## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ## JULY 13, 2026 ## 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## 7:00 PM For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to shorewoodMN.gov/CityCouncil for the meeting link. Pursuant to MN Statute 2024, Section 13D.02, subdivision 4, members may participate in the meeting by interactive technology. ## AGENDA ## 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ## A. Pledge of Allegiance ## B. ## Roll Call ## Mayor Labadie _____ ## Councilmember Maddy _____ ## Councilmember Sanschagrin _____ ## Councilmember Gorham _____ ## Councilmember DiGruttolo _____ ## C. Review and Adopt Agenda ## 2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening under a single motion. Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: ## A. City Council Work Session Minutes ## B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ## C. May 19, 2026 Park Commission Meeting Minutes ## D. Claims List ## E. Tree Removal Quote and Service Agreement ## F. Replacement of VFD, Southeast Well ## G. 2026 Crack Sealing Project ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring a matter related to the governance of the City of Shorewood to the attention of the City Council. If the matter relates to a topic that is identified on tonight’s agenda as a public hearing, please hold your comments until the public hearing is opened. The full rules for this forum can be found on the agenda table in back and on the City’s webpage. Anyone wishing to address the Council should raise their hand, or if attending remotely, Page 1 of 166 please use the “raise hand” function on your screen and wait to be called on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to five minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Council on this matter. If requested by the Council, City staff will prepare a report for the Council regarding the matter and place it on the next agenda. ## 4. GENERAL BUSINESS ## A. Tour de Tonka Presentation ## B. Cathcart Park Tennis Court Resurfacing ## C. MN GreenStep Cities Fast Track Cohort ## D. Deephaven - Minnetonka Blvd Cost Share Agreement ## E. Shorewood Lane Ravine Update ## 5. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS ## A. Staff ## i. Quarter 2 Communications Report ## ii. Tentative Upcoming Agenda Topics ## B. Mayor and City Council ## 6. ADJOURN Page 2 of 166 City Council Item 2.A. ## Title/Subject: City Council Work Session Minutes ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. 06.22.2026 CC WS Meeting Minutes ## Background ## 06/22/26 City Council Work Session Minutes ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance • Sound and strategic record keeping of government activities lead to comprehensive long- term planning, principled, data, and stakeholder-driven decisions, and a culture of continuous improvement. ## Budget Impact Minute preparation costs vary based on length of meeting and level of detail. ## Action Requested Simple majority vote is required. Page 3 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026 5:30 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 5:31 P.M. A. Interactive Technology: Councilmember DiGruttolo will participate via ## Interactive Technology ## B. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Sanschagrin, Gorham and Digruttolo (via Zoom); City Administrator Nevinski; Park/Recreation Director Czech; City Clerk/HR ## Director Thone; and Finance Director Schmuck ## Absent: Councilmember Maddy ## C. Review Agenda Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. DISCUSSION ## A. Budget Work Session #2: Personnel Finance Director Schmuck introduced the topic of the budget work session: personnel. She pointed out how things would work going forward. City Clerk/HR Director Thone presented on the Personnel budget as found in the Agenda Packet. Finance Director Schmuck continued the presentation as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if the allocations for payment change every year. Finance Director Schmuck explained that Public Works regularly tracks its hours, and that is how actual expenses are charged. Those allocations are taken from the current year and used as projections for the next year, so those adjustments shift. She noted that the Public Works Director and various Staff members analyze those to ensure they align with anticipated project allocations for the following year. She explained that in administration, there is less year-to-year change, so time studies are conducted and projected over a year, as authorized by the Office of State Auditors. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if the FTEs for streets are fairly constant. Finance Director Schmuck noted that the numbers would change slightly. There are 12 Public Works employees allocated across the various departments. She added that the biggest shift is whether it is a heavy snow year or there are park maintenance projects, such as buckthorn removal. That is why things are reviewed annually. Finance Director Schmuck continued with the presentation as found in the Agenda Packet. Page 4 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 2 of 7 Councilmember Sanschagrin asked how the additional cost for the additional full-time employee was factored into the budget. Finance Director Schmuck explained that the Staff calculated the full-time position at $101,000. The part-time person was removed, which brings the $101,000 down to $67,000. The $67,000 is what is in the current budget. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if the $67,000 is part of what the person will earn. Finance Director Schmuck clarified that the $38,000 difference between $67,000 and $101,000 reflects the current salary of the part-time Recreational Specialist. That position is being removed from the budget, so the budget impact for 2027 would be $67,000. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the number included benefits and all associated costs for the new position. Councilmember Sanschagrin pointed out that the additional ledgers included in the report with the 2026 Estimated and FTE columns were blank. He asked if that was because of the format. Finance Director Schmuck explained that those are blank in the detail because the integrated financial system includes a human resources module that can be used to enter FTEs and related data. Then the salary and the benefits are populated in the personnel category in the general ledger. She added that the City does not use that at this time; instead, spreadsheets are created, and the information is added to the system. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if there was a way to remove the columns. Finance Director Schmuck stated that it is a canned report and there is no way to get rid of them. Councilmember Gorham asked how to know how many people the number covers. Finance Director Schmuck shared that the City has 25 full-time employees, and the report lists each department and the percentage of employees in each. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked about the pie chart showing the percentage of the allocation and how it relates to each department's number. Finance Director Schmuck stated that the pie chart shows expenses at 75 percent. She shared that employees earn different amounts of money depending on whether they are allocated to the general fund or to an SCEC specialist. She added that the pie chart shows the allocation of total expenditures, and the other shows the allocation of actual hours and the distribution of those expenditures. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she is not opposed to paying employees fairly, but that the compensation philosophy is a policy discussion that should be held every year, especially when there are new Councilmembers who were not present when the compensation study was initially conducted. She asked how the compensation study came up and what problems the City was facing that needed to be solved. She asked why a City of only 8,000 needs to be highly competitive. Especially since she has heard many say that the City is a stepping-stone city for employees who are coming here to develop their skills and move on to other cities. She noted asking because anyone who is hired within six years is maxed out. In six years, the person is making 25 percent more than when they first started. City Clerk/HR Director Thone explained that all cities do comp and class studies. If the City does not keep up with the market, it would be difficult to attract employees to the city to work if the compensation schedule does not keep pace with what other cities are paying. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked what problem is being solved by going from market competitive to highly market competitive. The result is hiring at the highest end, and those people, in six years, are making 25 percent more, especially if the City is a stepping-stone city. She does not understand why a City of 8,000 needs to be highly competitive with the 21 peer communities that do not, given Shorewood's size, development, and stage in the City lifecycle. City Clerk/HR Page 5 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 3 of 7 Director Thone explained that at the time, it was a Council decision, and that DDA presented several options. She pointed out that she did not believe the city was currently highly competitive, but the comp study did make the city more competitive. The city was facing concerningly low recruitment numbers, and there was trouble filling some positions, with sometimes only one or two candidates who were not qualified. She added that the city was struggling with recruitment, and the new compensation schedule has increased the quality and quantity of candidates. She stated that, in her opinion, Shorewood is starting to fall behind some neighboring cities in terms of competitive wages. She pointed out that 25 percent from minimum to maximum is not unusual. She acknowledged that Shorewood is a stepping-stone city, which can be difficult, but they have been able to maximize retention though several avenues. The compensation schedule helps the city stay on trend and on track with mid to larger cities, but some of the other benefits and culture has kept employees much longer than expected. The city offers services and service levels that most cities of Shorewood's size do not. She added that many high-quality employees are staying with the City because of its quality policies. Many measures are taken to retain employees, making people more likely to stick around. She explained that when employees leave, they take all their knowledge with them, and it can take a lot to rebuild what was there before and it comes at a cost. She noted that is what the City is trying to balance. The City is not highly competitive but strives to stay competitive. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she struggles to understand because, in the last three years, there has been turnover among almost every major senior person on Staff. There has been a lot of turnover, and she is not sure that the philosophy is actually working. She asked how much it has cost the City to implement this high standard and what quantifiable metrics the City received. She shared that she is not saying that people should not be paid fairly, but she feels the program is not right sized. The many policy decisions about personnel, how much they are paid, and what qualifications are required for a City of 8,000 people that is mostly built out. She noted that the City is proud to offer excellent services but questioned whether, if there is not sufficient demand for those services, the funding could be better allocated elsewhere. She asked whether Finance Director Schmuck could share how much the new positions and related costs have cost the City since the new scale was implemented in January of 2024. She also asked why this is not reviewed every year with the new City Council members. City Clerk/HR Director Thone pointed out that for the turnover rate, four of the senior-level positions that left were retirements and were not negative retention issues. Finance Director Schmuck noted that this is not reviewed annually because it is very intensive, labor-intensive, and expensive. In the compensation study, there are minimum and maximum point values; those conducting the study consider every duty in the job description and qualifications, and that is how the points are generated. She explained that the process started in 2016 and again in 2023, with seven positions changing as a result of the analysis. Every position evolves year to year and is not scored annually. That is where the cost savings come from, because they are done internally. She shared that the DDA recommended conducting the analyses on a three- to five-year basis. Most cities analyze at the five-year mark. She added that many of the positions salaries have changed due to retirements, which has also brought cost savings. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that all Councilmembers are interested in determining the cost savings so a cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. He gave the example of the paid family and medical leave decision to pay 100 percent. He asked how that translates to a benefit for Shorewood taxpayers. Finance Director Schmuck shared that it was discussed during last year's budget process. The paid family leave was a new item for 2026. She noted that when the Staff and Council discussed the 2026 budget, there was an increase of about $25,000 in the overall budget to cover 100 percent of paid family leave. When discussing personnel last year, there was Page 6 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 4 of 7 a conversation about whether to split that cost, and they were also analyzing the insurance dollar amount being used. She noted that not asking for the annual $50/per employee increase in insurance, which would have been a higher dollar amount versus the $3,500 in this case. In 2026 the city just shifted to the three-tier benefit system which was more equitable and a benefit to the City at the time. As a Council, when the 2026 budget was approved, we wanted to achieve 100 percent coverage. That is how it got implemented into the budget. She added that the Staff could discuss it with the union and the employees in the future to change it, if that is what the Council would like. The Staff is recommending maintaining the status quo regarding benefits in the 2027 budget. She shared that the only personnel changes are the compensation grade step and the cost-of-living adjustment. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how much the City paid when the seven positions were regraded. She noted that she is not asking for a new study every year, but rather for a discussion with the Council when considering roles and hiring. She shared that in her opinion; the city is hiring people with backgrounds that are over kill for the jobs that they are doing. Those people might be bored and may be leaving because they have nothing to do. She explained that there is a lot of push back from her when the Consent Agenda includes hiring someone at a certain salary because of the amazing qualities they may have, which may or may not be required for the job. She reiterated that her two questions are how much it costs the City and why it is unfeasible to have discussions with the Council before hiring decisions are made. Finance Director Schmuck explained that, at this point, the City has adopted the compensation study, which is the existing policy. When the Staff brings a vacant position forward, the job description is first reviewed and shows the grade and salary range for which the position will be advertised. That is what someone is trying to capture. She added that it is based on the existing points system, so even though her job description has changed over the last three years, her points have not changed because the analysis has not been updated. She shared that in 2023, the Council discussed four reclassification options. One had a financial impact of $6,400; option two had a financial impact of $11,000; option three had a financial impact of $8,100; and option four had a financial impact of $9,000. She shared that the discussion from 2023 can be found in the notes and minutes, as she was not there. At the end of the day, it does not matter how the City arrived at its decision; right now, the City must follow the policy. She noted that the philosophy could change and that a compensation study could be added to the 2027 budget, but that would probably be around $20,000 for the study, plus $250 per job description. If that were the Council’s desire, there would be a budgetary and levy increase for 2027. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if the Staff could tell how much this cost the City and what was received in return. She asked if there was a cost-benefit analysis or trade-off analysis. Finance Director Schmuck stated that it did not exist in 2023. She could tell the Council the costs for 2022, 2023, and 2024, but she does not know why the numbers shifted, as she was not on Staff at the time. The City did not have a cost-benefit analysis done in the past. She explained that, based on the compensation study, she gave clout to the consultants and the Staff who were here at the time and put in all the effort. She knows that the Council worked hard in many meetings between 2016 and 2018 to establish this and, in 2023, to update the compensation policy. She noted that it would take a lot of time to go back and would rather invest that time in proving that the City is in a stable place. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that the process is a good way to show the costs versus the benefits and to quantify why hiring a highly qualified individual was a cost savings to the City. Page 7 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 5 of 7 Mayor Labadie pointed out that the city changed how it interviews for department heads. She stated that the way the process is now is why it results as a line item on the Consent Agenda. She asked Ms. Thone to explain how the Council used to be involved and why the City moved away from the method. City Clerk/HR Director Thone shared that the final approval of a position has always been placed on the Council's Consent Agenda. She noted that there is an opportunity, when the Council is approving the recruitment, to review the job description and pay scale and provide any feedback on the recruitment. She explained that one thing the City has not done, which could hinder recruitment, is to establish a salary range and then a hiring range. That would show people that, eventually, they could come to the city and earn this salary, but would not be hired at any higher level than a certain point. She shared that it would be done to maintain the balance, but the city has to know the associated costs. Some people will not apply for the position because it is not within the full range. She stated that it could be an option to discuss when the City is hiring. If the position is deemed more important and requires a level of expertise, then maybe those parameters should not be put on that position. Those things can be discussed at the recruitment approval. She shared that it may be good for what Councilmember DiGruttolo is looking for with the Council having more say in the future. She stated that when she was hired, she had an interview with the entire Council, which was typical, and that the City did not have an HR department at the time. She shared that since then; department head position’s final interviews are held with two councilmembers that represent the council as a whole. This keeps the council as part of the decision-makers in the hiring process of these higher-level positions. Mayor Labadie stated that some Councilmembers have served on the hiring committees. It is not just one person who has filled that role, but rather it changes over time and people are chosen or volunteer based on fit for the position. She added most members of the council have served in this role at one point or another. Councilmember DiGruttolo appreciated the Council's involvement in the hiring process. She noted that there were several positions this year for which she was shocked by how much the City was paying. She appreciated the offer to involve the Council earlier in the discussion, rather than finding out later. When she asks about these things, she is often told that nothing can be done now; the offer has already been made. She shared that she would like the Council’s input on this, as the Council's role is to offer advice on decisions that will impact the City budget. City Administrator explained that the Council’s role is to set policy and direction and then have the Staff implement that. He shared that having conversations about a compensation study and considering what level of service is wanted and needed for residents are important considerations as the Council sets policy and helps inform. He explained that the Council's main role is to set the level of service, then to trust the Staff to go out and implement the policy. It is good to have the discussions so that everyone is familiar with the policy and that staff knows what the Council wants. Mayor Labadie agreed that the Council did not necessarily need to be involved in interviewing the ice rink attendant, but should set the rates to be paid. She added that the pay range was raised and that the Council was involved in those discussions because, for several years, the City did not receive enough applicants to fill the warming house spots for ice rink attendants. The Council will have to trust the Staff that the City is getting quality people. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that she was not suggesting that the Council be involved in interviews for temporary positions. She was suggesting that the Council be involved in the discussion of how much people should be paid, and whether, if the person cannot be attracted at a certain level, the service would be discontinued. She pointed out that this is coming up now Page 8 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 6 of 7 because it is a big-budget item, and she is thinking of it as a policy issue that the Council should be involved in. The fact that the Council is not involved in decisions until the budget comes around is why she gets a little bit exercised about personnel. The Council should pay very close attention to what people are being paid, why they are being paid that amount, and what trade-offs the City is making. She noted that the Council has to answer to those who elected them, and they do not have the information to defend the budget decisions. Mayor Labadie stated that the City took positive steps by hiring a DDA in 2023 and agreeing to discuss it annually, which is what is being done now. She asked whether the Staff was seeking guidance from the Council at this time. Finance Director Schmuck stated that, at this point, what is in the budget and what will go forward is a three percent cost-of-living adjustment, maintaining 100 percent paid family leave, and not increasing contributions toward premiums. That is what is being proposed in the budget, and if there are no concerns with those, then that is what will be used going forward. If the Council would like to add anything else for 2027, such as a compensation study, then the Staff can do that. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that the Council needed to have policy discussions to ensure the policy is clear to everyone and that the City is not always shooting at the top end of the range. That is the perception. He noted that it needed to be measured to ensure the City is balancing fairness for the positions with value for taxpayers. Finance Director Schmuck stated that when the staff present on the positions, they can include the grade step, rather than stating "this is where the City is at." Councilmember Gorham asked if a Recreation Coordinator would be included in the budget at this time. Finance Director Schmuck stated that the Recreation Coordinator is included in the budget, while the Recreation Specialist is being removed from it. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that she is not in favor of that because the Council has not actually discussed the new position. Finance Director Schmuck asked whether that is the Council's consensus to remove the position from the budget. Councilmember Gorham stated that he is not there yet either. Mayor Labadie noted that she is cautious because offering senior programming will require someone to step into that role. The current individuals who work at the SCEC have those hours filled. The only way to add those tasks would be to add additional hours. She asked if that could be put on a future work session agenda. Parks and Recreation Director Czech shared that it is disjointed because the SCEC analysis is currently underway and will include all staffing recommendations. However, right now the City is planning for staff for 2027. He noted that the position is a placeholder, assuming that the task force comes back with recommendations that involve that position as well to achieve the Council’s goals. He added that it is easier to remove the position from the budget than to add it back in. Further discussion will naturally follow the position. Mayor Labadie stated that the volunteers staff the desk about 30 hours per week. If this folds, then the 30 hours will need to be filled, so she is reluctant to pull the position from the budget. She noted that, as a placeholder concept, she supports that. Finance Director Schmuck added that once the preliminary levy is established, it cannot be raised. She pointed out that the task force information will be reviewed in early 2027 and that the scope of the position will be finalized in mid-2027. The City would not be looking to hire or recruit until mid- to late 2027. Those items will come back to the Council, but if they are not included, the numbers will fall short for the levee. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that she understood, but is still not for it. This is a proactive, not demand-triggered request. She noted that she does not yet understand the demand for this position or the lack of measurable results. Page 9 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 7 of 7 Parks and Recreation Director Czech stated that the Senior Partners have expressed that their longevity is not long. They are struggling financially. He added that if the position is not in the 2027 budget, the City will likely eliminate senior programming for 2027. Mayor Labadie stated that, in Parks and Recreation Director Czech’s presentation earlier in the year, he had highlighted how many people take advantage of the programming, and that it was surprising how many use the SCEC daily. She noted that the seniors do not really have anywhere to go. City Administrator Nevinski asked whether the Council would like to leave the position in the budget or remove it now. Mayor Labadie stated that it is prudent to leave it in, and the levee can always be lowered. There will be many more times to discuss this position. She added that the bottom line is that if the City does not budget for it and the Senior Partners fall apart, there is no way the City can pay for 30 hours of staffing to man the desk, and without that, programming would be cut. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that he is okay with the position remaining, as long as it is clear that it can be removed before the end of the year if there is no justification for it. Councilmember Gorham stated that the position deserves its own agenda item. He added that he does not know much about programming, but does not want to continue pouring money into the SCEC. He was fine with that as long as it was coming back and the position could stay in there. Mayor Labadie said it would be good to do so after the analysis is presented to the Council. She added to keep the position in as a line item for later review. ## 3. ADJOURN Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of June 22, 2026, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ## ATTEST: ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 10 of 166 City Council Item 2.B. ## Title/Subject: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. 06.22.2026 CC Reg Meeting Mintues ## Background ## 06/22/26 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance • Sound and strategic record keeping of government activities lead to comprehensive long- term planning, principled, data, and stakeholder-driven decisions, and a culture of continuous improvement. ## Budget Impact Minute preparation costs vary based on length of meeting and level of detail. ## Action Requested Simple majority vote is required. Page 11 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ## A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Interactive Technology: Councilmember DiGruttolo will participate via ## Interactive Technology ## C. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Sanschagrin, Gorham and Digruttolo (via Zoom). City Attorney Enslin; City Administrator Nevinski; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Planning Director Griffiths; Communications/Recycling Coordinator Wilson and Public Works Director Morreim. ## Absent: Councilmember Maddy ## D. Review Agenda Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda and asked if there were any questions. Councilmember Sanschagrin requested that for item 2.E., there has been some confusion among residents about who qualifies. He went onto the website, and further down it states that only residents on the municipal water qualify. There are concerns from residents who did not know that and bought water-efficient appliances. He suggested making it as clear as possible in any communication as to which households qualify. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she has a question about item 2.G. She asked Ms. Thone to explain it so she can better understand how it works. She noted that there are three City Staff members serving as election judges, and it seems odd that the person setting the rate for election judges' pay and responsible for recruiting will also be a separately paid election judge. She asked for the wording and clarification on how to handle questions, as she does not understand it herself. City Clerk/HR Director Thone pointed out that this year is a little different because some legislation was passed that requires even deputized staff, which is what the City Staff is, to be trained as election judges to be qualified to perform certain duties. She noted that she is Shorewood’s election administrator and deputizes Shorewood staff to perform election duties in-house, in a non-partisan manner. Election judges are recruited to primarily staff the precincts, and certain tasks that require party balance with one person from each major party to ensure fairness. She Page 12 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 2 of 18 explained that issues arose during the 2024 election, where county deputized staff were performing some duties, and it sparked legislation that changed the process for this year. In 2026 to perform certain duties, even deputized staff must be trained as election judges. They declare their party to be able to do the party balance duties. Staff also serve as the absentee ballot board, along with other election judges. There is a wide variance in what falls under the deputized staff and the election judge roles. She added that the city staff does not work as election judges in the precincts; that is all done by recruited election judges. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked whether the Staff was not being paid separately, but rather for duties being performed by salaried City Staff. City Clerk/HR Director Thone noted that she was correct – they are not “paid” as election judges separately but rather perform these duties as part of their city jobs. The new legislation simply requires them to be “trained election judges” as well.as trained as deputized staff. Councilmember DiGruttolo confirmed that city staff are not receiving additional pay as election judges. City Clerk/HR Director Thone confirmed they are not. Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. ## A. City Council Work Session Minutes ## B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ## C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## D. Claims List ## E. 2026-2028 Water Efficiency Grant Program, Adopting RESOLUTION No. 26- 38, “Resolution Approving 2024-2026 Water Efficiency Rebate Grant ## Program Funds from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.” F. Resolution Denying a PUD Concept Plan at 25485 State Highway 7, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-35, “A Resolution Denying a PUD Concept Plan for the ## Property Located at 25485 State Highway 7.” G. Resolution Appointing 2026 Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-39, “A Resolution Appointing Election ## Judges and Establishing Absentee Ballot Board.” ## H. Add 1.0 FTE Engineering Technician to the 2028 Budget Motion passed 4/0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Todd Murrtha, 25650 Maplewood Court, stated that he was present to speak about Watton Ponds. He noted bringing to the Council's attention a serious problem with the record filed in the appeal of the decision requiring the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the Watton Ponds project. The Court of Appeal makes its decision based on the record that was available to the Council. Unfortunately, the record filed with the Court of Appeal does not appear to contain all the information provided to the Council and discussed by it in reaching its decision. He pointed Page 13 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 3 of 18 out that it matters because the Court is not going to decide whether it agrees with the Council’s decision; the Court decides whether the Council’s decision was reasonable based on the information before the Council. In other words, the Court can judge the Council only by evaluating the record it receives, which it assumes is the same record the Council had. He stated that the problem is that important parts of the record appear to be missing and were not filed with the Court of Appeals. He gave the example that the record contains agenda packets, but those packets do not include all the materials provided to the Council before the February 23 meeting. He shared that he submitted a detailed letter regarding the EAW, which provided extensive factual support for why the developer's claimed EAW exception did not apply. The letter was provided to the Councilmembers prior to the meeting, and they discussed its contents during the deliberation. He added that the letter itself was not included in the record, even though his cover letter stated that it should be entered into the public record for the Council’s discussion of the matter. He stated that even more troubling, the transcript provided to the Court as part of the record omits the discussion that occurred during Matters from the Floor. Residents were not allowed to speak during the Council’s discussion of the EAW itself; their only opportunity to present information was during Matters from the Floor. He added that residents provided extensive factual information, observation, and analysis that supported the EAW. That entire discussion appears to be missing from the transcript that was filed with the Court. He noted that residents were erased. The effect of the omissions is significant; much of the factual support for the Council’s decisions seems to have disappeared from the record. He emphasized that when the Court reviews the decision, it will not know what information is missing; it will not second- guess the record. The Court will see a record that contains less evidence supporting the Council’s decision than was actually presented to the Council. In other words, the current record does not fully reflect the basis for the Council’s decision and incorrectly suggests that the Council may not have had a basis for the decision. He pointed out that the Council voted to require an EAW after reviewing information from Staff, developers, experts, and residents. If the materials the Council reviewed and relied on are absent from the record, the Court is not seeing the same case the Council saw. He shared that the practical impact is significant; the City may lose a legal case, not because of any issues with the City’s conduct, but because the City’s team failed to present an accurate picture of the Council’s actions. He explained that it should concern the Council regardless of their position on the EAW. The issue is whether the Council can properly rely on its team to represent it in its decisions. He added that this is much bigger than Watton Ponds; it goes to the very authority of the Council. He shared that the outcome in this matter may come down to not what the Council did or how the Council voted, but to administrative activities undertaken in the background. In effect, it is not the Council that decides this issue, but the person preparing the record. He shared that the failure to have a complete record creates the impression that each of the Councilmembers did not act with proper care and diligence and made important decisions willy-nilly, without bothering to understand the facts. He stated that it is an unjustified and unfair stain on the record of this Council, given the deep and extensive work the Council put into evaluating and judging the EAW request. He recalled that the Council had to decide whether part of the development was within 300 feet of an adjacent wetland, and every bit of factual information about it had been removed from the record. The Council’s decision on that looks like it was just made up. He stated that he was not sure, from the Council’s perspective, whether that decision was made up, but when it comes to what the Court of Appeals will see, that is exactly what they will be told. He encouraged the Council to review the filed record and determine whether it accurately reflects the information presented to the Council before it made its decision. If it does not, the City’s legal position is unnecessarily weakened because evidence supporting the Council’s decision is not being presented to the Court. He pointed out that Gravity Investment's position from the beginning was that the Council made all kinds of decisions without any factual basis. In this case, having a public filing by the Council’s team that supports the Page 14 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 4 of 18 narrative that the City Council acted without basis must hurt. He noted that the Council needs to decide whether that is what they want posterity to see and to believe forever that this is how the Council makes its decisions. