--- ## title: Tagged PDF date: D:20260521175214+00'00' --- ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ## MAY 26, 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. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## D. Park Commission Meeting Minutes ## E. Claims List F. Adopt Resolution Approving a Special Assessment for Dale & Karan Newberg, ## 26960 Beverly Dr ## 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, please use the “raise hand” function on your screen and wait to be called on. Please Page 1 of 193 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. Presentation by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ## B. Minnetonka Baseball Bigsy Tournament Request ## C. Appeal Hearing on a Massage Therapist License Denial D. 25485 State Highway 7 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan ## E. Legislative Changes to AB Voting ## F. 2026 Deer Management Program Agreement ## G. Vine Ridge Neighborhood Petition Against Deer Management Program on ## Adjacent City-Owned Properties ## 5. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS ## A. Staff ## i. Response: Duane Laurila, Matter from the Floor ## B. Mayor and City Council ## 6. ADJOURN Page 2 of 193 City Council Item 2.A. ## Title/Subject: City Council Work Session Minutes ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. 05.11.2026 CC WS Meeting Minutes ## Background ## 05-11-26 City Council Work Session ## 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 Motion to Approve Consent Agenda. Simple Majority is required. Page 3 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## MONDAY, MAY 11 2026 5:30 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Acting Mayor Sanschagrin called the meeting to order at 5:47 P.M. ## A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin; Councilmembers Maddy, Gorham, and DiGruttolo; City ## Administrator Nevinski; Planning Director Griffiths ## Absent: Mayor Labadie ## B. Review Agenda DiGruttolo moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. DISCUSSION ## A. Zoning Code Update Planning Director Griffiths started the meeting by reviewing the project and introducing Beth Richmond of HKGi, the consultant assisting with the project. Ms. Richmond stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review all work completed on the Zoning Code update in Phase One. Explain what has been done and highlight the next steps. She shared that last year, a Zoning Code audit was completed to identify areas of the Code that needed updating, were confusing, or were not up to date or in compliance with State Statute. She noted that the audit was presented to the Council, focused heavily on the districts and the Code's rezoning, and identified many line items that needed fixing. The idea behind the audit was to have a roadmap for updating the Code. She added that the Code update would be done in two Phases, and there were a few reasons for this. Primarily, some areas of the Code need to be fixed quickly to make it more usable, specifically its organization and compliance with the State Statute. She explained that the second Phase of the Code update, after the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update, will address any elements in the Comprehensive Plan that Zoning needs to address. That is why the update is structured this way: the City is in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan cycle. Right now, the goal for Phase One is to complete the Code cleanup, make the technical changes, and organize everything so everyone can understand it. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if Ms. Richmond would share what was not compliant in the Code. Ms. Richmond shared that the line items could be sent out. She noted that, mostly, certain uses are protected by State Statute, such as daycares, manufactured home parks, and sacred communities, which had not been updated in a while. The way the City was not allowing those uses was not in line with what the State Statute now requires. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin clarified that when those items were put in place, they were legal, but over time, the State developed new rules. Ms. Richmond assumed that would be the case, and it is not uncommon for those uses to still need updating. Councilmember Gorham asked whether there was a major Page 4 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 2 of 7 update last year regarding the sacred communities. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the sacred communities were updated last year and taken into consideration as part of the process to ensure compliance. He added that daycares, manufactured home parks, and religious places are protected under State law, and that new legal precedents continue to emerge, changing how cities regulate them. He shared that the city went through a long period with few updates to the City Code, and when updates don’t happen, it is easy for things to get lost in the shuffle. Ms. Richmond stated that Phase Two will include standards for Telecommunication Towers, and that this is another area known not to be quite up to where it needs to be with State and Federal requirements. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if, in the meantime, the city would defer to the State Statute. Ms. Richmond shared that in the areas where the city knows it may not be compliant; it would refer to the State Law or the Federal Act. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the rules around telecommunications are constantly changing, so if the Code is updated, those rules may change again. He added that there has been a big push at the Federal level to reduce barriers to broadband access and to sell tower data availability. He stated that the section of the Code is not so bad as to be unusable; it just needs a few procedural tweaks from time to time to comply with Federal law. He reminded the Council that about a year ago, there was a cell tower conditional use permit application, in which the Planning Commission review was bypassed to go directly to the Council because the application had to be reviewed under a Federal law-imposed shot clock. That would be the kinds of things that would need to be adjusted. Ms. Richmond shared that for Phase One, things kicked off in December; updates were worked on with the Staff throughout the spring; a full draft is ready for review by everyone; and the final adoption process will follow. Ms. Richmond explained that she will highlight the changes made in the first update. She noted that, in trying to make the Code more usable, there will be reorganization, updates to the formatting and numbering, addressing inconsistencies in language, grammar, and references, and incorporating graphics and tables to reduce text and clarify standards. Councilmember Gorham asked whether HKGi creates its own graphics. Ms. Richmond shared that the graphics are made in-house, but HKGi can draw on a comprehensive library thanks to previous code updates for other cities. She noted that if those graphics are used, they are adapted to each city's style. Ms. Richmond explained that, as the Code is structured today, there are 26 individual sections, now consolidated into nine divisions, with sections in each division. The divisions are intended to place the language most used by the public at the top of the Code, with the more technical terms the Staff would use at the bottom. She noted that within the groupings, they tried to put similar topics together, hopefully making it clearer to people as they read through. She added that the number had been updated, and each division now starts with 1201. Planning Director Griffiths shared that one reason for adopting the new numbering system is that it makes future updates to the Code much easier. This is the same numbering format used in the Subdivision Code update, and it has been very effective. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if the structure was standard across other cities. Planning Director Griffiths stated that, for cities with updated codes, it is fairly standard and follows a structure recommended by the codifier several years ago. Right now, it takes a lot to shift things around, which is why the Code ended up the way it is. He added that 1201.03 is currently the largest section of the Code and covers many topics, serving as the catch-all chapter. Ms. Richmond shared some larger changes relative to the reorganization. In 1201.50 Overlay and Special Districts, shoreland and the planned unit development are grouped in the section, and now the floodplain language that was in Chapter 1101. Similarly, in 1201.70 Development Standards, many different items are grouped, and Chapters 1102 Wetland Development and 1103 Tree Preservation are included in the section as well. She added that once the update is adopted, the 1100 chapter will cease to exist. Page 5 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 3 of 7 Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked whether any of the reorganization would create issues with nonconforming uses. Ms. Richmond stated that the reorganization should not cause issues. She stated that the language with nonconformities was just updated, so the new language is in the Code, and nothing has changed except for how the Code is organized. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that more review sessions are coming up. He asked when the final draft would be rolled out and how the public would know what to do. Ms. Richmond shared that this could be discussed with the Staff regarding which informational or educational components would be provided. She noted that, typically, when the Code is adopted, the consultant's work would end there, but explanatory blurbs or additional information could be provided upon request. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the newsletter would be a source, and possibly something on the website, and something that the Staff could talk about. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there is a lot of informational and educational material available online, and that the Code will be available online after it is finalized. He added that, typically, people who use the Code reach out to the Staff, and education can come through that channel as well. Ms. Richmond explained the changes related to the Zoning Districts, noting that they were proposed as part of the Zoning Code Audit, which was discussed at that time, and that a consensus was reached. In speaking with the Staff, there are many districts, and some are not even being used. She shared that the number of districts would be reduced from 13 to 8. She pointed out that a new naming system is also being proposed because of how the districts were named previously and the lack of clarity in the Code for readers of the names. She showed a slide with the existing districts, the updated zoning districts, and what happened to the eliminated districts. She also shared a picture of the City's earliest zoning map to show similarities and differences. She explained that the R-1 districts are changing from R-1A to R-EL (Estate Lot Residential), which allows the largest lots in the city today. R-1B and R-1C have been combined to make R-LL, Large Lot Detached Residential. Then R-1D is now R-SL (Small Lot Detached Residential). She added that the names are showing that the lot sizes are different. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked what the dimensions of the device used to measure and classify the districts were. Ms. Richmond shared that the R-EL is 40,000 square feet, R-LL is 20,000 square feet, and R-SL is 10,000 square feet. The R-EL and R-SL stayed the same, so the purpose is to clarify and make the logic clearer. Ms. Richmond shared that in the R-2 district, there are three existing today, and in the end, there would be one district, R-LD (Low Density Residential). She stated that R-3A and R-3B were updated recently, so not much change was made, and the districts do not apply to many areas of the city. Mainly, the names were changed: R-3A is now R-MD (Medium Density Residential), and R-3B is now R-HD (High Density Residential). She noted that in the previous three, the focus was on the density rather than the lot size to draw the distinction. She explained that the rest of the districts have some changes. The Residential Commercial (R-C) district is being proposed for elimination because, as written today, it appears to allow mixed use. Still, the district states that properties within it must be designated as either residential or commercial. All of the parcels have already been developed. She added that discussion of mixed use may come up as the city works through the Comprehensive Plan, and, if the City is interested, it could be added during Phase Two. She stated that the General Commercial district will change from C-1 to G-CM to match the letters used in the other abbreviations. Commercial Service, C-2, is not a district in the city, so the proposal is to eliminate it. Finally, Lakeshore Recreational (L-R) stays the same but has a new abbreviation, LS-R. Planning Director Griffiths shared that many of the changes are name changes or improvements that make things more practical. He noted that the way the current Code works is a big pressure point for the Staff, and is really complicated for the residents. He added that, in communicating with residents, the new Code will make it that much easier. From Staff’s perspective, the city is going back to the way things used Page 6 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 4 of 7 to be done in Shorewood. He shared that it was very common for zoning to become more complicated as things changed. This Zoning Code update matches what Shorewood is today. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if any of the changes cause issues for existing uses. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it is not happening. As part of the update, the City is not changing anyone from residential to commercial; it is just combining things. Councilmember Gorham asked about the R-C district. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the R-C district is designed to determine which direction to take. Once chosen, the standards are almost identical to those for residential or commercial. Most of the parcels are commercial, and there would be no changes to the property owners. Councilmember Gorham asked if someone who owned a residential property in R-C could rezone it to be commercial. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, in theory, that would be an option. Most of the properties are commercial, and the Comprehensive Plan did not contemplate converting them to residential use. He added that, as they go through the Comprehensive Plan update, it may make sense to consider a mixed-use district. Councilmember DiGruttolo pointed out that when the decisions were made, someone was thinking about why they were made the way they were. She asked how much consideration was given to that and whether there is room for the city to be more forward-looking. She loves the idea of maintaining the character of the city, but not at the expense of what is needed in the future. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it has been considered, and at some point, someone thought certain things were a really good idea. He added that in the case of the R-C districts, no flexibility is being lost because the decision has already been made. A rezoning could also take place if a resident wants to change from residential to commercial, just as would be required under the current Code. If there were still vacant land, then this would be a bigger consideration, but all the parcels are developed. Councilmember Gorham clarified that the owner has chosen one, and if the owner wants to choose the other, the owner would have to go before the Council anyway. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it was true. Councilmember Gorham stated that for the R-1 district, R-1B and R-1C would be combined, with a maximum lot size of 20,000 square feet instead of the 30,000 square feet for R-1C. He asked about the unintended consequences as they relate to subdivisions. Ms. Richmond explained that the R-1B is 10 lots today and is the one that will be reduced to meet the dimensional standards. She noted that the lots cannot even be subdivided at that point because they are on the lake and subject to lakeshore standards. Planning Director Griffiths shared that those lots could not be subdivided, and there are just 10 lots to deal with, compared with over 1,000 in the R1-C district. He added that as part of the audit, the discussion was not to change the R-1A district because it would open up potentially developable land. Ms. Richmond showed a preview of the use tables, indicating that the intention is to show what is and is not allowed in each district. The reason for the table is to eliminate repetitive text. She added that some of the uses are slightly different and now comply with the State Statute. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the City Code is currently structured with embedded uses and is very repetitive and difficult to understand. This is all in a table now, and it makes it a lot easier. Ms. Richmond showed a preview of the tables related to the Dimensional requirements, one for lot dimensions and one for site dimensions. She noted that the Staff had removed the lot depth and adjusted some lot area standards to bring them into conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan comes before the Zoning Code. The standards are now listed by districts and use type. Ms. Richmond continued to discuss fencing. She noted that specifically for boundary line fences, which are fences within eight feet of the property line, those fences need to be at least 25 percent open. She added that one of the most common requests that the staff get is for a privacy fence, but they have to tell them no Page 7 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 5 of 7 because of the 25 percent open requirement. Historically, this has been enforced along all of the boundary lines. She asked whether the Council would like to stick to the standard in place today or if there is room to discuss potential changes. She stated that, in speaking with the Planning Commission, their consensus was that, particularly closer to the property line, it was reasonable to have the 25 percent requirement, but suggested that, instead of the eight-foot distance, it be narrowed to three feet. That would make the policy apply to fences on or close to the property line, rather than those farther back. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked what the purpose of the 25 percent open is. Planning Director Griffiths explained that, based largely on what was seen, the 25 percent is about aesthetics, and there would be some openness rather than just a wall. This requirement dates back to the original Zoning Code in the 1950s. It has come up before, and previous City Councils have decided to keep the requirement as it is. He added that the privacy fence is probably the number one request. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked whether there are situations where a resident installs a privacy fence, someone complains, and the City has to enforce it. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the 25 percent rule has happened. He noted that most of the proposals that come in are for white vinyl privacy fences, so if the rule is changed, that is probably what would go in. Ms. Richmond clarified that there is a different standard in the Code specific to fences along streets. That also requires 25 percent open right now, but that is not what is being proposed to change unless that is what the Council wants. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that the 25 percent should be discussed as a Council. Since it is the most requested item, the Council should listen to the residents unless the Staff has a different perspective. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is the time to discuss the fences. He noted that most communities allow privacy fences. The city has allowed privacy fences as part of PUDs or townhome developments. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin noted that the City was being inconsistent at the time, which would be another reason to get rid of the restriction. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that she is in favor of changing it, but feels it should be voted on. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the Council will vote on the Zoning Code and hold a public hearing. He added that for the fences that have been allowed, no complaint has come in about not liking them. In many cases, fences solve many issues. Councilmember Gorham asked if the thought is for interior only. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is up for discussion. Councilmember Gorham stated he does not want to see privacy fences lining Smithtown. He added that the city has been tough on many residents in enforcing the requirements, and that a sudden change could be hard. The 25 percent does make a big difference in the aesthetic appeal. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the wall of fences would probably happen if allowed. Councilmember Gorham stated that the Council talks a lot about the character of the City, and that allowing privacy fencing would change how the city looks. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked which portion of the requests are from people on the streets, like those in Smithtown. Planning Director Griffiths stated that most come from those types of streets. He added that people typically build privacy fences on a street because there is an appeal to reduced noise or greater safety. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that, in a quick search on ChatGPT, she found that some of the cons include water flow issues and animals not being able to roam freely. Then, the fences also become a fortress of walls. She noted that restrictions could be instituted, such as where the fences could go. She shared that she would like to know, prior to making a decision, how many requests the city has received in the past year. She noted being inclined to allow the privacy fences. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he probably cannot get an exact number, as that is not something that is tracked. He estimated that it is probably about 30 to 40 people a year. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that the privacy fence does not bother her. Councilmember Gorham stated that if the Council were voting, he would vote against changing it, but it feels like a big decision. Planning Director Griffiths offered that the topic could be revisited in the future, and there could be engagement on the topic with the Comprehensive Plan. Otherwise, the Planning Commission thought to keep the 25 percent requirement but to reduce the distance from eight feet to three feet from the property line. Acting Mayor Sanscahgrin asked if the fence would be farther from the road. Page 8 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 6 of 7 Councilmember Maddy shared that the discussion is to build walls next to the neighbor's property. He agreed with Councilmember Gorham that there is no right to build a wall on the property line. He noted that the city is blessed to have open design, and it is a beautiful thing. Building property walls would change things in the community. Councilmember DiGruttolo agreed that building walls should not be done, but fences, yes. Councilmember Maddy pointed out that building fences stops humanity. He added that fences do not make a better community. Shorewood has a great open community, and he does not want to ruin that. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff has direction that there is no clear path forward, so he proposed to move forward with the status quo and be looked at again in the future. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if the Staff could look into what all the other beautiful neighborhoods around Shorewood do. She pointed out that maybe there could be a middle ground as well, and all the options should be explored if residents are genuinely asking for the fences. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the topic would be removed from the Zoning Code update and can be handled on its own because it deserves more attention. Ms. Richmond went over the updates to procedures. She stated that all of the procedures have been grouped in the last section. She added that the section begins with language that applies to everything, and each subsequent section covers a different topic. The proposal is to add a procedure for site plan review for the larger buildings within the city. She suggested that the proposal is merely administrative; if there is confusion, it can be brought before the Council. She noted that right now, it is not formally explained, so having it in writing is important for site plan review. She shared that the other changes are related to PUDs; it is common to establish PUDs through a zoning amendment rather than a CUP. Language was added on how to process minor and major PUD amendments. She added that the proposal is to eliminate approval for the general concept plan; it is not very common to see approval, but only to gather information. The last change is removing the public hearing requirement for the general concept plan. She asked how the Council felt about the formal public hearing for a general concept plan. She noted that the Planning Commission favored keeping things as they are. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked what specific problem is being solved by removing a public hearing at the concept stage and how the city ensures that residents can still have meaningful input before the project momentum becomes irreversible. Ms. Richmond stated that holding the public hearing at the beginning of the process, where everyone can attend, ensures that everyone is aware of it. She noted that the hard part about that is that it is a concept plan, and it might not go any further, and the entire neighborhood may be really upset about something that may not go anywhere. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that no problem is solved by getting rid of that. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is fine, and the Planning Commission concurred. The public hearing is not typical, which is why it was brought to the Council’s attention. Councilmember Maddy stated that he thought the Planning Commission did not want the redundancy. Planning Director Griffiths pointed out that the Planning Commission wanted the public hearing. Ms. Richmond added that, especially because the Planning Commission had just held a public hearing for a concept plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the bigger issue with PUDs is eliminating the approval step, as it puts the City in a difficult position. Ms. Richmond shared the next steps in the process, with the draft Code put up for everyone to review and provide feedback. Then the feedback will be incorporated and used to prepare a final draft. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that the new site plan process allows the administrator to approve the plan unless the matter is voluntarily shifted upward. That is a significant governance shift. She asked whether there should be objective thresholds for automatic review by the Planning Commission or Council, rather than relying on administrative discretion. She noted she could send it via email due to time constraints. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is why certain standards are in the Code. Right Page 9 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 7 of 7 now, that is how things are set up because there is no procedure, and whatever the administration says is the process. He noted that he would follow up after and beef up the standards. Gorham moved, DiGruttolo seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of May 11, 2026, at 6:58 P.M. ## ATTEST: ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 10 of 193 City Council Item 2.B. ## Title/Subject: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. 05.11.2026 CC Reg Meeting Minutes ## Background ## 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 Motion to Approve Consent Agenda. Simple Majority is required. Page 11 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## MONDAY, MAY 11, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Acting Mayor Sanschagrin called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ## A. Pledge of Allegiance ## B. Roll Call Present: Acting Mayor Sanschagrin; Councilmembers Gorham and DiGruttolo; City Administrator Nevinski; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Director of Public Works Morreim (Via Zoom); Park and Recreation Director Czech; City Engineer Budde; Communications/Recycling ## Coordinator Wilson; and Acting City Attorney Amy Schmidt ## Absent: Mayor Labadie and Councilmember Maddy ## C. Review Agenda Gorham moved, DiGruttolo seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 3/0. ## 2. CONSENT AGENDA Acting Mayor Sanschagrin reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked to remove Consent Agenda Items 2.E., 2.G., 2.H., and 2.J. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if she would like to discuss the Items now or remove them for later. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that either would work. She noted a mistake in the Work Session minutes and asked whether it should be removed or explained. City Administrator Nevinski noted that Councilmember DiGruttolo could point out the mistake to be fixed now. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that the first paragraph on page two of the Work Session minutes states "Operation Levy" and should state "Operating Levy." Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if the other items would be discussed now. City Administrator Nevinski stated that if the Items in question did not require debate, then they could be discussed now. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that Item 2E, Strategic Communications Plan, focuses heavily on engagement but offers few accountability metrics. She asked how the Council and residents know that communications are improving trust and understanding rather than just increasing the number of impressions. She asked if the Communications metrics would be reported publicly and regularly. She asked what safeguards are in place to ensure that communications remain informational rather than promotional. Communications/Recycling Coordinator Wilson pointed out that the tool to use for the engagement piece, to turn from qualitative and put metrics around it, and would be the way to have a safeguard and present to the Council and the public, would be the Quarterly Communications report that is Page 12 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 2 of 12 given at the Council. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that the city is very aspirational and cannot be measured, so she wants to ensure there are mechanisms in place to collect feedback and engage with it. Mr. Wilson shared that the hope was that the Quarterly Communications report was being used as a tool to capture those things, and that any misinformation or how the engagements are being used would be reported back on what is being done with those things. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that good information is being collected, and just looking at how that is used is important. Councilmember Gorham noted that he loves the Communications Plan checklist of things to implement. He asked how the Council checks to see that things are being implemented. Mr. Wilson shared that he could include that in the Quarterly report as well, but would be happy to include it more frequently if desired. Councilmember Gorham stated that it could be done just once a year to see how things are going. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if there was a place to receive raw feedback from residents. Mr. Wilson shared that the city could use that as a mechanism for sharing feedback. He noted that he has been looking at other cities and liked that some have an always-on forum. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that it was a good idea. She added that in the military, there was a suggestion box, and every month, a suggestion from it was featured in the newsletter. Mr. Wilson noted that any ideas would be welcomed. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked about Item 2.G. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that the item should be taken off and discussed later. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin moved on to Item 2.H. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how supplemental service hours are tracked operationally to ensure that Shorewood’s service levels are not degraded or diminished. She asked what analysis had been done for the actual fully loaded cost of the services, including benefits and overhead. She also asked the Staff to clarify the distinction between supplemental services and normal baseline policing responsibilities. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the supplemental services are in addition to what is already being provided through the membership costs. These are costs for additional services paid for by Excelsior; the money is not coming from funds budgeted for normal operations. Excelsior will reduce the number of hours listed compared to those shown in the Agenda Packet, based on needs. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked whether an additional person was being hired or whether the staff already there would be doing the work. City Administrator Nevinski shared that CSOs will be used. He shared that if the CSO is doing this additional work in Excelsior and an accident occurs, the CSO would also respond, resulting in additional responders as an added benefit. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that it seems there is a cost to Shorewood. She asked whether, if Shorewood states that an additional officer is needed, the Excelsior officer would not go because they are working in Excelsior. City Administrator Nevinski stated that they are CSOs and cannot respond to everything, but if a responder is needed for medical emergencies or traffic control, they would be available. The CSO's main task is to be in downtown Excelsior, addressing issues during the peak months of activity. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if the CSOs are full-time staff. City Administrator Nevinski shared that they are part- time staff who may be in law enforcement school or exploring the field as a career. Some could eventually become a CSO in a permanent role. Several officers at SLMPD have started as CSOs and worked their way up, including the Chief. Councilmember Gorham asked if the schools use a CSO, and this is what they might be doing during the summer. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the Police Chief could discuss that the next time he is at the meeting. He added that CSOs are usually at the college level or higher. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin shared that last year, he stated that, for this program, Excelsior needed to cover all the costs, and the memo indicated that some additional costs were covered. City Administrator Nevinski shared that Excelsior is covering the uniform, equipment, and computer. It was also contemplated in the Page 13 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 3 of 12 Joint Powers Agreement. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if the salary was not paid for then. City Administrator Nevinski stated that the hourly wage is also being paid. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked whether the officers were needed for the rest of the year and whether there would be a degradation in service for Shorewood. City Administrator Nevinski stated that, in this case, as this is an ongoing program that Excelsior has, the position would be funded if Excelsior funds it. A position is not being taken away; it is an additional position. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if this position is just in the summer. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the position also occurs a little bit in the fall. Councilmember Gorham asked what the CSOs are doing when it is not summer time. He pointed out that if the CSO can work only in Excelsior during the summer, then the need for CSOs during the rest of the year is in question. City Administrator Nevinski pointed out that these are part-time positions, so when activity increases, the CSO is scheduled accordingly. He added that the Police Chief could speak more to the program. Councilmember Gorham asked for a follow-up to the conversation to see what happens after the summer. He added that it may be an area for cost cuts. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that several major costs are coming up for the SLMPD, so any ways to cut costs would be helpful. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin moved on to Item 2.J. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked why the city is always hiring at the top of the band. She noted that in six months, she does not want to promote the new hire. She added that he has only three years of experience out of college and that, generally, seven years are required for a Senior hire. She asked for the framework for the position classification and the step placement so that the Council can understand how consistency and internal equity are maintained. City Clerk/HR Director Thone shared that the new hire is not at the top; he is at mid-range and is quite a few steps lower than the last couple of hires. Councilmember DiGruttolo noted that she is happy with that, but the packet seemed to state that after he is off probation, he would be promoted. Ms. Thone shared that after the six-month probationary period, there would be a review, and if the new hire passed, they would move to a permanent position. However, there is no increase at the six-month mark; he will have to wait a year to get a step increase on the compensation schedule. She noted that, as far as the Senior Accountant position, there is a quite a variance in whether someone’s title is an Accountant I, Accountant II, or Senior Accountant, and what that means in every city is somewhat different, and what the job description entails. She explained that the position used to be an Accounting Tech role, and the last person was promoted to Senior Accountant, which changed the job description. She noted that the job duties and description aligns with the state pay equity program, which the city is required to perform every 3 years. It also aligns with the city’s compensation schedule that the Council approved in 2024. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that there still needs to be discussion about the hiring and the bands. A lot of money has been spent on Financial Management, so that the top dollar would not have to be spent on hiring a Senior Accountant. She added that the city has so much redundancy and continues to spend money on a problem that may no longer exist. Ms. Thone noted that there have been many discussions regarding the city’s compensation study and schedule and it would be good to review it during the budgeting cycle. Councilmember Gorham shared that some discussion took place during the Planning Position. He asked why the city needs a Senior Accountant. Ms. Thone stated that this person handles all payroll, all utility billing, all accounts receivable, all accounts payable, all year-end reporting to the State and Federal entities, and a portion of the back-end of employee benefits. She added that the role is fairly technical. Councilmember Gorham asked how the Council knows that this role is needed. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin shared that Councilmember Gorham is asking why the Council is getting this information at the tail end of the process. Councilmember Gorham shared that the salary is high and that it is during budget season. There is nothing that shows why this position is needed, but this is what it is. Ms. Thone shared that when Staff comes to them with a recruitment request at the beginning of the process, all these items are laid out in that memo for approval. Staff asks for approval to recruit for the position and for any changes. She Page 14 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 4 of 12 added that when the city went through the compensation study with the DDA, every position and job description was reviewed and aligned. Then, once every job description was aligned to the roles, each role was classified to the compensation schedule. She added that seven positions were reclassified as a result of the 2023 study. Councilmember Gorham stated that he thought he heard her say that the Council is more engaged for bigger positions, but for backfilled positions, the Council would not normally hear about them until the end. He asked