[4:57] Anne Burt: I do like our new >> Good evening. Uh welcome to the city of Woodbury's uh our meetings tonight. We have three meetings. So, we're going to kick off first with the city Woodbury's economic development authority meeting. We are here in council chambers. It is January 28th at 7:30 p.m. Uh these meetings are recorded also by True Lens Media. Um broadcast live uh so people can be watching at home or you can uh check it out on channel 799 or on the city of Woodbury's YouTube channel. We always take uh questions or comments from uh members. So, if anyone's here would like to say anything, you've got a green sheet in front of you could fill out. Anybody online, we'll be watching that and monitoring it as well. So, with our EDA meeting, uh, would you We're going to start with the roll call. Janelle, would you please do the roll call? [5:42] Janelle Schmitz: Member Morris. Steve Morris: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Here. Janelle Schmitz: President Burt. Anne Burt: Here. We are all here tonight for tonight's uh meeting so we're able to conduct it. Uh, we've got a consent agenda tonight. Jamie Fritz is here. Jamie, would you like to tell us more about some of the items on our consent agenda? [6:01] Jamie Fritz: Uh, yeah. Thank you, President Burt. So, uh, other than the minutes on here, we have, um, item B, which is the 2026 annual meeting, which we're required to have for our EDA. And what that meeting typically does is appoint the EDA officers. Um and in the council letter you'll see that typically the president is filled by the mayor uh vice president the uh mayor pro tem and then the other positions are in order of uh you know tenure on the council and then we have some staff positions on there such as executive director and assistant or deputy executive director. Okay. [6:42] Jamie Fritz: And then item C uh that's just designating you know the bank that we're going to use for that EDA fund that we have >> which is Core Trust Bank. Anne Burt: Okay, great. So, it's pretty straightforward. Um, members, would anybody like to put forth a motion? [6:57] Steve Morris: I'll move to approve consent agenda items 3A through 3C. Jennifer Santini: Second. Anne Burt: Motion second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. The roll call, please. Janelle. [7:08] Janelle Schmitz: Member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Wilson. [7:13] Kim Wilson: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: President Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. Those consent agenda items pass. Um, looking at the rest of the agenda, we have no public hearings, no discussion items. So, we uh I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. Steve Morris: Second. Anne Burt: Motion a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? [7:32] Council Members: Aye. Anne Burt: Any opposed? No. We are adjourned from that meeting. Um, [7:50] Anne Burt: Good evening. Welcome to the city of Woodbury's housing and redevelopment authority meeting. It is uh today, January 28th, 2026. We are here in council chambers. This meeting is taking place uh virtually as well. Uh meetings are recorded on True Lens Media um replayed on cable channel 799. You can also find the recording of this meeting on City of Woodbury's YouTube channel. [8:12] Anne Burt: We do accept public comments. You've got sheets on uh green sheets on your chair. You can fill those out. If anyone's listening online, we take comments there as well. Um and to kick us off, uh Janelle, would you please do the roll call. [8:21] Janelle Schmitz: Member Morris. Steve Morris: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Here. [8:28] Janelle Schmitz: Member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Here. Janelle Schmitz: Chair Burt. Anne Burt: Here. Aren't we all here tonight so we're able to conduct tonight's business? Um Jamie Fritz is here. Jamie, we've got a consent agenda before us. Would you like to just give us a quick overview of what those items are? [8:41] Jamie Fritz: Yep. Uh thank you, Chair Burt. So once again, other than the meeting minutes from the last HRA meeting, uh similar to EDA, we have our 2026 annual meeting. So that's also the appointment of HRA officers. Similar structure. [clears throat] Mayor serves as chair typically and then mayor pro tem vice chair and then goes in order of tenure on the council and then also some staff positions such as executive director for city administrator and deputy executive director. Uh item C designating depository of public funds. So similar to EDA we just need to you know [clears throat] affirm which bank we're using for our HRA funds. And then item D, uh that is a policy that um staff was directed to develop and present a draft to the HRA back at the April 2025 workshop regarding local affordable housing aid. Um and I guess just one thing about this, I did mean to put this on the discussion item. So it [9:41] is on consent by error. um so I just wanted to put that out there to begin with. um because we did have some slides prepared for that. So, we can, you know, still go through that if needed. So, [9:55] Jennifer Santini: And I'll I can make a motion to remove that item to discussion. Anne Burt: Okay. Steve Morris: Do you want to make a separate motion? You just want to do a consent agenda exclude >> poll for discussion. Anne Burt: Okay. [laughter] Steve Morris: She's not used to doing that. Anne Burt: Kim, Kim, knock it out. Kim Wilson: Pull it. [laughter] I'll pull item 3D. Anne Burt: Okay. Item 3D will be moved to discussion. [10:17] Jennifer Santini: I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda items 3A, B, and C. Steve Morris: I'll second. Anne Burt: Motion, a second on those three consent agenda items. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. [10:34] Janelle Schmitz: Member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Chair Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. Those three pass. Now we'll take item number 3D and move it to discussion. Uh this is for the consideration of adoption of HRA 1.6 housing and redevelopment authority land banking policy. So Jamie, you've got information for us. Thank you. Please share. [10:59] Jamie Fritz: Thank you, Chair Burt. Um so like I stated before um at the April 2025 council workshop regarding, you know, how the city was going to use its local affordable housing aid funds, otherwise known as LAHA. So if I say LAHA just so everybody knows. Um so tonight we have that draft policy and we're here to present it to the HRA for consideration to adopt uh HRAD 1.6. Before we get to the policy, I just want to do, you know, a quick recap of what land banking is for affordable housing and how that ties into current city plans that we have right now. So, affordable housing uh land banking. So, that's an affordable housing production strategy that is identified in our 2021 housing action plan. Um it is a strategy that the city has used in the past uh for the CityWalk apartments. And then also, um I'm not too familiar with how exactly it happened, but Pond View Town Homes also had a piece of land banking involved with that. Uh Janelle knows more about it if there's questions about how that worked. [12:09] Jamie Fritz: Um and then just landing in general. So to what that means is it's the acquisition of land that is not guided for residential or high density development yet. Uh and then holding that land until economic conditions are right for development of that parcel. And then also the most important part of