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked that the records be checked to make sure that everything was included. He asked whether the City would still be timely in providing more to the record. City Administrator Nevinski stated the questions would be raised with the attorney. Glenn Geissinger, 6140 Mill Street, stated that he has lived there for 38 years and has had two wells. The well that was existing when he first moved in, and then another well had to be drilled because the first one went dry. He noted that he supported installing the water main along Mill Street to ensure he would have reliable water. He shared that he had questions but assumed that he would not get any answers. Mayor Labadie stated that this is correct, as this part of the meeting is not interactive. However, the Mill Street project will be discussed at length. She encouraged him to stay for that portion of the meeting. Daniel Bruzzone, 6110 Mill Street, stated that he is Mr. Geissinger’s neighbor and has lived at that address for about four years. He noted that he is present in support of the water main. He noted that there are a few issues for discussion that he hoped the Council would get to this evening. He shared that he received a survey to gauge interest in light of the additional costs Chanhassen is assessing. He stated that he did not fill in the survey because he did not feel he could, given the way the questions were phrased, which left him too uncertain. The first question on the survey was: would he still support the project? He noted that he is standing before the Council and strongly in favor of the project. He added that the reason and the amount of the costs are unclear to homeowners along Mill Street. He lives on two and a half acres and does not know where the connection from the house to the street would be. He asked why both Shorewood and Chanhassen are applying a fee for what seems like the same work. He inquired whether Chanhassen’s decision to assess a fee would include performing some of the work, potentially eliminating the need for Shorewood to charge the fee. He explained that, based on the math, the fees would range from $10,000 to $75,000, which is a huge difference in the cost of attaching his house to the City water. He shared that he has seen some materials about the City providing financing for the options, but there is no information about over what time period, at what interest rate, or what the terms would look like. In theory, he is very much in favor of the project, but there needs to be more information on the costs and what the project would look like to answer the survey questions. He stated that many along Mill Street have gravel driveways, including himself, and there has been a lot of discussion about directional drilling, but he does not know if he can dig a trench. There seem to be many options to consider, but it may be too early in the process to know which will be feasible for the City. He noted a lack of clarity but overall support, despite not filling in the survey. Barry Brown, 6050 Burlwood Court, stated that, since a $20,000 invoice from Bolten and Menk for the Shorewood Lane Ravine Project was on the agenda, he thought he would discuss it. He explained that the City project is 17-15 and that he wanted to raise awareness of it. Since November 2021, Bolten and Menk has invoiced the City 36 times for $149,475. He shared that funding for Bolten and Menk comes from two sources: the street reconstruction fund (ST2306) and a $50,000 grant from Hennepin County. While reviewing the Council meeting minutes from several years ago, he wanted to raise a few questions and make a request. He added that he is not at the meeting to oppose fixing the ravine; that is for the Council to decide. His concerns are Page 15 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 5 of 18 about cost, funding, and the project's progress through the Council. Here is what the record shows: the City has tracked the ravine since 2014. When it was first budgeted, the figure was around $300,000. The most recent estimate is between $640,000 and $805,000. He added that he understood why, as piping the channel was not permitted, and that the design had shifted over the years to a Gambian Basket, which was also not permitted. The design is now towards soft armoring of the Watershed District. He shared that engineering realities are changing, but a project that grows from $300,000 to potentially $800,000 deserves a clear public accounting of how it got there. He shared that his second concern is how the funding has come together, because the entire plan depends on stacking outside money on top of the City tax dollars. Over the past two years, the Council authorized grant applications to several sources: the MPCE Stormwater Resiliency Grant, the League of Minnesota Cities Grant, the Hennepin County Opportunity Grant, and a Hennepin County Cost Participation Request. He added that the meeting minutes also mention MnDOT, MSA State Aid covering 55 percent of the cost. He can only confirm from the records that the City accepted a $55,000 Hennepin County Opportunity Grant in March of 2025, but he cannot find the outcome of the others. He stated that he would like the Staff to put the answer to his questions on the record. He asked whether the MPCE and League of Minnesota Cities grant application had been awarded, denied, or withdrawn. He asked whether Hennepin County Cost Participation Requests had come through. He also asked what the current funding breakdown for the project is today: how much from grants, how much from State aid, and how much from Shorewood taxpayers. He stated that his third point is about the process. Almost every Council action on the project, from grant authorization, grant acceptance, and cost participation requests, was approved on the Consent Agenda. In a single bundled motion, with no separate discussions. He pointed out that, individually, each step may have been routine, but taken together, the steps add up to a project costing three-quarters of a million dollars. There has been very little public airing. He added that the last time there was substantial discussion was in August 2023, on a 12-year project. He requested that, before any more money is spent on designs and research, the Council put the project on a regular agenda as a standalone item. This will allow the Staff to walk everyone through the design, the total cost, and the funding sources, bringing daylight to the final decisions the Council will make. He appreciated that the item is a project request and addresses potential problems. He noted that it is potential because 14 years ago the project was also a potential problem, so it is unknown if it is a real big problem right now. Mike Bedford, 6025 Mill Street, stated that he has lived there since August 2000 and has been a resident for 50 years. He shared that he is at the meeting about the Mill Street project, which has been in discussions for 15 years. At the last second, the City is throwing in City water. He is not for the City water at $30,000-$60,000. He shared that he has his own well, which is great and used daily. He stated that he is not a fan of the City water being thrown into the project at the last second. He has a well, but does not have the funds. He shared that a Hennepin County Commissioner is present at the meeting. The City negotiated with Hennepin County because trees and landscape were lost. The city settled for pennies on the dollar. He noted that he cannot hire a landscape company to replace what he had. Now, the City is talking about doubling those funds to pay for City water. He shared that he would not do that, and there are plenty more people who should speak on the issue as well. Burt Kottke, 6040 Mill Street, stated that he is not opposed to the Mill Street water main if most of the residents on the road want it. He shared that in two weeks, there would be the 250th anniversary of the Country, which is we the people, not a few. He knows all of the neighbors. He shared that the cost is ridiculous, and many people he has spoken with who could not attend the Page 16 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 6 of 18 meeting were astounded by it. He stated that communication with the City is terrible; communication with the County is better. He shared that the city cannot even get the garbage day correct. David Anderson, 6035 Mill Street, stated that he is not 100 percent against the water main project, but it is out of this world expensive. He noted that he plans to have his house for generations to come. He does not plan to sell the house, so the idea of having fresh water would be great. He shared that he did not like the notes from Excelsior stating that residents needed to boil their water. He does not want to deal with that and would rather deal with the bad well that he has. He asked whether the City would provide water of good enough quality. He shared that if the math was done and with what is being proposed, he could have 15 wells for that price. The project has to be affordable. He stated that the residents would pay for the project, and then if they do not hook up, it would still run to their house, and a monthly fee would be charged for nothing. He stated that he would not use the city water, but for future families that will live there, he would love to have the City water available. He shared that the project needs to be revisited. He stated that he is in construction and knows what it costs to install an eight-inch waterline; they were not charged for the connection. He pointed out that the Council should rethink it and make it affordable, and most people will say that might work. ## 4. GENERAL BUSINESS ## A. Presentation by County Commissioner Edelson Hennepin County Commissioner Edelson stated that she represents 16 cities. She has attended many City Council meetings, and Shorewood is the first to allow people to speak from home. She thanked the City for that and noted that it is a kind gesture. She shared that Hennepin County was established in 1852, before Minnesota became a State. There are 45 cities in the County, 1,300,000 residents, 8 Fortune 500 companies, 607 square miles, and 11 watershed districts. She shared a word cloud with many of the things that Hennepin County does. Many things are done in the County. HCMC is under Hennepin County, so when 911 is called, dispatch is handled in the County, and the call is sent to Excelsior Fire or South Lake PD. If an ambulance is needed, both respond. Hennepin EMS is responding to Shorewood. She thanked the Mayor when she first came on, saying that response times have improved because there is now an EMS station in Shorewood. She highlighted that every public pool in Hennepin County is inspected, as is every restaurant. She noted that the County collects property taxes and the City pays for everything. She noted that the adopted 2026 budget is $3,150,000,000, pointed out that 35 percent of revenue comes from property taxes, and showed a pie chart of all sources. She showed a pie chart of expenditures and highlighted that health and human services are about 50 percent of the budget. She shared that the $3,150,000,000 budget does not include the hospital. The hospital is a separate $1,750,000,000 entity, and a board is being hired with a company to help fill the seat. She shared a chart showing revenue sources and the increase in reliance on property taxes in recent years, which the County needs to address. There are now monthly budget meetings to make sure things are being cut as they go. The trend line cannot continue, as people will be priced out of their homes. She pointed out that Federal funding has declined, while State funding has fluctuated. The service fees shot way up because of the Real ID. She shared the expenditures chart. The County had been in the news for the upward trend in public safety budgets, with some of her colleagues saying the County should not be funding public safety; she disagreed. The sheriff plays a very important role in Hennepin County in ensuring the safety of the cities. The County has a jail, and she explained that if there is room, people have to be put in, and the sheriff is not in charge of how long they stay. She added that costs are going up, but Page 17 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 7 of 18 the County has statutory authority to provide public safety. She noted that the health budget has increased dramatically due to shifts in certain areas. She pointed out that the capital improvement program has declined because when there is not a lot of money, investment goes down. She presented the 2026 Federal cuts: $8,000,000 from SNAP and $2,800,000 from terminated grants. She explained that, with a SNAP Error Rate of 8.9 percent (Hennepin County), the Federal government wants Error Rates to be at 6 percent, so the difference between the two is about $20,000,000. The County has asked the Federal Administration for more time, as 45 other states also have an Error Rate above six percent. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked what the Error Rate is. Ms. Edelson explained that there is a MET system through which people apply for food assistance, and the error rate is the difference between what people report their income as and what actually appears in the MET system. Ms. Edelson shared about HUD and that there would be $12,000,000 in cuts for 2027. The Federal government is stating that there are too many people on this. Research shows that when people are housed, there are fewer ER visits, so the County is very challenged by this anticipated cut. She shared that about $40,000,000 needs to be cut from Medicaid. She noted that the State and Federal governments mandate 75 percent of what the County does, but the County has been cut in terms of funding. She explained that residents in Shorewood saw a property tax increase of about eight 8.6 percent. State Law shows that when homes are worth more, people will pay a larger share of the pie. She explained that the State government saved the Hennepin County Medical Center. The levy last year for Hennepin County was a 7.79 increase, and four points of that were specifically for the hospital. She pointed out that Hennepin County is allocating $9,000 per city for early voting and will continue to work on how to support cities during elections. She shared that a few things have opened in the County: the Youth Crisis Stabilization Center and the New Public Safety Headquarters in Plymouth. She pointed out Shorewood projects that the County has: County Road 19 Preservation, Sunset Drive Roadway Reconstruction, and Mill Street Pathway Project. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked how the funding with the hospital works. Ms. Edelson stated that she wished the hospital would be self-funded, but there has been a subsidy. The County subsidized the hospital for $40,000,000 every year. Last year, the County took over as the hospital board because there were concerns about the possibility of having to close or cut $100,000,000 in projects. She noted that she would like to see a hospital district that would keep HCMC intact while being part of a State subsidiary. Historically, the State provided funding for the hospital. She noted that the path forward is not just relying on Hennepin County taxpayers. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that one of the complaints he hears from residents is the property tax bill. He asked Ms. Edelson to elaborate a little on what the County is doing to eliminate costs. Ms. Edelson stated that the County is holding monthly meetings to review mandated versus non-mandated services and to review every single contract. The County has 9,100 employees, so much of the budget goes to staffing. She noted that the County is looking to reduce costs by eliminating contracts. She acknowledged that the upward trend in property taxes is unacceptable. Councilmember Gorham thanked the Commissioner for coming and noted that he is amazed at the breadth of topics that she needs to be an expert on. He stated that the city recently bagged their Flock camera, and the County has some of them; the city has concerns around the provider and the general nature of the camera. He asked if the Commissioner had heard of any similar issues in other cities or on County roads. Ms. Edelson stated that she has heard about Flock Page 18 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 8 of 18 cameras at other council meetings. She noted that, regarding Flock cameras and what the County has, it is typically cities that install them, and she could check with the sheriff’s department to see whether the County has them. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that one of the charts showed the Federal contributions starting to dwindle and that will probably not change. He asked what the latest is about the Blueline. Ms. Edelson shared that the Southwest Light Rail runs through District 6 and will hopefully open up in 2027. She is on the financial team monitoring that. Blueline will be running through North Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center. She shared that with that project, if there is Federal funding, every single one of the councilmembers supports the Blueline. She stated that if the funding stops, then she will fight against the project. The funding comes from a sales tax that was passed. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how many of the cities in the County are served with less than 50 percent municipal water. She pointed out that it is a problem in Shorewood and is trying to understand whether other cities are facing it as well. Ms. Edelson stated that in the lake communities, it is a challenge. Mound is not municipal water. Edina, Minnetonka, and Hopkins all have municipal water. She clarified that the County does not get involved in city functions such as municipal water. She pointed out that Mill Street is a County project, but adding City water onto that would be a City issue. She noted that she would have to check each city. Mayor Labadie stated that several years ago, the Highway 7 group received funding to form a traffic management organization comprising 10 cities, including Shorewood, 5 school districts, and 2 counties. She shared that funding for the traffic management organization is ending, and the group has agreed to join the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. She noted that the reason for staying together as a group is that all the cities feel they have a stronger voice together, and that joining the existing coalition provides some momentum. She shared that she has been attending some meetings on behalf of Highway 7. She wanted to talk to the Commissioner down the road about getting Hennepin County representatives at the meetings. She shared that Highway 7 is scheduled for repaving in 2029, but people are worried about safety. If, in the next twelve months, funding can be obtained for safety improvements, MnDOT has given the green light to roll them into the pavement projects. She hopes to bring together some Hennepin County Commissioners to advocate as a group. She shared that there is bipartisan support, but it needs more funding. Ms. Edelson stated that she would love to attend a SWTC meeting. She stated that Highway 7 is a State road, but there must be a way to find an option. Mayor Labadie shared that the coalition is trying to think outside the box and explore other avenues. Ms. Edelson pointed out that the 494 Commission may be a good place to find information and that it has a funding mechanism. ## B. 5850 Boulder Bridge Ln Conditional Use Permit Planning Director Griffiths presented on the 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Conditional Use Permit (CPU) as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked to see the map showing the proximity of the Brynmawr Place neighborhood to the Applicant. Planning Director Griffiths shared a photo and noted where the Brynmawr Place neighborhood is. He pointed out where the garage would be built and that there is a distance to the northern property line, then a 40-foot common area, and then the homes, which are a distance from the line. He added that the distance between the garage and the property line is about 125 feet, though it can technically be as close as 50 feet. Page 19 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 9 of 18 Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, and the resolution was adopted. 26-34, “A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Attached Garage that Would Result in Greater than 1,200 Square Feet of Accessory Buildings, Located at 5850 Boulder Bridge ## Lane.” Motion passed 4/0. ## C. 6145 Club Valley Rd Variance Planning Director Griffiths presented on the 6145 Club Valley Road Variance as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that he thought he had read that if Shorewood had the same code as other cities, those cities would not require a setback variance because the City could redefine the front. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it was a different application. He has not worked in a city that does that, but that is a zoning tool that is out there. The variance is the only channel to process this request. In a conversation with the City Attorney, there are some ideas to make the request more streamlined in the future. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked, from Planning Director Griffiths' perspective, what the purpose of the setbacks is, given their current configuration. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is tough to say exactly why. Historically, in Shorewood, setbacks have been established to push everything to the center and back of the property. He added that this is a unique neighborhood and that the lot has an odd configuration. The home could have been larger or built farther back, but for whatever reason, it was built right at the 40-foot setback, leaving a lot of room on the other side. Councilmember Gorham asked whether the house is currently compliant with setback requirements. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is. Councilmember Gorham asked whether the argument for the variance is that the garage could be built south of the property. Planning Director Griffiths stated that, in the Staff Report, the Applicant has outlined how they believe the request meets the review criteria. They are looking at whether the request is reasonable; the construction of a third-stall garage is fairly typical. They are also looking at whether it is a unique situation or self-created; the Applicant argues that something could be built elsewhere, but the space is needed in a particular location. He shared that the Applicant argues the setbacks do not align with the home's functional use. Councilmember Gorham asked if that is an argument that Planning Director Griffiths agrees with. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he agrees with it. Councilmember Gorham asked whether Planning Director Griffiths agrees that the project is unique because of the house's siting. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the uniqueness lies in the fact that it is not a typical lot; the home's functional orientation does not match the technical definition of each yard in the City Code. Historically, the Council has approved variances in similar situations. Ultimately, the City Council could find otherwise. Councilmember Gorham asked about the argument for the functional placement of the home. Planning Director Griffiths suggested imagining how the house would look from the street. Every part of the house faces Club Valley Road; the front is the side. He added that there is a mismatch between what the City Code defines as the setback and how the home was actually built on the lot. Page 20 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 10 of 18 Mayor Labadie stated that it is a unique situation and that she liked that four neighbors said they had no problem with the garage. She felt it was a proper use of a variance. Councilmember Sanschagrin agreed and saw no issues. ## Sanschagrin moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-37, “A Resolution Approving Variance to Reduce the Required Rear Yard Setback from 40 Feet to 27 Feet on Property Located at 6145 Club Valley Road to Accommodate Construction of a Garage ## Addition.” Motion passed 4/0. ## D. 23120 Summit Ave Variance Planning Director Griffiths presented on the 23120 Summit Avenue variance as found in the Agenda Packet. Mayor Labadie pointed out that the practical difficulties test of a reasonable, unique situation versus self-created and essential character has all been addressed. Councilmember Gorham stated that in this case, the front is the front. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is correct. Councilmember Gorham stated that everyone deserves a third stall, but in this case, it feels self-created. He added that it is not like the other one, where a person could argue that the home is oriented incorrectly. He asked what the setback is supposed to be. Planning Director Gorham stated 35 feet. Councilmember Gorham asked whether the Applicant is now compliant. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is. He stated that the City Council could reasonably find otherwise because the criteria are open to interpretation. He shared that the analysis the Applicant provided hinges largely on the fact that there are many similar situations in this area. He argued that it would be difficult to find a home on Summit Ave that meets the setback requirement, and the Applicant provided a map to support their narrative. He explained that the Applicant is hinging their review criteria on the lot's slope and shape, which are preventing other locations from being used. Councilmember Gorham stated that when buying a property on Summit Avenue, there will be unique situations, and not everyone will be able to obtain a variance. Councilmember Gorham stated that the lot is a front-facing lot that is encroaching on the front setback for a third stall. This is what setbacks are for. Every decision is a chance to get it right. He would be voting no. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked to see the pictures of the house. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the ones in the packet were not in his presentation. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked what the distance is. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the Applicant is requesting 22.7 feet, whereas 35 feet is required. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked what is on the south side or the bottom of the house. Planning Director Griffiths shared the location of the property line and noted that Summit Avenue runs farther south due to additional right-of-way. There is a street there. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that the garage would be pushing up against a street rather than another property. He added that he is in favor. Page 21 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 11 of 18 Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she is generally in favor. She asked what the con is of putting the garage within the 35-foot setback. Planning Director Griffiths stated that, as with any variance application, there is obviously a reason for the rule. Setbacks are established in the Zoning Code to set community standards, protect property values, and preserve public safety. He stated that it could be argued that the 35-foot setback is critical to doing those things, and the Council could consider that. Staff’s perspective is that there are many other situations in this area without an established setback, in addition to the other points. There is nothing negative about the City. He added that an argument could be made that the adjacent property owners would be impacted in some way, but none have come forward to voice concerns. Councilmember DiGruttolo clarified that the purpose of the setbacks is for standardization. Planning Director Griffiths explained that setbacks are not just for standardization; as with any Zoning Code, they serve a purpose. He stated that, in this case, there is a neighborhood where the rule did not seem to be applied consistently in the past. Mayor Labadie stated that this is a unique situation because it is a steeper-graded part of the City and significantly limits the buildable areas on the site. The fact that other properties have been allowed to do something similar makes it an essential character of the area, and it is reasonable given the topography. Mayor Labadie asked, with four councilmembers present, what happens if there is a tie vote. City Administrator Nevinski stated that if there is a tied vote, then the motion is tied and therefore fails. ## Sanschagrin moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-36, “A Resolution Approving Variance to Reduce the Required Front Yard Setback from 35 Feet to 22.7 Feet on Property Located at 23120 Summit Avenue to Accommodate Construction of an ## Attached Garage.” Motion passed 3/1 (Gorham). ## E. Curbside Organics Recycling Communications/Recycling Coordinator Wilson presented on the Curbside Organics Recycling and Ordinance 13 as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked whether, under the open hauler system, another truck would come through. Mr. Wilson stated that he thinks it would be another truck; trash is not collected the same as organics. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if there are specially designed trucks for this. Mr. Wilson shared that maybe there will be by 2030. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked which option would be most cost-effective overall. Mr. Wilson noted that, based on feedback from other cities and the City’s representative at Hennepin County, who works with recycling, the reason for the two cities in the open haul system is that the other cities switched because they could negotiate better prices as a city. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that he would personally prefer fewer trucks on the streets. Mr. Wilson explained that is one advantage of going with the city organizing it. In theory, there would be fewer trucks. Mayor Labadie shared that, as money has been going into the infrastructure and roads, fewer trucks make sense. She stated that if the whole City is negotiating one price for the City and there is a set term, then she could not see why the City would not get a good price. In theory, this would Page 22 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 12 of 18 be the most cost-effective for residents because negotiations can be done in bulk, just like with recycling. She would support option one. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she is leaning towards option one, with the city organizing the program. She asked for any feedback to gauge what the majority of homeowners prefer. If the City has not sent anything, she asked whether there would be a way to send a communication explaining both options, including the pros and cons of each. She shared that in Shorewood, there are libertarian-leaning people who want more control and say. Others do not care as long as it is cheap. Mr. Wilson stated that there has been some outreach through the Citywide survey, but a higher participation rate would be needed to understand the numbers better. The Recycling Committee and other volunteers have gone out to different neighborhoods to ask people about the organic drop sites. He added that this is why this process was started now to understand what residents are interested in. The education component of that program will be required, and everyone will have to pay for it, which will allow people to make a better decision about it. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that the education needs to be done sooner rather than later. She added that it should include ballpark numbers for the cost of each option. She agreed that, given the amount of money put into roads, she would like to see fewer trucks. However, many people want to make their own choices, but she would like to get a sense of what residents think. Councilmember Gorham stated that feedback indicates that an organized City collection is preferred. He asked how that feeds into the timeline draft. Mr. Wilson explained that the draft would need to be updated slightly to reflect the timing better and provide a more refined version. He added that there is a great group of volunteers through the Recycling Committee who would be willing to get the feedback. Councilmember Gorham asked if there is a pilot program for one option or the other. Mr. Wilson stated that the pilot program was implemented on a phased-in basis to identify which neighborhoods have greater interest or engagement in the program and to help determine what the Citywide rollout would look like. He noted that everyone would have to be charged for it, so then maybe there would need to be funding to help offset the costs. Councilmember Gorham stated that it feels really early since this would not happen until 2030. There are three and a half years of planning, and it feels too early to decide between the two options. The survey will certainly help. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that the City does not have to wait until 2030; work should begin in 2029, leaving the City with only a year and a half of planning. There is a lot for the City to have to do. Mr. Wilson explained that the verbiage may state that the program is offered to everyone, but the resident must call to get a cart. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that the Council would like more information from residents through the survey and discussions. Mayor Labadie noted that she is leery of surveys because the wording of questions can skew the results. She would support getting resident input at the City events. She agreed with engagement but thinks there would be better ways. She asked whether the Council preferred one option over the other. She added that the Council would like more resident input before one of the options is picked. ## F. Mill Street Watermain Project Page 23 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 13 of 18 Public Works Director Morreim presented on the Mill Street Watermain Project as found in the Agenda Packet. City Administrator Nevinski stated that if the Council decides to move ahead with the amended Joint Power Agreement (JPA), that is fine. However, if the Council decides not to move ahead with it, the Staff would like the Council to add a motion to rescind City project 24-07. Mayor Labadie stated that one of the residents had earlier raised a question, as the discussion had just started. She asked how long the Council has been discussing the possibility of installing water lines in the area. Public Works Director Morreim stated that this discussion has been ongoing since 2022, when Hennepin County scoped. Part of those scoping conversations during the planning phase were done with the Council at that point. Mayor Labadie asked how long ago the City learned that Chanhassen was less cooperative than the City had hoped. Public Works Director Morreim shared that it was about three days after it was approved that the City communicated to Chanhassen that it was approved, and Chanhassen communicated the connection fees. That was for 25 properties, plus a few that were not in the service area. Mayor Labadie shared that it was about a month ago. Public Works Director Morreim explained that it was in the middle of April and that the Staff immediately started looking at whether water rates could be considered. The Staff moved on from that option because the water rates would have been elevated to the point where it would not have been a good option for other residents. He noted that, in a new development, in Chanhassen and most cities, the houses would pay for the water main, the services, and then the City fees. For each house in a new development, utility installation costs range from $40,000 to $60,000. For Chanhassen, the connection fee is around $20,000. Mayor Labadie stated that at the last meeting, Councilmember Gorham asked her to reach out to the Chanhassen mayor to discuss this at the mayor-to-mayor level. She did reach out to the mayor, and the mayor confirmed the numbers from her staff to the City Staff. Going from one mayor to the next did not change anything. She noted that the City has been discussing water hookups for years, but Chanhassen only recently requested the additional hookup fees. She added that the city would not be in this position if the many Councils before this one had had the foresight to put in the water at the same time as the sewer. She stated that this decision requires a majority vote. She explained that in the past, this project has been discussed at numerous Council meetings, and two Councilmembers have expressed a desire not to proceed with it. She asked if the opinions of the Councilmembers remained the same. Councilmember Sanschagrin shared that he agrees with the earlier residents' sentiment about sticker shock over the costs, and that a request was made to lower them, but there is no way to do that. He did not understand why it is so expensive to put pipe in the ground. He wondered if any other solutions would be more cost-effective. He suggested the neighborhood organize a local well. He asked what the cost was. Public Works Director Morreim stated the cost is $800,000. He pointed out that part of the issue is that some properties on Mill Street are 200 feet from the front of the lot, so some of the increased cost reflects that. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that nine residents said they are not interested in connecting. He asked if Chanhassen is hooked up to the city water. Public Works Director Morreim stated that there is an interconnect. They are not connected to the City water system. Mayor Labadie stated that she did not want to misinterpret. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated he is not in favor of this. Page 24 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 14 of 18 Mayor Labadie asked Councilmember DiGruttolo. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that her opinion has not changed and, in fact, this makes things even worse. A small number of residents would be compelled to shoulder an inequitable share of the risk. She asked, with the Staff being so confident that this is a great saving and a great idea, whether it would be possible to use some of the money in the reserve fund to pay for the project. She added that the risk of future demand should be borne by residents who have stated they do not want it. Public Works Director Morreim stated that the terms of the JPA do not reflect how the Council would want to fund the project. He noted that if the Council wants to supplement the Chanhassen fee for residents, that is a decision that the Council can make. He suggested that the water utility is providing considerable support to the project. Even if every resident connected, that would not cover the cost of the project. He shared that there are more benefits than just the resident connecting, which is why it was decided to move on with the project previously. If residents do not connect, then there is no payment. Councilmember Gorham asked why there is a Chanhassen connection fee and a Shorewood one. Public Works Director Morreim stated that both are for the water system's infrastructure. Chanhassen’s fee is for the conveyance, treatment, and storage. Shorewood’s is similar in that it is for the conveyance, the service, and more of the maintenance side. Councilmember Gorham stated that if the City is saying it will cost $10,000, then why could the City not carve out of the $10,000. Public Works Director Morreim stated that this would be an option. Still, the City would have to pay for the 15 residents outside the service area, any additional residents outside this area, and any lot splits. The City would have to pay 56 percent of the hookup fee. Councilmember Gorham asked why the full amount is going to Chanhassen when the lots are in Shorewood. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that the theory is that this costs $10,000, which did not cover the costs. Councilmember Gorham stated that the City should reduce the fee to make this work. So that the City is not squandering an opportunity for a legacy project that could open water to the entire area beyond Highway 7. Mayor Labadie agreed that she tries to make decisions based on the generational aspect. The issue of whether to install water in this portion of the City affects not only current homeowners but future homeowners as well. The fact that this may not be done again for 30 years makes her a little sick. She pointed out that it is unfortunate that this came up with Chanhassen. The issue before the Council is not about playing with numbers or percentages; it is whether the JPA will be approved with Chanhassen and whether to move forward with installing a water main. Councilmember Gorham stated that he is not negotiating; he is proposing something and wants to hear what others think. Mayor Labadie stated that she thinks the Staff needs an answer tonight. Councilmember Gorham stated that he is not going anywhere. Mayor Labadie shared that the Council cannot negotiate with itself. Councilmember Gorham stated that the City would reduce its $10,000; the Council could make that decision. Mayor Labadie pointed out that it would be very different from every other water project that has been done in the city. She wants the project to happen, but she does not think the Council is in a position to be creative. Councilmember Gorham stated he wanted to hear the other Councilmembers say no to the proposal. Councilmembers DiGruttolo and Sanschagrin stated they would be a no. Councilmember Sanschagrin pointed out that the $10,000 does not even come close to covering the costs, and if part of that were directed to Chanhassen, it would make it even worse. Mayor Labadie stated that nothing will get cheaper in this project. She noted that there is no meeting of Page 25 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 15 of 18 the minds, and that is okay because everyone has an opinion. She asked for a motion to approve the JPA with the City of Chanhassen. Gorham moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Amended Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Chanhassen. Motion failed 2/2 (Sanschagrin, DiGruttolo). Mayor Labadie stated that she wants residents to walk away feeling heard. This is a big issue, and all of the Council had the residents' best interests at heart. There was no meeting of the minds on the issue. City Administrator Nevinski suggested that a motion be made to rescind City Project 24-07. He stated that it would be helpful to have clarity on whether the project should move forward. City Attorney Enslin stated that it would not necessarily be indicative of a feeling one way or another about the decision that was made, but rather that, without the motion on the rescission of the prior project approval, there would be an outstanding Council ruling that has no way of being effective. Sanschagrin moved, DiGruttolo seconded, Rescinding Approval of City Project 24-07. Motion passed 4/0. G. Discussion of Proposed Changes to the Excelsior Fire District JPA City Administrator Nevinski presented on the Proposed Changes to the Excelsior Fire District JPA as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked how the amendment works. He asked if it replaces the JPA or if it is a separate document. City Administrator Nevinski explained that the letter from Deephaven indicated it would delete a section and replace it with something different, which could be kind of messy. He noted that the document is old enough and that there should be some cleanup. He envisioned that if the District went through the process, it would be a full rewrite. Mayor Labadie shared that she is strongly opposed to taking bits and pieces of the JPA out of the JPA for amendment because one city is unhappy with how a provision applies to them. Any modification should be entertained and treated as a fair game at the same time. She added that doing that is a big process and that now is not the right time to do it. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if now is not the right time because things in the organization might change, and that would be redoing the agreement anyway. Mayor Labadie shared that it is several-fold. It is dangerous to nitpick one item at a time, and second, things could change. As discussions with the Board progress, many different items will need to be addressed. She added that the timing is wrong. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that she is not opposed to examining the JPA, but right now is not the right time. Especially since Councilmember Maddy is not present to answer questions, she added that the District is in transition with leadership as well. Therefore, the Fire Chief cannot help rewrite the JPA, which is critical to have them in on the discussion. Page 26 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 16 of 18 Councilmember Gorham asked why Deephaven would get two votes. Mayor Labadie stated that is what Deephaven is proposing. There is no reason Deephaven should get two votes. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that if Shorewood and Deephaven had two votes, the former Fire Chief would still be in place, which is what she read in the document. She added that there is a huge amount of frustration. This discussion should not be happening without Councilmember Maddy. Councilmember Sanschagrin commented that some of the language, such as "serving at the pleasure of the Board," does not reflect the right spirit. The Board is serving the community and the cities. The language undermines the organization's collaborative spirit. Mayor Labadie noted that it supports the idea that many things may need to be reviewed in the JPA. Mayor Labadie stated that the Staff is seeking the Council's feedback for Councilmember Maddy. She would oppose the proposed changes. Councilmember Sanschagrin agreed that things should be delayed or postponed. Councilmembers Gorham and DiGruttolo agreed. Mayor Labadie pointed out that the information would be sent to Councilmember Maddy, who was away due to a family emergency. ## 5. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS ## A. Staff Public Works Director Morreim shared that the water main repair on the agenda at the last meeting will take place in the coming days. Planning Director Griffiths reminded that the July Planning Commission meeting has been canceled; the next meeting is on August 19. The meeting was canceled in part because over 300 pieces of feedback were received on the Code updates. He noted that the Staff is still working hard on the Comprehensive Plan update and has had conversations with the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses, and is gearing up for the next pop-up event. The survey is still live, and a mailing will be sent to everyone's home with the next utility bill in July. He pointed out that there are over 100 responses on the survey. He shared that he will reach out to the Council later this summer with more opportunities to participate. City Clerk/HR Director Thone shared that over 60 election judges will be trained this week. There was really strong recruitment, and he had to turn off the recruitment mechanism; there is now a waitlist for election judges. She added that this Friday, June 26, is A/B voting, and the City will be accepting drop-offs. On July 24, early voting begins. She stated that July 14 through 28 is candidate filing, and there are two open seats in this year's election. City Administrator Nevinski stated that Park Tours are on June 23 at Freeman Park. He noted that, after speaking with the Police Chief, the contract with Flock cameras has been terminated, effective at the end of the year. He added that he does not know the schedule for moving things. He stated that last week, the Council received an email about the Highway 7 Regional solicitation. He noted that Shorewood has been asked to serve as the applicant because many cities and organizations are involved. He added that he spoke with MnDOT’s State Aid Coordinator to find out what it means to be the applicant in the process. He shared concerns about time and workload obligations for the city. He learned that this process is common, with cities becoming applicants Page 27 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 17 of 18 quite a bit, to the point that there is a template for transferring the funds to MnDOT. He added that the one thing that is not figured out is the local match consideration that could come with the Regional solicitation. He added that they were not successful in bonding dollars, and there have been conversations with MnDOT about possibly restructuring some of the financing so that some of the MnDOT dollars could become the local match. He noted that if this is successful, then that gives some clout and credibility to go back to the Legislature. There is potential for momentum to build. The worst-case scenario would be that, if there is no local match, the decision may be made not to move forward with the project. He stated that if the Council has concerns about the City being the applicant, let him know now, as the application is due Thursday. Mayor Labadie stated she has no concerns. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if it impacts how costs are shouldered. City Administrator Nevinski stated that, because all of the cities have put money into funding the application, thinking holistically and pursuing State or MnDOT funding is the most logical solution. There is a good case to be made there. He noted that there may be a cost-share policy that MnDOT has. He added that there are funds in the CIP to address any cost-share obligations that might arise. He pointed out that things are very big-picture, and if the funding comes to fruition, MnDOT may delay the project to allow time for additional work. ## B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Gorham noted that he has some updates from the LMCC executive committee. He shared that year-to-date revenue is slightly above projections due to video-on-demand production work, like Planning Commission meetings. He added that current projects indicate the LMCC will be financially viable in the near future. He stated that candidate forums for this year's election will not be offered due to staff capacity constraints and the lack of a studio facility. He noted that it seems like a rite of passage to run for election. Councilmember DiGruttolo appreciated Public Works Director Morreim for all of the hard work that went into the Mill Street project and the information in the packet. She shared that she received a lot of positive feedback from the last meeting on Flock; residents felt the Council was respectful and tried to be balanced. Councilmember Sanschagrin stated that he would be on Parks Commission tours tomorrow. He asked for more historical information on the Shorewood ravines project. City Administrator Nevinski stated that it has been discussed at Staff and that they would be happy to provide an update. Mayor Labadie shared that she attended the last meeting of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, and at this point, the group is just attending and not participating much. The group that has historically done work on Highways 5 and 12 is interested in helping with Highway 7. She stated she attended the Christmas Lake Homeowners’ Association annual meeting. The Association is very well organized. The meeting lasted two hours. There was an agenda; all the head committee members of the 15 committees spoke, and it was a great meeting. She stated that the SLMPD meeting began with the Chief's performance review. There are several issues on the board, one being the budget. She noted that the funding formula is based on population, and Shorewood’s has increased while some other cities' have decreased. Shorewood will now fund 52 percent of the police budget based on the formula. She shared that the other unfortunate news is that the SLMPD has major capital expenditures that need to be Page 28 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## JUNE 22, 2026 Page 18 of 18 made. She stated that there has been a discussion of going out on bond. The SLMPD is still figuring out health insurance costs. The next SLMPD meeting is on July 8. She explained that the JPA for the SLMPD requires mayors to serve on the coordinating committee. The operating committee is the city administrators or directors of each city. She noted that Greenwood does not have a city administrator, and the mayor is insisting that he serves on both committees, which has raised concerns amongst other mayors. An attorney was hired to give an opinion, and they agreed that it needs to be two separate people. She shared that at the last meeting, Greenwood was told that two people were needed for the two different committees, and Greenwood refused. The coordinating committee voted 3-1 that the Greenwood mayor would not serve on both committees. She shared that the League of Minnesota Cities conference is on June 24, 25, and 26, with registration still being accepted. There is an additional mayors' seminar due to requests from mayors. ## 6. ADJOURN Sanschagrin moved, Labadie seconded, adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 22, 2026, at 10:00 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ## ATTEST: ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 29 of 166 City Council Item 2.C. ## Title/Subject: May 19, 2026 Park Commission Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Mitchell Czech, Park/Rec Director ## Attachments ## 1. 05.19.2026 Pk Reg Meeting ## Background Approved minutes from the May 19, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. Minutes were approved by the Park Commission during the June 30, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance • Sound and strategic record keeping of government activities lead to comprehensive long-term planning, principled, data, and stakeholder-driven decisions, and a culture of continuous improvement. Accepting the Park Commission Meeting Minutes ensures the Council is informed on discussions, recommendations, and decisions made by the Commission. This helps ensure alignment between the Council and Commission. ## Budget Impact Minute preparation costs vary based on length of meeting and level of detail. ## Action Requested A motion to accept the minutes from the May 19, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. Simple majority vote is required. Page 30 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD ## PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Hirner convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. ## A. Roll Call ## Present: Chair Hirner, Commissioners Bahneman, Stern, and Sylvester; ## Parks and Recreation Director Czech; Councilmember ## Sanschagrin ## Absent: Commissioner Garske ## B. Review Agenda Sylvester moved to approve the agenda as written. Bahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2026 Commissioner Sylvester requested a correction to page 3, paragraph 3, to indicate: Commissioner Sylvester shared that she had not seen any of the movies but had picked four from a variety of genres and explained how the movies could incorporate fun activities. Sylvester moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2026, meeting as amended. Bahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. ## 4. GENERAL BUSINESS ## A. Park Commission City Council Report Assignments Parks and Recreation Director Czech reviewed the Park Commission City Council Report Assignments as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Hirner shared that he would be gone on June 8. Commissioner Sylvester stated that she is not available on June 8, but she would be available on every other date. Commissioner Stern asked if there was a Commission meeting on June 23. Parks and Recreation Director Czech shared that on June 23, there are park tours, but no report is generally given to the Council. Chair Hirner explained that for the park tours, there is a quorum with the Commission and the Council, and the tours take place, but there is no official meeting. Page 31 of 166 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 ## PAGE 2 OF 6 Chair Hirner asked if Commissioner Garske could do June 8. Park and Recreation Director Czech pointed out that Commissioner Garske would have been absent from this meeting, but he could report on the April 28 meeting and make the report on the May 19 meeting. Chair Hirner noted that he could be added to the June 8 meeting for now, and Commissioner Garske could be reached out to to see what he thinks. Commissioner Bahneman stated she could do the September 14 Council meeting. Commissioner Sylvester noted she could do the August 10 Council meeting. Parks and Recreation Director Czech stated that Commissioner Garske could report at the October 12 Council meeting. Chair Hirner stated that he could do the November 9 Council meeting. Commissioner Stern noted that he could do the December 14 Council meeting. Commissioner Sylvester stated that she would do the January 11 Council meeting. Hirner moved to send the Commissioner reporting dates to the Council. Bahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Chair Hirner noted that the next items were in this year's CIP plan, for which planning has already begun. ## B. Cathcart Tennis Court Resurfacing Parks and Recreation Director Czech presented the Cathcart Tennis Court resurfacing as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Hirner asked when the CIP was scheduled to replace the tennis and basketball courts fully. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that in 2028, the basketball court will be fully replaced, but the tennis court will not; it is just a resurfacing in the 10-year CIP. Chair Hiner noted that if nothing is done to the tennis court, then it will continue to degrade. He asked if there was a general sense of how many years the tennis court could last if nothing is done. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that the tennis court will not drastically decrease. If the City were to resurface right now, that would add another three to five years of quality life with the court. He added that Cathcart Court is used frequently, but it is not a demanding use with people on the court nonstop. He noted that if nothing is done, then things will stay as they are and the cracking will continue. He shared that there are a few areas of concern on the court, but the worst spots are not in the playing area itself, but rather on the edges. Chair Hirner questioned the timeline of the need of a full reconstruction if both courts were resurfaced this year. Park and Recreation Director Czech explained that in 2026, the Commission does not have the funding to do both the basketball and tennis courts. In 2028, there is $60,000 allocated for the basketball court reconstruction. If a simple resurface to extend the life of both courts by 3-5 years was the desire, that would need to wait until 2028 when the full basketball court reconstruction is scheduled. Commissioner Sylvester asked if the Commission was discussing resurfacing versus redoing the whole tennis court. The Park and Recreation Director shared that if that is the route the Commission would like to take, it would involve resurfacing both courts in 2028 and extending their life by about 4 years. At that point, the Commission would need to look beyond the ten- year CIP and allocate funding for a full reconstruction. Commissioner Sylvester asked if the budget right included resurfacing the tennis court and redoing the basketball court. Park and Page 32 of 166 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 ## PAGE 3 OF 6 Recreation Director Czech confirmed that it was true. He added that it is $18,000 this year for resurfacing the tennis court and $50,000 in 2028 for the basketball court. Commissioner Sylvester asked what Chair Hirner was suggesting. Chair Hirner asked whether, with the tennis court being resurfaced now, anything would need to be done to it in 2028. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that if the tennis court is resurfaced this year, then nothing will have to be done for roughly five years. Chair Hirner asked, even with the root damage that has become a tripping hazard. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that those will not be corrected 100 percent, but will be leveled out and be in better condition than they are now. He noted that a resurface will not create a perfectly level surface, but will improve things by filling in the high and low areas. Over time, the current cracks will reappear. He added that the best way to maintain the court is to clear the water and debris from it. Chair Hirner stated that, without seeing the courts, he did not remember their condition. He thought that the basketball court was more concerning than the tennis court. He added that if there were a way to get a weighted roller on the tennis court to flatten things out, that would be a good idea before doing anything with the court. He stated that the roots will not stop unless the tree is taken out. He suggested postponing any action in court and taking a look at them during the park tour. Commissioner Sylvester agreed that it might be best to wait until the park tour and take a look. She added that she has some questions, but is in favor of resurfacing the tennis court this year. She knows the court and feels it does need resurfacing this year, but would be best for the Commission to look at it first. She asked about the ATE Recreation quote, stating that they would apply Sport Master Acrylic. She added that the sports master has a range of acrylic qualities and would be curious which acrylics would be used. She asked how long a life that would have been. She added that ATE Recreation handled the tennis courts at Minnetonka High School, which is good to know because the school did its homework. She pointed out that the ATE Recreation and C & H Sport Surfaces quotes are for different resurfacing methods. She noted that it would be helpful to know which acrylics are being used in the quotes. Chair Hirner stated that the City spent $350,000 on the double court and the fencing. He stated that PRO Track and Tennis mentioned $150,000 to $200,000 for Cathcart. Given those numbers and the fact that the Commission has $50,000 for the basketball court over three years, they do not seem to work. He noted asking that question during the Master Plan and being assured it would be good for the basketball court, but that does not seem to have been the experience. Park and Recreation Director Czech explained that reconstructing the tennis court would cost between $60,000 and $100,000. He added that a basketball court is smaller, so $50,000 is likely. Commissioner Stern shared that both courts need to be resurfaced, with the basketball court needing it more. Hirner moved to postpone a decision on the Cathcart Park Tennis Court until a site assessment is conducted by the Commission during the park tours on June 23, 2026. Sylvester seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## C. Off-Leash Dog Area Pilot Program Page 33 of 166 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 ## PAGE 4 OF 6 Park and Recreation Director Czech presented on the Off-Leash Dog Area Pilot Program as found in the Agenda Packet. He stated that no action would be required at this time, just a topic to discuss. Commissioner Sylvester asked that the information be shared so she could visit some of the spots before the meeting. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that he would also provide links to websites of other directors who have dog areas in their cities. Chair Hirner pointed out that the fencing is interesting and the boards in the hockey rink are about four feet high. He asked what the recommended height is for the fencing when being used as a dog area. He also asked if the fencing would need to go all the way around. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that the fencing would probably not need to go all the way around. He shared that he could get exact heights from other cities. He explained that a dog could technically jump over a four-foot wall, but that would be more on the owner to ensure the dog is under control. That may be a rule to consider. Chair Hirner pointed out that the last time something was done to the rink, the community came together to complete the project, which helped keep costs down. He thought the same thing could be done again, and some additional things could be done with the money saved. The Park and Recreation Director noted that the Staff is working on the volunteer-led effort and is currently working with a painting company to see how volunteers could lead the bulk of the effort. He added that the church across the street is willing to help, as are other community members. Commissioner Sylvester reminded that primer should be used along with the painting, which may not have been done the last time. Chair Hirner noted that the timing of the project could leave little time to open the dog area before it must be closed for the ice rink. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that, depending on timing, there could be a fall opening of the pilot, or the materials could be purchased this year and the pilot officially open in the spring. Chair Hirner stated it would be great to get the pilot going this year, so that feedback could be received to fix for next year. He noted that the Commission should aim to reach a decision in July. The Commission would look at the rink during the June tours. ## D. Memorial Bench, Sponsorships, and Donations Program Park and Recreation Director Czech presented on the item as found in the Agenda Packet. He shared examples of the SeeMyLegacy software. Commissioner Stern asked how the bench program is currently run. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that currently, there is no program. Commissioner Stern asked about a specific bench on the trail before Freeman Park. He added that there is a plaque bearing someone’s name. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted he was not sure and would take a look at the bench. He stated that the process for putting a memorial bench out now is not good. People will call, and then that goes to the Commission. The cost of the concrete pad needs to be figured out; the bench costs about $1,000. He shared that there is a lot of back-and-forth. It was discussed by the Commission to have a more formal process with baseline pricing already established. Commissioner Stern asked how much of the cost is to cover the costs of putting the bench in. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that the program's intent is to cover costs. Page 34 of 166 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 ## PAGE 5 OF 6 Chair Hirner asked how much of the money that a person pays for the donation goes to SeeMyLegacy. He stated that when donating online, there are usually credit card fees associated with the donation. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that the City would be responsible for the credit card fees. He stated that the City pays the annual subscription fee, so no percentage goes back to the company. Chair Hirner stated that the software does everything. He asked who would be called if a person is using the software and there is a problem. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that the City's information would be on the website. Still, the City would have a dedicated customer service representative if the issue was outside of the City’s control. Chair Hirner noted that he likes the software because it is well organized. He asked whether there is a project component to the software in which the company sends the required materials to the City. Park and Recreation Director Czech explained that the City would receive an email about a bench or other item being ordered and would go through the City’s vendor to order the materials. He added that there would still need to be contact with the person. The software serves as a platform for gathering all the information. Chair Hirner asked if other cities have been happy with the software. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that other cities that utilize the software have great things to say, and most have seen an increase in overall sponsorship as well, by having an accessible platform. Chair Hirner asked who sets up how the page looks. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that, if the City is to proceed, a customer service representative would undergo orientation and have a website set up with the Staff. The company would set up the website with guidance from the Staff's goals. Chair Hirner asked whether the City would have someone in IT handle the website after the initial setup, or the Staff. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that he would learn how to add content to the website. Chair Hirner stated that there would be other costs associated with maintaining the website that are not always considered. Park and Recreation Director Czech stated that a lot of time is spent on the current donation process, and this software would provide cost savings. Commissioner Sylvester stated that she loves the software and it was a good find. Chair Hirner shared that the software is a good choice and reasonably priced. Park and Recreation Director Czech explained that, since it's only a one-year commitment, the City could always do something different next year. Sylvester moved to recommend approval of the SeeMyLegacy software to the City Council. Bahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## 5. REPORTS / UPDATES ## A. City Council Councilmember Sanschagrin gave a brief overview of recent Council discussion and actions. ## B. Staff ## i. Parks Unplugged Event Reminder Page 35 of 166 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2026 ## PAGE 6 OF 6 Park and Recreation Director provided an update on the upcoming events, including the tree planting on May 21. He stated that many questions are coming in about the trees coming down, and that those trees are dead or dying due to the emerald ash borer, with more removals planned at Freeman Park in the future. He added that on May 27, there would be a Parks Unplugged at Camp Fire Minnesota. ## ii. SCEC Task Force Update Park and Recreation Director stated that a Task Force is in place, with a kick-off meeting on May 20. The group has a wide range of experiences and perspectives. He added that Commissioner Sylvester is the Parks Commission representative and will provide information. He noted that the intent is to provide the public with information along the way. He shared that a purpose statement was developed with the consultant: The Task Force serves in an advisory capacity to provide community-based insight and feedback that supports the evaluation of current operations and the development of practical, financially realistic recommendations to increase utilization and revenue at the SCEC. Park and Recreation Director noted that things are very busy, especially with sports up and running. ## C. Commission Commissioner Sylvester asked where the Commission is meeting for the June 23 meeting. Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that he would send out information. Generally, the Commission starts at 6:00 p.m. to take advantage of extra daylight. He stated that tours would be at Freeman and Cathcart. The Commission would start at Freeman Park at 6:00 p.m. He noted that some materials would also be prepared to guide the meeting. He added that the tours are open to the public as well. He noted that the tours would be good for upcoming projects. Chair Hirner shared that, in only going to Cathcart and Freeman, the Commission should also visit the other parks to identify any needs there. The City has been good if given a list of things to fix to get it done. The Commission praised the Public Works Staff for all that they do. ## 7. ADJOURN Stern moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of May 19, 2026, at 8:52 p.m. Bahneman seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Page 36 of 166 City Council Item 2.D. ## Title/Subject: Claims List ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Dalton Kraay, Senior Accountant ## Attachments 1. Payroll 06-29-2026 2. Payroll 06-29-2026 AP 3. Council 07-13-2026 ## Background Council is asked to verify payment of the attached claims. The claims include compensation, operational or contractual expenditures anticipated in the current budget, or otherwise approved by the Council. Funds will be distributed following approval of the claims list. Claims for Council authorization: Payroll 06-29-2026 $68,192.26 Payroll 06-29-2026 AP $49,143.59 Council 07-13-2026 $993,672.70 ## Total Claims: Checks & ACH $1,111,008.55 ## Strategic Alignment ## Fiscal Responsibility • Implement best practices to support sound financial management • Maintain stable and predictable finances over the long-term ## Budget Impact The expenditures have been reviewed and determined to be reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the City's budget. ## Action Requested Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Simple Majority is required. Page 37 of 166 ## User: ## Printed: ## Distribution Report ## Clearing House ## DKraay@shorewoodmn.gov ## 06/29/2026 - 1:32PM ## Batch:00026.06.2026 ## Account NumberDebitCreditAccount Description 700-00-1010-0000 ## 68,192.26 0.00CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 ## 0.00 68,192.26GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 68,192.26 68,192.26 Report Totals: 68,192.26 68,192.26 Page 1CH-Distribution Report (06/29/2026 - 1:32 PM) Page 38 of 166 ## User: Printed:06/29/2026 - 2:22PM ## DKraay@shorewoodmn.gov ## Computer Check Proof List by Vendor ## Accounts Payable ## Batch:00007.06.2026 - PR-06-29-2026 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## Vendor:EFTPS - FEDERAL W/HCheck Sequence: 1ACH Enabled: True5 700-00-2174-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 FICA Employer Portion 6,209.7106/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 FICA Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Medicare Employer Portion 1,452.2606/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Medicare Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 FICA Employee Portion 6,209.7106/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 FICA Employee Portion 700-00-2172-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Federal Income Tax 8,742.6006/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Federal Income Tax 700-00-2174-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Medicare Employee Portion 1,452.2606/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Medicare Employee Portion 24,066.54Check Total: ## Vendor:MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUECheck Sequence: 2ACH Enabled: True11 700-00-2173-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 State Income Tax 4,618.0106/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 State Income Tax 4,618.01Check Total: ## Vendor:MINNESOTA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCECheck Sequence: 3ACH Enabled: True869 700-00-2190-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN PAID LEAVE PREMIUM-BENEFIT 860.9306/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN PAID LEAVE PREMIUM-BENEFIT 860.93Check Total: ## Vendor:MISSION SQUARE RETIREMNT-302131-457Check Sequence: 4ACH Enabled: True2 700-00-2176-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Mission Sq-Flat Amount-Roth457 122.4706/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Mission Sq-Flat Amount-Roth457 700-00-2176-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MissionSq-Flat Amount-Pre-Tax 2,768.8506/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MissionSq-Flat Amount-Pre-Tax 2,891.32Check Total: ## Vendor:OPTUM BANKCheck Sequence: 5ACH Enabled: True665 700-00-2183-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 HSA-Optum Bank-Employee 800.0006/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 HSA-Optum Bank-Employee 700-00-2183-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 HSA Optum Bank-Employee2 61.2006/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 HSA Optum Bank-Employee2 861.20Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (06/29/2026 - 2:22 PM)Page 1 Page 39 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## Vendor:PERACheck Sequence: 6ACH Enabled: True9 700-00-2175-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN-PERA Deduction 6,539.4606/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN-PERA Deduction 700-00-2175-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN PERA Benefit Employer 7,545.5306/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 MN PERA Benefit Employer 14,084.99Check Total: ## Vendor:VOYA FINANCIALCheck Sequence: 7ACH Enabled: True1091 700-00-2176-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Comp-Voya-Roth457 100.0006/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Comp-Voya-Roth457 700-00-2176-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Comp-Voya-PreTax 267.7306/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Comp-Voya-PreTax 700-00-2176-0000PR-06-29-2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Com-Voya Pre-Tax 1,392.8706/29/2026PR Batch 00005.06.2026 Deferred Com-Voya Pre-Tax 1,760.60Check Total: ## Total for Check Run: ## Total of Number of Checks: 49,143.59 7 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (06/29/2026 - 2:22 PM)Page 2 Page 40 of 166 ## User: Printed:07/09/2026 - 8:20AM ## DKraay@shorewoodmn.gov ## Computer Check Proof List by Vendor ## Accounts Payable ## Batch:00001.07.2026 - Council Meeting 07-13-2026 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## Vendor:ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONSCheck Sequence: 1ACH Enabled: True105 101-19-4400-0000INV382498Konica - June Billing and 2nd Qtr Overage 244.3407/13/2026 101-19-4221-0000INV382806July Billing - Konica 58.0007/13/2026 302.34Check Total: ## Vendor:All Truck & Trailer PartsCheck Sequence: 2ACH Enabled: False1575 101-32-4221-0000095P24669Gasket-Part 62.9707/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000098P37858Credit-Battery Core-370.0007/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000098P47004Fuel Filters 290.5207/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000098P47836Dump Truck Parts 887.0407/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000098P47897Misc. Parts 37.6207/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000098P47963Credit-Misc. Part-8.9407/13/2026 101-32-4221-0000CH-062526-25408Returned Item-90.1807/13/2026 809.03Check Total: ## Vendor:BAILEY NURSERIES, INC.Check Sequence: 3ACH Enabled: True469 880-00-2210-0000INV0748868Trees 6175 Strawberry Lane 276.6007/13/2026 621-00-4245-0000INV0748868Trees Sales 8,377.2007/13/2026 8,653.80Check Total: ## Vendor:BLUE NET INCCheck Sequence: 4ACH Enabled: True1509 101-19-4321-000063702July IT Services 4,865.5307/13/2026 4,865.53Check Total: ## Vendor:CENTERPOINT ENERGY-GASCheck Sequence: 5ACH Enabled: True136 ## 201-00-4380-00007945688-5Jun265735 Country Club Rd-SCEC June 2026 68.5607/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 1 Page 41 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 880-00-2015-00007945688-5Jun26UTILITIES 68.5607/13/2026 ## 880-00-2015-00007945688-5Jun265735 Country Club Rd-SCEC-68.5607/13/2026 101-52-4380-00008650180-6Jun2620630 Manor Rd June 2026 26.1507/13/2026 ## 880-00-2015-00008650180-6Jun2620630 Manor Rd-26.1507/13/2026 880-00-2015-00008650180-6Jun26UTILITIES 26.1507/13/2026 94.71Check Total: ## Vendor:CINTAS CORPORATION (Formerly HUEBSCH)Check Sequence: 6ACH Enabled: False915 201-00-4223-00004272930607SCEC Mat Maintenance 70.6707/13/2026 201-00-4223-00004274535239SCEC Mat Maintenance 70.6707/13/2026 101-18-4400-00004274535255July Mat Services - CH 189.1407/13/2026 ## 101-19-4400-00009377672003City Hall First Aid Supplies - March 2026 328.4307/13/2026 ## 101-19-4400-00009377672010City Hall First Aid Supplies - April 2026 187.8807/13/2026 846.79Check Total: ## Vendor:CITY OF MOUNDCheck Sequence: 7ACH Enabled: True147 ## 101-22-4400-000000002631-33rd Qtr Fire Services 8,436.2507/13/2026 8,436.25Check Total: ## Vendor:CORE & MAIN, LPCheck Sequence: 8ACH Enabled: False456 601-00-4221-0000V000047890SS Repair Clamp 615.3507/13/2026 615.35Check Total: ## Vendor:CSG FORTE PAYMENTS, INCCheck Sequence: 9ACH Enabled: True1394 201-00-4450-00000015946389Credit Card Processing 213.9207/13/2026 213.92Check Total: ## Vendor:DIGRITE EXCAVATING, INC.Check Sequence: 10ACH Enabled: False1204 601-00-4400-0000912 ## East Side Watermain and Apple Rd. Emergency Watermain Repair 19,660.0007/13/2026 19,660.00Check Total: ## Vendor:EARL F. ANDERSENCheck Sequence: 11ACH Enabled: False166 101-32-4250-00000143094-INTemp Signs and Road Signs 822.9007/13/2026 101-32-4250-00000143250-INSigns for Islands 705.6007/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 2 Page 42 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 1,528.50Check Total: ## Vendor:ECM PUBLISHERS INCCheck Sequence: 12ACH Enabled: True167 101-18-4351-00001104689Comp Plan Kickoff 140.2407/13/2026 101-14-4351-00001104690Candidate Filing Publication 44.6207/13/2026 184.86Check Total: ## Vendor:EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICTCheck Sequence: 13ACH Enabled: True179 101-22-4400-0000I-5773rd Qtr 2026 245,601.5307/13/2026 245,601.53Check Total: ## Vendor:GONYEA HOMES, INCCheck Sequence: 14ACH Enabled: False757 ## 880-00-2200-00004805 Lagoon DrEscrow Refund 4805 Lagoon Dr 59,394.0007/13/2026 59,394.00Check Total: ## Vendor:GOPHER STATE ONE CALLCheck Sequence: 15ACH Enabled: True200 601-00-4400-00006060752Utility Located Service 281.2507/13/2026 631-00-4400-00006060752Utility Located Service 281.2507/13/2026 611-00-4400-00006060752Utility Located Service 281.2507/13/2026 843.75Check Total: ## Vendor:GREENER BLADE FERTILIZATION CO. LLCCheck Sequence: 16ACH Enabled: False1199 101-52-4400-0000120370Manor Park Turf Treatements 05/08/2026 290.0007/13/2026 101-52-4400-0000122259Manor Park Turf Treatements 06/09/2026 290.0007/13/2026 580.00Check Total: ## Vendor:HAWKINS, INC.Check Sequence: 17ACH Enabled: True211 601-00-4400-00007458600Chemical Tank Rental 70.0007/13/2026 601-00-4245-00007474337Water Treatment Chemicals 1,295.0807/13/2026 1,365.08Check Total: ## Vendor:HENNEPIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICECheck Sequence: 18ACH Enabled: False216 101-11-4440-0000June 3 2026Stormwater Agreement Recording 46.0007/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 3 Page 43 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 46.00Check Total: ## Vendor:HENNEPIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICECheck Sequence: 19ACH Enabled: False216 101-13-4400-0000June 3 2026Water Assessment Agreement - 26960 Beverly Drive Recording Fee 46.0007/13/2026 46.00Check Total: ## Vendor:INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICECheck Sequence: 20ACH Enabled: False723 ## 101-15-4440-000006-29-2026CP161 ## 1/16/2026 Payroll Fed Tax Deposit 12 Days Late 1,314.2407/13/2026 1,314.24Check Total: ## Vendor:JENCO PROPERTY MAINTENANCECheck Sequence: 21ACH Enabled: True1401 ## 101-32-4223-00007349Badger Park Campus Landscaping 425.0007/13/2026 ## 101-19-4223-00007349Badger Park Campus Landscaping 400.0007/13/2026 ## 101-52-4223-00007349Badger Park Campus Landscaping 400.0007/13/2026 1,225.00Check Total: ## Vendor:JERRY'S PRINTINGCheck Sequence: 22ACH Enabled: False1332 611-00-4351-0000103307Utility Billing Envelopes 278.7507/13/2026 601-00-4351-0000103307Utility Billing Envelopes 278.7507/13/2026 631-00-4351-0000103307Utility Billing Envelopes 278.7507/13/2026 621-00-4351-0000103307Utility Billing Envelopes 278.7507/13/2026 1,115.00Check Total: ## Vendor:KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO.Check Sequence: 23ACH Enabled: True1515 101-32-4212-000010316Fuel For Trailer 1,082.8507/13/2026 101-32-4212-00006126Fuel For Trailer 816.2307/13/2026 1,899.08Check Total: ## Vendor:KLM ENGINEERING, INC.Check Sequence: 24ACH Enabled: False243 601-00-4400-000011490 ## Clean Out of Iron/Sediment Inside of West Water Tower 6,000.0007/13/2026 6,000.00Check Total: ## Vendor:DREW KRIESELCheck Sequence: 25ACH Enabled: False247 201-00-4248-0000010851SCEC Event Setup/Teardown June 2026 384.0007/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 4 Page 44 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 384.00Check Total: ## Vendor:LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATION COMMISSIONCheck Sequence: 26ACH Enabled: False707 101-11-4400-0000June 22 2026CC Meeting Video Services 75.0007/13/2026 75.00Check Total: ## Vendor:LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTCheck Sequence: 27ACH Enabled: True251 101-11-4433-00002026Q3Shore3rd Qtr Dues 8,326.2507/13/2026 8,326.25Check Total: ## Vendor:LB Carlson, LLPCheck Sequence: 28ACH Enabled: False1619 ## 601-00-4301-00002576922025 Audit Field Work Through May 2026 1,538.7507/13/2026 ## 631-00-4301-00002576922025 Audit Field Work Through May 2026 1,538.7507/13/2026 ## 101-16-4301-00002576922025 Audit Field Work Through May 2026 1,538.7507/13/2026 ## 611-00-4301-00002576922025 Audit Field Work Through May 2026 1,538.7507/13/2026 6,155.00Check Total: ## Vendor:LOFFLERCheck Sequence: 29ACH Enabled: True1163 101-19-4400-00005380024Customer Support Services 165.0007/13/2026 165.00Check Total: ## Vendor:METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATER)Check Sequence: 30ACH Enabled: True279 ## 611-00-4385-00000001208875Met Council Monthly Sewer Fee 100,018.0907/13/2026 100,018.09Check Total: Vendor:MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRYCheck Sequence: 31ACH Enabled: False298 101-00-2085-0000Q2Second Qtr Remittance 2,191.6707/13/2026 2,191.67Check Total: ## Vendor:MINNESOTA TOPSOILCheck Sequence: 32ACH Enabled: False1605 101-52-4400-00006980Brush Disposal & Mulch 174.0007/13/2026 101-52-4400-00006982Brush Disposal 90.0007/13/2026 ## 101-52-4247-00007128Soil For Stump Removal 228.0007/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 5 Page 45 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 492.00Check Total: ## Vendor:ON SITE SANITATION -TWIN CITIESCheck Sequence: 33ACH Enabled: True325 ## 101-52-4400-00000002090444Portable Toilet Service Credit-45.0607/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002093772Portable Toilet Rental 0.9307/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002097576Portable Toilet Rental 88.9007/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002097577Portable Toilet Rental 177.8007/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002097578Portable Toilet Rental 199.3907/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002097579Portable Toilet Rental 88.9007/13/2026 101-52-4400-00000002097580Portable Toilet Rental 88.9007/13/2026 599.76Check Total: ## Vendor:PENS.COMCheck Sequence: 34ACH Enabled: False1545 ## 101-14-4200-0000114671203Engraved Bright Diamond Stylus Pen 1/2 243.3907/13/2026 ## 101-13-4200-0000114671203Engraved Bright Diamond Stylus Pen 1/2 243.3807/13/2026 486.77Check Total: ## Vendor:PITNEY BOWES BANK INC PURCHASE POWERCheck Sequence: 35ACH Enabled: True336 101-13-4208-0000Jun-26General Postage 1,014.7507/13/2026 1,014.75Check Total: ## Vendor:REPUBLIC SERVICESCheck Sequence: 36ACH Enabled: False108 621-00-4400-00260894-007557592Organics Recycling Service - July 361.9207/13/2026 361.92Check Total: ## Vendor:SAFEBUILT LLC-LOCKBOX #88135Check Sequence: 37ACH Enabled: False305 101-24-4400-00004222739Consulting Building Inspections 796.1307/13/2026 796.13Check Total: ## Vendor:SAFE-FAST INC.Check Sequence: 38ACH Enabled: True1324 ## 101-32-4245-0000INV326591PW PPE 185.7007/13/2026 101-32-4245-0000INV327236Safety Vests 302.2807/13/2026 487.98Check Total: AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 6 Page 46 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## Vendor:SHRED-N-GO _446138Check Sequence: 39ACH Enabled: True355 101-19-4400-0000200537June Shred Services - CH 85.3007/13/2026 85.30Check Total: ## Vendor:SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENTCheck Sequence: 40ACH Enabled: True360 ## 101-21-4400-0000July-September3rd Qtr Police Services 469,256.7507/13/2026 469,256.75Check Total: ## Vendor:SPLIT ROCK MANAGEMENT, INC.Check Sequence: 41ACH Enabled: True1181 101-19-4400-0000100849Cleaning Services - CH- July 502.0007/13/2026 502.00Check Total: ## Vendor:SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLCCheck Sequence: 42ACH Enabled: True1101 ## 101-15-4440-0000CM INV-000288Professional Services Credit-812.5007/13/2026 ## 611-00-4450-0000INV-024378June CivicPay Transaction Fees 12.0007/13/2026 ## 631-00-4450-0000INV-024378June CivicPay Transaction Fees 12.0007/13/2026 ## 621-00-4450-0000INV-024378June CivicPay Transaction Fees 12.0007/13/2026 ## 601-00-4450-0000INV-024378June CivicPay Transaction Fees 12.0007/13/2026 ## 101-15-4440-0000TM INV-010913Disputed Charge Credit Coming 562.5007/13/2026 ## 101-15-4440-0000TM INV-010914Disputed Charge Credit Coming 125.0007/13/2026 ## 101-15-4440-0000TM INV-011136Disputed Charge Credit Coming 125.0007/13/2026 48.00Check Total: ## Vendor:TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL, INC.Check Sequence: 43ACH Enabled: True694 101-13-4400-000032633CC Minutes - 6/8/2026 Meeting 641.2507/13/2026 101-13-4400-000032639CC Minutes 6/22/2026 Meeting 625.0107/13/2026 1,266.26Check Total: ## Vendor:TOSHIBA AMERICA BUSINESS SOLUTCheck Sequence: 44ACH Enabled: True1348 201-00-4400-00005039128204SCEC Printer July 2026 149.9707/13/2026 149.97Check Total: ## Vendor:TOSHIBA AMERICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONSCheck Sequence: 45ACH Enabled: False1370 201-00-4400-00006878144CPC Billing June 2026 9.6907/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 7 Page 47 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 9.69Check Total: ## Vendor:VAISALA XWEATHERCheck Sequence: 46ACH Enabled: True1344 421-00-4303-000009E69E70-0003Pavement Management Services 9,612.0007/13/2026 9,612.00Check Total: ## Vendor:WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE & SUPPLYCheck Sequence: 47ACH Enabled: True405 ## 101-32-4245-0000985803Tires For Plow Truck 1,093.4407/13/2026 1,093.44Check Total: ## Vendor:WM MUELLER & SONS INCCheck Sequence: 48ACH Enabled: True408 101-32-4250-0000324598Road Material Fill 86.1607/13/2026 101-32-4250-0000324909Road Material Fill 444.9107/13/2026 101-32-4250-0000325098Asphalt Patch Material 224.1107/13/2026 101-32-4250-0000325291Asphalt Patch Material 442.3807/13/2026 1,197.56Check Total: ## Vendor:XCEL ENERGY, INC.Check Sequence: 49ACH Enabled: True411 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5705 Christmas Lake 31.6307/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20630 Manor Rd 40.0807/13/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun26055 Birch Bluff Rd 14.0807/13/2026 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5700 County Rd 19 54.8207/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun4773 Lakeway Terr 37.7207/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun27145 Edgewood Rd 105.9407/13/2026 601-00-4398-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Covington Rd 3,049.6507/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun27922 Smithtown Rd 53.0007/13/2026 101-15-4440-000051-4531711-9JunLate Fee 126.4207/13/2026 ## 601-00-4396-000051-4531711-9Jun28125 Boulder Bridge Dr 3,368.3007/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun3801 W 62nd St 23.0307/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20630 Manor Road 11.6207/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun25800 Highway 7 95.3507/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun26550 Noble Rd 19.7607/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5600 Woodside Ln 35.7407/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun25800 Highway 7 106.2407/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 8 Page 48 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 8.4907/13/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5295 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 31.3407/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun25800 State Highway 7 17.9007/13/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun4996 Shady Island Pt /MOUND CITY 16.8407/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun25800 State Highway 7 22.2507/13/2026 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun23750 Highway 7 69.5607/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 1.6007/13/2026 ## 201-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5735 Country Club Rd 504.7607/13/2026 ## 101-19-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 48.8807/13/2026 880-00-2015-000051-4531711-9JunReconciliation Item 8,440.5807/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 19.2207/13/2026 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5700 County Rd 19 98.6907/13/2026 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun19832 State Highway 7 78.0707/13/2026 101-19-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5590 Covington Road 4.2807/13/2026 ## 101-19-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Rd 589.1407/13/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun4915 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 21.2507/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 171.0007/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20995 Minnetonka Blvd 44.8207/13/2026 101-32-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun24200 Smithtown Rd 272.3607/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20465 Radisson Rd 109.5107/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 145.2707/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun4390 Enchanted Ln /MOUND CITY 81.1807/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5655 Merry Lane 32.2507/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 22.1007/13/2026 ## 601-00-4398-000051-4531711-9Jun5500 Old Market Rd 22.9107/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20615 Radisson Rd 8.7007/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 61.3707/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 1,303.1207/13/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun4931 Shady Island Road 16.7007/13/2026 611-00-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun5505 Radisson Ent 11.2007/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 2,564.3407/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 12.7407/13/2026 101-52-4380-000051-4531711-9Jun20630 Manor Road 19.6607/13/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun5755 Country Club Road 11.1207/13/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 9 Page 49 of 166 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 601-00-4398-000051-4531711-9Jun5500 Old Market Rd 53.5807/13/2026 880-00-2015-000051-4531711-9JunOffsetting Acct-23,256.6507/13/2026 880-00-2015-000051-4531711-9JunJun-26 23,256.6507/13/2026 601-00-4395-000051-4531711-9Jun24253 Smithtown Rd 439.9807/13/2026 101-32-4399-000051-4531711-9Jun21382 Highway 7 45.4007/13/2026 601-00-4396-000051-4531711-9Jun26352 Smithtown Rd 19.9807/13/2026 601-00-4394-000051-4531711-9Jun20405 Knightsbridge 641.1307/13/2026 23,256.65Check Total: ## Total for Check Run: ## Total of Number of Checks: 993,672.70 49 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (07/09/2026 - 8:20 AM)Page 10 Page 50 of 166 City Council Item 2.E. ## Title/Subject: Tree Removal Quote and Service Agreement ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Matt Morreim, Public Works Director ## Attachments ## 1. Shadywood Tree Expert Service Agreement ## 2. Shadywood Tree Expert Proposal ## Background The city utilizes a tree removal company to help remove large and dangerous trees in the city right-of-way and in city parks that require specialized equipment and resources. Staff met with three contractors to review the trees identified for removal. The removals include dead and dying trees that pose a safety risk. The work quoted includes all tree removal work, cleanup, disposal and necessary equipment. City staff will perform traffic control as needed for the contractor. Staff solicited quotes from three tree removal companies and are summarized below: ## • Twin City Tree Authority: $49,680.00 ## • Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping: $42,278.00 ## • Pro Tree Expert Arborists: $65,500.00 Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping is a responsible contractor and has completed similar and related tree removal work. Tree removal services are a separate service than the city's forestry consultant, Davey Resource Group. ## Strategic Alignment ## Safe and Secure Community • Strong, proactive, strategic, and cost-effective public safety services — Proactively removing dead and/or dying public right-of-way trees provide increased safety for the public and residents. ## Budget Impact The city budget accounts for and programs tree removal services in the public works operating budget (Fund 32-Public Works Service). ## Action Requested Motion to approve the service contract with Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping for tree removal services. Page 51 of 166 Simple Majority is required. Page 52 of 166 225405v1 ## PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ## TREE REMOVAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made this July 13, 2026 (“Effective Date”) by and between Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping, with its principal office located at 402 11 th ## Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343 (“Contractor”), and the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 (the “City”): ## RECITALS A. Contractor is engaged in the business of providing tree removal services. B. The City desires to hire Contractor to provide tree removal services of specified trees in the city right-of- way and city property. C. Contractor represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide the City with the requested services. D. The City desires to engage Contractor to provide the services described in this Agreement and Contractor is willing to provide such services on the terms and conditions in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Agreement, the City and Contractor agree as follows: ## AGREEMENT 1. Services. Contractor agrees to provide the City with the services as described and subject to the additional conditions in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). Exhibit A shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals currently providing similar services. 