a change what's the what's the trigger for a change if we decided we knew wanted to change it. >> So the the way the writ the agreement is written the engineering director or public works director can make minor changes to the agreement without having to go back to council. So, if there was a minor clarification, it didn't add to the form of what was approved in there, then it could go back to council. And then, I don't have the exact agreement in front of me, but almost all agreements allowed um either agency to cancel with a certain amount of notice. So, if we found the agreement was untenable at some point, we could just say, "We're going to give you notice. We need to get into an ag new agreement. Let's go ahead." >> So, okay. So, it doesn't require mutual agreement for that for termination. >> No, >> one party can with notice. >> No. And I don't have it in front of me, but that would be a typical form of agreement >> that I'm fine. >> How could we how could we terminate sewer services? >> We would terminate the agreement. In practicality, we would not terminate sewer services. [laughter] The agreement, but it would force it. >> We would we would say we need to address this agreement. Let's work together. >> It's lopsided. Whatever Whatever the thing is, >> isn't that what you're just sort of I guess that's what I thought you were advocating is not to approve this and therefore we would have to terminate sewers. I don't anticipate without unless laws changed about that we would ever change this agreement ever again. >> Is that what you were trying to say? >> Say that again. Jen, >> I thought I guess I guess that's how I took the fact that you weren't wanting you were opposed to this this item and therefore not entering into providing these services. >> Correct. >> But then you just seem shocked by him saying >> because we might terminate sewer services. Well, because it's like we can go we can approve this but then we have the right to terminate anytime we want and it's like you can't ter how do you terminate sewer sew sewer services once it's been approved and we go through forward >> and so what I'm saying is those sewer services are already happening so wouldn't you want a better agreement to govern those services that we're already providing >> just so you know this is also encompassing new is this also encompassing new >> this would be for new sanitary sewer services and new water services which in this corridor you would not anticipate anything at this time, but it allows purview from each agency to make sure that we have served our capacity needs first before we approve. So, it requires both agencies. So, if Maplewood wanted to develop and they needed to use one of our services, they can't go ahead and permit those and go through the platting process and develop without getting concurrence from our city that that's available and can and can happen. >> This is the problem for the housing bill, too. >> I just want to I just want to have Okay, let me just let me just shoot straight. Ready? I had a conversation earlier today regarding this. It was my understanding that the golf course there, the ponds I believe it is, is getting developed. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that this would be hooking up or providing water and sewer services to that new development. That's the information that was shared with me. Is that not true? >> That is not true. It's it's providing sanitary sewer services only. Mhm. >> The water services that are there already been there for a long time and they're connected along Century Avenue >> and it's sewer >> not there in the new development just the existing parcels that have had this fertility. >> There's a few um larger non-developed parcels at a butt along Century Avenue and we have water man there and they've connected uh for well over decades um to our water utility system. >> So would those so would those larger parcels be are they developable? not to the >> probably I I guess I'd have to look at their requirements in terms of how they can subdivide. >> I don't know about their their ordinances >> in any in any way possible they would have to come to us for approval before they can do that development if they wanted to subdivide. >> So so so then we would have so right now you're saying we have Maplewood residents on the west side of Century that are hooked up to city of Woodbury water and sewer. and sewer. Correct. >> And that there are larger parcels that could possibly be developed into apartment complexes or higher density housing that would then be drawing from Woodbury water system. >> It I don't know that you're asking a very specific question. I'd have to look at all of the different parcels and their ability to subdivide according to their zoning >> for Maplewood. Uh not necessarily us, but in any situation, they would have to come to us and say, "We'd like to have this development." And then we would have to approve that before that could go forward as part of this agreement. >> And just one other point of clarification, this is for sewer services on a portion of this new development site. It's not the entire site. Is that correct? >> Uh I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's probably whatever they physically have to be able to connect to provide san. >> I believe it's just the southern portion, which is >> Well, what's going to happen to the northern portion of it? Well, that's on the other side of the wetland where apparently they have sewer service. >> They may have sewer. Maplewood does not want us. They don't they don't want