Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget And Levy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Woodbury council adopts 2026 budget, sets levy after Truth-in-Taxation hearing

City of Woodbury City Council / Economic Development Authority / Housing and Redevelopment Authority · December 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a public Truth-in-Taxation hearing, Woodbury adopted a 2026 budget that funds added public‑safety positions and capital projects; the council approved Resolution 25‑203 on a 4–1 vote with Council member Wilson opposed.

Woodbury — The City Council adopted its 2026 budget and set city tax levies on Dec. 10, 2025, after a Truth‑in‑Taxation hearing in which staff outlined revenue adjustments, capital projects and personnel additions. The council approved Resolution 25‑203, which sets the tax levies and approves various fund budgets, on a 4–1 roll‑call vote; Council member Wilson voted No.

City Administrator Jeff (presenter) said the proposed budget’s net amount is approximately $132.1 million (after transfers) and that the recommended levy change for 2026 is a 9.7% increase. Jeff told the council staff had reduced a previously projected 11.7% increase to 9.7% through a mix of revenue updates and expenditure reductions, producing an estimated $1,000,000 net positive improvement to the levy picture.

Jeff said the largest budget driver is fully staffing and compensating the public‑safety workforce, and that the proposal adds 16 full‑time equivalent positions next year — 13 in public safety and 3 in administration. He also listed major capital projects included in planning: a water treatment‑plant and piping program (estimated at $300+ million), a proposed public‑safety building (on the order of $60 million, to be considered for future levying or debt service) and ongoing roadway and trail resurfacing.

In response to a question from Council member Wilson about Minnesota’s paid‑leave mandate, finance staff estimated total city costs of roughly $140,000 (about $134,000 to the general fund and smaller amounts from enterprise and recreation funds), with employees and the city splitting contributions approximately 50/50.

Jeff provided a per‑household example to illustrate impact: for the median home, the city portion of taxes was described as about $14.75 per month (roughly $115 per year), with more than 75% of that city share directed to core services such as police, fire and public works.

Members debated tradeoffs, with several expressing discomfort at increases but supporting funding essential services. After discussion the council adopted the resolution setting levies and approving fund budgets; the roll call showed four ayes and one no (Wilson). The staff said final tax statements reflecting the adopted changes will be distributed in the normal schedule early next year.

Next steps: staff will implement the adopted budget and proceed with planned capital activities and fee adjustments where approved in the budget.