2. Time for Completion. The Services shall be completed on or before December 31, 2026, with substantial completion by September 30, 2026, provided that the parties may extend the stated deadlines upon mutual written agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from the effective date and continuing until the completion of the project, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The City shall pay Contractor for the Services according to the terms on the attached hereto as Exhibit A. The consideration shall be for both the Services performed by Contractor and any expenses incurred by Contractor in performing the Services. Contractor shall submit statements to the City upon completion of the Services. The City shall pay Contractor within thirty (35) days after Contractor’s statements are submitted. 4. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: A. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; Page 53 of 166 225405v1 B. Contractor may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City upon providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City; C. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or D. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon Contractor’s failure to have in force any insurance required by this Agreement. In the event of a termination, the City shall pay Contractor for Services performed to the date of termination and for all costs or other expenses incurred prior to the date of termination. 5. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 6. Remedies. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the City because of a breach by Contractor, the City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons or entities, or any combination thereof. These remedies provided to the City for breach of this Agreement by Contractor shall not be exclusive. The City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or equitable remedies available because of Contractor’s breach. 7. Records/Inspection. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, Contractor agrees that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Contractor, that are relevant to the contract or transaction, are subject to examination by the City and the state auditor or legislative auditor for a minimum of six years. Contractor shall maintain such records for a minimum of six years after final payment. The parties agree that this obligation will survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 8. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement the following minimum insurance coverages: A. General Liability. The Contractor agrees to maintain commercial general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City shall be endorsed as additional insured. B. Automobile Liability. If the Contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall maintain commercial automobile liability insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability limit of $1,000,000 combined single limit. C. Workers’ Compensation. The Contractor agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The Contractor shall also carry employers liability coverage with minimum limits are as follows: • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease per employee • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Accident The Contractor shall, prior to commencing the Services, deliver to the City a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverages are in full force and effect. Page 54 of 166 225405v1 The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. The Contractor’s policies shall be the primary insurance to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any claim arising out of Contractor’s performance under this Agreement. The Contractor’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days advanced written notice to the City. D. Professional (Errors and Omissions) Liability Insurance. [Only required for professional services provided by accountants, attorneys, engineers, etc.] The Contractor will maintain professional liability insurance for all claims the Contractor may become legally obligated to pay resulting from any actual or alleged negligent act, error, or omission related to Contractor’s professional services required under this Agreement. The Contractor is required to carry the following minimum limits: $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The retroactive or prior acts date of such coverage shall not be after the effective date of this Agreement, and the Contractor shall maintain such insurance for a period of at least three (3) years following completion of the Services. If such insurance is discontinued, extended reporting period coverage must be obtained by the Contractor to fulfill this requirement. 9. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor. Contractor’s duties shall be performed with the understanding that Contractor has special expertise as to the services which Contractor is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. Contractor shall provide or contract for all required equipment and personnel. Contractor shall control the manner in which the services are performed; however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. The parties agree that this is not a joint venture and the parties are not co-partners. Contractor is not an employee or agent of the City and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of the City except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement. All services provided by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Contractor as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits. 10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the Contractor’s negligence or the Contractor’s performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Contractor’s indemnification obligation shall apply to the Contractor’s subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by the Contractor, or anyone for whose acts the Contractor may be liable. The Contractor agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 11. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in effect as of the date Contractor agrees to provide the Services. Contractor’s guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, and subcontractors shall abide by the City’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and tobacco, drug, and alcohol use as defined on the City’s Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Policy, as well as all other reasonable Page 55 of 166 225405v1 work rules, safety rules, or policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of persons on City property, at all times while performing duties pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor agrees and understands that a violation of any of these policies, procedures, or rules constitutes a breach of the Agreement and sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement by the City. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits, and any addenda signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Contractor, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Contractor. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by the City and Contractor. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. 13. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 14. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 15. Conflict of Interest. Contractor shall use reasonable care to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in representation of the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, Contractor shall advise the City and, either secure a waiver of the conflict, or advise the City that it will be unable to provide the requested Services. 16. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other professional Contractor service providers for this or other matters, in the City’s sole discretion. 17. Data Practices Act Compliance. Any and all data provided to Contractor, received from Contractor, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with, and is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Contractor agrees to notify the City within three business days if it receives a data request from a third party. This paragraph does not create a duty on the part of Contractor to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. These obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. 18. No Discrimination. Contractor agrees not to discriminate in providing products and services under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion. Violation of any part of this provision may lead to immediate termination of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363A. Contractor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys’ fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of these laws by Contractor or its guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives and subcontractors. Upon request, Contractor shall provide accommodation to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all Services under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to utilize its own auxiliary aid or service in order to comply with ADA requirements for effective communication with individuals with disabilities. Page 56 of 166 225405v1 19. Authorized Agents. The City’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is the City Administrator of the City, or designee. Contractor’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is the City Administrator, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 20. Notices. Any notices permitted or required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to: ## Contractor The City ## Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping 402 11 th ## Avenue South ## Hopkins, MN 55343 ## Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## City of Shorewood ## 5755 Country Club Rd ## Shorewood, MN 55331 952-960-7900 mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 21. Waiver. No waiver of any provision or of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provisions or any other or further breach, and no such waiver shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged with such a waiver. 22. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or affect the scope and intent of this Agreement. 23. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 24. Signatory. Each person executing this Agreement (“Signatory”) represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective organization. In the event Contractor did not authorize the Signatory to sign on its behalf, the Signatory agrees to assume responsibility for the duties and liability of Contractor, described in this Agreement, personally. 25. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be transmitted by electronic mail in portable document format (“pdf”) and signatures appearing on electronic mail instruments shall be treated as original signatures. 26. Recitals. The City and Contractor agree that the Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally. Signature page follows.] Page 57 of 166 225405v1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Contractor have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below. ## Shadywood Tree Experts & Landscaping City of Shorewood: By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ By: _________________________________ ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor By: _________________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 58 of 166 Page 1 of 8 ## Job Name: City of Shorewood 20260624 402 11th Avenue South ## Hopkins, MN 55343 952-933-0614 ## Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping ## Proposal ## Built for City of Shorewood ## By Jake NItz June 24, 2026 ## Salesperson: ## Job Site: ## Jake NItz 6128142006 jake.nitz@shadywoodtreeexperts.com ## 24200 Smithtown Rd ## Shorewood, MN 55331 ## Bill To: ## City of Shorewood ## City of Shorewood Chris Heitz ## 24200 Smithtown Rd ## Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952-960-7914 ## Notes: I. Tree Care (All pruning and removal work include cleanup of all debris unless otherwise noted.) # Trees ## PriceItemDescription ## Removal Location: tree is located on left-hand side of driveway at 26020 Shorewood Oaks Dr. DBH (diameter breast height): inch am Hazards/obstacles: House, mailboxes, library box Notes: My plan would be utilize a bucket truck from the road. Tree will be removed to ground level. Stump will be cut low and flat and will remain. $197.001Green Ash ## Removal Location: 6015 Cathcart Dr. 1 tree on left-hand side of driveway DBH (diameter breast height):36 in Hazards/obstacles: Road, mailbox, fence Notes: My plan would be to utilize a bucket truck from the road for the removal of this tree. TREE will be removed to ground level stump will be cut low and flat and will remain $1,675.001Green Ash ## Removal Location: we are doing all trees marked with white exes on the east side of the road starting at 5705 Grant Lorenz DBH (diameter breast height): 10–30 inch diameter Hazards/obstacles: Wires present on site, but far enough away to work around, mailboxes, retaining walls, houses, fences Notes: Trees will be removed to ground level. Stumps will be cut low and flat and will remain. For this project we will for the most part utilize a bucket truck in the road. We may need to prune some other trees around the removals to allow for more efficiency. Any of this pruning will be done per ANSI standards. $14,137.0021Green Ash Page 59 of 166 Page 2 of 8 ## Removal Location: total of nine trees near baseball fields and Green Park. These trees run along the side of the sand volleyball court. DBH (diameter breast height): 15–20 inch diameter Hazards/obstacles: Volleyball court, road, wooden posts Notes: All nine trees will be removed to ground level. Stumps will be cut low and flat and will remain. $4,627.009Green Ash ## Removal Location: 5845 country club rd. 1 tree across the street from driveway tree is marked with white paint DBH (diameter breast height): 33 inch diameter Hazards/obstacles: Powerlines present on opposite side of street, road Notes: TREE will be removed to ground level stump will be cut low and flat and will remain. $2,175.001Green Ash ## Removal Location: Front right hand corner of building between building and road at 5755 Country Club Rd. DBH (diameter breast height): 23 inch diameter Hazards/obstacles: Building, fire hydrant, powerlines present on property, but more than 10 feet away Notes: Tree will be removed to ground level stump will be cut low and flat and will remain $1,475.001Green Ash ## Removal Location: tree is located on left-hand side of driveway at 5805 Minnetonka Drive DBH (diameter breast height): Hazards/obstacles: House, driveway, power ## Notes we need to be extra cautious of the driveway at the site. Any equipment must be on plywood. We need to protect the edges of this driveway. Wine clearance has already been completed on this tree. We need to pee down the log section. We will do this by climbing and haul. All debris tree will be removed. Ground level stump will be cut low and flat and will remain. $875.001Green Ash ## Removal Location: trees are located in rear Right hand corner of City lot DBH (diameter breast height): Multi stem Hazards/obstacles: Houses, wires, fences Notes: Waiting on final confirmation from the city if we have access from the backside, if not, the plan would be to clear out a path from academy Av to allow for equipment to get in and debris to be brought down to the road. $12,735.002Basswood ## Removal Location: these are at the corner of old market Road and Muirfield Circle. The closest address is 19400 Muirfield Circle. they are marked with white paint DBH (diameter breast height): 17, 18 inch diameter Hazards/obstacles: Street light, fire hydrant, Notes: Trees will be removed to ground level. Stumps will be cut low and flat and will remain. $1,875.002Green Ash Page 60 of 166 Page 3 of 8 ## Removal Location: trees are located at the corner of Vine Hill Road and Covington Road on the north side DBH (diameter breast height): 15–22 inch diameter ## Hazards/obstacles: Powerlines, Fence, road Notes: My plan would be to utilize a bucket truck from the road for the removal of these trees. There is a significant amount of branches, grass clippings, and debris already on the ground in this area. We will need to clean some of this out to allow for efficient cleanup of the tree removals. All four trees will be removed to ground level. Stumps will be cut low and flat and will remain. $2,507.004Green Ash $42,278.00 ## Customer SignatureDate ## Total:$42,278.00 ## Subtotal:$42,278.00 ## Tax:$0.00 Please call or email me if you have any questions or would like to approve these services. Also, our recommendations are often time-sensitive and delaying may affect tree health. A Credit Card is required at the time the proposal is approved. We accept all major credit cards including Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express. Your card will only be charged after the work is complete. Page 61 of 166 Page 4 of 8 Page 62 of 166 Page 5 of 8 ## Shadywood Tree Experts (STE) Terms & Conditions 1. Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated in writing, STE assessments are based on limited visual assessment and trees may have defects which are not ascertainable from such a limited inspection. Additional charges may be incurred upon detailed inspection. STE is not liable for defects and work required due to the limited nature of a visual assessment. Further, STE has only assessed the trees identified in the attachments and has not viewed, assessed, or made any recommendations for any other trees or plants on the Client’s property. In the event site conditions change in any manner after the Proposal has been provided, STE reserves the right to amend the Proposal. 2. Utilities: STE will have all public utilities marked at least 48 hours prior to the start of any project that requires digging or excavation, including stump grinding and tree planting. It is the responsibility of the Client to notify STE in writing, and mark on the property at least 48 hours prior to the start of the project, any private utilities and underground and/or buried items. This includes but is not limited to: existing irrigation systems, invisible pet fencing, private gas or electrical lines, and any other privately installed utilities. STE is not responsible for damage to and/or interruption of any utilities resulting from unmarked or mismarked private utilities. Any damage to STE, its employees, subcontractors, equipment, or materials as the result of any unmarked or mismarked private utilities shall be the responsibility of the Client or Client’s insurance coverage. 3. Client Responsibilities: Client is responsible for complying with and notifying STE of all covenants and/or restrictions applicable to the property along with obtaining any necessary prior approval from private entities including but not limited to: homeowner’s associations, management companies, association boards of directors, etc. STE relies upon Client’s representations that they are the lawful owner of the property upon which work is being completed or has legal authority to authorize the work on the property. STE is not liable for damages, actions, or losses brought or incurred by the Client as a result of work performed by STE on property not owned by the Client, or for which the Client did not have legal authority to authorize such work. Nothing in this paragraph will absolve the Client of his/her obligation to STE to pay for all work performed by STE. 4. Additional Client Responsibilities: STE is not responsible for surveying the property or determining boundary lines, easements, or encroachments located on the property. STE recommends that the Client hire a professional surveyor, at their own expense, to locate and clearly mark the boundaries of the property. Client is responsible for communicating with neighbors in the event access is required or recommended in order to perform tree work on the client’s property. Client must get written approval for STE to access their neighbor’s property, if deemed necessary. STE is not responsible for any damages resulting from Client’s failure to properly identify property boundaries, tree ownership, or otherwise uphold the Client responsibilities under this paragraph. 5. Indemnity: Client shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless STE and its respective officers, agents, and employees, harmless against all loss, damage, expense, and liability caused by any act of Client, Client’s tenants, residents, and other parties utilizing Client’s property. Client agrees that STE shall not be strictly liable for any and all loss, damage, expense, and liability arising hereunder.. Each of the foregoing indemnities, shall include the right of STE to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with any action to enforce the rights of the respective parties. 6. Unforeseen Conditions: Unforeseen tree, soil, and underground conditions may cause additional work which may result in additional costs and charges to complete the project. These conditions include, but are not limited to: pest infestation, rot that could not be seen during initial inspection, high water table, unknown springs, debris, or trash. If such conditions are discovered, STE will promptly discuss these conditions and price changes with the Client. STE shall not be liable for any damage to turf or soils due to heavy equipment access. Delays due to inclement weather or Acts of God, shall not be a basis for termination of this Agreement or reduction in the amount owed. No starting or completion dates are expressly or impliedly guaranteed. 7. Cranes and Heavy Equipment: Occasionally, unbudgeted for heavy equipment such as cranes may be necessary to properly complete the proposed work. All quotes for services requiring a crane are subject to additional review by a consulting arborist or crane specialist. In the event a larger or more specialized crane is required due to tree conditions, electrical hazards, surrounding tree canopies, fences, flag poles, or other conditions, an updated pricing proposal will be provided to the Client to be agreed upon prior to commencement of work. 8. Pricing: Costs associated with this project will be as provided in the attached Proposal. Proposed project costs have been calculated based on current prices for labor, equipment, and material. Pricing is valid for 90 days from the date of the Proposal. Client must sign the Proposal and STE must receive down payment before the expiration of Proposal pricing. After 90 days, STE reserves the right to amend the Proposal to reflect any changes to pricing. Taxes where applicable are in addition to the Proposal pricing. 9. Changes: Changes to the scope of work will result in additional charges. Alteration or deviation from the proposal involving costs greater than $500.00 of the total Proposal amount requires written approval from the Client. Any unwritten changes made to the scope of work will be billed at rates consistent with the accepted Proposal. If the Client is unsatisfied or becomes aware of issues related to the work being performed on the property by STE, Client must notify STE immediately. Additional charges may result if STE is not immediately notified of these issues by the Client. 10.Payment: Client agrees to pay STE the agreed upon amount for the services outlined in the Proposal, plus any additional costs for parts, materials, time, etc. as selected. Client agrees to provide STE with a valid credit card at the signing of this Agreement and authorizes STE to charge any amounts due upon substantial completion of the work. If the Client would prefer to make payment via, cash, check, or other payment methods, it must be arranged with STE prior to completion of the work. Client is responsible for paying STE in full upon substantial completion, regardless of whether Client has filed an insurance claim for the work or is anticipating any insurance payment. a. Deposit: Client agrees to pay STE as outlined in the Proposal. For projects greater than $2500 in value or which require a crane, traffic control, or specialized equipment, STE requires a 25% deposit to reserve a place on the production schedule. STE requires a that Client place a credit card on file with STE in order to secure a place on the schedule. Client must notify STE if they wish to pay by other means after a credit card information is received. Upon substantial completion of the project, all remaining amounts due, including any additions for changes, must be paid in full. b. Late Payment: Client must pay in full within 30 days of substantial completion. If STE has a credit card on file for the Client, Client authorizes STE to charge the credit card in for any outstanding balance. Any outstanding balances which are not paid according to the terms of this Agreement will be subject to an administrative processing fee of $50, plus interest of 1.5%, per month, or the maximum allowable by law, until paid in full. c. Collection Costs: STE is entitled to use all legal means necessary to recover unpaid balances. STE shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in the collections process including but not limited to charges, expenses, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Page 1 of 2 Page 63 of 166 Page 6 of 8 ## Shadywood Tree Experts (STE) Terms & Conditions Page 2 11. Subcontractors: Client grants STE the right to subcontract work according to STE’ needs. Subcontractors will carry insurance commensurate with STE’ coverage at all times while working on the Client’s project. 12. Insurance: STE and each subcontractor, if applicable, shall procure and maintain in full force and effect, at all times during the term of this Agreement, the following insurance: General Liability insurance; Commercial auto insurance; and Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by state law. 13.Promotional Use: Client grants STE the right to take pictures, video and written accounts of this property, and post yard signs on the start date of the project for promotional purposes. Promotional signs will be removed after a reasonable time following completion of the project, or upon request of the Client. 14.Warranty: STE guarantees satisfaction related to the clean up and removal of branches and other debris following the work. In the event the Client is unsatisfied with the clean up provided, they must notify STE as soon as possible and must not undertake any clean up work on their own or by hiring any third party. Work will be performed in accordance with ANSI standard Z1331.1. This applies to tree pruning, tree removal, insect/disease control, fertilization, and stump grinding. Trees and shrubs are living organisms. They are always changing and subject to weather, site conditions, and other conditions beyond the control of STE. No Guarantee is expressed or implied on tree, shrub, or general landscape safety or health. While STE will do everything in its power to prevent tree failure due to wind, storms or other Acts of God, we cannot guarantee that your tree will not sustain damage in these conditions. No tree planting services are warranted. All Warranties do not go into effect until the project is paid in full. Warranty is void if project is not paid in full within 30 days after receipt of invoice by Client. Payment may not be held by Client in lieu of warranty. 15.PRE-LIEN NOTICE: THIS NOTICE IS TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS UNDER MINNESOTA LAW (MINN. STAT. §514.011) IN CONNECTION ## WITH THE IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY. (A) ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE A LIEN ## AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS. (B) UNDER MINNESOTA LAW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DIRECTLY AND DEDUCT THIS AMOUNT FROM OUR CONTRACT PRICE, OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE THEM FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR ## MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO GAVE YOU TIMELY NOTICE. 16.Cancellation: Client must notify STE in writing within 72 hours of the start of the project in order to cancel this agreement. Failure to give proper written cancellation notice 72 hours prior to commencement of the work will result in a charge of ten percent (10%) of the total Proposal amount plus any costs incurred in preparation for and execution of the work. Products or equipment which have been reserved or custom ordered for this project must be paid in full regardless of cancellation notice. 17.Choice of Law: This agreement will be governed by the laws of Minnesota. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to resolve any disputes which arise from this agreement through direct contact, in an informal manner. For matters in dispute under $15,000 in value, the parties agree to use Conciliation Court in Hennepin County, Minnesota for dispute resolution. For matters valued at more than $15,000, the parties agree to venue any dispute in district court in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 18.Severability: Should any part of this agreement be deemed unlawful, the remainder shall remain in effect and be fully binding on the parties. 19.Merger: This Agreement, the Proposal, and any attachments indicated below constitute the entire agreement between the parties, all prior negotiations, conversations, and commitments being merged herein. 20. Acceptance of Proposal: STE hereby agrees to furnish materials and labor for the project according to the price laid out in the Proposal. By signing this document, the Client agrees that the above and attached specifications are satisfactory. Further, Client signifies that they have the authority to order the work to be performed at the property listed and authorizes that STE may begin the work for which Client will pay the agreed upon price as specified in the Proposal. Page 2 of 2 By signing and dating this proposal, I agree that I have carefully read this proposal and the above Terms and Conditions and would like to proceed with these recommendations as outlined in this proposal. ## Signature_____________________________________ Date_____________________ Page 64 of 166 Page 65 of 166 Page 66 of 166 City Council Item 2.F. ## Title/Subject: Replacement of VFD, Southeast Well ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Matt Morreim, Public Works Director ## Attachments ## 1. Traut Companies Quote ## Background A recent severe storm took out three phase power and caused the Southeast Well to go offline. After power was restored by Xcel Energy, staff determined that the SE Well's variable frequency drive (VFD), which controls the operation of the well pump motor, had been damaged and required replacement. Given that the failure occurred during a period of high seasonal water demand and the next scheduled City Council meeting was not until July 13, 2026, staff determined that delaying repairs would place the City's water system at risk by relying on a single well source. As a result, staff proceeded with obtaining quotes and authorizing the replacement work to restore the well to service as quickly as possible. The repair costs exceeded staff's spending authority; therefore, retroactive Council approval is being requested. The repair has been completed, and the SE Well has been returned to normal operation, restoring redundancy and reliability to the City's water supply system. Staff obtained three proposals for replacement of the VFD and associated programming, startup, and installation services. All companies are responsible contractors and have completed similar work. ## Contractor: Quoted Amount: ## Traut Companies $12,480.00 ## Total Control Systems, Inc. $14,313.00 ## Robb's Electric, Inc. $14,341.00 ## Strategic Alignment ## Functionally and Financially Sound Infrastructure • Maintain and repair existing infrastructure to avoid disruptions — A quick response restored redundancy and maintained reliability to the City's water supply system. ## Budget Impact Page 67 of 166 The VFD was planned to be replaced in 2025 but was moved to a future year due to the SE Well Treatment Rehab project. Funds are available within the Water Utility (601) Fund. ## Action Requested Motion to approve the quote Traut Companies in the amount of $12,480.00 for replacing the VFD at SE Well. Simple Majority is required. Page 68 of 166 ## PROPOSAL Job #I-21534 Date: 06/29/2026 ## Job Manager: Travis Traut Phone: 320-406-2665 Email: travist@trautcompanies.com ## Contact ## Matt Morreim Phone: 952-960-7913 Email: mmorreim@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Bill To: ## City of Shorewood ## 5755 Country Club Road ## Shorewood MN 55331 mmorreim@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Work Site: Well 7 - Unique 416160 ## 5755 Covington Rd ## Shorewood MN 55331 ## Scope: ## Replace VFD, Program, Startup ## ServiceUnitQtyRateTotal ## VFD Technician Drive Time & LaborHR8$165.00$1,320.00 ## ACH580-01-124A-4EA1$10,855.00$10,855.00 ## Remote Keypad KitEA1$230.00$230.00 ## Subtotal$12,405.00 ## Incoming Freight$75.00 ## Proposed Job Total:$12,480.00 By:                                                                                 Date: 06/29/2026 -Traut Companies. ## By:                                                                                 Date: ## Print Name:          City of Shorewood ## LIEN CLAIMANT NOTICE TO OWNER BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE ## UNDERSIGNED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WELL, OR RELATED WORK, IN MINNESOTA AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON ## THE REVERSE SIDE. WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE YOU NOTICE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: a. ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE ## A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR THE CONTRIBUTION. b. UNDER THE MINNESOTA LAW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS ## IMPROVEMENT DIRECTLY AND DEDUCT THIS AMOUNT FROM THE CONTRACT PRICE, OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE ## THEM FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT, UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER ## SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO GAVE YOU TIMELY ## NOTICE. Your signature on this contract attests to your financial responsibility, ability, and willingness to pay in accordance with the terms of this Contract. You represent to Traut Companies that you have no plans to file bankruptcy or seek other protection from your creditors, that all the information in this Contract is correct, and that you have read and understand this contract. You represent and warrant to Traut Companies that you are the owner of the property on which Traut Companies will do the work. The owner is advised that if the project involves the owner's homestead, federal law allows the owner to terminate this contract for any reason within three (3) days after signing it. trautcompanies.com32640 Co Rd 133, St. Joseph, MN 56374320.251.5090 or 800.728.5091 7/1/2026 Page 69 of 166 City Council Item 2.G. ## Title/Subject: 2026 Crack Sealing Project ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Matt Morreim, Public Works Director ## Attachments 1. Bid Tabulation_Shorewood 2026 Crack Seal - signed ## 2. Bid Abstract_Shorewood 2026 Crack Seal ## Background The City has planned for pavement maintenance in the Capital Improvement Plan to be able to efficiently maintain its roadway infrastructure. Crack sealing is a lower-cost maintenance practice that helps extend the service life of a roadway by eliminating water from entering or working its way below the pavement surface. This is most beneficial in the freeze/thaw seasons where water can enter existing cracks and then freeze. The freezing water expands, and over repeated cycles deteriorates the pavement to form larger cracks and lead to potholes and higher maintenance costs. The current practice is to crack seal roadways that have a relatively new asphalt surface. In this case most of the roadways to be crack sealed are between one and five years in age. Quotes for the 2026 Crack Seal project were solicited from five contractors and were received on June 30, 2026. A total of three quotes were received and the low quote is submitted by Allied Blacktop Company out of Maple Grove, MN. The quotes are summarized below: This year's crack filling project will be administered differently than in past years. Staff have identified streets and areas in the quote packages and will direct the contractor to streets based on the priority. Staff will measure completed cracks as the contractor is performing the work and will direct the contractor to stop once they have reached the contracted amount. Staff have reviewed all the quotes and the quotes received are accurate and indicate that the quoting process was competitive. Staff recommends award, in the amount of $47,500.00 to the low quote, Allied Blacktop Company. ## Quoter: Total Quote ## Amount: ## Allied Blacktop Company $47,500.00 ## Bargen Incorporated $60,400.00 ## Asphalt Surface ## Technologies / ASTECH $87,500.00 Page 70 of 166 ## Strategic Alignment ## Fiscal Responsibility and Functionally and Financially Sound Infrastructure by proactively extending pavement life and reducing future roadway maintenance costs. ## Budget Impact The project is to be funded from the Street Reconstruction Fund item LR-99-099 where $315,000 has been budgeted. ## Action Requested Motion to approve the attached resolution accepting the quotes for the 2026 Crack Seal Project, City Project No: 26-02, and awarding the project to Allied Blacktop Company and authorizing execution of the project contract. A majority vote is required. Page 71 of 166 ## City of Shorewood ## Project Bid Tabulation 2026 CRACK SEALSoliciting agent:Bolton & Menk, Inc. Contact:Andrew Budde, P.E. ## Bid Date:07/01/2026 9:00 AM CDT ## FirmTotal Bid ## Allied Blacktop Company$47,500.00 ## Bargen Incorporated$60,400.00 ## Asphalt Surface Technologies / ASTECH$87,500.00 ## Engineer's Opinion of Cost - Base Bid$59,000.00 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on July 1, 2026 for the 2026 Crack Seal, City Project 26-02. ## Andrew Budde, P.E., City EngineerSandie Thone, City Clerk Page 72 of 166 ## ABSTRACT OF BIDS ## 2026 CRACK SEALCITY OF SHOREWOODBid Date: July 1, 2026 1 2 3 ## ITEM ## APPROX. ## UNIT ## UNIT ## UNIT ## UNIT ## NO. ## BID ITEM ## QUAN. ## UNIT ## PRICE ## AMOUNT ## PRICE ## AMOUNT ## PRICE ## AMOU ## NT ## PRICE ## AMOUNT 1 ## MOBILIZATION 1 ## LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.0 0 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 2 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 ## LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 3 ## SWEEPING 1 ## LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0. 00 $0.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 4 ## CRACK SEAL 60,000 ## LIN FT $0.85 $51,000.00 $0.60 $36,000. 00 $0.99 $59,400.00 $1.10 $66,000.00 ## TOTAL BID: $59,000.00 $47,500.00 $60,400.00 $87,500.00 ## BASE BID Bargen Inc. ## Allied Blacktop Company ## Engineers Estimate ## ASTECH ## H:\SHWD\_General\Roadways\Pavement Maintenance\2026\ ## 2026 Crack Seal\Bids\Bid Abstract_Shorewood 2026 Crack ## Seal.xls Page 1 Page 73 of 166 City Council Item 4.A. ## Title/Subject: Tour de Tonka Presentation ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## Attachments ## Background Kim Carlson, Executive Director of Minnetonka Community Eduation, will provide an update regarding the 2027 Tour de Tonka. ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance Presentations from other agencies and elected officials promote dialogue, foster relationships and promote collaboration. ## Budget Impact ## None ## Action Requested ## No Action is Requested Page 74 of 166 City Council Item 4.B. ## Title/Subject: Cathcart Park Tennis Court Resurfacing ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Mitchell Czech, Park/Rec Director ## Attachments ## 1. ATE Recreation Proposal ## Background On February 23, 2026, the City Council adopted the Park System Master Plan, which included a 10- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) developed to address park infrastructure needs based on facility conditions, usage, and community feedback. Within the CIP of the approved plan, a resurfacing of the Cathcart Park Tennis Court, along with replacement of signage, was included in 2026 with a budget of $18,000. The Park Commission first reviewed the project during its May 19, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. Staff presented proposals from three contractors that specialize in tennis court maintenance and construction. It was noted that during conversations with the contractors, varying opinions were given about the current condition of the court. One contractor said they would not recommend a resurface, they would suggest a full replacement. However, two contractors stated that a resurface will extend the lifespan of the current court, but there will be slight flaws that can only be corrected with a full reconstruction to address structural and drainage issues. It was recommended to the staff that the City begins planning and budgeting for a full court reconstruction at some point in the next 7- 10 years. The Commission expressed interest in better understanding the condition of the courts before making a recommendation. Commissioners generally agreed that they believed the tennis court would benefit from resurfacing but wanted to conduct an onsite assessment during the scheduled park tours before making a final recommendation. The Commission unanimously voted to postpone action until a site visit could be completed. On June 30, 2026, the Park Commission conducted an onsite assessment of the tennis court during its park tours. Commissioners inspected multiple cracks throughout the court surface, including areas exhibiting heaving believed to be caused by nearby tree roots. Staff explained that resurfacing would include crack repairs, patching of low spots, surface preparation, and application of new athletic coatings, but would not eliminate the underlying structural issues. It was noted that existing cracks would likely reappear as hairline cracks within one to two years and gradually worsen over time, with conditions expected to return to their current state within approximately five to seven years. The Commission removed the proposal from C & H Sport Surfaces, INC. from consideration since it did not include patching of low areas that may hold water. An additional proposal from Tennis West was also received late, but was included for consideration. Following the site assessment and discussion, the Commission concluded that resurfacing represents a prudent investment that aligns with the City’s adopted Park System Master Plan Page 75 of 166 and CIP. Commissioners agreed that extending the useful life of a park amenity that is used frequently for an estimated five to seven years is a worthwhile investment, while also providing time for future capital planning and budgeting for a full court reconstruction. The Commission recognized that resurfacing is a temporary solution but determined that the improvement would enhance safety, improve playability, and maintain service levels for residents until a future replacement project can be undertaken. The Commission recommended proceeding with the quote provided by ATE Recreation, which was the lowest quote that fit the goals of the project. It was also noted that ATE Recreation has a proven track record with successful similar projects, including the tennis courts at Minnetonka High School. A motion to recommend approval of the quote from ATE Recreation in the amount of $15,894.60 to the City Council for the resurfacing of the Cathcart Park Tennis Court was passed with a unanimous 4-0 vote by the Commission. If approved, the project would be scheduled for completion in late-August to early-September. ## Contractor Name Resurfacing Quote ## Pro Track and Tennis, INC $25,700.00 ## ATE Recreation $15,896.60 C & H Sport Surfaces, INC $11,995.00 (does not include patching of low areas) ## Tennis West $15,920.00 ## Strategic Alignment ## Functionally & Financially Sound Infrastructure • Define standards and goals for infrastructure development • Plans to finance infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and replacement Resurfacing of the Cathcart Park Tennis Court was identified as a capital improvement item within the recently adopted Park System Master Plan. Following the capital improvement plan helps the City maintain its park infrastructure and amenities, creating a quality park system for the community to enjoy. ## Budget Impact The recommended quote from ATE Recreation is $15,894.60, which is $2,105.40 below the approved project budget of $18,000 that is included within the approved Park System Master Plan. This allows the City to complete the planned court resurfacing improvements while remaining under the allocated budget. New court signage will still need to be purchased from the excess funds, and they can also help address any incidental project expenses. A resurface will help preserve and extend the useful life of the tennis court with improved playability for user groups. Page 76 of 166 ## Action Requested A motion to approve the quote from ATE Recreation in the amount of $15,894.60 for the resurfacing of the Cathcart Park Tennis Court. Simple majority vote is required. Page 77 of 166 1 of 2 ## Proposal1193-1 ## Issue Date ## Expires ## PREPARED BY ## Chris Her ## ATE Recreation (763) 447-8666 chris@aterecreation.com ## 125 Woodland Rd suite #154, Delano, MN 55328, USA ## PREPARED FOR ## Mitchell Czech ## City of Shorewood (952) 960-7925 mczech@shorewoodmn.gov ## 5735 Country Club Rd, Shorewood, MN 55331 ## PROPOSAL DETAILS ## Cathcart Park ## 26655 W 62nd St, Excelsior, MN 55331 Resurfacing one tennis court at Cathcart Park using SportMaster surfacing products. Alternate option is provided to have the basketball court resurfaced. ## Tennis Resurfacing7,200Square Feet$2.21$15,894.60 Prior to resurfacing court will be pressure washed to remove dirt and debris. 570 lineal ft. of 1/4" wide cracks will be filled with an elastomeric crack sealant where possible, where not possible the cracks will be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix. 246 square ft. of low spots to be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix, and smoothed. Resurfacing includes one coat of acrylic resurfacer, two coats of color, one set of 2" wide white tennis court lines, and one set of 1.5" wide alternate colored pickleball court lines overlayed. Owner to provide water onsite. ## Basketball Resurfacing Options Please select 0 - 1 options $0.00 Review and select an option for Basketball Resurfacing. ## Basketball Resurfacing while Tennis ## Court Resurfacing 2,450Square Feet$2.77$6,794.71 Work to be completed during Tennis Court Resurfacing. Prior to resurfacing court will be pressure washed to remove dirt and debris. 257 lineal ft. of 1/4" wide cracks will be filled with an elastomeric crack sealant where possible, where not possible the cracks will be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix. 10 lineal ft. of divits measuring 8"x8" will be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix. 10 square ft. of low spots to be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix, and smoothed. Resurfacing includes one coat of acrylic resurfacer, two coats of color, one set of 2" wide white basketball court lines. Owner to provide water onsite. ## Basketball Resurfacing 2,450Square Feet$4.11$10,063.21 Prior to resurfacing court will be pressure washed to remove dirt and debris. 257 lineal ft. of 1/4" wide cracks will be filled with an elastomeric crack sealant where possible, where not possible the cracks will be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix. 10 lineal ft. of divits measuring 8"x8" will be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix. 10 square ft. of low spots to be filled with an acrylic patch binder mix, and smoothed. Resurfacing includes one coat of acrylic resurfacer, two coats of color, one set of 2" wide white basketball court lines. Owner to provide water onsite. May 14, 2026 July 20, 2026 ## DESCRIPTIONQTYUNIT PRICETOTAL Page 78 of 166 2 of 2 ## SUBTOTAL$15,894.60 ## TAX$0.00 ## TOTAL$15,894.60 ## PAYMENTS STARTING FROM $186/month on Learn More ## PAYMENT SCHEDULE ## NameAmount ## Deposit Invoice (30%)$4,768.38 ## Completion Invoice$11,126.22 Work to be done in 2026. Payment due upon receipt of invoice. A finance charge of 1 1/2% per month (18% per year) will be charged on any balance over 30 days past invoice date, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. Deposit Invoice: Includes partial payment for materials to surface. Completion Invoice: Includes the remaining balance for the completion of surfacing. Proposed Work Does Not Include: Landscape Restoration, Irrigation Repair/Restoration, Private Utility Locates/Repairs, Sub-soil Corrections, Erosion Control, Towing Charges, Permits and Fees, Multiple Mobilizations, Surveying or any Unforseen Conditions, Guarantee on drainage or ponding of water on lots with less than 1% slope. The above specifications, costs, and terms are hereby accepted. ## MITCHELL CZECHDATE Page 79 of 166 City Council Item 4.C. ## Title/Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Fast Track Cohort ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Eric Wilson, Communications/Recycling Coordinator ## Attachments ## 1. ShorewoodResolution No. 11-038-Participation In the MN GreenStep Cities Program ## 2. Shorewood GreenStep Cities Assessment 2023 ## 3. GreenStep Cities Fast Track Flyer ## 4. Fast Track Cohort Guide ## Background The City of Shorewood joined the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program in 2011 to support its commitment to sustainability, environmental stewardship, and efficient municipal operations. GreenStep Cities is a voluntary statewide program that helps communities implement best practices related to energy efficiency, land use, transportation, environmental management, and community resilience. Since joining the program, Shorewood has achieved Step 2 GreenStep City recognition and completed 29 actions across 11 best practices. Accomplishments include energy-efficiency upgrades to municipal buildings, building energy benchmarking, pollinator-friendly policies, renewable energy promotion, and youth engagement in sustainability initiatives. See 2023 Assessment attachment for all accomplished actions. Staff has identified the 2026–2027 GreenStep Fast Track Cohort as an opportunity to learn more about the GreenStep program, explore sustainability best practices being implemented across Minnesota, gain a better understanding of the actions and documentation needed to update Shorewood’s current GreenStep actions, and, if desired, advance within the GreenStep framework to Step 3 in the future. The GreenStep Fast Track Cohort is a free six-month peer-learning program that provides monthly virtual learning sessions, technical assistance, and opportunities to connect with other Minnesota communities similar in size to Shorewood. Participation will allow staff to gain knowledge, share experiences, and identify practices that may be applicable to not only Shorewood's participation in the GreenStep program, but also the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. Through participation in the cohort, staff will learn about: • Energy efficiency and climate planning • Water conservation • Transportation and mobility • Sustainable purchasing and waste reduction Page 80 of 166 • Community engagement and resilience planning ## Expected Benefits Participation in the GreenStep Fast Track Cohort will provide additional knowledge and resources to support Shorewood's ongoing sustainability efforts while helping staff better understand opportunities available through the GreenStep Cities program. Participating staff will report back on key learnings, potential opportunities, and any recommendations identified through participation in the program. Staff participation in the cohort would: • Increase staff understanding of GreenStep best practices and program requirements. • Provide access to technical expertise, case studies, and implementation resources. • Offer opportunities to learn from peer communities facing similar sustainability challenges. • Identify potential sustainability initiatives and operational improvements for future consideration. • Improve staff familiarity with documentation and reporting processes associated with GreenStep recognition. • Help inform recommendations related to Shorewood's sustainability goals and the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. A recording of the informational session is available to learn more about the GreenStep Cities program and the Fast Track Cohort on the GreenStep Fast Track Cohort web page at greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/page/fast-track-cohort. ## Strategic Alignment ## Environmental Stewardship • Clear and strategic environmental policies and practices ## Budget Impact The GreenStep Fast Track Cohort offers a practical and low-cost opportunity for Shorewood to advance its sustainability efforts, learn from peer communities, and continue making progress within the GreenStep framework. There is no cost to participate in the program other than staff time, estimated at roughly 2 hours per month between July 2026 to January 2027. This includes 60-90 minutes of cohort instruction and peer-to-peer networking with others in the program, plus additional time for preparing and bringing back relevant information to Shorewood staff and council. ## Action Requested Authorize staff participation in the GreenStep Fast Track Cohort and direct staff to report back on key learnings, completed actions, and opportunities identified through the program. Page 81 of 166 ## CITYOFSHOREWOOD ## RESOLUTIONNO11038 ## ARESOLUTIONOFSUPPORTFORTHECITYOFSHOREWOODS ## PARTICIPATIONINTHEMINNESOTAGREENSTEPCITIESPROGRAM ## WHEREASabroadcoalitionofpublicandprivatestakeholdersincludingthe ## LeagueofMinnesotaCitiestheMPCAOfficeofEnergySecurityandCleanEnergy ## ResponseTeamCERTsrespondedto2008StatelegislationbyestablishingtheMinnesota ## GreenStepCitiesprogramtoprovideaseriesofsustainabledevelopmentbestpractices focusingonlocalgovernmentopportunitiestoreduceenergyuseandgreenhousegasesandto conserveeconomicandnoneconomicresourcesand ## WHEREAStheGreenStepCitiesProgramaimstoprovideMinnesotacitiesapathway togreatersustainabilitybaseduponimplementingbestpracticesspecifictoMinnesotacitiesand ## WHEREAStheMinnesotaGreenStepCitiesprogramprovidescosteffective sustainabledevelopmentbestpracticesinthefollowingfivecategories1Buildingsand ## Lighting2Transportation3LandUse4EnvironmentalManagementand5Economic andCommunityDevelopmentand ## WHEREASduetothemultipleenvironmentaleconomicandsocialdimensionsofthe sustainabilitybestpracticesleadershipfromacityscouncilisneededtooverseetheir implementationandcoordinationintegrationwithothercityactivitiesand ## WHEREAStheGreenStepCitiesProgramchampionssustainabilitygoalsandpractices consistentwiththeCityofShorewoodsgoalsandmissionstatement ## NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityof ## ShorewooddoesherebyauthorizetheCityofShorewoodtheCitytoparticipateinthe ## MinnesotaGreenStepCitiesprogram ## BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheCitywilltakethefollowingstepstobe recognizedasaMinnesotaGreenStepCity 1 ## AppointBradNielsen ## PlanningDirector asaMinnesotaGreenStep ## CoordinatortofacilitatetheCitysGreenStepProgramdevelopmentand implementationand 2 ## FacilitatetheinvolvementoftheShorewoodPlanningCommissiontheCity ## CounciltheParkCommissionCitystaffandconstituentsintheplanning promotionandconsiderationofimplementingGreenStepCitiesbestpractices and Page 82 of 166 ## IdentifywhichGreenStepbestpracticestheCityhasalreadyimplementedand whichbestpracticeswillinitiallybeconsideredforimplementationand 4 ## ImplementaminimumnumberofrequiredandoptionalGreenStepbestpractices thatwillresultinenergyreductioneconomicsavingsandreductioninthe communitysgreenhousegasfootprintand ## WillworkwiththeMPCAtopostasummaryoftheCitysimplementationofbest practicesontheMinnesotaGreenStepCitieswebsite ## ADOPTEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFSHOREWOODthis27thdayof ## June2011 cam ## ATTESTChristineLizeeMayor 2 Page 83 of 166 1 Assessment 2023 ## City of Shorewood: Category B City ## Table of Contents About the Program ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Information and GreenStep Status ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Notable Actions .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Step Advancement Guidelines ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Best Practice Actions: .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Buildings and Lighting (BPs 1-5) ................................................................................................................................. 4 Land Use (BPs 6-10) ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Transportation (BPs 11-14) ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Management (BPs 15-23) ................................................................................................................ 18 Resilient Economic and Community Development (BPs 24-29) .............................................................................. 26 ## About the Program The GreenStep Cities program is a five-step program for cities and tribal nations to work towards sustainability. There are 29 best practices which each provide required and recommended actions. Recommended actions are placed into the following categories: buildings and lighting, land use, transportation, environmental management, and resilient economic and community development. Each action submitted by a city receives a ranking based on a three-star system. ## Assessment Date: 2/10/2023 ## Assessment completed by: Kristin Mroz Page 84 of 166 2 ## Information and GreenStep Status Preliminary submission for city review: Yes ## Final April 1 st ## recommendation to League of MN Cities: No All required BPs done for Step 3?: No Step 3 BP distribution requirement met?: No ## Recommend June 2023 recognition Step 3?: No Current Distribution of BP Categories: Star-Rating of Actions: ## Notable Actions • Narrow – 24 ft. – streets allowed • Outdoor wood boilers regulated to improve local air quality and public health • Passed state's first 'bee-safe' policy whereby the city will avoid certain pesticides, plant bee-supporting plants, and educate/encourage residents to do the same • Recognized as a 2019 SolSmart Bronze city, to ease the installation of solar on buildings throughout the city • Promotion of County’s Step to It Challenge, where residents, city staff track walking steps each May • Youth position created on the city recycling committee • 2018 Xcel Partners in Energy city: promoting energy/water savings, WindSource to residents, paying 50% of 1st 25 home energy audits 38% 7% 7% 34% 14% ## Buildings & Lighting ## Land Use ## Transportation ## Environmental Management ## Resilient Economic & Community Development The star-rating system represents the rating of the city’s action, where Not Rated (NR) is an uncompleted action, 1-star represents basic completion, 2-star is full completion, and 3-star is the maximum completion of the given action. ## Joined: June 2011 ## Status: Step 2 ## Total Best Practices (BPs) Complete: 11 ## Total BP Actions Complete: 29 ## Shorewood’s GreenStep webpage ## Page See all city-reported actions at https://greenstep.pca.state.m n.us/city-detail/12449 45% 38% 17% ★ ★★ ★★★ Page 85 of 166 3 ## Step Advancement Guidelines Guidelines for Step 2: As a Category B city, to be recognized as a Step 2 GreenStep City, ANY 6 Best Practices must be reported. ## Any 6 Best Practices Guidelines for Step 3: As a Category B city, to be recognized as a Step 3 GreenStep City, the following must be reported, at minimum: Public Buildings: 1.1, 1.2 Buildings & Lighting: any one additional Buildings & Lighting BP (2-5) Comprehensive, Climate & Energy Plans: 6.1 and 6.2 ## Land Use: any one additional Land Use BP (7-10) Transportation: any one Transportation BP (11-14) Sustainable Purchasing: 15.1 and any one additional action from 15.2-15.8 Community Forests & Soils: any one action from 16.1-16.7 ## Environmental Management: any one additional Environmental Management BP (17-23) Benchmarks & Community Engagement: 24.1 and any one additional action from 24.2-24.7 Green Business Development: any two actions from 25.1-25.7 Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience: 29.1 at a 2- or 3-star rating Guidelines for Steps 4 and 5: Steps 4 and 5 focus on metrics – what are the outcomes of all of the actions that the city has implemented over time? ● Step 4: Measure and report a minimum number of core and optional metrics for the previous calendar year or the most recent available data. o Category B communities: In addition to the CORE metrics, include 3 additional metrics of choice. ● Step 5: Demonstrate improvement three eligible metrics measured in Step 4, from one data year to the next. o Category A, B, and C communities: Improve upon 3 eligible metric elements. Learn more about Step 2 Learn more about Step 3 Learn more about Steps 4 & 5 Page 86 of 166 4 ## Best Practice Actions: Detailed Descriptions ## Buildings and Lighting ## BP 1: Efficient Existing Public Buildings ## BP 2: Efficient Existing Private Buildings ## BP 3: New Green Buildings ## BP 4: Efficient Outdoor Lighting and Signals ## BP 5: Building Redevelopment ## Best Practice 1: Efficient Existing Public Buildings BP 1 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 3 Actions to Complete BP 1: 1.1 and 1.2 ## Best ## Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last ## Entry: 1.1 ★★ Enter/update building information and monthly usage data into the MN B3 Benchmarking database. Auto updates implemented 2021; 47 months up to 2013 1.2 ★★★ Make no/low cost indoor lighting and operational changes in city- owned/school buildings. Retrofit of all city hall & community center lighting to LED, added programmable thermostats, put motion detector lights in closets and bathrooms 1.3 Choose an item. Invest in larger energy efficiency projects. 1.4 ★★ Implement IT efforts and city employee engagement to reduce plug loads, building energy use and workflow efficiency. Employees directed to turn off electronics, lights, chargers; electricity tracking to monitor effect 1.5 Choose an item. Meet the SB 2030 energy standard or qualify under a green building or energy framework. 1.6 Choose an item. Improve operations and maintenance of city-owned/school buildings and leased buildings. Page 87 of 166 5 1.7 Choose an item. Install one or more of the following: -A ground-source, closed loop geothermal system. -A district energy/microgrid system. -A rainwater harvesting system ## Best Practice 2: Efficient Existing Private Buildings BP 2 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 4 Actions to Complete BP 2: Any one action ## Best ## Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last ## Entry: 2.1 ★★★ Create or participate in a program to promote energy and water efficiency. 2018 Xcel Partners in Energy city: promoting energy/water savings, WindSource to residents, paying 50% of 1st 25 home energy audits 2.2 Choose an item. Integrate green building and EV charging best practices information and assistance into the building permit process. 2.3 Choose an item. Implement an energy rating/disclosure policy for residential/commercial buildings. 2.4 ★ Describe energy/water efficiency outcomes and other green building practices at local businesses and not- for-profit organizations. All city building lighting systems have been retrofitted with LED lighting 2.5 ★ Create one of the following: -Water-wise landscaping ordinance/ guidance -WaterSense purchasing program -Guidance on rainwater harvesting and home water softener use Watering ban ordinance and a water utility rate structure 2.6 ★★ Provide a financial or other incentive to private parties who add energy/sustainability improvements, meet the SB 2030 energy standard, or renovate using a green building or energy framework. Water efficiency rebate started in 2020 for residents purchasing WaterSense toilets, irrigation controllers and sprinkler system bodies, and EnergyStar clothes washers Page 88 of 166 6 2.7 Choose an item. Customize a model sustainable building renovation policy that includes the SB 2030 energy standard and adopt the language to govern private renovation projects. ## Best Practice 3: New Green Buildings BP 3 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 3: Any one action ## Best ## Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last ## Entry: 3.1 Choose an item. Require by city policy that new city- owned buildings be built using the SB 2030 energy standard and/or a green building framework. 3.2 Choose an item. Work with the local school district to ensure that future new schools are built using the SB 2030 energy standard and/or a green building framework. 3.3 Choose an item. Adopt a sustainable building policy for private buildings; include the SB 2030 energy standard; adopt language governing new development projects. 3.4 Choose an item. Provide a financial or other incentive to private parties who build new buildings that utilize the SB 2030 energy standard and/or a green building framework. 3.5 Choose an item. Adopt environmentally preferable covenant guidelines for new common interest communities addressing sustainability. Page 89 of 166 7 ## Best Practice 4: Efficient Outdoor Lighting and Signals BP 4 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 4 Actions to Complete BP 4: 2 actions (including one from 4.5-4.8) ## Best ## Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last ## Entry: 4.1 ★ Require energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant new or replacement outdoor lighting fixtures on city- owned/private buildings/facilities. 4.2 Choose an item. Purchase LEDs for all future street lighting and traffic signals. 4.3 ★★ Replace city street lighting with Dark Sky-compliant LEDs, modifying any city franchise/utility agreement and adding smart grid attributes. 4.4 Choose an item. Coordinate traffic signals; optimize signal timing to minimize car idling at intersections yet maintain safe and publicly acceptable vehicle speeds. 4.5 ★★ Use LED/solar-powered lighting for a flashing sign or in a street/parking lot/park project. LED solar-powered flashers added to 4 stop signs; solar-powered speed signs were installed on two streets 4.6 Choose an item. Relamp/improve exterior building lighting for city-owned buildings/ facilities with energy efficient, Dark- Sky compliant lighting. 4.7 Choose an item. Replace city-owned parking lot/ramp lighting with Dark-Sky compliant, energy efficient, automatic dimming lighting technologies. 4.8 ★★★ Replace city's existing traffic signal indications with LEDs. Page 90 of 166 8 ## Best Practice 5: Building Redevelopment BP 5 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 5: Any one action ## Best ## Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last ## Entry: 5.1 Choose an item. Adopt an historic preservation ordinance/ regulations and encourage adaptive reuse. 5.2 Choose an item. ## Implement the Minnesota Main Street model for commercial revitalization. 5.3 Choose an item. Plan for reuse of large-format retail buildings, or work with a local school, church or commercial building to either add-on space or repurpose space into new uses. 5.4 Choose an item. Create/modify a green residential remodeling assistance/financing program to assist homeowners in adding space or sustainable features. 5.5 Choose an item. Adopt development/design standards and programs that facilitate infill, redevelopment, and adaptable buildings. Page 91 of 166 9 ## Land Use ## BP 6: Comprehensive, Climate and Energy Plans ## BP 7: Resilient City Growth ## BP 8: Mixed Uses ## BP 9: Efficient Highway and Auto-Oriented Development ## BP 10: Design for Natural Resource Conservation ## Best Practice 6: Comprehensive, Climate and Energy Plans BP 6 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 6: 6.1 and 6.2 ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 6.1 ★ Adopt a comprehensive plan or a future land use plan adopted by the county or a regional entity. 6.2 Choose an item. Demonstrate that regulatory ordinances comply with the comprehensive plan. 6.3 Choose an item. Include requirements in comprehensive and/or other plans for intergovernmental coordination. 6.4 Choose an item. Include ecological provisions in the comprehensive plan that explicitly aim to minimize open space fragmentation and/or establish a growth area with expansion criteria. 6.5 Choose an item. Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independence goals/objectives in the comprehensive plan or in a separate policy document; include transportation recommendations. Page 92 of 166 10 ## Best Practice 7: Resilient City Growth BP 7 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 7: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 7.1 Choose an item. Eliminate barriers and actively encourage higher density housing in city zoning ordinance and map. 7.2 Choose an item. Achieve higher density housing with one of the following: a. Flexible lot size/frontage requirement for infill development. b. Density and floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses in selected residential zoning districts. c. Clustered residential development. d. Allowing accessory dwelling units, single-room occupancy housing, senior housing, co-housing or tiny houses / apartments by right in selected zoning districts. e. Implement a vacation rental property registration policy and/or special tax. 7.3 Choose an item. Achieve higher intensity commercial/industrial land uses through at least one of the following strategies: a. Include a commercial district with zero-lot-line setbacks and a FAR minimum of 1. b. Set targets for the minimum number of employees/acre in different commercial zones. 7.4 Choose an item. Provide incentives for affordable housing, workforce housing, infill projects, or for life-cycle housing at or near job or retail centers, or for achieving an average net residential density of seven units per acre. Page 93 of 166 11 7.5 Choose an item. Use design to create social trust and interaction among neighbors and allow developments that meet the prerequisites for LEED for ## Neighborhood Development certification. ## Best Practice 8: Mixed Uses BP 8 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 8: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 8.1 Choose an item. Organize or participate in a community planning process for the city/a mixed-use district, including specific community engagement practices that engage cultural and income diverse community members. 8.2 ★ Locate or lease a property for use as a school, city building or other government facility that has at least two of these attributes: a. Adjacent to an existing employment or residential center. b. Designed to facilitate and encourage access by walking, biking, or other non-vehicle travel modes. c. Accessible by regular transit service. ## Public Campus includes renovated City Hall, a public works facility, public safety facility, all located adjacent to a commercial shopping, with direct access to the city's trail system and accessible by existing regular transit service 8.3 Choose an item. Modify a planned unit development (PUD) ordinance to emphasize or require mixed-use development or affordable housing, to limit residential PUDs to areas adjacent to commercial development, and/or to add sustainability features. 8.4 Choose an item. Report that a (re)development meets a city/community-determined minimum point threshold under the ## Equitable Development Scorecard or LEED-Neighborhood Development. Page 94 of 166 12 8.5 Choose an item. Have a downtown zoning district that emphasizes small and destination business, entrepreneurial spaces, and allows or requires residential and residential-compatible commercial development. 8.6 Choose an item. Incorporate form-based zoning approaches into the zoning code, in those areas where a diverse mix of uses is desired. 8.7 Choose an item. Create incentives for vertical mixed- use development in appropriate locations. ## Best Practice 9: Efficient Highway and Auto-Oriented Development BP 9 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 9: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 9.1 Choose an item. Establish design goals for at least one highway/auto-oriented corridor/cluster. 9.2 Choose an item. Participate in regional economic development planning with representatives from surrounding townships, cities, the county and business interests to: a. Estimate commercial/industrial needs among all jurisdictions. b. Jointly implement recommendations to stage highway/auto-oriented commercial development in order to avoid overbuilding and expensive low- density development. 9.3 Choose an item. Adopt infrastructure design standards that protect the economic and ecologic functions of the highway corridor through clustering of development, native plantings and Page 95 of 166 13 incorporating access management standards. 9.4 Choose an item. Adopt development policies for large- format developments, zoning for auto-oriented commercial districts at the sub-urban edge and/or in tightly defined and smaller urban development corridors/nodes that have some bike/walk/transit access. ## Best Practice 10: Design for Natural Resource Conservation BP 10 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 10: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 10.1 Choose an item. ## Conduct a Natural Resource Inventory or Assessment; incorporate protection of priority natural systems or resources such as groundwater through the subdivision or development process. 10.4 Choose an item. For cities outside or on the fringe of metropolitan areas, conduct a build- out analysis, fiscal impact study, or adopt an urban growth boundary and a capital improvement plan that provides long-term protection of natural resources/systems, and agriculture outside the boundary. 10.5 Choose an item. For cities within metropolitan areas, incorporate woodland best management practices addressing protection of wooded areas into zoning or development review. 10.4 Choose an item. Adopt a conservation design policy; use a conservation design tool for pre- design meetings with developers and for negotiating development agreements in cities with undeveloped natural resource areas. Page 96 of 166 14 10.5 Choose an item. Preserve environmentally sensitive, community-valued land by placing a conservation easement on city lands, and by encouraging/funding private landowners to place land in conservation easements. 10.6 Choose an item. Conserve natural, cultural, historic resources by adopting or amending city codes and ordinances to support sustainable sites, including roadsides, and environmentally protective land use development. 10.7 Choose an item. Support and protect wildlife through habitat rehabilitation, preservation and recognition programs. ## Transportation ## BP 11: Living & Complete Streets ## BP 12: Mobility Options ## BP 13: Efficient City Fleets ## BP 14: Demand-Side Travel Planning ## Best Practice 11: Living & Complete Streets BP 11 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 11: 11.1 and one additional action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 11.1 Choose an item. Adopt a complete streets policy, or a living streets policy, which addresses landscaping and stormwater. 11.2 Choose an item. Adopt zoning language or approve a skinny street/development project that follows green street and/or walkable streets principles. 11.3 Choose an item. Modify a street in compliance with the city's complete streets policy. Page 97 of 166 15 11.4 Choose an item. Identify, prioritize and remedy complete streets gaps and lack of connectivity/safety within your road network. 11.5 Choose an item. Identify and remedy street-trail gaps between city streets and off-road trails/bike trails. 11.6 Choose an item. Implement traffic calming policy/measures in at least one street redevelopment project. ## Best Practice 12: Mobility Options BP 12 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 2 Actions to Complete BP 12: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 12.1 ★★ Increase walking, biking and transit. Several trails, sidewalks added throughout city to increase safe access to parks, school, business district 12.2 ★★ ## Conduct an Active Living campaign such as a Safe Routes to School program. ## Promotion of Henn. Co.’s Step to It Challenge, where residents, city staff track walking steps each ## May 12.3 Choose an item. Prominently identify mobility options: transit; paratransit/Dial-A-Ride; ridesharing/cab services; rental cars; bikes; airports. 12.4 Choose an item. Promote carpooling or ridesharing among community members, city employees, businesses, high schools and institutions of higher education. 12.5 Choose an item. Implement workplace multi-modal transportation best management practices - including telework/ flexwork - in city government, businesses or at a local health care provider. Page 98 of 166 16 12.6 Choose an item. Add/expand transit service, or promote car/bike sharing. ## Best Practice 13: Efficient City Fleets BP 13 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 13: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 13.1 Choose an item. Efficiently use your existing fleet of city vehicles by encouraging trip bundling, video conferencing, carpooling, vehicle sharing and incentives/technology. 13.2 Choose an item. Right-size/down-size city fleet with the most fuel-efficient vehicles that are of an optimal size and capacity for their intended functions. 13.3 Choose an item. Phase-in operational changes, equipment changes including electric vehicles, and no-idling practices for city or local transit fleets. 13.4 Choose an item. Phase in bike, e-bike, foot or horseback modes for police, inspectors and other city staff. 13.5 Choose an item. Document that local school bus fleet has optimized routes, start times, boundaries, vehicle efficiency and fuels, driver actions to cut costs including idling reduction, and shifting students from the bus to walking, biking and city transit. 13.6 Choose an item. Retrofit city diesel engines or install auxiliary power units and/or electrified parking spaces. Page 99 of 166 17 ## Best Practice 14: Demand-Side Travel Planning BP 14 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 14: Any two actions ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 14.1 Choose an item. Reduce/eliminate parking minimums; add parking maximums; develop district parking; install meters and charge for parking at curb and city- owned lots/ramps. 14.2 Choose an item. For cities with regular transit service, require/provide incentives for the siting of retail services at transit/ density nodes. 14.3 Choose an item. For cities with regular transit service, require/provide incentives for the siting of higher density housing at transit/density nodes. 14.4 Choose an item. Require new (re)developments to prepare a travel demand management plan or transit-oriented development standards or LEED for Neighborhood Development certification. Page 100 of 166 18 ## Environmental Management ## BP 15: Sustainable Purchasing ## BP 16: Community Forests and Soil ## BP 17: Stormwater Management ## BP 18: Parks and Trails ## BP 19: Surface Water ## BP 20: Efficient Water and Wastewater Systems ## BP 21: Septic Systems ## BP 22: Sustainable Consumption and Waste ## BP 23: Local Air Quality ## Best Practice 15: Sustainable Purchasing BP 15 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 15: 15.1 and any one additional action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 15.1 Choose an item. Adopt a sustainable purchasing policy or administrative guidelines/practices directing the city purchase at least: a. EnergyStar and EPEAT certified equipment and appliances. b. Paper containing post-consumer recycled content. 15.2 Choose an item. Purchase energy used by city government with a higher renewable percentage than required by MN law. 15.3 Choose an item. Establish purchasing preferences that support local, Minority, Disability, and Women-Owned businesses and, working with a local business association, develop a list of locally- produced products and suppliers for common purchases. 15.4 Choose an item. ## Require purchase of U.S. EPA WaterSense-certified products. 15.5 Choose an item. Set minimum sustainability standards to reduce the impact of your concrete Page 101 of 166 19 use, asphalt, roadbed aggregate, or other construction materials. 15.6 Choose an item. Require printing services to be purchased from companies using sustainable practices. 15.7 Choose an item. Lower the environmental footprint of meetings and events in the city. 15.8 Choose an item. Use national green standards/ guidelines for purchasing/investments such as cleaning products, furniture, flooring/coatings. ## Best Practice 16: Community Forests and Soil BP 16 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 2 Actions to Complete BP 16: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 16.1 Choose an item. Certify as a Tree City USA. 16.2 Choose an item. Adopt best practices for urban tree planting/quality; require them in private developments and/or use them in at least one development project. 16.3 Choose an item. Budget for and achieve resilient urban canopy/tree planting goals. 16.4 Choose an item. Maximize tree planting along your main downtown street or throughout the city. 16.5 Choose an item. Adopt a tree preservation or native landscaping ordinance. 16.6 Choose an item. Build community capacity to protect existing trees by one or more of: a. Having trained tree specialists. b. Supporting volunteer forestry efforts. ## City contracts with Davey Tree Experts for free disease tree check-ups on Shorewood properties for Elm, Ash and Oak trees; public land Page 102 of 166 20 c. Adopting an EAB/forest management plan or climate adaptation plan for the urban forest. 16.7 Choose an item. Conduct a tree inventory or canopy study for public and private trees. ## Best Practice 17: Stormwater Management BP 17 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 17: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 17.1 Choose an item. ## Adopt and use Minnesota's Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS). 17.2 Choose an item. ## Complete the GreenStep Municipal ## Stormwater Management Assessment. 17.3 ★ Adopt by ordinance one or more stormwater infiltration/management strategies to reduce impervious surface. 24’ streets allowed 17.4 Choose an item. Create a stormwater utility that uses variable fees to incentivize and educate property owners. 17.5 Choose an item. Adopt and implement guidelines or design standards/incentives for stormwater infiltration/reuse practices. 17.6 Choose an item. Reduce de-icing and dust suppressant salt use to prevent permanent surface water and groundwater pollution. ## Best Practice 18: Parks and Trails BP 18 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 18: Any two one actions ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: Page 103 of 166 21 18.1 ★ Make improvements within your city's system of parks, offroad trails and open spaces. Sidewalks, trails added to new ## Minnetonka Country Club development; added off-road sidewalk along length of Smithtown Rd. which passes by ## Minnewashta Elementary school 18.2 Choose an item. Plan and budget for a network of parks, green spaces, water features and trails for areas where new development is planned. 18.3 Choose an item. Achieve minimum levels of city green space and maximize the percent within a ten-minute walk of community members. 