that is that we can facilitate projects that best align with city housing goals and address local needs at the time that we decide it's best to convey that land to a developer. [clears throat] So the land banking policy that's included in the packet for tonight um it essentially establishes some policies and procedures for an HRA administered land banking program. And the four um item or four kind of touch points for the policies and procedures include uh the actual land acquisition and the strategy behind the land acquisition that would be done uh holding the property and the management of that property until it's conveyed to a developer and then the disposition of that land and project selection. So when we find it's time to find a developer to develop that land, what's the criteria that we want in place and what type of development are we looking for for that parcel? And then the last part is the compensation and purchase agreements. So [clears throat] typically um we envision this as staff as if we are going to convey the land we would typically convey it for what we paid for it in most instances unless [13:35] there's an exceptional additional public benefit to that then maybe we could go lower on whatever you know that exchange price is. Uh but typically we're going to be looking to get those funds back and then revolve them and then use them for another housing purpose. [13:51] Jamie Fritz: So there's four core objectives of this policy. Uh so the first is of course to acquire and hold land in strategic locations for future affordable housing development and then to facilitate the development of affordable housing that prioritizes households earning no more than 50% of AMI and then um also to ensure a consistent and transparent process by which real property is conveyed for development by the HRA and then align future development and redevelopment efforts with the city's comprehensive plan and housing action plan. So, we want these transactions and developments to align with what is in the overall city planning and policy guidelines. So, our recommendation tonight is for the HRA to adopt HRA resolution 26-02 adopting HRAD 1.6 uh HRA land banking policy and then I will open the floor to any questions the HRA may have. [14:48] Anne Burt: Terrific. Well, I think we'll turn to Jen first since you held it for some questions. Jennifer Santini: Um, and I've been thinking about it a lot today. Um, this is one of these rare items that I just there's something in my I just have always it's been my least favorite tool in the toolbox dealing with housing affordability. Um, and I think that it is this notion of the city owning this land and then being more um having more I think of a subjective role about [cough] who eventually we might sell it to or developer. And I just feel like it just to me it's this ripe for um [15:35] scrutiny from the public, you know, um concerns for sort of conflict of interest. Um, and so what I've struggled with is just sort of this item which is I know we've talked about this a lot. I know that this is a tool you know that we said a tool in the toolbox and again I know that we do have [clears throat] a commitment for you know housing diversity and housing affordability. I think and I don't necessarily want to unless people are willing to entertain it um to sort of wordsmith the directive because I think if I know we're not approving a land banking project right now you know that it's just this directive and if this ever comes to be yes I think a directive is important um I think it was more of just needing um [16:20] to make sure I think some of my concerns were aired um and just the fact that you know, I guess I I struggle between wanting to have a flexible directive um and not handcuffing us on some items. Um but it just to me is wanting to be a little bit more about that this is sort of a really last option tool. Um that it is something that would be narrowly used. Um I know that the HRA will have the ability to approve any of these things that would come about. Um, but I guess it is the one time that I as I've thought about all of this as a possibility I'm I find that I'm constantly thinking of doom and gloom scenarios with land [17:06] banking. I know exactly what we just came from. Um, and so I think that's why I just struggled with this and about [clears throat] approving just the directive or just sort of land banking again as a policy in as a whole. Those are my few comments for right now. Anne Burt: And >> so do you have something specific? Jennifer Santini: No, I just I felt like I just when I realized that this was originally although may have been on an error that it was just a consent agenda. I just wasn't willing to just vote for it on consent. Um and I just thought it one it's a pretty significant directive that requires some additional um you know I guess some of my concerns you know long term and again I think that's where it really comes down to each project and I think also because I'm but for one example that I know of where we've like acquired land you know I think about that one house around the Powers Lake you know to connect that trail we haven't really done this. [18:08] Anne Burt: But that wasn't a land banking. Jennifer Santini: It was not a land banking. But even that I felt, you know, where it's like you're purchasing this property to—but there was something different about that where [clears throat] the goal was to acquire this piece that would become city-owned property and it was for the benefit of the public. And so I just I struggle about again this notion of sort of city ownership for a period of time. I worry that it could be city ownership, you know, if there's a parcel or something for a long period of time, you know, that's on our books and then you're dealing with liability and risks of things that could happen on the property and, you know, are you now stuck with an asset that [snorts] takes a really really long time to—so I [18:54] just I think it's also just because we have not ever gone through the process that it's the unknowns, right? [19:00] Jamie Fritz: Yeah. So, um I guess just to kind of share what our perspective of just this policy is—is this is really just kind of setting the table for what you know staff—the process we should go through to even present some parcel to even acquire. And I think what's included in here and that staff would be very careful about is that if we go to look for a property or an opportunity comes up, we're going to make sure and do the research and the background work to make sure that that is going to be a highly marketable piece of property in the future based on what our current planning is and what our [19:40] phasing is and making sure it aligns with that. So, it's not going to be, you know, somebody's trying to get rid of some outlot somewhere and we're going to try to assemble them. We really want to be very strategic with this and really be able to plant a flag within an area that's going to fit within, you know, the land use that's being planned for that and the comprehensive plan. So, this is just kind of setting the table for what we would look at and what's expected of staff to do. And then when we actually, you know, have something that we think is solid and we did the research on, then that's when we would have that deeper discussion of, you know, here's why we think this makes sense and here's what we think the market for this is going to be and here's what we can envision on this size of land and, you know, what type of [20:26] development, what