to use our sewer. They'd like to control their own destiny. They're doing this because of grade issues and other uh utility infrastructure that makes it impossible for that to develop without connecting to our system. >> So, from their standpoint, this could be temporary. >> Well, it it would be in perpetuity. If they could build it permanently, they would. >> St. Paul St. Paul Regional Water would absolutely >> Yeah. >> extend it out. >> Y >> and to remind everyone here, these agreements already in place. This cleans up a lot of those existing agreements. >> I do I don't know if it adds to it, but Maplewood Council approved this on Monday. >> That's great. But this isn't this agreement isn't already in place because we just we don't have an agreement to provide sewer to that southern part of the ponds. >> Not to not to the southern part of the ponds. We have it for the this the other existing parcels, >> but this would include that southern part of the ponds. >> It would it would basically be everything with along our border of Maplewood. >> So, so it's not an agreement that's already in place. >> There is multiple agreements that are already in place. >> It's clean >> and it's adding >> it's adding the pond's development. That's correct. >> To sanitary sewer. >> To sanitary sewer only, >> not water. I would I would note because she's in the audience, the camera can't see her, but our senator is here and this is a conversation that that certainly has implications in the housing bills that have been heard. Yes. that this would have significant implications because and this is an area where we don't control we have some control but there's just some nuances here that I think need to be completely understood of what those bills has written as last it's the last I've seen anyway that the implications of what we taxpayers maybe sitting on a on a number sitting on infrastructure changes >> I am I am concerned I'm concerned that you know I understand that we've done this but we that we've done this previously and I don't know that that means we need to continue doing this going forward. I you know I'm I mean I don't want to sound nah what no matter how I say it it's just going to sound rude >> never stops me [snorts] [sighs and gasps] >> you know I'm Woodbury City Council which means I'm looking out for the best of Woodbury and not to say I don't love Maplewood or the residents that abut up to us and the fact that they come and shop here and enjoy Woodbury also but I don't know that it's up to us to start providing services to a city that >> I don't know um >> our our neighboring city and and and I also want to say I had concerns about that when we did our our development so in southern Woodbury and hooked up to Cottage Grove. I had extreme concerns about that also and I maybe even voted no on that because of that um those concerns. I just think that, you know, if if we're developing some place that you can't get services to, then you just don't get services to it. Um, I understand this is cleaning up, but it's also adding and uh so so we need to be clear on that. >> Is there any further discussion? So, [snorts] we've already got a motion and a second. We've had a very long discussion. >> No, I don't think we did any of that for this one, >> but I will. I thought we did. >> Not this one. >> Okay. >> We haven't even got to discussion yet. >> Okay. Oh, yeah. >> I'll move to adopt resolution 26-90, a resolution approving the joint powers agreement between the city of Woodbury and the city of Maplewood for the provision of water and sanitary sewer utility services to specific Maplewood properties identified in the agreement. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, the roll call, please. Council member Stafford >> I. >> Council member Morris. >> I Santini. >> I didn't know if you need clarification. >> I didn't quite hear that. >> That was I. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> I >> uh Council Member Wilson. >> No, >> Mayor Bert. >> I That resolution passes. >> All right. It's been a long night. Am I caught up on everything? Am I missing anything other than I'm now going to turn to city administrator D for the update. Thank you, Mayor B. I just have one update tonight and it's about an important event that's going to be held next week and that is of course the Angel of Hope uh the annual remembrance ceremony. It's going to be held at 6 p.m. on the city hall or city civic center civic plaza or uh it's been a long night for me to uh whatever we want to call this uh public intersection our our civic campus. How about that? Uh right on the corner where the Veterans Memorial Park is. Um, at the end of the day, this is a community-led outdoor memorial um on our campus to to honor and remember children who have died way too soon. It's a beautiful event. I'd encourage everybody to go. It's really um you know um uh heartwarming, but obviously uh pretty uh pretty emotional, too. So, um, uh, kudos to everybody that's been involved, our public works staff and and to make sure that it's been, uh, the area has kept up very well. Um, and thank you to the Reaganth family and everybody else that's been been involved along the years. Uh, but that event is at 6 p.m. on the 20th. >> Thank you. Is that it for yours? No, that's it. >> That's it. Yeah. >> Encompasses everything. Okay. Um, well, we need to get back to workshop. So I now make um a motion that we adjourn and resume the workshop meeting at the conclusion of this meeting. >> Second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I >> I we are adjourned.