18.4 Choose an item. Adopt low-impact design standards in parks and trails that infiltrate or retain all 2 inch, 24-hour stormwater events on site. 18.5 Choose an item. Create park/city land management standards/practices that maximize at least one of the following: a. Low maintenance turf management; native landscaping; organic or integrated pest management; pollinator/monarch- safe policies. b. Recycling/compostables collection; use of compost as a soil amendment. c. Sources of nonpotable water, or surface/rain water, for irrigation. 18.6 Choose an item. Certify at least one golf course in the ## Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. 18.7 Choose an item. Document that the operation and maintenance, or construction / remodeling, of at least one park building used an asset management tool, the SB 2030 energy standard, or a green building framework. 18.8 Choose an item. Develop a program to involve community members in hands-on land restoration, invasive species Page 104 of 166 22 management and stewardship projects. ## Best Practice 19: Surface Water BP 19 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 19: If the city has a State public water, 19.4 and any one additional action. If the city does not have a State public water, any one action. ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 19.1 Choose an item. Consistently monitor surface water quality/clarity and report findings to community members. 19.2 Choose an item. Conduct/support multi-party community conversations, assessments, plans, and actions to improve local water quality/quantity. 19.3 Choose an item. Adopt and publicly report on measurable surface water improvement targets for lake, river, wetland and ditches. 19.4 ★ Adopt a shoreland ordinance for all river and lake shoreland areas. 19.5 Choose an item. Adopt goals to revegetate shoreland and create a local program or outreach effort to help property owners with revegetation. 19.6 Choose an item. Implement an existing TMDL implementation plan. 19.7 Choose an item. ## Create/assist a Lake Improvement District. 19.8 Choose an item. Reduce flooding damage and costs ## through the National Flood Insurance ## Programs and the NFIP’s Community Rating System. Page 105 of 166 23 ## Best Practice 20: Efficient Water and Wastewater Systems BP 20 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 20: 20.1, 20.2, and any one additional action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 20.1 Choose an item. Compare the energy use and financial performance of your facilities with other peer facilities. 20.2 Choose an item. Plan and budget for motor maintenance and upgrades. 20.3 Choose an item. Establish an on-going budget and program for decreasing inflow and infiltration into sewer lines and losses in drinking water systems. Completed a sump pump inspection program 20.4 Choose an item. Optimize energy and chemical use at drinking water/wastewater facilities and decrease chloride in wastewater discharges. 20.6 Choose an item. Implement a wastewater plant efficiency project or a program for local private business operations. 20.7 Choose an item. Create a demand-side pricing program. ## Best Practice 21: Septic Systems BP 21 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 21: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 21.1 Choose an item. Report to landowners suspected noncompliant or failing septic systems as part of an educational, informational and financial assistance and outreach program. Page 106 of 166 24 21.2 Choose an item. Use a community process to address failing septic systems. 21.3 Choose an item. Clarify/establish one or more responsible management entities for the proper design, siting, installation, operation, monitoring and maintenance of septic systems. 21.4 Choose an item. Adopt a subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance. 21.5 Choose an item. Create a program to finance septic system upgrades. 21.6 Choose an item. Work with homeowners/ businesses in environmentally sensitive areas to promote innovative waste water systems. 21.7 Choose an item. Arrange for assistance to commercial, retail and industrial businesses with water use reduction, pollution prevention and pretreatment prior to discharge to septics. ## Best Practice 22: Sustainable Consumption and Waste BP 22 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 3 Actions to Complete BP 22: Any one action from 22.1-22.3 and any one action from 22.4-22.8 ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 22.1 ★★ Improve city operations/ procurement to prevent/reuse/recycle/compost waste from all public facilities, and minimize use of toxics and generation of hazardous waste. Recycling in all 5 city parks; all city events at Community & Event center include recycling & organics recycling; all paper towel, kitchen food waste at city hall is composted 22.2 Choose an item. Address concerns over consumer products and packaging through education, reuse options, recycling/composting options, credits, fees, mandates or bans. Page 107 of 166 25 22.3 Choose an item. Improve profitability, legal compliance and conserve resources through adoption of ordinance language, licensing and resource management contracts. 22.4 ★★ Publicize, promote and use the varied businesses/services collecting and marketing used, repaired and rental consumer goods, especially electronics, in the city/county. 22.5 Choose an item. Arrange for a residential and/or business/institutional source- separated organics collection/ management program. 22.6 Choose an item. Improve recycling services/expand to multi-unit housing and commercial businesses. 22.7 ★ Improve/organize residential trash/ recycling/organics collection by private/public operations and offer significant volume-based pricing on residential garbage and/or incentives for recycling. 2010 rewards program for residents participating in recycling 22.8 Choose an item. Adopt a construction and demolition ordinance governing demolition permits that requires a level of recycling and reuse for building materials and soil/land-clearing debris. ## Best Practice 23: Local Air Quality BP 23 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 1 Actions to Complete BP 23: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 23.1 Choose an item. Replace small internal combustion engine lawn/garden equipment with lower polluting equipment. Page 108 of 166 26 23.2 ★★ Reduce residential burning of wood and yard waste and eliminate ‘backyard’ trash burning. 2007 outdoor wood boilers regulated 23.3 Choose an item. Decrease air emissions from vehicle idling, business trucking, and pollutants/noise from stationary engines/back-up generators. 23.5 Choose an item. Install, assist with and promote publicly available EV charging stations or public fueling stations for alternative fuel vehicles. ## Resilient Economic and Community Development ## BP 24: Benchmarks and Community Engagement ## BP 25: Green Business Development ## BP 26: Renewable Energy ## BP 27: Local Food ## BP 28: Business Synergies and Ecodistricts ## BP 29: Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience ## Best Practice 24: Benchmarks and Community Engagement BP 24 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 2 Actions to Complete BP 24: 24.1 and any one additional action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 24.1 ★ Use a city commission/committee to lead, coordinate, report and engage community members on sustainability best practices. GreenStep link on the city sustainability page 24.2 Choose an item. Organize goals/outcome measures from all city plans and report to community members data that show progress toward meeting these goals. 24.3 Choose an item. Engage community members/ partners in identifying, measuring, and reporting progress on key sustainability and social indicators. Page 109 of 166 27 24.4 Choose an item. Conduct/support a broad sustainability education/action campaign. 24.5 Choose an item. Conduct a community visioning/ planning initiative that engages a diverse set of community members & stakeholders and uses a sustainability, resilience, or environmental justice framework. 24.6 ★★ Engage wide representation of community youth/students by creating opportunities to participate in city government. Youth position on city recycling committee 24.7 Choose an item. ## Engage Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), renters, low-income, new Americans, differently abled and other traditionally under-represented community members. ## Best Practice 25: Green Business Development BP 25 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 25: Any two actions ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 25.1 Choose an item. Grow new/emerging green businesses and green jobs through targeted assistance and new workforce development. 25.2 Choose an item. Create/participate in a marketing/ outreach program to connect businesses with assistance providers. 25.3 Choose an item. Promote sustainable tourism. 25.4 Choose an item. Strengthen value-added businesses utilizing local "waste" material. 25.5 Choose an item. Lower the environmental and health risk footprint of a brownfield Page 110 of 166 28 remediation/redevelopment project; report brightfield projects. 25.6 Choose an item. Promote green businesses that are recognized under a local, regional or national program. 25.7 Choose an item. Conduct/ participate in a buy local campaign for community members and local businesses. ## Best Practice 26: Renewable Energy BP 26 Completed? YES Total actions completed: 2 Actions to Complete BP 26: Any two actions ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 26.1 Choose an item. Adopt wind/biomass ordinances that allow, enable, or encourage appropriate renewable energy installations. 26.2 ★★ Promote resident/business purchases and/or generation of clean energy. ## Through Partners in Energy, encouraged WindSource participation by residents (along with recycling of old appliances, 50% audit buy-down) 26.3 Choose an item. Promote financing and incentive programs for clean energy. 26.4 Choose an item. Support a community solar garden or help community members participate in a community solar project. 26.5 Choose an item. Install a public sector/municipally- owned renewable energy technology. 26.6 Choose an item. Report installed private sector-owned renewable energy/energy efficient generation capacity. 26.7 ★★★ Become a solar-ready community, including adopting ordinance/zoning language and an expedited permit process for residents and businesses to install solar energy systems. ## SolSmart Bronze certification Page 111 of 166 29 ## Best Practice 27: Local Food BP 27 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 27: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 27.1 Choose an item. Incorporate working landscapes - agriculture and forestry - into the city by adopting an ordinance. 27.2 Choose an item. Facilitate creation of home/ community gardens, chicken & bee keeping, and incorporation of food growing areas/access in multifamily and residential developments. 27.3 Choose an item. Create, assist with and promote local food production/distribution within the city. 27.4 Choose an item. Measurably increase institutional buying, and sales through groceries and restaurants. ## Best Practice 28: Business Synergies and Ecodistricts BP 28 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 28: Any one action ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 28.2 Choose an item. Document that at least one business/ building uses waste heat or water discharge from another business or conducts materials exchange activities with another organization. 28.3 Choose an item. Require, build or facilitate at least four sustainability attributes in a business/industrial park project. 28.4 Choose an item. Use 21st century ecodistrict tools to structure, guide and link multiple Page 112 of 166 30 green and sustainable projects together in a mixed-use neighborhood/development, or innovation district. ## Best Practice 29: Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience BP 29 Completed? NO Total actions completed: 0 Actions to Complete BP 29: 29.1 at 2- or 3-star level ## Best Practice ## Action: ## Completed: (Star Level out of three stars) ## Action Description: (View on GreenStep Website for full description) ## Action Summary: (Provided by GreenStep Staff) Date of ## Last Entry: 29.1 Choose an item. Prepare to maintain public health and safety during extreme weather and climate-change-related events, while also taking a preventive approach to reduce risk for community members. 29.2 Choose an item. Integrate climate resilience into city or tribal planning, policy, operations, and budgeting processes. 29.3 Choose an item. Increase social connectedness through engagement, capacity building, public investment, and opportunities for economically vulnerable residents. 29.4 Choose an item. Encourage private sector action and incentivize investment in preventive approaches that reduce risk and minimize impacts. 29.5 Choose an item. Protect public buildings and natural/ constructed infrastructure to reduce physical damage and sustain their function during extreme weather events. 29.6 Choose an item. Reduce the urban heat impacts of public buildings/sites/infrastructure. 29.7 Choose an item. Protect water supply and wastewater treatment facilities to reduce physical damage and sustain their function during extreme weather events. Page 113 of 166 31 29.8 Choose an item. Improve local energy resilience. Page 114 of 166 Page 115 of 166 Sign-up to Join the Cohort Here! ## GreenStep Fast Track Cohort for Small/Medium Cities Join peer communities in the GreenStep program through this free, 6-month long, monthly GreenStep Fast Track cohort. You will get information and support to complete GreenStep Steps 1, 2, and 3! Each session will help you reach a new GreenStep action and also provide you with a stretch action if you want to continue the work in the future. ## Table of Contents ## GreenStep Fast Track Cohort for Small/Medium Cities 1 Table of Contents 1 Who is this Cohort for? 1 About the Cohort 2 ## About the GreenStep Program 2 Step 2 Guidelines* 3 Step 3 Guidelines* 3 Category C City Action Plan to Reach Steps 2 and 3 4 Who is this Cohort for? This cohort’s goal is to further support small and medium sized cities across Minnesota. Participants can be new to the GreenStep Cities program or already participants at Step 1 or Step 2. The cohort is for any community interested in learning about additional actions that can save money through efficiency and no-cost actions. As a small city, we know your to-do list is long, capacity and funding are tight, and you are challenged with balancing many priorities. That’s why we identified the following 7-8 actions to Page 116 of 166 help you reach up to GreenStep Step 3 (out of 5!) with no-costs and tailored to meet small- and medium-sized city needs. In addition, this 6-month-long program is structured as a cohort with other small/medium cities new to the GreenStep program. The MN GreenStep program uses a Community Category Calculator to determine participant capacity for the program’s challenge tiers of A, B, or C. This Cohort will best support those at Category C, but it is open to any interested city. ## About the Cohort There are 5 sessions. Each session is 1.5 hours: 1 hour for content and 30 min. (optional) for connecting with staff to reach your personalized actions and goals. Sustainability staff from communities across Minnesota will be ready to share their experiences, templates, and knowledge. If interested in staying connected after the cohort, GreenStep staff can assign you to a Peer Exchange Pod. ## Cohort Schedule July, 2026 - January, 2027 Cohort meetings monthly, 2:30-3:30pm Open office hours following cohort meetings from 3:30-4:00 ● July 29: Energy (Focus on actions 1.2, 6.1, 26.1, 26.2, 26.5) ● August 20: Water (Focus on action 17.6) ● September 24: Transportation (Focus on actions 13.1, 13.3, 13.4) ● October 15: Waste (Focus on action 15.1) ● November 19: Resilience and Engagement (Focus on actions 24.1, 29.1) ● ## January TBD: Closing ## About the GreenStep Program The GreenSteps Cities program is a five-step program for cities and Tribal nations to work towards sustainability. There are 29 best practices which each provide required and recommended actions. Recommended actions are placed into the following categories: buildings and lighting, land use, transportation, environmental management, and resilient economic and community development. Each action submitted by a city receives a ranking based on a three-star system. Page 117 of 166 ## Step 2 Guidelines* As a Category C city, to be recognized as a Step 2 GreenStep City, ANY 4 Best Practices must be reported. ## ☐ Any 4 Best Practices ## Step 3 Guidelines* As a Category C city, to be recognized as a Step 3 GreenStep City, the following must be reported, at minimum: ## ☐ Any 8 Best Practices ☐ Buildings & Lighting: ☐ any one Buildings & Lighting BP (1-5) ☐ Comprehensive, Climate & Energy Plans: ☐ 6.1 ☐ Transportation: ☐ any one Transportation BP (11-14) ☐ Sustainable Purchasing: ☐ 15.1 ☐ Coordination, Engagement, & Outcomes: ☐ 24.1 ☐ Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience: ☐ 29.1 *These checklists are for Category C participants only. For Category B and Category A checklists, please visit the Step 2 and Step 3 webpages. If participating in this Cohort, GreenStep staff can support you through the additional action reports. Category C City Action Plan to Reach Steps 2 and 3: Here are the specific no-cost actions you will be guided and guaranteed to reach as part of the cohort (though you are welcome to log other actions!). Some of the Best Practices have options you can select from, while others identify 1 specific action to report. Page 118 of 166 GreenStep staff can help you report the actions using your GreenStep account. All necessary actions to reach Steps 2 and 3 will need to be reported by April 1, 2027. ## 1. Efficient Existing Public Buildings ☐ any one Buildings & Lighting BP (1-5) Actions we will focus on for this cohort: ☐ 1.2 Make no or low-cost indoor lighting and operational changes in city-owned buildings to reduce energy costs ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Municipal building has all LED lighting. ● Installed motion activated lighting at City Hall. ● Public Works shop HVAC is set on a timer to adjust temperature settings based on season and building use. ## Stretch Actions: ● Complete improvements for two buildings. (1.2) ● Enter in the last 12 months of utility bills into B3 Benchmarking. (1.1) ## Specific Resources: ● CERTs provides free technical assistance and advice and tools like the Pay for Your Projects Tool, Right Light Guide, stories, and more. ● See the ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade Manual f or additional no/low-cost ideas. ● Utilities offer rebates and support for building energy and water efficiency – find energy programs at DSIRE. ● ENERGY STAR tools for small offices. ## 6. Comprehensive Plan ☐ 6.1 Adopt a comprehensive plan or a future land use plan adopted by the county or a regional entity ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Adopted/amended a Comp Plan within last 10 years. ● Our County has a Land Use Plan (less than 15 years old) that includes our city. ● Adopted a City Vision that looks at least 20 years into the future. ● Hosted a city visioning workshop that engaged residents in the future of our city. Page 119 of 166 ## Stretch Actions: ● Include sustainability and/or climate action into your plan. ● Integrate sustainability goals and strategies into all chapters of your plan. ## Specific Resources: ● Check with your Regional Development Commission or metropolitan district early. They provide assistance, tools, and resources for community planning. ## ● The Metropolitan Council’s Local Planning Handbook provides ample guidance, including sustainability topics. ● See the League of MN Cities Handbook – Chapter 13: Comprehensive Planning, Land Use, and City-Owned Land. ● Putting Smart Growth to Work in Rural Communities (EPA and ICMA, 2010) 11-14. Transportation ☐ any one Transportation BP (11-14) Actions we will focus on for this cohort: ☐ 13.1 Efficiently use your existing fleet of city vehicles. OR ☐ 13.3 Phase in operational changes for city or local transit fleets. OR ☐ 13.4 Phase in bike, foot, or horseback modes for police, inspectors, and other city staff. ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Provide training for employees about trip bundling, carpooling, vehicle sharing, video conferencing, etc. to reduce single passenger vehicle trips. (13.1) ● Monitor fuel usage and costs and maintenance schedules to assess and ensure vehicle efficiency. (13.3) ● Adopt a “no-idling policy/practice” for city or transit fleets. (13.3) ● Police patrol on bike, foot, or horseback (13.4) ## Stretch Actions: ● Adopt a Complete/Living Streets Policy that incorporates landscaping and stormwater (11.1) ● Be recognized as a Walk Friendly, Bicycle Friendly, or Age Friendly Community (12.1) ● Conduct an Active Living Campaign such as Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. (12.2) ● Promote mobility options including public transit, carpooling, bikesharing, etc. (12.3, 12.4) Page 120 of 166 ● Reduce or eliminate parking minimums; add parking maximums; develop district parking (14.1) ## Specific Resources: ● Clean Fleet Toolkit includes information on journey management, eco driving, vehicle maintenance, fuels, and more ● IdleBox: a toolkit for idle reduction education and outreach ● AFLEET Tool for calculating petroleum use, costs of ownership, and emissions for a vehicle fleet ● Fleet and Equipment Management resources from the Minnesota Local Technical ## Assistance Program (UofMN) ## 15. Sustainable Purchasing ☐ 15.1 Adopt a sustainable purchasing policy or administrative guidelines ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Written guidelines specifying city purchase of recycled-content printing paper and Energy Star electronic equipment and appliances ## ● Sustainable Purchasing Policy adopted by City Council ## Stretch Actions: ● Require 100% recycled content paper ● Include the purchase of remanufactured toner cartridges or high yield OEM cartridges for monochrome printing ● Include eco-friendly janitorial supplies ● Join with other cities in joint purchasing of environmentally preferable products ## Specific Resources: ● Six steps to developing a sustainable purchasing policy (MPCA) ● Minnesota state law (Minn. Stat. 16C.073) r equires all public entities to follow environmentally preferable printing practices, including use of chlorine-free, uncoated paper with a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled content, among other requirements. ● Find Energy Star-certified office equipment, electronics, appliances, and more. ● Join the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) to purchase goods from contracts established by the State of Minnesota. State contracts often identify sustainable solutions for procurements. Page 121 of 166 ## 17. Stormwater Management ☐ Any 1 additional Best Practice Actions we will focus on for this cohort: ## ☐ 17.6 Improve Smart Salting ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Any city staff applying winter maintenance (streets, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.) have taken MPCA Smart Salting Level 1 training. ● Require any winter maintenance contractor hired by the city must have taken MPCA Smart Salting Level 1 training. ● Host free training for private property managers and contractors who do winter maintenance in the city. ## Stretch Actions: ● Certify the city at Smart Salting Level 2 which uses the MPCA’s Smart Salting Assessment Tool to complete a best management practices assessment ● Develop/adopt a chloride/salt management plan ● Adopt a Chloride Reduction ordinance ● Track salt usage and report salt reductions of 30% over the last year ## Specific Resources: ● Smart Salting is a suite of techniques that minimize the environmental and economic impacts of chloride while still meeting public needs. The MPCA offers trainings, refreshers, and a workshop for certification. o Roads; Rural Roads; Parking Lots & Sidewalks; Property Management; Water ## Softening; Community Leaders workshop ● The MPCA partnered with several organizations to develop a suite of model ordinances, contracts, and policies that communities can choose to implement. ● The Low Salt. No Salt. Minnesota program was developed by the Hennepin County Chloride Initiative in 2022 to develop a toolbox for LGUs to use in conversations with local residents, businesses, and property managers about best practices related to winter maintenance. ● Statewide chloride resources, plans, and reports (MPCA). Page 122 of 166 ## 24. Coordination, Engagement, & Outcomes ☐ 24.1 Inclusive and Coordinated Decision-Making ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● A staff green team or small working group exists to support GreenStep involvement. ● City staff/officials participate in a multi-government regional gathering about sustainability action. ● City promotes GreenStep involvement to the community annually through a detailed news article/media. ## Stretch Actions: ● A community group, city task force/committee/commission exists to lead and coordinate sustainability/GreenStep implementation ● A joint committee of city staff/officials and community members (business, education, religious, etc.) exists and meets regularly ● Community members on the committee represent the community’s racial, economic, abilities, and other diverse representation ## Specific Resources: ● The GreenStep BPA 24.1 Resource Guide pr ovides information on committee structures & membership, roles & tasks, and tips for creating & maintaining successful committees. ● The Sustainability Planning Toolkit (ICLEI, 2009) provides information on “Forming a Team” (starting on pg. 17) for developing a Sustainability Plan but it is also useful for a GreenStep Green Team. ● Check out the MN Gold Leaf Challenge for the local climate action that sets up a Combined Green Team for more resources examples. ## 26. Renewable Energy ☒ Any 1 additional Best Practice Actions we will focus on for this cohort: ☐ 26.2 Promote green power purchasing programs to residents /businesses. OR ☐ 26.3 Promote local utility incentives to residents/ businesses. OR Page 123 of 166 ☐ 26.5 Install a municipally owned renewable energy technology, such as solar electric (PV). OR ☐ 26.7 Improve solar permitting processes for residents and businesses. ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Sharing the Solar Suitability App and Clean Energy Project Builder on your website (26.2) ● Promoting a local utility’s green power purchasing program in a city newsletter (26.2) ● Connecting businesses to tools like PACE for clean energy project financing (26.3) ● Describe any public sector renewable energy installation and report installed capacity in kW (26.5) ● Ensure via ordinance that solar energy installations are allowed land uses (26.7) ## Stretch Actions: ● Host a community-wide solar bulk-buy program or campaign (26.2) ● Install at least two different renewable energy technologies (26.5) ● Become a SolSmart-designated community (26.7) ● Streamline solar permitted through SolarAPP+ (26.7) ## Specific Resources: ● CERTs provides tools like the Solar Directory, Solar Suitability App, PACE information, Pay for Your Projects Tool, and more. ● Case Study: Energy Ready City: La Crescent, Minnesota Earns Solar and EV ## Designations ● Join the over 50 Minnesota communities tha t have a SolSmart designation. ● SolarApp+ Permitting Incentives from the MN Dept. of Commerce are currently available to help local governments use the FREE online permitting platform. First come, first serve until June 30, 2028. Cities under 50,000 in population can receive a base of $5,000 with the potential for bonuses up to $20,000 total. ## 29. Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience ☐ 29.1 Prepare to maintain public health and safety during extreme weather ## Example Action Report Implementation Details: ● Reviewed the county’s Hazard Mitigation Plan within the last 2 years and identified the city staff responsible. ● Document how all diverse populations in the city are served emergency communication, evacuation, sheltering, etc. Page 124 of 166 ● In consultation with the County, designate a community safe shelter that is accessible to the public and provides provisions and back-up power to support residents and/or visitors in a time of need. ## Stretch Actions: ● Address how diverse populations in the city are served by emergency communication, evacuation and sheltering, mitigation and prevention, planning and preparedness ● Develop targeted emergency communications in appropriate languages for each population of non-English speakers in your community for each hazard ● Arrange for adequate provisions (including food and potable water) and backup power sufficient to meet minimum daily run-time requirements as a shelter for one week or longer during utility grid failure. ● Develop coordinate strategies with private sector emergency facilities and essential services that require backup power during widespread outages and disasters. Bonus points for clean energy sources! ## Specific Resources: ● Take a peak at the MN Gold Leaf Challenge program that includes specific actions and resources for taking local climate action, including CP1: Safe Shelter and CP2: Community Resilience Hub. ● Chapter 12 Public Safety and Emergency Management of the LMC Handbook for Minnesota Cities provides guidance about statutory requirements for cities. ● See guidance on hazard mitigation planning from MN's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division of the MN Department of Public Safety. ● Minnesota Department of Health Climate and Health w ebpages contain information on extreme heat, water quality and quantity, air quality, planning tools, and emergency management regional profiles (2018). ● Communicating vulnerabilities to climate change pr ovides PDF brochures to communicate climate vulnerabilities for eight populations of concern: children, EJ communities, indigenous peoples, occupational groups, older adults, people with disabilities, people with existing health conditions, and pregnant women. Page 125 of 166 City Council Item 4.D. ## Title/Subject: Deephaven - Minnetonka Blvd Cost Share Agreement ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Andrew Budde, City Engineer ## Matt Morreim, Public Works Director ## Attachments ## 1. Minnetonka Blvd - Aerial Maps ## 2. Minnetonka Blvd - Pavement Condition ## 3. Cost Sharing Agreement 4. 26-41 Resolution - Agreement w Deephaven-Minnetonka Blvd ## Background Minnetonka Boulevard routes through the north-east portion of Shorewood and several adjacent communities. The roadway has been challenging from a maintenance perspective because it has small segments fully within a municipal boundary and/or has municipal boundaries running down the middle of the roadway. In the past, communities have attempted to seek outside funding to more comprehensively maintain the roadway, but were unsuccessful in those attempts. Since then, various communities have taken the lead for portions of the roadway that are fully in their jurisdiction or along portions that share a municipal boundary and lead to somewhat patchwork repairs along its length. Most recently, Deephaven reached out to Shorewood in late November 2025 inquiring if Shorewood was potentially interested in cost sharing approximately 850 feet of roadway improvements to Minnetonka Boulevard between Bayswater Road and the western leg of Spencer Lane, where the northern portion of Minnetonka Blvd is in Deephaven and the southern portion is in Shorewood. This is a small part of a much larger street project for Deephaven. At that time, Shorewood was finalizing its 2026 Capital Improvement Plan and did not include the project. However, staff discussed options that included utilizing funds from the pavement maintenance CIP items or paying Deephaven in January 2027, when the project could be added to the CIP budget. Staff does regularly receive calls or concerns about the condition of the roadway in this area and the current pavement condition score is 29 out of 100. Deephaven continued with the design, bid the project as part of an alternate, and awarded the work earlier this summer. The low bid contractor is ASTECH Corp out of St. Joseph, MN and has an estimated Shorewood cost of $56,905.32, which includes 15% for design and construction administration. Staff have reviewed the estimate, which has favorable pricing, and have identified available funds within the CIP. Staff recommends approval of the Cost Share Agreement with Deephaven. Additionally, there is an approximately 1300-foot segment in Shorewood of Minnetonka Blvd west of the above project between the west leg of Spencer Lane and Linwood Circle that has poor pavement condition. Staff is in the process of soliciting a quote from the contractor to potentially complete this segment. Information on this would be presented at a future council Page 126 of 166 meeting. This segment could also be included in the 2027 Mill & Overlay project. ## Strategic Alignment ## Functionally & Financially Sound Infrastructure • Plans to finance infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and replacement — Collaborating to resurface this segment of roadway, which is located in two cities, provides a cost-effective way to maintain infrastructure for the benefit of residents. ## Budget Impact The estimated Shorewood contribution is $56,905.32 and includes 15% for design and construction administration. Fund 404-Street Reconstruction has budgeted $320,000 in item Pavement Maintenance (LR-99-099) and has an adequate fund balance based on completed and projected work. ## Action Requested Motion to approve resolution 26-41 authorizing the execution of the Cost Share Agreement with the City of Deephaven for improvements to Minnetonka Boulevard. Simple majority vote is required. Page 127 of 166 ## AREA WITHIN DEEPHAVEN CONTRACT Page 128 of 166 ## AREA FOR ADDITIONAL QUOTE Page 129 of 166 ## AREA WITHIN DEEPHAVEN CONTRACT ## AREA FOR ADDITIONAL QUOTE ## OVERVIEW MAP OF MINNETONKA ## BOULEVARD PAVEMENT CONDITION Page 130 of 166 1 ## COST-SHARING AGREEMENT THIS COST-SHARING AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into this ____ day of __________, 2026 by and between the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (“Shorewood”), and City of Deephaven., a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (“Deephaven”). That Shorewood and the Deephaven may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “Party” or, together, the “Parties.” ## RECITALS A. Deephaven intends to undertake reclamation improvements to Minnetonka Boulevard, a local city street that extends across the municipal boundary of Shorewood and Deephaven as depicted in the attached Exhibit A (the “Project”). B. Deephaven has obtained Project bids and Shorewood’s post-bid total Project cost of $56,905.32 ($49,482.89 plus 15% for design and construction administration) is based upon the bid submitted by the lowest responsible bidder, Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. a/k/a ASTECH Corp, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Post-Bid Estimate includes those elements that are within Shorewood’s municipal boundary, which amount to 1.2% of the total Project. C. The Parties wish to specify their respective responsibilities for Project costs as provided herein. D. Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar power ## AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Cost-Sharing Obligation; Project Construction. For the purposes of carrying out the Project, Deephaven will be considered the “Project Owner” and therefore will be charged with entering a contract for the Project with a selected contractor and will also administer the Project contract. 2. The Parties agree that the Project Cost to be paid by Shorewood is equal to $56,905.32 ($49,482.89 plus 15% for design and construction administration) based upon the design costs and bid documents, subject to any modifications approved under Paragraph 4 of this Agreement. Page 131 of 166 2 3. Project Completion; Final Cost Determination. Shorewood will have the right to inspect, review and comment on construction of the Project throughout the term of this Agreement, Deephaven shall have oversight and final approval on administration of the contract documents for the Project and shall use its best efforts to ensure that the Project is completed reasonably within the timeframes and deadlines within such documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Deephaven shall not be responsible or liable for any delays in construction, Project failure, or failure of the Project to meet design or contract standards. 4. Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements. Any change orders or supplemental agreements that affect the project cost payable by Shorewood and changes to the plans for the Project must be approved by Shorewood prior to execution of work. 5. Upon completion of the Project, Deephaven shall invoice Shorewood for Shorewood’s share of the Project Cost, and Shorewood shall pay the same within thirty (30) days of receipt. For budgetary purposes, and at its sole discretion, Shorewood may elect to make payment of its Project Cost under this Agreement in calendar year 2026. In this event, Shorewood shall incur interest in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the outstanding Shorewood Project Cost. Shorewood shall then make payment of the outstanding Project Cost plus five percent (5%) interest to Deephaven by January 15, 2027. If any portion of the invoice is disputed, the Parties shall promptly meet to resolve the dispute. 6. Access to Shorewood Property; Communications. Shorewood hereby authorizes Deephaven, its agents, contractors, and employees to access Shorewood’s right of way and any area contained thereon as it deems reasonably necessary to construct the Project. At Shorewood’s request, Deephaven shall communicate Project plans and timelines with Shorewood and keep Shorewood informed as to the same. 7. Ownership. Each party shall own the portion of the Project located within its corporate boundaries and shall be solely responsible for all maintenance, repair and future replacement of the improvements 8. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate automatically upon the completion of the Project and satisfaction of all financial obligations contained herein. 9. Governing Law and Amendments. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and may only be modified or amended with the written consent of both Parties. 10. Binding Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding this matter and is binding on the Parties until it expires or is terminated as provided herein. 11. Indemnification. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59, Subd. 1a(a), as amended, this agreement is intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative activity” and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of Page 132 of 166 3 liability; provided, however, that each party expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive or limit any immunity from, or limitation on, the liability of either party as provide by law. Under no circumstances shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amounts on excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The statutory limits of liability for the two parties may not be added together or stacked to increase the maximum amount of liability for any party. 12. Each Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses or damages, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, resulting from the acts or omissions of the respective officers, agents, or employees of the indemnifying Party, to the extent such acts or omissions are directly related to activities conducted by the indemnifying party under this Agreement. This section shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement and will also remain subject to the liability limitations as provided above. 13. Audits. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, Subd. 5, any books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Shorewood and Deephaven relevant to the Agreement are subject to examination by Shorewood, Deephaven, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. Shorewood and Deephaven agree to maintain these records for a period of seven years from the date of performance of all services covered under this agreement. 14. Not Construed Against Drafter. The language of this Agreement shall not be interpreted in favor of or against any Party as the drafter of this Agreement. 15. Incorporation. The recitals contained herein and the exhibits attached hereto are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. 16. Representations. Each Party executing this Agreement represents to the other that those signing below on its behalf are authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind its organization to its terms and conditions. 17. Counterparts. For the convenience of the parties, any number of counterparts hereof may be executed and each such executed counterpart shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. [signature pages to follow] Page 133 of 166 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Cost-Sharing Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. ## CITY OF DEEPHAVEN By: ______________________________ ## Kent Carlson, Mayor By: ______________________________ ## Dan Madsen, City Administrator ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: ______________________________ ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor By: ______________________________ ## Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Page 134 of 166 ## A-1 ## EXHIBIT A Page 135 of 166 ## B-1 ## EXHIBIT B Page 136 of 166 ## Project Name: ## City Project No.: ## Bid Opening: ## Owner: ## License No. 52243 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1 1 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 $118,260.00 $118,260.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 $161,094.00 $161,094.00 $61,800.00 $61,800.00 2 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 $10,850.00 $10,850.