type of demographic could this serve. So, I think this really just kind of puts the guard rails in place for what we're going to do. And then when we actually look into doing something, that's going to be a lot more detailed and that's when we're going to have those transparent discussions here at the HRA before you know we make any substantial moves on something. So I don't know if that kind of changes the perspective. [20:50] Jennifer Santini: And again, I just I think it just was worth a little bit more discussion. One question is there's a line in the directive about um if an RFP process is not utilized, could you tell me when that wouldn't when that would be the case? Jamie Fritz: Um, so I think that was kind of one of the items that we didn't want to lock ourselves into. But if we had a piece of land and we had, you know, somebody just come to us out of the blue and they knew that we own the property and they said, "Hey, we've been looking at Woodbury for a while. Can we throw some ideas at you of what we think we could do there? Does that match up with your goals and your objectives for that piece of land?" And I think if it was, you know, had a, you know, exceptional public benefit for who was going to serve and what else they could do for that area, like, you know, green space, infrastructure, other things. [clears throat] And, you know, it was just really right on par with what we're looking for, then maybe that's something that we could get approval for to do a direct negotiation with somebody. And then if we had a piece of land and there was multiple developers, we'd want it to be transparent and fair and do the RFP process so everybody could get a chance to pitch their idea, what they could do and what they can contribute to that parcel and our goal. So I think that's kind of why we wanted to leave it open from just RFP to also direct negotiation [22:15] because market conditions can impact that too. There might not be a whole bunch of developers looking to build something at the same time. It might just be one person with the—with you know—investors lined up and the idea that they can actually implement. So we don't want to discourage people that can actually implement something. Anne Burt: It incents the actual project. Somebody may look at it and go well [clears throat] if we can bring it first and we can—we can meet the objective so we don't have to compete. Janelle Schmitz: Uh Chair, members of the HRA, just to clarify we have done land banking in the past. So at CityWalk when that was developed, we purchased about I think it was about 2 and a half to three acres of land uh with the first EDA at that time EDA levy—ultimately became an HRA levy. It was done for particularly [clears throat] that purpose to buy that piece of land so that we could in the future um resell that for affordable housing and we held it for I would say six or seven years um waiting until CityWalk was developed and then we went out through an RFP process. Through that [23:17] we were able to specify the type of affordable housing we wanted and one of the goals there was to have um affordable housing with special needs. So that was a particular goal and that particular one um—so that's one more recent example still 20-some years ago. Jennifer Santini: Well, I—I should have clarified when I say we haven't I meant [laughter]—we—um but—so I guess my two things and again I'm I guess maybe it's just stating—I'm not necessarily asking to totally be entertained with this—is that I think one was even just under the purpose my struggle was it does recognize obviously what's allowed under the statutes and I almost felt wanting to have it more of a conditional of—you know, yes while the state statutes do [24:02] allow—because when I first—the very first time I read it, it seemed like we were saying that we were also possibly would be allowing land banking if we wanted just for um you know like through a redevelopment plan for residential or commercial purposes. To me, as I read the rest of the directive, it was really focused on if we're going to do land banking, it really is for the primary purpose of affordable housing. And so I just I guess I—again—I worry about going down that path that we would do land banking for just redevelopment and residential and commercial and particularly if it's sort of from a for-profit standpoint. So that was one. And then two, I wonder—or I guess from just a curiosity—I mean, I know that yes, we would have this, right? But whether from a clarity [clears throat] standpoint, would landowners at some point also approach—like if we're starting to do this possibly—would landowners sort of approach us at some point to say, "I have this parcel, I've been sitting on it, I want to," you know, and think that they're trying to somewhat—for lack of a better term—offload it. And so I guess I also want to make sure that it is clear we also have you know that if—if the city goes down this path at some point we still always have full control and authority to say we don't want certainly land or that we have the full right to refuse land. Anne Burt: But to—to [snorts] that point, there may be [25:31] a different—the property that we acquired for the connection of the trail that wasn't out of the HRA, right? Janelle Schmitz: Correct. Anne Burt: And that—and that wasn't really land banking. No, but what you're saying is if there's somebody that's got a parcel or a piece of a parcel or whatever and is looking to offload that to the city for whatever use, it may not—the HRA may not be the entity that—that—that approaches us from a decision standpoint because that—this is specific to land banking versus—so I I guess I'm less concerned about that [26:08] because this is—the funds for this are so specific. We can't—we couldn't use the HRA land banking fund—this fund—to take a blighted parcel if we didn't have an intention. Jennifer Santini: But I just meant like if we were going down a path and we were in an area and yes, we're wanting—we identify a parcel that yes, we'd want to acquire and then some somewhat neighboring, somewhat conjoined, you know, was like, "Well, we want to get rid of ours, too." And part of this process, but for whatever reason, we don't want to. I guess I just—I just want it to be sort of clear that we would have the ability to refuse if for some reason I guess I just—I don't want this and again that's why I just >> right >> I think it's more clear on the reasons for approving than denying. We can deny for whatever reason. The purpose of this the way that I read it was more clear of setting the guidelines to approve it not necessarily to not approve it [27:02] is that if it doesn't meet these—these—these the purpose and/or the criteria within the policy we could—it would be more difficult for us to approve versus the reverse of that >> that's the way I read it. Anne Burt: So Jamie, for—for procedurally, would it be staff that might identify these parcels or pieces of land? [27:26] Jamie Fritz: Correct. We would be the ones identifying it. And if somebody did say, "you know, we have this," you know, in the policy, we try to, you know, hammer in strategic acquisition. So, if it's not strategic and we don't think it's going to be marketable or developable or meet our goal, then we'd say "no thank you." So, that's really the key to all of this is that the pieces of land we're going to be looking for are going to be strategically selected and identified by staff and then we're going to have the information to support that acquisition when we come to you all to get approval for it. So, yeah, so if somebody is trying to offload something and it doesn't benefit what we're trying to do with [28:13] this whole policy, then we would just say no to that. Anne Burt: Got it. Thank you. Kim Wilson: Yes. So I do remember this being discussed uh when—yeah—and I do remember you also were [laughter] a little uncertain at that time. I think I—being you being you [laughter] and me being me—I took a little stronger stance which was I don't like the city being in the business of owning real estate and buying real estate and holding it. Um I think Woodbury has a great mix of housing and it has happened—I understand you know City Place and Pond View—but for the most part everything in this city has happened naturally. Um that's what we go through the comprehensive plans for. [28:59] We have a great mix of affordable housing, town homes, um single family. Um, it concerns me that we would buy a piece of property and then sit on it for six or seven years and then sell it for what we bought it for. Is that what I heard you say or >> correct? Because that's typically what the benefit that you're giving that developer is that—and then you're, you know, in addition to the lower cost or below market cost, you're adding some certainty into there because you're not dealing with a private landlord. [29:33] Kim Wilson: It makes sense. I mean it does make—I mean that aspect of it makes sense, right? I understand that. I'm just I am not a fan of using um uh tax taxpayer [clears throat] dollars, LAHA funds—to um come in and purchase land and then sit on it and and wait for the right time to develop because we have always said the right time is when—right—the market decides when the right time is. And so when we start coming in and start dictating, I don't like it. I don't like the city being land owners on a piece of property that is developable in the future. So um it—it's not my—I understand the purpose. I'm just not a fan. [30:17] Anne Burt: Oh, sure. Well, again, this this would—this is LAHA funds that would—this would be used for. And can you just take a moment and explain to the general public the LAHA funds and where those come from—because it's not—it's not levy money that we're pulling in. Jamie Fritz: Correct. Anne Burt: This is a unique situation. Jamie Fritz: Right. So LAHA is local affordable housing aid. It was created in 2023 by the state of Minnesota. So it's an additional sales tax that's collected in the metro area. So all seven metro counties. Um it's not a levy that the city implements. It's not a property tax. This is paid by anybody that purchases something in the metro area. That money is then distributed to all the metro cities and metro counties to be used specifically for the creation or redevelopment of affordable housing and housing up to—you know—I guess beyond typically what you would think affordable housing—but up to 120%. So that's somebody above the area median income and it can only be used for those purposes. It cannot be used for anything else. And another point that I was going to make was that this money does have spending timelines attached to it. [31:29] Jamie Fritz: So another, you know, reason for doing this, which may be beneficial, is that if we're coming up on timelines, this would be a way to invest in an asset that we can use strategically for affordable housing in the beginning because if you don't spend it, it goes back to the state and then they get to decide who it goes to. Mhm. Um so yeah, so that's pretty much you know the overview of what that is—and the fact that um the [clears throat] um the LAHA funds um well back to—sorry—the housing action plan. We developed a housing action plan. So we have several options to how to implement that. This was just one. We've been talking about it for years. [32:13] Anne Burt: This policy allows us to consider going in that direction. It doesn't obligate us to do that. It doesn't say we're going to buy a piece of land or do anything with it. It just provides the option that exists. Jamie Fritz: And then Chair Burt, if I can make two more points. Anne Burt: Yes. Oh, sure. Jamie Fritz: Um, yeah. So, I guess first point, so going back to, you know, we've been fortunate to have a lot of affordable housing development. So in the council or HRA letter, um—so the last four projects, large projects that we've had here in Woodbury, uh they benefited from a federal designation called difficult development area. That designation is now gone and really that was the genesis for four projects over the past four or five years here. So, Legends, um, Orville Commons, Meadows at Prairie Ridge, Settler's Ridge, [33:14] and that designation helped those projects, you know, some of them up to $10 million of additional funds to get those across. And, you know, when we talk about things happening naturally, that was a tool that was put in place that really drew those projects to Woodbury and that's now gone. And I don't know if we're going to get it back. So if we don't have incentives like that that are, you know, either locally created or federally created, county created, whatever entity, it might make things more difficult because then these affordable housing developers as phases come through to development. They're going to be competing—paying the same price that, you know, a regular market rate developer is going to be paying for the same piece of property to make something affordable, which increases that cost. Anne Burt: So what was the other one? Jamie Fritz: Which one? Anne Burt: You said you had two. Jamie Fritz: Oh, I think first one was the time limit on LAHA spending. So each year we have that time limit. So, and we get a substantial amount. So, we have the funds to do large capital things that we couldn't do in the past. And then number two was the DDA is no longer here. And that was been a huge tool that's created almost a thousand units here in Woodbury. And without that, I—I don't think that we would have the same activity. So, Anne Burt: And how much—how much are we—we haven't actually gotten LAHA yet. How much have we gotten? [34:29] Jamie Fritz: So, to date, we have just over 1.2 million that we haven't spent. Anne Burt: And what are some of the other areas that we could use the money if it [clears throat] wasn't for land banking? What are some other options to use that 1.2 million? Jamie Fritz: Right. So, I guess just the three that we talked about at the council workshop that council directed us to pursue was—so we can use it for our home ownership program, the loan program. We can use it for land banking. We can use it for just straight up development assistance. So if a development comes to us, they say, "Hey, we still have a gap based on the costs." Um, we could do direct lending to those developments as a revolving loan fund. You can pretty much do anything that's related to housing that's within the income brackets that the state defined. So it can be ownership, it can be rental, it could be rehabbing current homeowners' homes, it could be rehabbing current apartment buildings as long as they maintain affordability. So there's a wide range and there's even, you know, you can even if you wanted to fund different social [35:31] services that benefit people like eviction prevention, direct subsidies for rent. It just has to be related to housing. So at the workshop that's when we tried to narrow—you know—what's our lane and what can we do that isn't done. Anne Burt: And just to clarify by uh if we adopt this directive it doesn't prevent any