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $3,360.00 $3,360.00 $3,376.00 $3,376.00 3 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 3979 $1.00 $3,979.00 $4.84 $19,258.36 $1.16 $4,615.64 $0.01 $39.79 4 ## REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 275 $8.60 $2,365.00 $17.82 $4,900.50 $28.40 $7,810.00 $13.50 $3,712.50 5 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ## SY 1054 $3.15 $3,320.10 $11.22 $11,825.88 $13.00 $13,702.00 $6.00 $6,324.00 6 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL PAVEMENT ## SY 24 $10.00 $240.00 $11.22 $269.28 $28.50 $684.00 $21.25 $510.00 7 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 38 $255.00 $9,690.00 $286.00 $10,868.00 $217.50 $8,265.00 $481.00 $18,278.00 8 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DRIVEWAY PAVERS ## SY 138 $261.30 $36,059.40 $79.20 $10,929.60 $168.00 $23,184.00 $45.00 $6,210.00 9 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 3442 $2.00 $6,884.00 $3.50 $12,047.00 $1.95 $6,711.90 $2.11 $7,262.62 10 ## SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 398 $5.00 $1,990.00 $4.00 $1,592.00 $5.50 $2,189.00 $6.00 $2,388.00 11 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 784 $14.15 $11,093.60 $10.45 $8,192.80 $24.00 $18,816.00 $8.75 $6,860.00 12 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 $125.40 $2,508.00 $165.50 $3,310.00 $87.55 $1,751.00 13 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 14 $550.00 $7,700.00 $752.40 $10,533.60 $649.00 $9,086.00 $328.00 $4,592.00 14 ## ABANDON STORM SEWER PIPE ## LF 428 $14.23 $6,090.44 $29.70 $12,711.60 $12.00 $5,136.00 $15.05 $6,441.40 15 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## EA 39 $1,500.00 $58,500.00 $832.70 $32,475.30 $901.00 $35,139.00 $937.00 $36,543.00 16 ## CLEARING AND GRUBBING ## SY 517 $22.00 $11,374.00 $11.55 $5,971.35 $15.23 $7,873.91 $15.85 $8,194.45 17 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 30 $210.00 $6,300.00 $220.00 $6,600.00 $210.00 $6,300.00 $485.00 $14,550.00 18 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 40202 $2.00 $80,404.00 $2.18 $87,640.36 $2.45 $98,494.90 $7.05 $283,424.10 19 ## MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5") (P) ## SY 1209 $5.72 $6,915.48 $3.85 $4,654.65 $6.45 $7,798.05 $10.00 $12,090.00 20 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 2143 $4.10 $8,786.30 $3.15 $6,750.45 $1.75 $3,750.25 $3.50 $7,500.50 21 ## PATCH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT- DRIVEWAY ## SY 1054 $39.61 $41,748.94 $35.97 $37,912.38 $48.75 $51,382.50 $41.50 $43,741.00 22 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## (ROAD) ## TN 4855 $94.41 $458,360.55 $86.68 $420,831.40 $85.45 $414,859.75 $89.45 $434,279.75 23 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 5138 $85.56 $439,607.28 $95.04 $488,315.52 $91.00 $467,558.00 $101.20 $519,965.60 24 ## BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 750 $9.21 $6,907.50 $9.57 $7,177.50 $2.50 $1,875.00 $10.00 $7,500.00 25 ## BITUMINOUS DRAINAGE FLUME ## SY 110 $45.20 $4,972.00 $39.60 $4,356.00 $44.20 $4,862.00 $35.00 $3,850.00 26 ## 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 347 $87.52 $30,369.44 $110.33 $38,284.51 $126.50 $43,895.50 $106.00 $36,782.00 27 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 ## LF 6884 $20.64 $142,085.76 $16.50 $113,586.00 $17.50 $120,470.00 $16.05 $110,488.20 28 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 ## LF 241 $29.20 $7,037.20 $33.00 $7,953.00 $31.00 $7,471.00 $31.20 $7,519.20 29 ## 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER ## SY 103 $108.55 $11,180.65 $143.00 $14,729.00 $136.50 $14,059.50 $137.00 $14,111.00 30 ## CONCRETE DRAINAGE FLUME ## EA 8 $985.00 $7,880.00 $533.50 $4,268.00 $509.25 $4,074.00 $512.00 $4,096.00 31 ## CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP ## EA 2 $785.00 $1,570.00 $1,870.00 $3,740.00 $1,785.00 $3,570.00 $1,794.00 $3,588.00 32 ## TRUNCATED DOMES ## SF 40 $68.00 $2,720.00 $55.00 $2,200.00 $52.50 $2,100.00 $52.75 $2,110.00 33 ## AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 80% CRUSHED (CV) ## CY 140 $36.85 $5,159.00 $68.20 $9,548.00 $116.55 $16,317.00 $0.01 $1.40 34 ## DRIVEWAY AGGREGATE SPECIAL ## CY 11 $65.20 $717.20 $77.00 $847.00 $187.50 $2,062.50 $43.70 $480.70 35 ## SANITARY SERVICE REPAIR SETUP ## EA 6 $3,767.55 $22,605.30 $5,016.00 $30,096.00 $4,297.00 $25,782.00 $5,945.00 $35,670.00 ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Steve Hegland, PE ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## DEEPHAVEN 2026 STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ## City of Deephaven Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM CST 193807541 ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Stantec Project No.: I hereby certify that this is an exactreproduction of bids received. ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-1 Page 137 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. 36 ## SANITARY SEWER 6" PVC REPLACEMENT ## LF 149 $45.88 $6,836.12 $50.16 $7,473.84 $77.85 $11,599.65 $76.35 $11,376.15 37 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 38 $1,295.00 $49,210.00 $1,375.00 $52,250.00 $1,626.25 $61,797.50 $1,545.00 $58,710.00 38 ## 27" CATCH BASIN ## EA 2 $2,546.83 $5,093.66 $1,502.60 $3,005.20 $3,213.00 $6,426.00 $3,531.00 $7,062.00 39 ## 2'X3' CATCH BASIN ## EA 6 $2,376.98 $14,261.88 $1,808.40 $10,850.40 $3,686.00 $22,116.00 $3,460.00 $20,760.00 40 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 6 $2,835.79 $17,014.74 $2,934.80 $17,608.80 $5,466.50 $32,799.00 $4,702.00 $28,212.00 41 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 $850.00 $850.00 $940.50 $940.50 $1,357.50 $1,357.50 $4,377.00 $4,377.00 42 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 640 $50.65 $32,416.00 $47.30 $30,272.00 $72.85 $46,624.00 $77.60 $49,664.00 43 ## 12" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 10 $1,909.86 $19,098.60 $1,536.70 $15,367.00 $1,475.75 $14,757.50 $2,650.00 $26,500.00 44 ## 18" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 103 $57.95 $5,968.85 $56.10 $5,778.30 $105.25 $10,840.75 $88.10 $9,074.30 45 ## 18" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 5 $2,031.90 $10,159.50 $1,733.60 $8,668.00 $1,845.25 $9,226.25 $2,331.00 $11,655.00 46 ## 30" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 77 $146.31 $11,265.87 $151.80 $11,688.60 $166.00 $12,782.00 $209.00 $16,093.00 47 ## 30" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 $3,121.72 $6,243.44 $2,646.60 $5,293.20 $3,577.00 $7,154.00 $3,371.00 $6,742.00 48 ## 36" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 83 $183.19 $15,204.77 $188.43 $15,639.69 $288.00 $23,904.00 $230.00 $19,090.00 49 ## 36" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 $3,999.33 $7,998.66 $3,410.00 $6,820.00 $4,625.50 $9,251.00 $4,114.00 $8,228.00 50 ## 6" PERFORATED PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE ## LF 583 $24.36 $14,201.88 $42.35 $24,690.05 $26.00 $15,158.00 $22.45 $13,088.35 51 ## 6" PVC CLEANOUT W/THREADED CAP ## EA 4 $885.00 $3,540.00 $495.00 $1,980.00 $1,469.20 $5,876.80 $1,056.00 $4,224.00 52 ## 12" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED HDPE PIPE ## LF 491 $187.45 $92,037.95 $216.26 $106,183.66 $144.65 $71,023.15 $214.00 $105,074.00 53 ## 12" METAL FLARE END SECTION ## EA 3 $356.88 $1,070.64 $300.30 $900.90 $630.33 $1,890.99 $1,271.00 $3,813.00 54 ## CLASS 3 RIPRAP ## TON 221 $59.37 $13,120.77 $138.05 $30,509.05 $153.00 $33,813.00 $137.00 $30,277.00 55 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## EA 11 $1,450.00 $15,950.00 $700.00 $7,700.00 $0.01 $0.11 $750.00 $8,250.00 56 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 14 $175.00 $2,450.00 $220.00 $3,080.00 $134.40 $1,881.60 $150.00 $2,100.00 57 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 14 $250.00 $3,500.00 $275.00 $3,850.00 $236.25 $3,307.50 $50.00 $700.00 58 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW ( ## OR BIOROLL ) - ## M ## LF 3960 $4.40 $17,424.00 $4.51 $17,859.60 $4.39 $17,384.40 $4.50 $17,820.00 59 ## EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 25 ## SY 500 $5.90 $2,950.00 $5.83 $2,915.00 $5.68 $2,840.00 $5.85 $2,925.00 60 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 1166 $52.12 $60,771.92 $23.21 $27,062.86 $0.01 $11.66 $0.01 $11.66 61 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 1757 $43.25 $75,990.25 $30.47 $53,535.79 $70.15 $123,253.55 $73.25 $128,700.25 62 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 1071 $12.66 $13,558.86 $23.32 $24,975.72 $14.35 $15,368.85 $0.01 $10.71 63 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 824 $49.00 $40,376.00 $37.29 $30,726.96 $49.00 $40,376.00 $59.75 $49,234.00 64 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAIMATION (EV) ## CY 4060 $14.00 $56,840.00 $25.96 $105,397.60 $22.00 $89,320.00 $0.01 $40.60 65 ## GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V NON-WOVEN ## SY 667 $3.82 $2,547.94 $2.20 $1,467.40 $2.65 $1,767.55 $1.50 $1,000.50 66 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 30 $190.00 $5,700.00 $220.00 $6,600.00 $185.00 $5,550.00 $195.00 $5,850.00 67 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD CONSTRUCTI ## O ## MGAL 100 $48.00 $4,800.00 $49.50 $4,950.00 $47.25 $4,725.00 $75.00 $7,500.00 68 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 2609 $1.82 $4,748.38 $1.76 $4,591.84 $1.75 $4,565.75 $1.76 $4,591.84 69 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 175 $4.55 $796.25 $4.51 $789.25 $4.34 $759.50 $4.45 $778.75 70 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 7825 $11.30 $88,422.50 $12.10 $94,682.50 $11.14 $87,170.50 $11.45 $89,596.25 71 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 768 $0.99 $760.32 $1.00 $768.00 $0.98 $752.64 $1.00 $768.00 72 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 2784 $4.05 $11,275.20 $4.29 $11,943.36 $4.13 $11,497.92 $4.25 $11,832.00 73 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 100 $420.00 $42,000.00 $440.00 $44,000.00 $134.40 $13,440.00 $240.00 $24,000.00 74 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 49 $300.00 $14,700.00 $275.00 $13,475.00 $558.00 $27,342.00 $500.00 $24,500.00 75 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 24 $350.00 $8,400.00 $165.00 $3,960.00 $279.00 $6,696.00 $200.00 $4,800.00 76 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 13 $330.00 $4,290.00 $330.00 $4,290.00 $330.75 $4,299.75 $332.00 $4,316.00 77 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($20,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.0 0 ## TOTAL BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1 $2,402,567.09 $2,422,513.11 $2,488,365.77 $2,559,375.57 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-2 Page 138 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. ## BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2 78 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 $26,600.00 $26,600.00 $47,000.00 $47,000.00 $38,388.00 $38,388.00 $26,500.00 $26,500.00 79 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 $4,650.00 $4,650.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $3,150.00 $3,150.00 $3,165.00 $3,165.00 80 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 838 $2.00 $1,676.00 $4.84 $4,055.92 $4.15 $3,477.70 $0.01 $8.38 81 ## REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 250 $8.75 $2,187.50 $17.82 $4,455.00 $27.75 $6,937.50 $15.50 $3,875.00 82 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ## SY 2121 $4.22 $8,950.62 $11.22 $23,797.62 $14.65 $31,072.65 $6.00 $12,726.00 83 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 17 $255.00 $4,335.00 $286.00 $4,862.00 $217.50 $3,697.50 $481.00 $8,177.00 84 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 $752.40 $1,504.80 $751.00 $1,502.00 $810.00 $1,620.00 85 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 27 $30.00 $810.00 $10.45 $282.15 $37.50 $1,012.50 $8.75 $236.25 86 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## EA 1 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,135.00 $3,135.00 $901.00 $901.00 $937.00 $937.00 87 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DRIVEWAY PAVERS ## SY 7 $292.50 $2,047.50 $72.00 $504.00 $168.00 $1,176.00 $45.00 $315.00 88 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 1869 $2.60 $4,859.40 $3.50 $6,541.50 $1.95 $3,644.55 $2.11 $3,943.59 89 ## SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 441 $5.00 $2,205.00 $4.00 $1,764.00 $5.50 $2,425.50 $6.00 $2,646.00 90 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 16 $250.00 $4,000.00 $220.00 $3,520.00 $210.00 $3,360.00 $508.00 $8,128.00 91 ## ADJUST FRAME AND RINGS AND CASTING STORM ## EA 4 $735.20 $2,940.80 $825.00 $3,300.00 $818.25 $3,273.00 $1,473.00 $5,892.00 92 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 13501 $2.20 $29,702.20 $2.42 $32,672.42 $2.85 $38,477.85 $6.70 $90,456.70 93 ## DRIVEWAY AGGREGATE SPECIAL ## CY 12 $65.20 $782.40 $77.00 $924.00 $145.50 $1,746.00 $43.70 $524.40 94 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 709 $4.20 $2,977.80 $3.15 $2,233.35 $1.76 $1,247.84 $3.50 $2,481.50 95 ## PATCH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT- DRIVEWAY ## SY 2121 $38.65 $81,976.65 $35.97 $76,292.37 $59.65 $126,517.65 $41.50 $88,021.50 96 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX ( ## 3,C ) ( ## ROAD ) ## TN 1631 $87.78 $143,169.18 $86.68 $141,375.08 $87.45 $142,630.95 $87.25 $142,304.75 97 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 1631 $97.89 $159,658.59 $95.04 $155,010.24 $92.35 $150,622.85 $98.75 $161,061.25 98 ## BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 250 $12.95 $3,237.50 $9.57 $2,392.50 $3.00 $750.00 $10.00 $2,500.00 99 ## 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 250 $87.52 $21,880.00 $110.33 $27,582.50 $126.50 $31,625.00 $111.00 $27,750.00 100 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 ## LF 403 $27.85 $11,223.55 $31.57 $12,722.71 $32.31 $13,020.93 $30.25 $12,190.75 101 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 ## LF 332 $27.85 $9,246.20 $30.14 $10,006.48 $31.00 $10,292.00 $28.90 $9,594.80 102 ## 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER ## SY 23 $108.55 $2,496.65 $143.00 $3,289.00 $136.50 $3,139.50 $137.00 $3,151.00 103 ## CONCRETE DRAINAGE FLUME ## EA 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $533.50 $533.50 $509.25 $509.25 $512.00 $512.00 104 ## 27" CATCH BASIN ## EA 1 $2,246.38 $2,246.38 $1,325.50 $1,325.50 $3,832.00 $3,832.00 $3,983.00 $3,983.00 105 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 1 $3,005.84 $3,005.84 $2,751.10 $2,751.10 $4,915.00 $4,915.00 $7,116.00 $7,116.00 106 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 $850.00 $850.00 $940.50 $940.50 $1,357.50 $1,357.50 $2,188.00 $2,188.00 107 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 29 $58.62 $1,699.98 $47.30 $1,371.70 $102.25 $2,965.25 $112.00 $3,248.00 108 ## SANITARY SERVICE REPAIR SETUP ## EA 7 $3,767.55 $26,372.85 $5,016.00 $35,112.00 $5,429.00 $38,003.00 $5,945.00 $41,615.00 109 ## SANITARY SEWER 6" PVC REPLACEMENT ## LF 160 $45.18 $7,228.80 $50.16 $8,025.60 $78.15 $12,504.00 $76.35 $12,216.00 110 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 17 $1,295.00 $22,015.00 $1,375.00 $23,375.00 $1,503.50 $25,559.50 $1,545.00 $26,265.00 111 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## LS 7 $1,625.00 $11,375.00 $700.00 $4,900.00 $0.01 $0.07 $750.00 $5,250.00 112 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 7 $175.00 $1,225.00 $220.00 $1,540.00 $134.40 $940.80 $150.00 $1,050.00 113 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 3 $250.00 $750.00 $275.00 $825.00 $236.25 $708.75 $50.00 $150.00 114 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 1400 $4.40 $6,160.00 $4.51 $6,314.00 $4.39 $6,146.00 $4.50 $6,300.00 115 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 410 $56.30 $23,083.00 $23.21 $9,516.10 $0.01 $4.10 $0.01 $4.10 116 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 491 $46.82 $22,988.62 $30.47 $14,960.77 $95.65 $46,964.15 $63.05 $30,957.55 117 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 255 $24.20 $6,171.00 $23.32 $5,946.60 $13.25 $3,378.75 $0.01 $2.55 118 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 225 $52.50 $11,812.50 $37.29 $8,390.25 $46.89 $10,550.25 $62.75 $14,118.75 119 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (EV) ## CY 1111 $26.33 $29,252.63 $25.96 $28,841.56 $23.85 $26,497.35 $0.01 $11.11 120 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 10 $190.00 $1,900.00 $220.00 $2,200.00 $185.00 $1,850.00 $195.00 $1,950.00 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-3 Page 139 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. 121 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 8 $85.00 $680.00 $49.50 $396.00 $47.25 $378.00 $75.00 $600.00 122 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 917 $4.05 $3,713.85 $4.29 $3,933.93 $4.13 $3,787.21 $4.25 $3,897.25 123 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 62 $8.60 $533.20 $8.91 $552.42 $8.68 $538.16 $8.90 $551.80 124 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 917 $18.00 $16,506.00 $18.70 $17,147.90 $18.05 $16,551.85 $18.55 $17,010.35 125 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 138 $0.99 $136.62 $1.00 $138.00 $0.98 $135.24 $1.00 $138.00 126 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 979 $5.06 $4,953.74 $5.28 $5,169.12 $5.14 $5,032.06 $5.30 $5,188.70 127 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 10 $525.00 $5,250.00 $456.50 $4,565.00 $134.40 $1,344.00 $240.00 $2,400.00 128 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 29 $300.00 $8,700.00 $275.00 $7,975.00 $836.61 $24,261.69 $500.00 $14,500.00 129 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 14 $350.00 $4,900.00 $165.00 $2,310.00 $278.70 $3,901.80 $200.00 $2,800.00 130 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 8 $330.00 $2,640.00 $330.00 $2,640.00 $330.75 $2,646.00 $332.00 $2,656.00 131 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($10,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000. 00 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2 $773,762.55 $785,319.19 $879,350.20 $834,885.03 ## BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3 132 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 $24,450.00 $24,450.00 $31,600.00 $31,600.00 $31,241.00 $31,241.00 $26,300.00 $26,300.00 133 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00 $2,638.00 $2,638.00 134 ## REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ## LF 400 $8.90 $3,560.00 $8.00 $3,200.00 $9.60 $3,840.00 $7.50 $3,000.00 135 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 3 $255.00 $765.00 $286.00 $858.00 $217.50 $652.50 $481.00 $1,443.00 136 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 195 $3.00 $585.00 $3.50 $682.50 $1.94 $378.30 $2.11 $411.45 137 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 135 $6.00 $810.00 $11.00 $1,485.00 $37.50 $5,062.50 $8.80 $1,188.00 138 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 $125.40 $250.80 $226.35 $452.70 $219.00 $438.00 139 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $752.40 $1,504.80 $452.50 $905.00 $865.00 $1,730.00 140 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 8 $250.00 $2,000.00 $220.00 $1,760.00 $210.00 $1,680.00 $280.00 $2,240.00 141 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 7082 $2.85 $20,183.70 $2.42 $17,138.44 $3.50 $24,787.00 $7.90 $55,947.80 142 ## MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2.0") (P) ## SY 13771 $1.26 $17,351.46 $1.30 $17,902.30 $2.50 $34,427.50 $1.60 $22,033.60 143 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 1869 $4.10 $7,662.90 $3.30 $6,167.70 $1.75 $3,270.75 $3.50 $6,541.50 144 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX ( ## 3,C ) ( ## ROAD ) ## TN 815 $85.99 $70,081.85 $95.48 $77,816.20 $87.65 $71,434.75 $85.75 $69,886.25 145 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 2398 $95.94 $230,064.12 $93.39 $223,949.22 $90.75 $217,618.50 $94.90 $227,570.20 146 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 ## LF 400 $29.30 $11,720.00 $36.30 $14,520.00 $34.65 $13,860.00 $36.95 $14,780.00 147 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 3 $1,295.00 $3,885.00 $1,375.00 $4,125.00 $1,503.50 $4,510.50 $1,545.00 $4,635.00 148 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 2 $3,171.99 $6,343.98 $2,981.00 $5,962.00 $5,787.00 $11,574.00 $4,815.00 $9,630.00 149 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 2 $850.00 $1,700.00 $940.50 $1,881.00 $1,357.00 $2,714.00 $1,291.00 $2,582.00 150 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 160 $47.16 $7,545.60 $47.30 $7,568.00 $80.85 $12,936.00 $62.60 $10,016.00 151 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## EA 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $2,021.50 $4,043.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 152 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 16 $175.00 $2,800.00 $220.00 $3,520.00 $134.50 $2,152.00 $150.00 $2,400.00 153 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS ## EA 2 $250.00 $500.00 $275.00 $550.00 $125.00 $250.00 $50.00 $100.00 154 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 730 $4.40 $3,212.00 $4.51 $3,292.30 $4.39 $3,204.70 $4.50 $3,285.00 155 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 287 $62.30 $17,880.10 $27.50 $7,892.50 $0.01 $2.87 $0.01 $2.87 156 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 16 $68.00 $1,088.00 $33.00 $528.00 $34.00 $544.00 $100.00 $1,600.00 157 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 163 $32.20 $5,248.60 $23.32 $3,801.16 $18.75 $3,056.25 $0.01 $1.63 158 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 119 $38.36 $4,564.84 $38.50 $4,581.50 $57.85 $6,884.15 $62.75 $7,467.25 159 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (EV) ## CY 560 $30.30 $16,968.00 $26.40 $14,784.00 $18.85 $10,556.00 $0.01 $5.60 160 ## GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V NON-WOVEN ## SY 237 $4.20 $995.40 $2.20 $521.40 $2.65 $628.05 $1.50 $355.50 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-4 Page 140 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. 161 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 10 $190.00 $1,900.00 $220.00 $2,200.00 $185.00 $1,850.00 $195.00 $1,950.00 162 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 2 $65.00 $130.00 $49.50 $99.00 $47.25 $94.50 $75.00 $150.00 163 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 216 $5.09 $1,099.44 $5.39 $1,164.24 $5.20 $1,123.20 $5.35 $1,155.60 164 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 44 $7.50 $330.00 $7.70 $338.80 $7.45 $327.80 $7.65 $336.60 165 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 646 $22.50 $14,535.00 $21.56 $13,927.76 $20.95 $13,533.70 $21.55 $13,921.30 166 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 66 $0.99 $65.34 $1.00 $66.00 $0.98 $64.68 $1.00 $66.00 167 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 259 $7.40 $1,916.60 $7.70 $1,994.30 $7.45 $1,929.55 $7.65 $1,981.35 168 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 2 $330.00 $660.00 $330.00 $660.00 $330.75 $661.50 $332.00 $664.00 169 ## INTERIM PAVEMENT MARKING ## LS 1 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $3,675.00 $3,675.00 $2,110.00 $2,110.00 170 ## 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 6684 $0.94 $6,282.96 $0.97 $6,483.48 $0.95 $6,349.80 $0.93 $6,216.12 171 ## 4" SOLID LINE WHITE MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 10153 $0.94 $9,543.82 $0.97 $9,848.41 $0.47 $4,771.91 $0.93 $9,442.29 172 ## 24" WHITE STOP BAR - MULTI-COMPONENT ## EA 1 $210.00 $210.00 $220.00 $220.00 $630.00 $630.00 $211.00 $211.00 173 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($10,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000. 00 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3 $521,438.71 $510,643.81 $520,302.66 $527,932.91 ## BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4 174 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 $21,150.00 $21,150.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $27,709.00 $27,709.00 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 175 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 $1,650.00 $1,650.00 $1,260.00 $1,260.00 $1,266.00 $1,266.00 176 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ## SY 1338 $2.00 $2,676.00 $10.56 $14,129.28 $5.50 $7,359.00 $10.00 $13,380.00 177 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 111 $3.00 $333.00 $3.50 $388.50 $1.95 $216.45 $2.11 $234.21 178 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 57 $26.20 $1,493.40 $10.45 $595.65 $37.50 $2,137.50 $8.75 $498.75 179 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 2 $450.00 $900.00 $125.40 $250.80 $226.35 $452.70 $164.00 $328.00 180 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 1 $850.00 $850.00 $752.40 $752.40 $661.75 $661.75 $865.00 $865.00 181 ## REMOVE STAIRS ## LS 1 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $3,040.50 $3,040.50 $0.01 $0.01 182 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## LS 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,950.00 $4,950.00 $900.90 $900.90 $937.00 $937.00 183 ## SALVAGE AND RESPREAD RIPRAP ## SY 269 $63.35 $17,041.15 $29.48 $7,930.12 $33.75 $9,078.75 $18.00 $4,842.00 184 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 7 $5.00 $35.00 $3.30 $23.10 $1.76 $12.32 $60.00 $420.00 185 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## TN 131 $112.62 $14,753.22 $113.14 $14,821.34 $86.50 $11,331.50 $160.25 $20,992.75 186 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## TN 100 $106.16 $10,616.00 $122.85 $12,285.00 $97.65 $9,765.00 $192.30 $19,230.00 187 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 ## LF 81 $37.00 $2,997.00 $34.10 $2,762.10 $32.55 $2,636.55 $43.10 $3,491.10 188 ## 6” CONCRETE SIDEWALK ## SY 16 $105.00 $1,680.00 $162.80 $2,604.80 $155.40 $2,486.40 $156.00 $2,496.00 189 ## AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 80% CRUSHED (CV) ## CY 169 $40.10 $6,776.90 $68.20 $11,525.80 $99.00 $16,731.00 $0.01 $1.69 190 ## COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE ## CY 315 $76.66 $24,147.90 $69.08 $21,760.20 $91.25 $28,743.75 $110.00 $34,650.00 191 ## ENGINEERED TOPSOIL (85% SAND, 15% COMPOST) ## (CV) ## CY 315 $52.80 $16,632.00 $79.20 $24,948.00 $76.00 $23,940.00 $54.20 $17,073.00 192 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 6 $3,351.92 $20,111.52 $3,047.00 $18,282.00 $8,026.00 $48,156.00 $4,840.00 $29,040.00 193 ## 4' DIA. STORM SEWER OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE W/ ## EA 1 $8,022.88 $8,022.88 $7,810.00 $7,810.00 $5,675.00 $5,675.00 $12,521.00 $12,521.00 194 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 $850.00 $850.00 $940.50 $940.50 $1,357.50 $1,357.50 $2,188.00 $2,188.00 195 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 360 $43.45 $15,642.00 $47.30 $17,028.00 $73.25 $26,370.00 $77.35 $27,846.00 196 ## 12" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 3 $2,370.40 $7,111.20 $376.20 $1,128.60 $1,476.00 $4,428.00 $2,340.00 $7,020.00 197 ## 15" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 28 $60.86 $1,704.08 $52.80 $1,478.40 $75.65 $2,118.20 $82.30 $2,304.40 198 ## 15" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 $2,537.16 $5,074.32 $1,067.00 $2,134.00 $1,722.00 $3,444.00 $2,265.00 $4,530.00 199 ## RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III ## CY 10 $250.00 $2,500.00 $137.94 $1,379.40 $103.50 $1,035.00 $164.00 $1,640.00 200 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## LS 1 $2,650.00 $2,650.00 $700.00 $700.00 $2,660.00 $2,660.00 $750.00 $750.00 201 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 7 $175.00 $1,225.00 $220.00 $1,540.00 $134.50 $941.50 $150.00 $1,050.00 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-5 Page 141 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Northwest Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. ## a/k/a ASTECH Corp ## Bidder No. 4 GMH Asphalt Corp. ## Bidder No. 3 ## Bidder No. 1 ## Bidder No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc. 202 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 3 $500.00 $1,500.00 $275.00 $825.00 $236.25 $708.75 $50.00 $150.00 203 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 200 $4.50 $900.00 $2.97 $594.00 $2.84 $568.00 $2.92 $584.00 204 ## EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 25 ## SY 1223 $2.05 $2,507.15 $1.76 $2,152.48 $1.66 $2,030.18 $1.71 $2,091.33 205 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 177 $64.50 $11,416.50 $51.48 $9,111.96 $81.35 $14,398.95 $33.00 $5,841.00 206 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 2675 $46.20 $123,585.00 $25.52 $68,266.00 $40.25 $107,668.75 $18.45 $49,353.75 207 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 15 $50.00 $750.00 $38.50 $577.50 $79.00 $1,185.00 $28.45 $426.75 208 ## INSTALL STAIRS ## LS 1 $26,250.00 $26,250.00 $10,835.00 $10,835.00 $22,222.00 $22,222.00 $55,256.00 $55,256.00 209 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 2 $65.00 $130.00 $49.50 $99.00 $47.25 $94.50 $75.00 $150.00 210 ## MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE ## LF 297 $2.60 $772.20 $2.53 $751.41 $2.46 $730.62 $2.53 $751.41 211 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 1223 $1.55 $1,895.65 $1.54 $1,883.42 $1.50 $1,834.50 $1.54 $1,883.42 212 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 500 $3.60 $1,800.00 $3.85 $1,925.00 $3.70 $1,850.00 $3.80 $1,900.00 213 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 332 $11.90 $3,950.80 $12.10 $4,017.20 $11.14 $3,698.48 $11.45 $3,801.40 214 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 149 $0.99 $147.51 $1.00 $149.00 $3.40 $506.60 $1.00 $149.00 215 ## HYDROMULCHING ## SY 1723 $1.05 $1,809.15 $1.10 $1,895.30 $1.02 $1,757.46 $1.05 $1,809.15 216 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 10 $525.00 $5,250.00 $456.50 $4,565.00 $134.40 $1,344.00 $240.00 $2,400.00 217 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 2 $300.00 $600.00 $275.00 $550.00 $836.79 $1,673.58 $750.00 $1,500.00 218 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 2 $350.00 $700.00 $165.00 $330.00 $279.72 $559.44 $200.00 $400.00 219 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 2 $330.00 $660.00 $330.00 $660.00 $330.75 $661.50 $332.00 $664.00 220 ## 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 207 $5.50 $1,138.50 $5.50 $1,138.50 $9.98 $2,065.86 $11.40 $2,359.80 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4 $383,485.03 $303,873.76 $410,206.44 $346,765.92 ## BASE BID SUMMARY:TOTAL BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1 $2,402,567.09 $2,422,513.11 $2,488,365.77 $2,559,375.57 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2 $773,762.55 $785,319.19 $879,350.20 $834,885.03 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3 $521,438.71 $510,643.81 $520,302.66 $527,932.91 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4 $383,485.03 $303,873.76 $410,206.44 $346,765.92 ## Phone: ## Email: nhendrikson@nwasphalt.net lanceastech@yahoo.com brent@valleypaving.com estimating@gmhasphalt.com ## Si g ned B y: ## Noah Hendrickson ## Dale R. Strandberg ## Brent Carron ## Brandon Butorac ## Title: ## Estimator/PM ## Vice President ## President ## Vice President ## Bid Bond ## Bid Bond ## Bid Bond ## Bid Bond ## Yes ## Yes ## Yes ## Yes 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 ## Addenda Acknowledged: ## Bid Security: Northwest1451 stagecoach Rd.Shakopee, MN 55379(952) 445-1003 ## Responsible Contractor Certification: ## Contractor Name and Address: ## GMH Asphalt Corp.9180 Laketown RoadChaska, MN 55318(952) 442-5288 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. a/k/a ASTECH CorpP. O. Box 1025St. Cloud, MN 56302 ## Valley Paving, Inc.8800 13th Ave. E.Shakopee, MN 55379 (320) 363-8500 (952) 445-8615 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-6 Page 142 of 166 ## BID ## TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1 1 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 2 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 3 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 3979 4 ## REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 275 5 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ## SY 1054 6 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL PAVEMENT ## SY 24 7 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 38 8 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DRIVEWAY PAVERS ## SY 138 9 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 3442 10 ## SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 398 11 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 784 12 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 20 13 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 14 14 ## ABANDON STORM SEWER PIPE ## LF 428 15 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## EA 39 16 ## CLEARING AND GRUBBING ## SY 517 17 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 30 18 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 40202 19 ## MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5") (P) ## SY 1209 20 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 2143 21 ## PATCH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT- DRIVEWAY ## SY 1054 22 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## (ROAD) ## TN 4855 23 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 5138 24 ## BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 750 25 ## BITUMINOUS DRAINAGE FLUME ## SY 110 26 ## 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 347 27 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 ## LF 6884 28 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 ## LF 241 29 ## 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER ## SY 103 30 ## CONCRETE DRAINAGE FLUME ## EA 8 31 ## CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP ## EA 2 32 ## TRUNCATED DOMES ## SF 40 33 ## AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 80% CRUSHED (CV) ## CY 140 34 ## DRIVEWAY AGGREGATE SPECIAL ## CY 11 35 ## SANITARY SERVICE REPAIR SETUP ## EA 6 ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total $187,000.00 $187,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $302,750.00 $302,750.00 $3,975.00 $3,975.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2.00 $7,958.00 $9.00 $35,811.00 $2.00 $7,958.00 $8.25 $2,268.75 $37.00 $10,175.00 $28.00 $7,700.00 $6.50 $6,851.00 $8.00 $8,432.00 $15.00 $15,810.00 $22.00 $528.00 $40.00 $960.00 $15.00 $360.00 $150.00 $5,700.00 $450.00 $17,100.00 $275.00 $10,450.00 $130.00 $17,940.00 $35.00 $4,830.00 $65.00 $8,970.00 $3.15 $10,842.30 $2.50 $8,605.00 $3.50 $12,047.00 $5.70 $2,268.60 $3.50 $1,393.00 $7.00 $2,786.00 $15.90 $12,465.60 $18.00 $14,112.00 $30.00 $23,520.00 $397.00 $7,940.00 $400.00 $8,000.00 $500.00 $10,000.00 $595.50 $8,337.00 $555.00 $7,770.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $11.50 $4,922.00 $10.00 $4,280.00 $19.00 $8,132.00 $757.00 $29,523.00 $795.00 $31,005.00 $1,050.00 $40,950.00 $10.50 $5,428.50 $11.00 $5,687.00 $19.75 $10,210.75 $200.00 $6,000.00 $210.00 $6,300.00 $495.00 $14,850.00 $3.61 $145,129.22 $2.65 $106,535.30 $3.00 $120,606.00 $14.20 $17,167.80 $3.50 $4,231.50 $7.50 $9,067.50 $4.75 $10,179.25 $1.00 $2,143.00 $1.15 $2,464.45 $64.40 $67,877.60 $37.00 $38,998.00 $45.00 $47,430.00 $85.90 $417,044.50 $89.00 $432,095.00 $104.00 $504,920.00 $86.40 $443,923.20 $97.00 $498,386.00 $113.50 $583,163.00 $16.00 $12,000.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 $9.25 $6,937.50 $67.50 $7,425.00 $57.00 $6,270.00 $66.50 $7,315.00 $107.00 $37,129.00 $109.00 $37,823.00 $120.00 $41,640.00 $16.80 $115,651.20 $16.00 $110,144.00 $16.75 $115,307.00 $31.85 $7,675.85 $32.00 $7,712.00 $34.50 $8,314.50 $130.00 $13,390.00 $142.00 $14,626.00 $151.50 $15,604.50 $485.00 $3,880.00 $566.00 $4,528.00 $565.00 $4,520.00 $2,450.00 $4,900.00 $2,010.00 $4,020.00 $1,982.00 $3,964.00 $50.00 $2,000.00 $53.00 $2,120.00 $58.50 $2,340.00 $61.00 $8,540.00 $96.00 $13,440.00 $65.00 $9,100.00 $110.00 $1,210.00 $131.00 $1,441.00 $250.00 $2,750.00 $3,982.20 $23,893.20 $2,990.00 $17,940.00 $4,000.00 $24,000.00 ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-7 Page 143 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty 36 ## SANITARY SEWER 6" PVC REPLACEMENT ## LF 149 37 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 38 38 ## 27" CATCH BASIN ## EA 2 39 ## 2'X3' CATCH BASIN ## EA 6 40 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 6 41 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 42 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 640 43 ## 12" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 10 44 ## 18" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 103 45 ## 18" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 5 46 ## 30" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 77 47 ## 30" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 48 ## 36" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 83 49 ## 36" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 50 ## 6" PERFORATED PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE ## LF 583 51 ## 6" PVC CLEANOUT W/THREADED CAP ## EA 4 52 ## 12" DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED HDPE PIPE ## LF 491 53 ## 12" METAL FLARE END SECTION ## EA 3 54 ## CLASS 3 RIPRAP ## TON 221 55 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## EA 11 56 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 14 57 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 14 58 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW ( ## OR BIOROLL ) - ## M ## LF 3960 59 ## EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 25 ## SY 500 60 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 1166 61 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 1757 62 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 1071 63 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 824 64 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAIMATION (EV) ## CY 4060 65 ## GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V NON-WOVEN ## SY 667 66 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 30 67 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD CONSTRUCTI ## O ## MGAL 100 68 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 2609 69 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 175 70 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 7825 71 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 768 72 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 2784 73 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 100 74 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 49 75 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 24 76 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 13 77 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($20,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 ## TOTAL BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1 ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $71.00 $10,579.00 $134.00 $19,966.00 $45.00 $6,705.00 $1,810.00 $68,780.00 $1,710.00 $64,980.00 $2,375.00 $90,250.00 $3,125.60 $6,251.20 $3,740.00 $7,480.00 $2,975.00 $5,950.00 $3,366.20 $20,197.20 $3,880.00 $23,280.00 $3,200.00 $19,200.00 $4,186.00 $25,116.00 $4,660.00 $27,960.00 $4,175.00 $25,050.00 $794.10 $794.10 $1,410.00 $1,410.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $43.50 $27,840.00 $87.00 $55,680.00 $86.00 $55,040.00 $2,489.10 $24,891.00 $1,400.00 $14,000.00 $1,895.00 $18,950.00 $53.30 $5,489.90 $115.00 $11,845.00 $105.00 $10,815.00 $2,716.80 $13,584.00 $2,490.00 $12,450.00 $2,125.00 $10,625.00 $152.60 $11,750.20 $169.00 $13,013.00 $225.00 $17,325.00 $2,954.00 $5,908.00 $4,210.00 $8,420.00 $2,895.00 $5,790.00 $198.40 $16,467.20 $249.00 $20,667.00 $260.00 $21,580.00 $3,637.00 $7,274.00 $4,930.00 $9,860.00 $3,700.00 $7,400.00 $21.75 $12,680.25 $33.00 $19,239.00 $24.00 $13,992.00 $1,005.00 $4,020.00 $1,110.00 $4,440.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 $372.07 $182,686.37 $145.00 $71,195.00 $185.00 $90,835.00 $580.60 $1,741.80 $430.00 $1,290.00 $750.00 $2,250.00 $97.40 $21,525.40 $140.00 $30,940.00 $160.00 $35,360.00 $925.00 $10,175.00 $3,500.00 $38,500.00 $1.00 $11.00 $235.00 $3,290.00 $180.00 $2,520.00 $150.00 $2,100.00 $410.00 $5,740.00 $526.00 $7,364.00 $130.00 $1,820.00 $2.35 $9,306.00 $4.00 $15,840.00 $6.00 $23,760.00 $2.75 $1,375.00 $6.00 $3,000.00 $7.00 $3,500.00 $46.85 $54,627.10 $100.00 $116,600.00 $53.00 $61,798.00 $34.55 $60,704.35 $58.00 $101,906.00 $35.75 $62,812.75 $17.65 $18,903.15 $60.00 $64,260.00 $70.00 $74,970.00 $29.00 $23,896.00 $59.00 $48,616.00 $36.00 $29,664.00 $31.10 $126,266.00 $35.00 $142,100.00 $24.00 $97,440.00 $2.75 $1,834.25 $4.00 $2,668.00 $4.00 $2,668.00 $245.00 $7,350.00 $225.00 $6,750.00 $1.00 $30.00 $90.00 $9,000.00 $80.00 $8,000.00 $1.00 $100.00 $3.08 $8,035.72 $2.00 $5,218.00 $2.25 $5,870.25 $78.80 $13,790.00 $4.00 $700.00 $2.25 $393.75 $19.50 $152,587.50 $11.00 $86,075.00 $25.00 $195,625.00 $1.50 $1,152.00 $1.00 $768.00 $2.25 $1,728.00 $2.50 $6,960.00 $4.00 $11,136.00 $4.75 $13,224.00 $400.00 $40,000.00 $420.00 $42,000.00 $475.00 $47,500.00 $700.00 $34,300.00 $525.00 $25,725.00 $1.00 $49.00 $225.00 $5,400.00 $525.00 $12,600.00 $1.00 $24.00 $300.00 $3,900.00 $210.00 $2,730.00 $225.00 $2,925.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $2,745,131.26 $2,901,103.80 $3,094,016.95 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-8 Page 144 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty ## BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2 78 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 79 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 80 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 838 81 ## REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 250 82 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ## SY 2121 83 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 17 84 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 2 85 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 27 86 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## EA 1 87 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DRIVEWAY PAVERS ## SY 7 88 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 1869 89 ## SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 441 90 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 16 91 ## ADJUST FRAME AND RINGS AND CASTING STORM ## EA 4 92 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 13501 93 ## DRIVEWAY AGGREGATE SPECIAL ## CY 12 94 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 709 95 ## PATCH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT- DRIVEWAY ## SY 2121 96 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX ( ## 3,C ) ( ## ROAD ) ## TN 1631 97 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 1631 98 ## BITUMINOUS CURB ## LF 250 99 ## 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ## SY 250 100 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 ## LF 403 101 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 ## LF 332 102 ## 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER ## SY 23 103 ## CONCRETE DRAINAGE FLUME ## EA 1 104 ## 27" CATCH BASIN ## EA 1 105 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 1 106 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 107 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 29 108 ## SANITARY SERVICE REPAIR SETUP ## EA 7 109 ## SANITARY SEWER 6" PVC REPLACEMENT ## LF 160 110 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 17 111 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## LS 7 112 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 7 113 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 3 114 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 1400 115 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 410 116 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 491 117 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 255 118 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 225 119 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (EV) ## CY 1111 120 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 10 ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $92,000.00 $92,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $3,975.00 $3,975.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2.00 $1,676.00 $9.00 $7,542.00 $2.00 $1,676.00 $8.25 $2,062.50 $37.00 $9,250.00 $30.00 $7,500.00 $6.50 $13,786.50 $8.00 $16,968.00 $7.00 $14,847.00 $150.00 $2,550.00 $450.00 $7,650.00 $275.00 $4,675.00 $397.00 $794.00 $1,210.00 $2,420.00 $1,545.00 $3,090.00 $15.90 $429.30 $52.00 $1,404.00 $58.00 $1,566.00 $2,850.00 $2,850.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $220.00 $1,540.00 $265.00 $1,855.00 $175.00 $1,225.00 $3.15 $5,887.35 $2.50 $4,672.50 $3.50 $6,541.50 $5.70 $2,513.70 $3.50 $1,543.50 $7.00 $3,087.00 $200.00 $3,200.00 $210.00 $3,360.00 $495.00 $7,920.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $1,730.00 $6,920.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $3.61 $48,738.61 $2.65 $35,777.65 $4.75 $64,129.75 $110.00 $1,320.00 $160.00 $1,920.00 $250.00 $3,000.00 $4.75 $3,367.75 $1.00 $709.00 $1.15 $815.35 $64.40 $136,592.40 $37.00 $78,477.00 $45.00 $95,445.00 $85.90 $140,102.90 $89.00 $145,159.00 $104.00 $169,624.00 $86.40 $140,918.40 $97.00 $158,207.00 $113.50 $185,118.50 $16.00 $4,000.00 $8.00 $2,000.00 $9.25 $2,312.50 $107.00 $26,750.00 $109.00 $27,250.00 $120.00 $30,000.00 $30.95 $12,472.85 $32.00 $12,896.00 $33.50 $13,500.50 $29.70 $9,860.40 $31.00 $10,292.00 $32.00 $10,624.00 $130.00 $2,990.00 $149.00 $3,427.00 $152.00 $3,496.00 $1,235.00 $1,235.00 $750.00 $750.00 $575.00 $575.00 $3,125.60 $3,125.60 $3,040.00 $3,040.00 $3,425.00 $3,425.00 $4,186.00 $4,186.00 $4,710.00 $4,710.00 $4,850.00 $4,850.00 $794.10 $794.10 $2,830.00 $2,830.