of those other options. They still exist. They're still [clears throat] there. This is just one other tool that provides clarity for this option that we haven't really had. Kim Wilson: I understand that. I understand that there is nothing coming before us. This tonight is just the policy coming before us. I I totally have a [clears throat] clear understanding of that. I just am not sure that land banking—given the size of Woodbury and um—how much we did affordable housing. We did a loan program. What did we do this year? We had to cut it off, didn't we? First-time home buyer. [36:23] Jamie Fritz: Um no, we actually got that up and running again last year. So 2025. Kim Wilson: We had to stop it because we ran out of money in '24. Jamie Fritz: Yeah, '24 we did. Kim Wilson: Prior to—prior to receiving LAHA, correct? And how much did we loan that year for the first-time home buyers in 2024? Jamie Fritz: Um I believe it was just over $700,000. Kim Wilson: Yeah. Jennifer Santini: Well, again, I just I did feel that this needed a little bit more discussion. My struggle has been that this is just the directive. It's not approving any particular project. Um, I did just sort of wanted to say my piece about the fact that I I almost want this to be like a variance that is so seldom, you know, that it is really the [clears throat] last sort of option. Um, just because again, I just think there's just something in—and as I said—it could be because we really have never gone through it personally yet for the process. Um, but I just have always been sort of—to Council Member Wilson's um, point—just getting into that uh, that [37:25] quote unquote business of holding land and then selecting somebody else to—to come in and do stuff. I I feel totally different when it is somebody that's, you know, comes in, approaches us and has this plan and says we have a gap and we can help. I I feel like that's a—totally—totally on board with that. It's just something about once we have the ownership of property um and sort of the responsibilities that go with that. Steve Morris: I'm oddly a little bit way more optimistic about this [laughter] and and part of the reason is—and part of the reason I've—I've long been a fan of land banking because it's another tool as—as President Burt has said—that this—this is another tool in the toolbox that we have struggled and if if [38:10] we go back in HRA minutes the number of conversations that we've had about "how can we do more with the money that we have?" "what other options can we do with the money that we have?" and it's always—prior to LAHA—been levied money—is "how can we be more effective?" "How can we do more good with that money that we—that we've levied?" We didn't ask for LAHA. Nobody asked our opinions about LAHA. Nobody asked the cities about LAHA. They just went and did it. That's the state's prerogative and they did that. Now we're here with this—this chunk of money. Now—now my position is: we're going to get that money. We never—never asked for it, but I sure as hell want every last penny of that to go to Woodbury and to go to our—to—to maintaining our community and to doing the best for it—for the community. And so whatever possible, if the money goes away, then that's a whole different conversation if the state does that. As long as that money is coming to us and we as Woodbury residents are all paying into this, we're all paying part of that 7-count metro tax. We're all paying into it. I want that money that's been allocated to Woodbury to stay in Woodbury. I wanted to do the most amount [39:16] of good for Woodbury. We talked as an HRA about if we were to allocate to the county for some of their social services, how do we make—make sure that that still stays within Woodbury? We talked about that and just that becomes difficult. So my—my focus is for every dollar that we didn't ask for that we're going to get, what can we do for the most possible good? This as a policy and I I 100% am with you. If this was levied money, I'd have a whole lot more—qualms—or more uh questions about the the development of this and how we make approvals. But I am 110% behind this because if we don't use that money, it will—we do have to give it back if we don't use it because it does expire. There is [40:02] an expiration date on this that we've got to use that money. That in absence of—I want every single tool available to the city in the HRA to keep that money here and if it's loan programs or I don't care what it is, if it stays in Woodbury I want it to stay in Woodbury. That's my position on this policy. Anne Burt: Agreed. Okay so we all know my feeling so and I get everybody else's. Kim Wilson: So I just want to say one thing then before we take this vote [clears throat] um that if this land banking goes through which sounds like—an issue—and—um—and—and we utilize it for affordable housing. I would like to have us council uh staff come up with something um because now we have a [40:49] little more control over the affordable housing then—and I want some sort of standards or um inspections or—we have more control once we get our—once they come to us and say we want this or we need this and we give them something. I want to be able to have more control over—the rent increase—the Legends—yeah—rent increases. I'm also talking about um you know four or five years ago there were articles um written in the um—I can't remember where it was written—about some uh horrid living conditions in affordable housing here in Woodbury and nobody could do anything about it because it's not ours or it's not the—if we are going to do this and we're going to land bank I want something—I want us to come up with something then [clears throat]—that—that goes along with it—we can have strings. Donna Stafford: You're here. Thank you. I agree with Council Member Morris in that that money belongs to the city of Woodbury. We need to use it for our residents. And if it's not for land banking, then let's put it into housing affordability rehab, yeah, first-time homeownership programs—that gets families into Woodbury to stay in Woodbury. Um, it's very difficult for seniors today to have affordable housing in Woodbury on one level. You're going to hear me say that very often. Um, but it's a reality. So, these are funds that have to be used in Woodbury in my estimation. I don't know if that's one of the— Jamie Fritz: Yes. Donna Stafford: Qualifications is >> because it's [clears throat] granted to the HRA. Anne Burt: Yeah. Donna Stafford: Okay. Okay. But I think if—if we can do it to the benefit of those people that want to come to Woodbury or who are already here, let's burn every penny before the pennies aren't around anymore. Anne Burt: They're no more. Pennies are discontinued. So burn every nickel. Donna Stafford: Every nickel. There we go. [clears throat] Anne Burt: All right. Uh someone like to put forth a motion. It's been a very good discussion. Steve Morris: I will move to adopt HRA resolution 26-02 adopting HRAD 1.6 housing redevelopment authority land banking policy. Jennifer Santini: Second. Anne Burt: We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Janelle, roll call, please. [43:30] Janelle Schmitz: Member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Janelle Schmitz: Member Wilson. Kim Wilson: No. Janelle Schmitz: Chair Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. That passes. So again, just a tool in the toolbox. Um okay. Um let's see. Sorry I flipped over. I think we're actually done. But let me just double check. Nothing else to discuss on that. So I make a motion that we adjourn. Steve Morris: Second. Anne Burt: Motion second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Council Members: Aye. Anne Burt: This meeting is adjourned. We will— [44:26] Anne Burt: Good evening. Welcome to the city of Woodbury city council meeting for today, January 28th, 2026. It is now 8:05. It's hard to see that. Oh, no. It's 8:09. Um because our HRA meeting went a little bit long. Um but this meeting is uh taking place in person here. We do have some people in—in the audience. Good to see you. Thank you for coming. Um but we also offer this meeting virtually. So there are some probably listening online and uh in the future welcome anybody to do that method to stay in touch with what's going on. Uh the meetings are broadcast by True Lens Media um and they're replayed on cable channel 799. They're also available on the city of Woodbury's YouTube channel. Members of the public may make comments. There are green sheets on your chairs if at any point you want to make a comment either in the open forum or another part of the meeting. Um and um I think that covers most of it. So with that, please stand and uh join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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. Uh, and Ashleigh Sullivan, our assistant city administrator, city clerk, would you please do the roll call? [45:45] Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Morris. Steve Morris: Here. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Here. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Here. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Here. Ashleigh Sullivan: Mayor Burt. Anne Burt: Here. We are all here so we're able to conduct tonight's business. Um I do just want to start off with a statement um and it's written out so that I say it correctly. Picking the right words or choosing the right words is very important but this is just a—a follow-up to our last meeting. Many uh were present at that meeting and just want to share some more information. So before we get started I want to take a moment and address the current situation regarding immigration enforcement and activities in Minnesota. As you may know, we're in the midst of an ever-changing landscape, and we recognize that the recently stepped up federal immigration enforcement efforts in the region are creating fear and anxiety for [46:31] many in our community. The events of the weekend have impacted us all in different ways. In times like these, it's important to acknowledge what has happened and lean on one another for support to carry us through. Our city along with our leaders has a long commitment in fostering a welcome, inclusive, and a safe community. Our local law enforcement officials have done a phenomenal job in keeping our community safe and building trust and relationships with all residents. We will continue to find ways to show our community that we care, to create a safe environment, and encourage compassion to one another. In the meantime, continue to care. Take care of yourselves and one another. [47:15] Anne Burt: Next, I want to provide an update on a message that I shared with the community at our last city council meeting. In case you missed it, on January 14th, city staff verbally confirmed the property located at 11435 Hudson Road is not being sold or leased to the federal government or agents acting on their behalf. Since that time, staff has received written confirmation from both the building's representatives and federal government agents that the building will no longer be considered for a detention facility. The federal government was specifically looking at a large warehouse at 11435 Hudson Road due to its size. Woodbury does not have any other large warehouse spaces to meet the [48:00] purposes that have been reported by the federal government. We continue to work with all of our partners, county, state, and federal officials to advocate for the rights of our valued immigrant communities during this challenging time. We will keep the community informed if we have obtained any additional information. In the meantime, you can follow our FAQ page for more information at woodbury.gov. [48:27] Anne Burt: Thank you. And now, let's move on to the rest of our meeting. So, um the—this—the next um item on the agenda is the open forum portion of the meeting. Uh if you wanted to speak, we have green sheets. Do we have any green sheets? And is there anybody online? Ashleigh Sullivan: Don't see any. Anne Burt: Okay. So, with that, I'm going to skip the normal thing that I would normally read. We'll move on to the consent agenda. Oh, well, is this for open forum? Is this for something already? Open forum is for an item not on the agenda. If it's something on the agenda, then it's handled in a different way. Not on the agenda. Let's do this. If you want to speak, please fill out the green sheet, hand it to Ashleigh. In the meantime, we're going to handle the consent agenda and we'll circle back. Okay. So, the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of the majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member or a citizen so request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the council. So with that I always ask: is anybody want anything removed from consent agenda? Seeing none, I always ask Ashleigh if anyone's online—no one ever is. Then council members, anything to be removed? Steve Morris: 6D as in dog. Anne Burt: Okay we'll move 6D. Is that it? Steve Morris: That—that's good for tonight. Anne Burt: Okay, we will move that to discussion. [50:00] Steve Morris: There's always a bet, I'm sure. Anne Burt: So, um Okay, so would anyone like to put forth a motion then for the others? Jennifer Santini: I'll move to approve consent agenda items 6A through 6H with the exception of 6D. Donna Stafford: Second. Anne Burt: Motion a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. [50:19] Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council Member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council Member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council Member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Mayor Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. Those consent agenda items pass. And again, 6D will be removed—we'll be moved to discussion. Unless you think it's quick. Is this quick or is it— Steve Morris: I'm going to vote? Um, yeah, it can be quick. I just make a statement and vote. Anne Burt: Okay, then let's take that. All right, we'll—we'll take that. Sorry. 6D. We'll take 6D right now. [50:48] Steve Morris: So, it's just the addition of two—um—I'm not going to read the whole thing. Two more people uh to our full-time employment. And I feel like we're—we're not even a month into the new year and we're already making adjustments to our budget, which may not be this year, but it will be going forward and our staff that we've laid out—and it's concerning to me that we're already doing this and I understand the reasoning behind it. It was presented two weeks ago in a workshop and I understand it. I just don't agree with it. So, I'll be voting differently. Anne Burt: Okay. And just to clarify, I think it was made pretty clear we're going to be saving money by doing this because we're taking things in-house. And so I just want to make that point as well. Um, okay. So would someone like to put forth a motion? [51:33] Jennifer Santini: I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 26-07, a resolution amending the 2026 adopted annual budget and authorizing the addition of a construction administration coordinator and construction administrator specialist to the engineering division. Donna Stafford: Second. Anne Burt: Motion a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please. [51:53] Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Wilson. Kim Wilson: No. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Mayor Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. That uh resolution passes. Congratulations, Chris. I know you're excited about that. Okay. Um do we have the green sheet? Yes. You can just hand it to Janelle. It'll come around my way. Um let me just share while that's coming my way how we do these. So, here's the rules. You're welcome to stand and listen, but this is a portion of the council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address the council, which are not part of the meeting agenda. You've got your sign-up sheet done, which is great. You're allowed three minutes. And we have this cute little timer here and a little like red, green, yellow thing in front of you, so you'll know when—you see yellow, you get one more minute. Um, we always just ask um when you begin to provide your name and your city of residence for the official record. Um, and then you speak. We typically because we don't know what you're talking about or not prepared to answer, will not answer. We won't engage in a discussion, we'll just happy to hear from you and then there'll be some follow-up provided for you in the next week approximately. So with that, um, your name is Mark Roma. Tell us your city and, uh, tell us what you're here to talk about. [53:14] Mark Roma: Uh I live in Woodbury. Uh I received a letter a couple of months ago regarding a disc golf course by the Tamarack Nature Preserve. I used to live on uh Devonshire and Lake Road closer to Carver Park and they did the mountain bike or the biking path in there and they cut down a bunch of trees and I don't know if the disc golf course is already set in stone and I'm too late. That's possible. Uh I'm just wondering there doesn't seem to be any room to do anything like that in that area. Um, and I'm wondering, are they cutting down a bunch of trees to do this or are there any other options or any other locations to put a disc golf course? Because thinking about Carver Park or any other parks, they seem to have way more space than just that little section that's not the nature preserve that's north of Valley Creek and south of the park building. So, I was just curious. Those are my couple of questions about that project. [54:05] Anne Burt: Okay, those are—we don't have anyone here from Parks and Rec. I mean, that's a pretty simple answer, but we don't have anyone here to answer it specifically, and we don't want to mess it up. So, we'll follow up with you. All right, great to see. Would you be willing to give your email address? Would that be easier? Would you—phone call. Would you like a phone call or do you want an email address? Mark Roma: I can do the email. Anne Burt: Okay, you just hand it back to Janelle when you're finished. Okay, that—that's great. Thank you very much. Um, all right. Let me flip to my—Okay, now we have um this is the time for a public hearing. So, we have I think just one. Let me double check. Just one item for public hearings. Um I don't have any green sheets for a public hearing. So, I'm going to save you all my long uh thing I read, but if somebody feels like you're going to need to say something, then I'll read it and fill out a green sheet. Um but otherwise, we're going to be talking about the consideration of the approval of Pet Memories, a conditional use permit. Janelle Schmitz, you're up to tell us more about it. The hearing is now officially open. [55:07] Janelle Schmitz: Thank you, Mayor Burt. Members of the city council, Jay Wade Jackson has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate a pet cremation service with an eco-friendly water-based process called Aquamation. The proposed location is 2357 Ventura Drive. The property is zoned I1 light industrial and guided as "places to work" on the land use plan. A conditional use permit is required for uses that are not identified specifically in the I1 industrial district. The language uh includes "other uses not otherwise identified herein as a permitted or accessory use or conditional use may be approved by the city council as a conditional use permit." So that is what necessitated a CUP for this project. A resolution has been prepared and is in your packet which outlines how the project meets the required findings of fact. [56:00] Janelle Schmitz: In terms of parking and access, uh Pet Memories cremation would be a tenant in an existing building that is located again at 2357 Ventura Drive. This building was initially approved by the city council in 1988 and built in 1989 uh safely before my time even. [laughter] Uh the building is 35,865 square feet and Pet Memories is looking to lease 2,875 square feet in the northwest corner of the building. The use would involve approximately 2,000 square ft of warehouse space and 875 ft of office. Based on this, the required parking would be six stalls. The property currently has 63 stalls. And because the business will be by appointment only, most clients being vet clinics, they do not anticipate that there will be needing more than two parking stalls at any given time. And there are existing two access points out on Ventura which provide adequate access for the site. Uh the building layout, Pet Memories is proposing a cremation process called Aquamation. It's an eco-friendly alternative to traditional flame-based cremation services. It produces zero emissions and uses 90% less energy, leaving less of a carbon footprint than traditional cremation. This would be the first and only pet cremation service in Woodbury. It is anticipated that the machine would operate uh a few times a week until the business is a little more um established and then it could increase up to once per day. The machine uses 47 gallons of water, but it can run at half capacity depending on the number and size of pets that are being um cremated. This is very hard to be delicate as I'm talking about this, so I apologize. Uh we do have a—we did have a planning commission meeting on January 12th, and Commissioner Stephanie Swanson is here to provide their recommendation. I did want to note there was a neighborhood meeting held as well with no residents in attendance. [58:04] Anne Burt: Okay, great. Welcome, Commissioner Swanson. Stephanie Swanson: Hello, Mayor Burt. Council staff, thank you for having me. Uh, as Janelle said, my name is Stephanie Swanson of the Planning Commission. We had very few questions and comments on this project. They were really in two categories. One on the actual aquamation process because most of us were very unfamiliar and if they had any environmental impacts. They—we had questions about odor. Um if there were animals waiting to be cremated and the applicant explained that there's a refrigeration process that's similar to human cremation. Um odor, odor, noise—and he compared the process to a large commercial dishwasher that you wouldn't hear in other tenants' spaces—and then water pollution obviously is a hot topic in Woodbury and um it can actually have a net positive according to the applicant. And then on the permit process side we had questions about if animal cremation had the same kinds of licensing requirements as human cremation and the answer is no. Interesting. And