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $53.50 $1,551.50 $174.00 $5,046.00 $109.00 $3,161.00 $3,982.20 $27,875.40 $4,090.00 $28,630.00 $4,000.00 $28,000.00 $71.40 $11,424.00 $71.00 $11,360.00 $45.00 $7,200.00 $1,810.00 $30,770.00 $1,720.00 $29,240.00 $2,175.00 $36,975.00 $925.00 $6,475.00 $3,500.00 $24,500.00 $1.00 $7.00 $235.00 $1,645.00 $180.00 $1,260.00 $150.00 $1,050.00 $410.00 $1,230.00 $526.00 $1,578.00 $130.00 $390.00 $2.35 $3,290.00 $4.00 $5,600.00 $6.50 $9,100.00 $46.85 $19,208.50 $100.00 $41,000.00 $53.00 $21,730.00 $34.55 $16,964.05 $58.00 $28,478.00 $40.00 $19,640.00 $17.65 $4,500.75 $60.00 $15,300.00 $65.00 $16,575.00 $29.00 $6,525.00 $60.00 $13,500.00 $38.00 $8,550.00 $31.10 $34,552.10 $35.00 $38,885.00 $23.00 $25,553.00 $245.00 $2,450.00 $225.00 $2,250.00 $1.00 $10.00 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-9 Page 145 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty 121 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 8 122 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 917 123 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 62 124 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 917 125 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 138 126 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 979 127 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 10 128 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 29 129 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 14 130 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 8 131 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($10,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3 132 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 133 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 134 ## REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ## LF 400 135 ## REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY) ## EA 3 136 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 195 137 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 135 138 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 2 139 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 2 140 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX ## EA 8 141 ## FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (P) ## SY 7082 142 ## MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2.0") (P) ## SY 13771 143 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 1869 144 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX ( ## 3,C ) ( ## ROAD ) ## TN 815 145 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) (ROAD) ## TN 2398 146 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 ## LF 400 147 ## SUPPLY AND INSTALL NEW SANITARY CASTING AND ## RINGS ## EA 3 148 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 2 149 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 2 150 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 160 151 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## EA 2 152 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 16 153 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS ## EA 2 154 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 730 155 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 287 156 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 16 157 ## EXCAVATE AND PLACE RECLAIMED MATERIAL ## CY 163 158 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 119 159 ## HAUL AND DISPOSE FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (EV) ## CY 560 160 ## GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V NON-WOVEN ## SY 237 ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $90.00 $720.00 $80.00 $640.00 $1.00 $8.00 $3.01 $2,760.17 $4.00 $3,668.00 $2.25 $2,063.25 $78.08 $4,840.96 $9.00 $558.00 $10.00 $620.00 $17.50 $16,047.50 $18.00 $16,506.00 $25.00 $22,925.00 $1.50 $207.00 $1.00 $138.00 $2.25 $310.50 $2.50 $2,447.50 $5.00 $4,895.00 $4.75 $4,650.25 $415.00 $4,150.00 $420.00 $4,200.00 $475.00 $4,750.00 $700.00 $20,300.00 $525.00 $15,225.00 $1.00 $29.00 $225.00 $3,150.00 $525.00 $7,350.00 $1.00 $14.00 $300.00 $2,400.00 $210.00 $1,680.00 $225.00 $1,800.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $840,002.79 $1,042,516.65 $978,554.10 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $52,000.00 $52,000.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $14.50 $5,800.00 $14.00 $5,600.00 $16.00 $6,400.00 $150.00 $450.00 $450.00 $1,350.00 $275.00 $825.00 $3.15 $614.25 $2.50 $487.50 $5.00 $975.00 $15.90 $2,146.50 $27.00 $3,645.00 $28.00 $3,780.00 $397.00 $794.00 $365.00 $730.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $397.00 $794.00 $1,130.00 $2,260.00 $1,050.00 $2,100.00 $200.00 $1,600.00 $210.00 $1,680.00 $495.00 $3,960.00 $4.39 $31,089.98 $2.65 $18,767.30 $3.75 $26,557.50 $2.44 $33,601.24 $3.50 $48,198.50 $2.00 $27,542.00 $4.75 $8,877.75 $1.00 $1,869.00 $1.15 $2,149.35 $88.00 $71,720.00 $89.00 $72,535.00 $104.00 $84,760.00 $82.00 $196,636.00 $97.00 $232,606.00 $113.50 $272,173.00 $43.00 $17,200.00 $36.00 $14,400.00 $38.50 $15,400.00 $1,810.00 $5,430.00 $1,710.00 $5,130.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $4,173.60 $8,347.20 $4,330.00 $8,660.00 $4,950.00 $9,900.00 $794.10 $1,588.20 $1,410.00 $2,820.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $43.50 $6,960.00 $77.00 $12,320.00 $82.00 $13,120.00 $925.00 $1,850.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $1.00 $2.00 $235.00 $3,760.00 $180.00 $2,880.00 $150.00 $2,400.00 $235.00 $470.00 $526.00 $1,052.00 $130.00 $260.00 $2.35 $1,715.50 $4.00 $2,920.00 $6.50 $4,745.00 $55.00 $15,785.00 $100.00 $28,700.00 $45.00 $12,915.00 $60.00 $960.00 $71.00 $1,136.00 $75.00 $1,200.00 $22.00 $3,586.00 $60.00 $9,780.00 $65.00 $10,595.00 $34.00 $4,046.00 $59.00 $7,021.00 $40.00 $4,760.00 $32.00 $17,920.00 $35.00 $19,600.00 $23.00 $12,880.00 $3.00 $711.00 $4.00 $948.00 $5.00 $1,185.00 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-10 Page 146 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty 161 ## STREET SWEEPING W/ PICKUP BROOM ## HR 10 162 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 2 163 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 216 164 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 44 165 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 646 166 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 66 167 ## HYDROMULCHING (SFM) ## SY 259 168 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 2 169 ## INTERIM PAVEMENT MARKING ## LS 1 170 ## 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 6684 171 ## 4" SOLID LINE WHITE MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 10153 172 ## 24" WHITE STOP BAR - MULTI-COMPONENT ## EA 1 173 ## LANDSCAPING RESTORATION ($10,000 ALLOWANCE) ## LS 1 ## TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4 174 ## MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION ## LS 1 175 ## TRAFFIC CONTROL ## LS 1 176 ## REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ## SY 1338 177 ## SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) ## LF 111 178 ## REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) ## LF 57 179 ## REMOVE FLARED-END SECTION ## EA 2 180 ## REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE ## EA 1 181 ## REMOVE STAIRS ## LS 1 182 ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ## LS 1 183 ## SALVAGE AND RESPREAD RIPRAP ## SY 269 184 ## BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT ## GAL 7 185 ## TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## TN 131 186 ## TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C) ## TN 100 187 ## CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 ## LF 81 188 ## 6” CONCRETE SIDEWALK ## SY 16 189 ## AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5, 80% CRUSHED (CV) ## CY 169 190 ## COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE ## CY 315 191 ## ENGINEERED TOPSOIL (85% SAND, 15% COMPOST) ## (CV) ## CY 315 192 ## 4' DIA. PRECAST STORM STRUCTURE ## EA 6 193 ## 4' DIA. STORM SEWER OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE W/ ## EA 1 194 ## CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE ## EA 1 195 ## 12" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 360 196 ## 12" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 3 197 ## 15" RC PIPE STORM SEWER CLASS V ## LF 28 198 ## 15" RC FLARED END SECTION W/ TRASH GUARD ## EA 2 199 ## RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III ## CY 10 200 ## STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT ## LS 1 201 ## STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION - MAINTAINED ## EA 7 ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $245.00 $2,450.00 $225.00 $2,250.00 $1.00 $10.00 $90.00 $180.00 $80.00 $160.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.01 $650.16 $5.00 $1,080.00 $2.25 $486.00 $78.08 $3,435.52 $7.00 $308.00 $10.00 $440.00 $23.50 $15,181.00 $21.00 $13,566.00 $25.00 $16,150.00 $1.50 $99.00 $1.00 $66.00 $2.25 $148.50 $2.50 $647.50 $7.00 $1,813.00 $4.75 $1,230.25 $300.00 $600.00 $210.00 $420.00 $225.00 $450.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $0.88 $5,881.92 $0.90 $6,015.60 $1.25 $8,355.00 $0.88 $8,934.64 $0.90 $9,137.70 $1.25 $12,691.25 $200.00 $200.00 $210.00 $210.00 $250.00 $250.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $512,712.36 $668,221.60 $685,896.85 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $43,000.00 $43,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $6.45 $8,630.10 $8.00 $10,704.00 $5.00 $6,690.00 $5.00 $555.00 $2.50 $277.50 $5.00 $555.00 $15.90 $906.30 $47.00 $2,679.00 $23.00 $1,311.00 $397.00 $794.00 $367.00 $734.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $397.00 $397.00 $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,740.00 $4,740.00 $6,575.00 $6,575.00 $25.10 $6,751.90 $35.00 $9,415.00 $29.00 $7,801.00 $24.00 $168.00 $1.00 $7.00 $1.15 $8.05 $145.00 $18,995.00 $100.00 $13,100.00 $117.00 $15,327.00 $175.00 $17,500.00 $110.00 $11,000.00 $129.00 $12,900.00 $41.00 $3,321.00 $40.00 $3,240.00 $37.00 $2,997.00 $160.00 $2,560.00 $173.00 $2,768.00 $450.00 $7,200.00 $72.00 $12,168.00 $100.00 $16,900.00 $65.00 $10,985.00 $66.00 $20,790.00 $60.00 $18,900.00 $95.00 $29,925.00 $44.00 $13,860.00 $150.00 $47,250.00 $60.00 $18,900.00 $4,186.00 $25,116.00 $5,700.00 $34,200.00 $4,725.00 $28,350.00 $12,110.40 $12,110.40 $9,680.00 $9,680.00 $9,150.00 $9,150.00 $1,588.20 $1,588.20 $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $43.50 $15,660.00 $82.00 $29,520.00 $90.00 $32,400.00 $1,695.10 $5,085.30 $1,910.00 $5,730.00 $1,875.00 $5,625.00 $61.00 $1,708.00 $188.00 $5,264.00 $125.00 $3,500.00 $1,961.80 $3,923.60 $2,340.00 $4,680.00 $1,985.00 $3,970.00 $136.40 $1,364.00 $255.00 $2,550.00 $200.00 $2,000.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $1.00 $1.00 $235.00 $1,645.00 $180.00 $1,260.00 $150.00 $1,050.00 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-11 Page 147 of 166 ## BID TABULATION ## Item ## Num ## Item ## Units ## Qty 202 ## CULVERT END CONTROLS - MAINTAINED ## EA 3 203 ## SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW (OR BIOROLL) - ## MAINTAINED ## LF 200 204 ## EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 25 ## SY 1223 205 ## COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) ## CY 177 206 ## COMMON EXCAVATION - OFFSITE (EV) (P) ## CY 2675 207 ## SUBGRADE EXCAVATION ## CY 15 208 ## INSTALL STAIRS ## LS 1 209 ## WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND ROAD ## CONSTRUCTION ## MGAL 2 210 ## MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE ## LF 297 211 ## MNDOT SEED MIX RESIDENTIAL TURFGRASS ## SY 1223 212 ## MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH ## SY 500 213 ## SODDING TYPE LAWN ## SY 332 214 ## FERTILIZER TYPE 3 ## LB 149 215 ## HYDROMULCHING ## SY 1723 216 ## PRUNE TREES ## HR 10 217 ## IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 2 218 ## PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIR ## LOT 2 219 ## SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN ## EA 2 220 ## 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI-COMPONENT ## LF 207 TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4BASE BID SUMMARY:TOTAL BASE BID: 2026 PROJECT AREA 1TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 1: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 2TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 2: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 3TOTAL BID ALTERNATE 3: 2026 ALTERNATE PROJECT AREA 4 ## Phone: ## Email: ## Si g ned B y: ## Title: ## Addenda Acknowledged: ## Bid Security: ## Responsible Contractor Certification: ## Contractor Name and Address: ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Unit Price ## Total ## Bidder No. 7 New Look Contracting, Inc. ## Bidder No. 5 ## Bidder No. 6 ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $410.00 $1,230.00 $526.00 $1,578.00 $130.00 $390.00 $2.35 $470.00 $3.00 $600.00 $6.50 $1,300.00 $1.99 $2,433.77 $2.00 $2,446.00 $7.00 $8,561.00 $42.00 $7,434.00 $115.00 $20,355.00 $45.00 $7,965.00 $26.62 $71,208.50 $59.00 $157,825.00 $30.00 $80,250.00 $45.00 $675.00 $122.00 $1,830.00 $30.00 $450.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $90.00 $180.00 $80.00 $160.00 $1.00 $2.00 $4.50 $1,336.50 $2.00 $594.00 $9.00 $2,673.00 $3.01 $3,681.23 $1.00 $1,223.00 $2.25 $2,751.75 $78.08 $39,040.00 $4.00 $2,000.00 $10.00 $5,000.00 $17.50 $5,810.00 $11.00 $3,652.00 $25.00 $8,300.00 $1.50 $223.50 $1.00 $149.00 $2.25 $335.25 $2.50 $4,307.50 $1.00 $1,723.00 $4.75 $8,184.25 $415.00 $4,150.00 $420.00 $4,200.00 $475.00 $4,750.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $525.00 $1,050.00 $1.00 $2.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $525.00 $1,050.00 $1.00 $2.00 $300.00 $600.00 $210.00 $420.00 $225.00 $450.00 $5.00 $1,035.00 $5.00 $1,035.00 $6.50 $1,345.50 $360,511.80 $525,748.50 $416,381.80 $2,745,131.26 $2,901,103.80 $3,094,016.95 $840,002.79 $1,042,516.65 $978,554.10 $512,712.36 $668,221.60 $685,896.85 $360,511.80 $525,748.50 $416,381.80 coryh@wmmueller.com info@bitroads.com estimating@newlookcontracting.net ## Timothy Mueller ## Jack Peterson ## Justin Hoellein ## President ## Vice President ## PM/Estimator ## Bid Bond ## Bid Bond ## Bid Bond ## Yes ## Yes ## Yes 1, 21, 21, 2831 Park Ave. 1520 Commerce Dr. New Look Contracting, Inc.14045 Northdale Blvd. ## Wm. Mueller & Sons Bituminous Roadways, Inc. (763) 241-1596Rogers, MN 55374 ## Hamburg, MN 55339 ## Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (952) 467-2720 (651) 686-7001 193807541-BidTab.xlsm ## BT-12 Page 148 of 166 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## RESOLUTION 26-41 ## A RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DEEPHAVEN FOR ## MINNETONKA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, Deephaven asked Shorewood if it wanted Deephaven to complete roadway improvements for an 850-foot segment of pavement on Minnetonka Boulevard that is located on the shared municipal boundary between the western leg of Spencer Lane easterly to the municipal boundary near Bayswater Road; and WHEREAS, the pavement condition for this segment of Minnetonka Boulevard is rated as 29 out of 100 and comments have been received about the poor condition of the roadway; and WHEREAS, Deephaven has already bid and awarded the project, with the afore described section as a bid alternate, and Shorewood’s cost participation is estimated to be $56,905.32 which includes 15% for design and construction administration. ## NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA HEREBY approves the project and authorizes the Mayor and staff to execute the agreement with the City of Deephaven for improvements as described herein to Minnetonka Boulevard. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 13th day of July 2026. ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Attest: ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 149 of 166 City Council Item 4.E. ## Title/Subject: Shorewood Lane Ravine Update ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Andrew Budde, City Engineer ## Attachments ## 1. 2026-07-08 Shorewood Lane Ravine Update ## Background Staff will provide an update on the Shorewood Lane Ravine project. See attached memo for further details about the timeline, options, and project funding. ## Strategic Alignment ## Functionally & Financially Sound Infrastructure • Plans to finance infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and replacement. ## Budget Impact Fund 405 - MSA Construction has identified $800,000 for Shorewood Lane Ravine (ST-23-06). See attached memo for further budget and funding details. ## Action Requested No formal action is requested. Page 150 of 166 H:\SHWD\C16120341\1_Corres\A_Meetings\2026-07-08 Matters from the Floor Response\2026-07-08 Shorewood Lane Ravine-Matter From Floor Response.docx ## MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 2026 ## To: Matt Morriem – Public Works Director ## From: Andrew Budde – City Engineer ## Subject: Shorewood Lane Ravine Update Existing Conditions: In 2004 County Road 19 was improved to its current condition and included a 30-inch diameter pipe outlet at the top of the ravine northeast of County Road 19/Shorewood Lane intersection. The project also included the construction of Gideon Glen storm water improvements that provided storm water rate control for the overall project. The unfortunate aspect of the project is that the Gideon Glen storm water improvements are in a different sub-watershed than the Shorewood Lane Ravine and therefore all the benefits in the reduction in storm water runoff rates were seen in western sub-watershed and not the eastern sub-watershed that outlets to the Shorewood Lane Ravine, therefore higher flow rates were likely seen in this area. In 2014 a significant storm severely eroded the ravine from Shorewood Lane to a wetland at the bottom. The overall drainage area is 30 acres, and the ravine falls 17 feet over its 450-foot length at an average of 4% slope. The severe erosion has undercut the bank creating a deep ravine with nearly vertical slopes in many locations, causing loss of trees, risks to adjacent properties, and significant sedimentation downstream. The channel sides and bottom are largely unvegetated due to a healthy overstory tree canopy preventing sunlight reaching the forest floor. Early coordination had identified that the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) had jurisdiction over the stream channel therefore complicating permitting and potential solutions. ## Potential Solutions: 1. Revegetation: Originally the city and neighbors had preferred the solution to simply add vegetation to stabilize the slopes due to low costs and ease of permitting. However, due to the thick tree cover, minimal existing vegetation due to lack of sunlight reaching the forest floor, ongoing erosion, and the significant sheer stress on the institute soils it was determined that it would not be a long-term solution. Page 151 of 166 ## Name: Shorewood Lane Ravine – Matters from the Floor Response Date: July 7, 2026 Page: 2 H:\SHWD\C16120341\1_Corres\A_Meetings\2026-07-08 Matters from the Floor Response\2026-07-08 Shorewood Lane Ravine-Matter From Floor Response.docx Staff then worked with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on potential solutions and scoped out three potential options in a memo dated March 22, 2023 and addressed to MCWD. 2. Maintain Existing Channel Slope: This option consisted of maintaining the eroded channels slope and flatting the side slopes of the ravine to 3:1(H:V) where possible, adding retaining walls along the channel sides when needed, and adding four rip rap plunge pools along its length. This option had significant impacts on existing properties due to the extent of grading and/or significant retaining walls costs. Ultimately this option had very large potential construction costs, resident impacts, and permitting challenges with both the MCWD and ACOE that it was not pursued further. 3. Piped Outlet: The preferred long-term solution of the city was to pipe the stream due to the economic costs, minimal resident impacts, and long-term resiliency of that solution. However, the piped option would not be permittable by the MCWD and would be very challenging to get permitted from the ACOE. If piping were to be permitted, it is anticipated that stream mitigation required by the ACOE efforts would approach $1 million above and beyond any construction costs. Therefore, the piping option was not pursued further. 4. Reduce Channel Slope and Utilize Gabion Walls: The third alternative that was scoped consisted of adding fill into the channel to raise the profile up closer to its natural profile prior to severe erosion occurring. The option also minimized impacts to adjacent residents by utilizing gabion basket walls to make up grade and stabilize the side slopes where needed. In addition, this option utilizes gabion basket walls to create several vertical drops that helped dissipate erosive energy in controlled locations. In discussions with MCWD this option was the most permissible, however the feedback was that permitting would be even easier if bioengineered stabilization was utilized as much as possible. Staff have adjusted the design to incorporate bioengineered stabilization as much as possible except for the location of the vertical drops. The construction estimate was also updated based on these proposed changes and that is when the project costs increased from $300k to potentially $800k. At this time staff paused work on the project to attempt to secure outside funding with the understanding that this would delay the construction by several years. Also, during this time staff coordinated with the ACOE and provided adequate documentation that the ACOE reversed their decision and determined that they do not have jurisdiction over the ravine channel therefore significantly reducing the overall permitting efforts and timelines. Page 152 of 166 ## Name: Shorewood Lane Ravine – Matters from the Floor Response Date: July 7, 2026 Page: 3 H:\SHWD\C16120341\1_Corres\A_Meetings\2026-07-08 Matters from the Floor Response\2026-07-08 Shorewood Lane Ravine-Matter From Floor Response.docx ## Funding: 1. MPCA Resiliency Grant: In March 2024 Council authorized pursuing the MPCA Resiliency Grant. Ultimately the city was unsuccessful. 2. League of Minnesota City- Grant Navigator: In March 2024 Council authorized pursuing the LMC-Grant Navigator for $5000 which goes towards consultant fees pursuing grants. The city was successful in this application. 3. Hennepin County Opportunity Grant: In April 2024 Council authorized pursuing the Hennepin County Opportunity Grant for $50,000. The city was successful in this application and accepted the grant in March 2025. 4. Municipal State Aid Funding: In January 2025 staff reached out to MnDOT State Aid to get clarity of the city could utilize Municipal State Aid funds for the proposed drainage improvements due to a portion of the contributing flow draining from County Road 19 wand is a State Aid Highway. Guidance from State Aid is that up to 55% of the project costs would be eligible for MSA funds and equate to approximately $440,000. 5. Hennepin County Cost Share Grant: In March 2025 Council authorized pursuing the Hennepin County Cost Share Grant. The city was notified in March 2026 that it was successful in securing $186,000. Overall, the city has been able to secure a total of $681,000 in outside funding of an estimated $800,000 project costs and ultimately reduced the city’s local share contribution from $315,000 to approximately $119,000. ## Council Updates/Actions: ## August 2023 – Project Update ## March 2024 – Authorize MPCA Resiliency Grant ## April 2024 – Authorize Hennepin County Opportunity Grant ## March 2025 – Accept Hennepin County Opportunity Grant ## March 2025 – Authorize Hennepin County Cost Share Grant ## Forthcoming Council Actions: 1. Approve Cooperative Agreement w/ Hennepin County for Cost Share Grant ## 2. Approve Permanent Easement Acquisition (if needed) ## 3. Approve Final Plans & Authorize Bidding ## 4. Award Contract ## Attachments: ## 1. 2026 Shorewood Lane Ravine – One Pager Page 153 of 166 ## PROJECT SCOPE • Stabilize the severely eroded channel from Smithtown Lane to the downstream wetland using bioengineering solutions, rip-rap, and gabion walls. • Protect structures in the upstream watershed from localized flooding. ## FUNDING • City of Shorewood ## • Hennepin County Opportunity Grant: $50,000 ## • Municipal State Aid Funds • The City has submitted a request for $186,000 through the Hennepin County Cost Share Program. Notification of results is expected in December 2025. ## BUDGET • City of Shorewood: $315,000 ## • Hennepin County Opportunity Grant: $50,000 • Municipal State Aid: $275,000–$440,000 (55% of Construction) ## • Hennepin County Opportunity Grant: $186,000 (Pending) Total = $800,000 ## ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE ASSUMING FUNDING 202520262027 ## Project Scoping ## Final Design ## Construction ## ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES • The channel has been severely eroded for more than ten years. • Due to property damage and safety concerns, adjacent residents have expressed a desire to stabilize the channel. • Residents are willing to provide or help acquire the easements necessary for construction. • Easements are required from four property owners. • The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that it does not have jurisdiction over this stream channel. • Attempts to secure other grants, such as the 2024 MPCA Resiliency Grant, have been unsuccessful because the project does not increase upstream resiliency. • Due to existing development, the upstream watershed has limited opportunities for increased stormwater storage. Structures shown at “Risk of Flooding” are for storm events greater than a 100-year storm event, or if the culvert under CR 19 were to clog with debris. ## 2026 Shorewood Lane Ravine es od ## Center ## Community ## Southshore es od ## Center ## Community ## Southshore ## L a k e ## M i n n e t o n k a ## L ## R ## T ## R e g i o n a l ## T r a i l ## L a k e ## M i n n e t o n k a ## L ## R ## T ## R e g i o n a l ## T r a i l ## T i m b e r ## L a n e ## C l o v e r ## L a n e ## S h o r e w o o d ## L a n e ## M i n n e t o n k a ## D r i v e ## T i m b e r ## L a n e ## C l o v e r ## L a n e ## S h o r e w o o d ## L a n e ## M i n n e t o n k a ## D r i v e ## S m i t h t o w n ## R o a d ## S m i t h t o w n ## R o a d 19 ## Badger Park ## Badger Park ## Tonka ## Bay ## Tonka ## Bay L a k e ## Black ## Bay P a r k S p r i n g ## Bay C a r m a n L a k e S h u l t z M i n n e t o n k a L a k e V i r g i n i a L a k e ## Bay ## Carson ## Bay A l b a n s ## St ## Lucy L a k e ## Ann L a k e L a k e S il ve r ## A r m ## L a k e M i n n e t o n k a L a k e M i n n e w a s h t a L a k e ## Bay L a f a y e t t e L a k e L o t u s L a k e C h r i s t m a s ## Spring Park ## Deephave n ## Excelsior ## Tonka Bay ## Greenwood ## Beach ## Minnetonka ## Shorewood ## Spring Park ## Excelsior ## Greenwood ## Deephaven ## Minnetonka Beach ## Tonka Bay ## Chanhassen ## M i n n e t o n k a ## Spring Park ## Excelsior ## Greenwood ## Deephaven ## Minnetonka Beach ## Tonka Bay ## Chanhassen ## M i n n e t o n k a ## SHOREWOODSHOREWOOD ## Legend ## Outer Watershed Boundary ## Ravine Stabilization ## Structures at Risk of Flooding ## Flood Inundation ## City of Shorewood ## City of Tonka Bay ## DRAFT ## 10/07/20253:55:02 PM Version 1 11/06/2025 Page 154 of 166 City Council Item 5.A.i. ## Title/Subject: Quarter 2 Communications Report ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Eric Wilson, Communications/Recycling Coordinator ## Attachments ## 1. Shorewood Communications Report 2026-Q2 ## Background The City of Shorewood Communications Coordinator has prepared a report to highlight the City’s communications efforts April 1 to June 30, 2026, including data for website, email, social media, and the Shore Report. The information from this report helps to inform and guide the City’s priorities around communications methods and content. ## Strategic Alignment ## Effective Engagement & Communication • Prioritize communications and engagement • Explore and experiment with different formats and mediums • Be strategic about sharing information and obtaining input • Dedicate time and resources to communication and engagement ## Budget Impact ## Action Requested Page 155 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 1 ## 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report April 1 to June 30, 2026 ## Overview The City of Shorewood uses a variety of tools to help keep community members informed about city services, issues, and events. These include the city’s website, social media, email, and print publications, such as the Shore Report. The following report summarizes key metrics in each of these areas by month. ## Social Media & Website Metrics ## April May June Social media Facebook Viewers* 2,464 9,727 1,307 Facebook views** 7,563 16,472 4,624 Instagram reach 223 244 58 Instagram views 975 796 151 Nextdoor Impressions*** 2,963 1,880 5,292 ## Website Views 13,068 12,597 11,417 Users 4,622 4,399 3,889 * Viewers (The number of Account Center accounts that have viewed your content at least once. Content includes reels, posts, stories, live videos and ads. This metric is estimated and in development.) **Views: the number of times your content was played or displayed. ***Nextdoor Impressions: this metric represents the total number of times a post (including ads) is shown to members. These metrics are recorded under the views column. Page 156 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 2 ## April In addition to regular council meetings, commission agendas and public notices, the following topics were communicated across social media, email, and the city’s website. ## • Hennepin County Open Book Meetings ## • Local Candidate Training (Candidate Filing) ## • Spring Street Sweeping ## • 2026 Construction Projects: Mill Street ## Pathway Project, CenterPoint Energy ## (Deephaven), Hwy 5, Xcel Energy, Galin ## Lake Trail, Fiber-Optics ## • Yard Waste Disposal ## • Mosquito Control Activity ## • Recreational Fire Permits ## • E-bike Safety Class ## • Severe Weather Awareness Week ## • Scams & Fraud Education ## • Professional Admin Day ## • Spring Hydrant Flushing ## • Earth Day ## • MCWD Prescribed Prairie Burn ## • Recycling: Paper, Recycling Event at MHS, ## Spring Cleanup, Paper Shred Event, ## Email Campaigns ## Sent Campaign Name Sends Opens Open Rate Clicks Click Rate 4/30/2026 Planning Commission Meeting - 5/5/26 67 48 76.20% 11 17.50% 4/24/2026 City Council meeting 04-27-2026 875 525 63.40% 46 5.60% 4/22/2026 Public Notice - Public Hearing - 5/5/2026 516 357 72.00% 37 7.50% 4/10/2026 City Council meeting 04-13-2026 876 545 65.60% 37 4.50% 4/7/2026 Recycling News - April 2026 827 567 72.10% 43 5.50% 4/6/2026 Spring Hydrant Flushing - April 6, 2026 934 598 67.40% 7 0.80% 4/2/2026 April 2026 General eNews 934 615 69.30% 73 8.20% 4/2/2026 Planning Commission Meeting - 4/7/2026 62 45 77.60% 7 12.10% ## Email Marketing Funnel ## Website Pages & Events Page 157 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 3 ## May In addition to regular council meetings, commission agendas and public notices, the following topics were communicated across social media, email, and the city’s website. ## • Natural Gas Line Upgrades in Deephaven ## • Xcel Energy Projects ## • National Public Works Week ## • Excelsior Boil Water Alert ## • Prescribed Burn near Gideon Glen Park ## • Parks Unplugged (Tree Planting Demo & ## Camp Fire MN) ## • Smithtown Road Closure ## • Elections: State Primary, Candidate Filing ## • Mosquito Control Activity ## • Recycling: Plastic Bags, Old Yard Signs, ## Collection Schedule ## • Yard Waste Disposal ## • Spring Cleanup & Paper Shred • Cast your vote for Movie in the Park ## • SCEC Facility Study Survey ## • South Lake Safety Camp • Comprehensive Plan 2050 ## Email Campaigns ## Sent Campaign Name Sends Opens Open Rate Clicks Click Rate 5/28/2026 Public Notice - Zoning Code Feedback 518 349 69.90% 35 7.00% 5/27/2026 Planning Commission Meeting - 06/02/26 70 50 75.80% 10 15.20% 5/26/2026 Comprehensive Plan Email 1 - 5/26/26 943 650 72.50% 132 14.70% 5/22/2026 City Council meeting 05-28-2026 880 523 62.70% 35 4.20% 5/22/2026 City Council meeting 05-26-2026 880 535 64.10% 30 3.60% 5/21/2026 Public Notice - Public Hearing - 6/2/2026 518 336 67.30% 14 2.80% 5/19/2026 General Updates - 5/19/26 940 605 67.70% 21 2.40% 5/18/2026 Park Commission Meeting - 5/19/2026 56 44 81.50% 4 7.40% 5/15/2026 Smithtown Road Closure - May 20, 2026 1121 752 70.70% 12 1.10% 5/14/2026 ## Public Notice - Notice of State Primary 2026 522 353 70.30% 10 2.00% 5/14/2026 Public Notice - Candidate Filing 2026 522 354 70.50% 13 2.60% 5/14/2026 Boil water notice lifted - 5/14/26 322 214 68.40% 15 4.80% 5/13/2026 Parks & Rec - May 2026 Updates 737 442 64.90% 32 4.70% 5/13/2026 ## Public Notice - Closed CC Meeting- 5/28/26 518 346 69.50% 18 3.60% 5/13/2026 Boil water notice - 5/13/26 322 249 79.60% 21 6.70% 5/8/2026 City Council meeting 05-11-2026 879 510 61.20% 30 3.60% 5/8/2026 May 2026 General eNews 939 592 66.30% 41 4.60% 5/6/2026 ## Public Notice - Potential Quorum - May 2026 Events 516 371 74.60% 18 3.60% 5/5/2026 Recycling News - May 2026 832 541 68.30% 22 2.80% 5/5/2026 ShoreReport - May & June 2026 1016 655 69.20% 119 12.60% Page 158 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 4 ## Spring Cleanup Flyer In years’ past, the Spring Cleanup pricing list has been included in the Shore Report. In 2026, the Spring Cleanup flyer was included with the quarter 1 utility billing statement. ## May Email Marketing Funnel ## May Website Pages & Events Page 159 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 5 ## June In addition to regular council meetings, commission agendas and public notices, the following topics were communicated across social media, email, and the city’s website. ## • Scam Alert ## • Mill Street Road Closure ## • Smithtown Road Closure ## • Watermain Flushing ## • Free Tree Evaluations • 2027 City Budget ## • SSSP Newsletter ## • Early Voting ## • Candidate Filing ## • Park Tours ## • Deephaven Street Improvement Project • 2050 Comprehensive Plan ## • Water Efficiency Rebates ## • South Lake Safety Camp ## • Recycling: Collection Calendar, Spring Cleanup Recap, ## Small Plastic Items, Plastic Free July ## Email Campaigns ## Sent Campaign Name Sends Opens Open Rate Clicks Click Rate 6/30/2026 Recycling News - July 2026 832 534 67.80% 16 2.00% 6/30/2026 SSSP Newsletter - July Aug Sept 2026 145 90 66.70% 31 23.00% 6/25/2026 Park Commission Meeting - 6/30/26 57 37 67.30% 1 1.80% 6/23/2026 ## Public Notice - Possible Quorum - 6/30/26 517 356 71.60% 8 1.60% 6/23/2026 6/23/26 Park Tour & 6/24 Smithtown Road Repair 1123 740 69.50% 26 2.40% 6/23/2026 ## Park Commission Meeting - 6/23/26 Park Tour Rescheduled 751 440 63.60% 0 0.00% 6/22/2026 June 2026 - Elections Updates 944 589 65.70% 28 3.10% 6/18/2026 City Council meeting 06-22-2026 881 516 61.90% 24 2.90% 6/18/2026 ## 2027 City Budget Updates - Budget Work Session #2 on 6/22 49 37 75.50% 7 14.30% 6/18/2026 Park Commission Meeting - 6/23/26 56 36 66.70% 7 13.00% 6/16/2026 Recycling News - June 2026 839 549 69.10% 25 3.10% 6/16/2026 ## Public Notice - Possible Quorum - 6/16/26 518 358 72.00% 29 5.80% 6/12/2026 June 2026 General eNews 947 626 69.60% 42 4.70% 6/11/2026 Public Notice - 2050 Comp Plan Kickoff 526 356 70.50% 40 7.90% 6/9/2026 Upcoming Road Closures - June 2026 1126 755 70.80% 57 5.30% 6/5/2026 City Council meeting 06-08-2026 882 521 62.40% 41 4.90% Page 160 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 6 ## 2050 Comprehensive Plan Print Materials Flyers and postcards were created to promote the 2050 Comprehensive Plan survey. Flyers have been posted at Shorewood City Hall and Shorewood Community and Event Center and will be included in the Quarter 2 utility billing statement. Postcards were handed out at Spring Cleanup and Parks and Recreation events. ## June Email Marketing Funnel ## June Website Pages & Events Page 161 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 7 ## Shore Report The Shore Report is the city’s bimonthly newsletter. A digital version of each newsletter is available to view on the city’s website. It is shared via email and social media. The May & June Shore Report included the following topics: ## • 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update • 2025 Water Report • 2026 Public Improvement & Road ## Construction Projects: Mill St, Hwy 5, Xcel, ## Galpin Lake Trl, Midco, Metronet ## • 2026 Elections: Dates, Candidate Filing, ## Voting Options ## • SCEC Online Survey ## • 2026 Community Photo Contest ## • Stormwater Education ## • Smart Irrigation Controllers ## • Water Efficiency Rebate Program ## • Events: Spring Cleanup, Parks Unplugged ## (Tree Planting Demo, Camp Fire MN), ## Concert in the Park, South Lake Safety ## Camp, Movie in the Park ## • Recycling: Paper, Collection Schedule Page 162 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 8 ## Citizen Request Tracker ## Request ## Source Report/Concern Response Opened Closed ## Website Please fill in the washed out gravel between the road and mail boxes (Chaska Rd). 4/2/2026 4/3/2026 Crew was out to replace the class 5 in the shoulder area today 4/3/2026. ## Mobile Multiple potholes, some of which are quite large and/or deep on Noble Rd. 4/9/2026 4/10/2026 Noble Road was patched and swept on 4/10/2026. ## Mobile Potholes on Lawtonka Dr. 4/27/2026 5/1/2026 The city knows about this area that needs some patch work. We will be out in the next week or two to complete this work. ## Mobile Amazon trucks have used the concrete cut through meant for bikes and walkers from the new development (named Walnut Villas?) onto Seamans Drive. I’ve witnessed the trucks turning onto it from Seamans Drive and coming from the development onto Seamans. Perhaps a cone or something more permanent needs to be installed to block vehicles. The development plans did NOT include street access onto Seamans Drive. 5/11/2026 5/12/2026 Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The city will be putting a concrete barrier in this location to deter traffic. ## Website Lightbulb in the street lamp on the corner of Silver Lake Trail and Near Mountain Blvd needs to be replaced. 5/26/2026 5/27/2026 Thank you for letting us know about the light being non-functional. I have put in a request to Xcel Energy to have the bulb replaced. ## Mobile As you’re making a right from Smithtown Road to continue on Smithtown Road, there are two potholes. The first one: it’s in the right side and close to the white line when you’re stopped at the light. The second (and bigger) one: it’s also on the right side and just as you pull onto Smithtown Road. Thanks!. 5/31/2026 6/1/2026 Thank you for the information. The city plans to complete pothole patching on Smithtown Road within the next week. If you are referring to any work that may need to occur on County Road 19, which is also known as Smithtown Road, that work falls under Hennepin County's jurisdiction. The county has scheduled a mill-and-overlay project that is expected to begin in approximately 2–3 weeks. Given that timeline, I do not anticipate the county filling potholes on County Road 19 before the mill-and-overlay work is completed. ## Mobile Home in disrepair - grass not cut, weeds filling front yard, numerous holes in siding and chimney, buckthorn filling front yard and blocking front door, moss covering roof. Consider doing wellness check on elderly homeowner?. 5/31/2026 6/11/2026 City has issued a letter to ask the homeowner to cut the grass and trim the vegetation around the home. The city will be back in two weeks to check on the vegetation status. If you would like to ask for a welfare check on a resident/neighbor, you will have to call 911 and request it. ## Mobile Tree fell down and is blocking the bottom of the cul-de-sac. . 6/1/2026 6/1/2026 Crews were dispatched to clear this tree this morning ## Website Water continuously leaking from water utility cover on Near Mountain Boulevard. Has been leaking for weeks. Nearby home owners have not reported it that I'm aware of. 6/6/2026 6/8/2026 The city knows about the water leaking from this valve. We have a repair that is scheduled to happen in the next couple of weeks. Page 163 of 166 City of Shorewood 2026 Quarter 2 Communications Report | 9 ## Mobile We have had recurring trespassers and kicking of our door now at least 7 -8 times in the past year. Several times they have yelled profanities at us and other inappropriate things. We have called the Police multiple times and have never had any results ultimately and have been challenged to get them on our ring camera even adding new cameras that they know how to avoid. All of these instances are happening around 11 PM or later at night and so it’s officially harassment at this point. I’ll log a complaint with the police as well but I want it on record with Shorewood as well. We feel unsafe in our own home and I suspect it’s some people who live in our neighborhood but we’ve not been able to get it on video yet but will likely be adding new video cameras yet again. 6/9/2026 6/10/2026 Request was forwarded to SLMPD @ 7am on 6/10/2026 ## Mobile Overgrown grass is impeding visibility of road at intersection, creating unsafe conditions (Noble Rd). 6/10/2026 6/10/2026 Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The flail mower will be through this area in the next few days to trim back the ROW. ## Mobile The builder installed a cut through from Seamans Dr to Park Lane. The gravel is not flush with the cement which make it impossible to bike up. In addition they put a jersey barrier in the middle of the gravel portion. The gravel instability and the location of the barrier right in the middle caused my husband to tip over and fall and he got a big gash on his leg. Something needs to change so the area is safe for bikers and walkers. . 6/22/2026 6/22/2026 Thank you for submitting your request. This gravel area is not permanent and will be replaced with a paved sidewalk by the developer before construction of the development is completed. The jersey barrier was installed by the City of Shorewood earlier this year in order to prevent unauthorized use of the gravel area by delivery vehicles which were using it as a cut through to Seamans Drive and will remain in place until the sidewalk has been installed. Page 164 of 166 City Council Item 5.A.ii. ## Title/Subject: Tentative Upcoming Agenda Topics ## Meeting Date: July 13, 2026 ## Prepared By: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## Attachments ## 1. July 13 2026 Tentative Upcoming Meeting Topics ## Background Attached is a list of anticipated topics for future City Council work sessions and regular meetings. The list is not exhaustive and topics and their meeting dates are subject to change. ## Strategic Alignment ## NA ## Budget Impact ## NA ## Action Requested ## NA Page 165 of 166 ## Tentative Meeting TopicMeeting Type 7/27/2026 ## City Council Budget Work Session #3: 2027-2036 Capital Improvement Plan. ## Work Session 7/27/2026 ## Public Hearing: 5815 Club LN Cost Asessment ## Regular Meeting ## 7/27/2026Updated Pavement Management PlanRegular Meeting ## 7/27/20262027 SLMPD Budget UpdateRegular Meeting ## 7/27/2026Surplus ItemsRegular Meeting 8/10/2026 ## City Council Budget Work Session #4: Presentation of the Long-Term Financial Management Plan. ## Work Session ## 8/10/2026Hwy 7 TMO StudyRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Engineering Consultant ContractRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Award Contract - Galpin Lake TrailRegular Meeting ## 8/10/20262027 EFD Budget UpdateRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Approve SLMPD 2027 BudgetRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Approve EFD 2027 BudgetRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Annual Financial ReportRegular Meeting ## 8/10/2026Annual Approval of Retention ScheduleRegular Meeting ## 8/24/2026South Shore Senior Partners / StaffingWork Session ## 8/24/2026Local Speed Limit DiscussionWork Session 8/24/2026Work Session 9/14/2026Work Session ## 9/14/2026Zoning Code UpdateRegular Meeting ## 9/14/2026Adopt by Ordinance Annual City Code CodificationRegular Meeting 9/14/2026Adopt 2027 Master Fee Schedule (Res) (Ord-Zoning)Regular Meeting 9/14/2026 ## City Council Meeting - 7:00 p.m. City Council approves preliminary 2027 Budget, sets proposed 2027 Tax Levy, and establishes Budget Hearing Date. Adopt 2027 fee ordinances and fee schedule. ## Regular Meeting ## 9/21/2026Discuss Annual Strategic Planning ProcessWork Session 9/21/2026Regular Meeting ## 10/12/2026Discuss Code EnforcementWork Session ## 10/12/2026Discuss Municipal Water Point of Sale ProgramWork Session ## 10/12/2026Annual Tobacco License RenewalRegular Meeting 10/12/2026Certify Special Assessments-on or before October 31st Regular Meeting 10/12/2026Certify Unpaid Charges-on or before October 31stRegular Meeting ## 10/12/20263nd Quarter Communications ReportRegular Meeting July 13, 2026 Page 166 of 166