then that led to the question of if we're doing a conditional use permit for animal cremation, does that give the applicant the flexibility to expand the business to also do human cremation? And the answer is no. So there were no public comments, there was no anybody on teams, there were no questions. We did not add any conditions of approval. It was fairly straightforward. But I'm here if you guys have any other questions. [59:44] Anne Burt: Great. Thank you. Um, okay. Do you have anything more to add? Janelle Schmitz: No, I don't. Anne Burt: So, the applicant's here. Jay Wade Jackson: I'm Jay Wade Jackson, so I'm the applicant. If you have any questions, I could answer them. [1:00:01] Anne Burt: I do have a question. Okay. When when you talk about [snorts] the pet memorial cremation, is it only like dogs, cats? Jay Wade Jackson: It'd be domestic animals and like—yes—like household pets. Anne Burt: Okay. Household pets. Not anything— Kim Wilson: Not my little horsey. Jay Wade Jackson: No, we're probably going to cap it about 250 pounds because of the equipment required for anything bigger than that. I don't really—it's not anything we want to be involved with. So it'll be domestic animals which most domestic pets are 90% or less than 100 pounds. So it will be you know dogs, cats primarily, snakes. Anne Burt: So great. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Steve Morris: Excuse me. Just real quickly if you can do it quick. If not, we'll just forget. Um how does it have a net positive on the water? Jay Wade Jackson: Well, so—the way it neutralizes, there's studies that say the proteins and stuff that releases into the water treatment is actually good for the sewer system. There's all kinds of studies on it. I mean, you can't find anything that says it's—if—if the worst case scenario, it's—it's a net negative on the environment. Um, it's not a deterrent. Um, there's areas in Iowa where—you—people use this, they have a very large machine that you could do large animals. They keep the—the—the discharge goes into a tank and they spray that on soybeans and get a 20% larger yield so it can be used for fertilizer. Um so it's just—it's just a positive impact um as opposed to cremation that has emissions and everything else—flame cremation. So, it's obviously I would not want to try to store it and keep [clears throat] it from freezing and all that, but um there—every study you see—they—it's big in Europe and kind of my rule of thumb: if they're doing it in Europe that's got to be pretty well perceived because there's—they're a lot more stringent than we are. Um there's also funeral homes here locally and Stillwater that has one for humans and so it's not a—it's not a foreign concept in the state already um being utilized. [1:02:18] Anne Burt: Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Um I don't have any further questions and I don't see any sheets on it. So I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. Jennifer Santini: Second. Anne Burt: Motion a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Council Members: Aye. Anne Burt: All right. The hearing is closed. And now again council to discuss or ask questions or put forth a motion. Steve Morris: I'll make a motion to adopt approving the Pet Memories cremation conditional use permit based on the findings of fact in resolution 26-11 project number 18-2025-0000599 subject to the conditions outlined in the council letter 26-19. Jennifer Santini: Second. Anne Burt: Motion second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. [1:03:07] Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Wilson. Kim Wilson: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Morris. Steve Morris: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council Member Santini. Jennifer Santini: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Council member Stafford. Donna Stafford: Aye. Ashleigh Sullivan: Mayor Burt. Anne Burt: Aye. That is approved. Congratulations. Good luck with the project and I hope all goes well. Quite a deal. Um, okay. We handled our discussion item. Now we'll just move on to staff reports. Uh, city administrator Jeff Dahl. What have you got for us? [1:03:38] Jeffrey J. Dahl: Thank you, Mayor Burt. A couple things tonight. Uh first off, I want to congratulate uh Shelley Buck. She was the victor in the special election held for state representative district 47A uh yesterday. Uh she won with 98% of the vote. She ran unopposed. There's always, you know, write-in that possibility, but 98% uh voter turnout as a special election uh with really only one item on the ballot was 7.5%. So, kind of as expected, but congratulations to Representative Buck. We're excited to start working with her and fill her in. Uh we've we've already started to a little bit on our uh legislative priorities. Uh and thank you to uh um Miss Sullivan, her team, Washington County for running a very smooth uh election. This is the second special election over the past few months. So, we're hoping that we'll have a nice little hiatus until next year any or later this year. Anne Burt: November. Jeffrey J. Dahl: Five months from this year. We're hoping for five months. We'll—we'll take that. Um, next item was the uh just um letting the the public know uh if you haven't already seen it, our state of the cities event is going to be held on February 26th. That will be at 6 p.m. It'll be uh in the new Central Park Woodlands room. It's a beautiful space. Looking forward to hearing uh the mayor's presentation. Uh it is open to the public. Go on the website to RSVP. Um so we're hoping to have a full room and uh enjoy the new space and talk all about uh our wonderful community. [1:05:18] Jeffrey J. Dahl: Um two other notes. These are the—these past ones have been um positive and fun, but these two last ones are even more. I want to congratulate Tai Okada Woodbury's own. [applause] Uh—as most people know, uh Tai Okada is the safety for the Super Bowl bound Seattle Seahawks. Uh they—they beat the LA Rams over the weekend. Tai is a Woodbury resident or—born and raised here. Uh East Ridge grad—the proud son of Michelle Okada, our parks and recreation director. An all-around good guy. I haven't met him yet, but I'm excited to. And we're just really thrilled for Tai. We're thrilled for Michelle, Tai, obviously. and uh he really uh is a good representation of our wonderful community. So, I hope—hope there's not too many uh Patriots fans here because I think uh we all need to be rooting for the Seahawks uh in two weeks. Anne Burt: Yeah. Jeffrey J. Dahl: Or week and a half actually. Uh and then also uh on the sports uh theme, want to congratulate Phil Drobnik uh who represents uh the USA. He's the team captain for the USA curling team. Uh he's a Woodbury resident and he's the husband also of Stephanie Swanson who was the uh chair of the planning commission. Uh and uh he'll be—he'll be uh starting—I think—going to Milan fairly quickly here as the uh Olympics ramp up in uh just a few weeks. So, congratulations to uh Phil and—and hopefully they can bring home the gold and maybe they can even uh stop by and uh show us uh at some point in time. So, uh good luck to both. We're—we're really proud and we'll be watching. That's all I have. [1:07:14] Anne Burt: That's it. We love ending on good news. Um all right, that's it. I make a motion that we adjourn our meeting. Steve Morris: Second. Anne Burt: Motion second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Council Members: Aye. Anne Burt: We are adjourned. Sorry, that was—that was—