where the information on the study would be, because some were not on the Council in 2023. Ms. Thone noted that it is a valid question because the work was done before many of the existing council members were here. Councilmember Gorham shared that it is not so much about him seeing it as about the public and the story of this position and all the work that was done to get there. He added that the explanation is valid, but that does not come through. Ms. Thone asked whether the questions being asked serve to validate to the public that the Staff has done its due diligence. Councilmember Gorham stated, " Yes, that is what is being asked. He shared that the information on the position needed and how the staff determines the salary. Ms. Thone stated that the point is valid and that the information may not be out there. She added that she goes through many processes that support the process: salary, surveys aligned with other cities, a review of the compensation schedule, and the State's pay equity process every three years. She added that all the information is out there, but not necessarily in one place that the public can see and some of it, like the salary information, can be sensitive. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that the Council is working to increase transparency, and some members are seeking to cut costs wherever possible. Knowing that some of the Council would like more justification than that information should just be available with each new hire. She added that the Council has to answer the questions, and to do so, the information must come from the Staff. She added that it is not that the Council does not trust the Staff to do their job, but that the Council needs to be able to give the answers. Ms. Thone stated that the information is helpful and will encourage her to add more detail to both sides of the recruitment request when coming to them for approval. Councilmember Gorham stated that it would be great and that, before someone is hired, it would be helpful to discuss more transparency. Ms. Thone shared that the Council does get more involved in hiring for a management or department head position, and there is a slight difference in Council involvement depending on the level being hired. Councilmember Gorham shared that the Council does not need to be involved in interviews for all positions, but if Council approval is needed, more buy-in should come at the beginning of the process. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that for many of the Consent Agenda Items, there seem to be recurring issues when significant operational and policy direction is being set incrementally through Consent Agenda Items rather than through clearly bounded strategic decisions. She added that she did not think that was the way it was supposed to work. She noted that several Items are just asking the Council to rubber-stamp decisions after major operational choices have already been made. She shared that at what point does the Council meaningfully shape policy direction versus ratifying what the Staff has already operationalized. Councilmember Gorham stated that there is a fine line between micromanaging some decisions made by the Staff and those the Council weighs in on. Whenever the City is hiring, the Council should be more involved. He added that the Staff needs a certain amount of liberty, not every decision needs to be brought to the Council. He agreed that too many items are going to the Consent Agenda. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin agreed. DiGruttolo moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. ## A. City Council Work Session Minutes of April 27, 2026 ## B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2026 ## C. Claims List Page 15 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 5 of 12 ## D. Expiration of Approvals for Shorewood Carriage Homes, Adopting RESOLUTION ## NO. 26-27, “A Resolution Acknowledging the Expiration of Development Approvals ## for Shorewood Carriage Homes Located at 24560 Smithtown Road.” ## E. Strategic Communications Plan F. Annual Data Practices Policy Review, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-28, “2026 ## City Data Practice Policies.” ## G. SCEC Task Force (moved to 4.D.) ## H. 2026 Supplemental Services Proposal, SLMPD and City of Excelsior ## I. Hennepin County CDBG Program Renewal ## J. Senior Accountant New Hire Motion passed 3/0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Dwayne Lorelei, 5595 Eureka Road, stated that he was shocked and taken aback by the quarterly utility bill. He noted that he had come to City Hall to ask why the Watershed District and the storm sewer were so high. He shared that he was told it was because of the Watershed District. He explained that he did some research on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and found that the fee is paid annually with property taxes at $40.31. On the bill he received, the amount rose from $56.61 to $90.45, a 62 percent increase. He shared that he called another city, spoke with the stormwater engineer, and asked why the prices went up so high. The engineer stated that typically, they only go up two or three percent a year for the city’s portion of the storm sewer. He stated that, upon further review, he found that Northland Securities, with whom the City does business, suggested that the City bring it to that price. He suggested talking to the Public Works Director to have him speak with the Watershed District and see what they want and what will be required for maintenance. He noted that little maintenance is required for a storm sewer, especially in Shorewood. He stated that he does not understand what the 62 percent increase is for. He moved on to the water, with a $32.51 maintenance fee assessed to people even if they are not hooked up to the water. He asked what maintenance is being done. He added that the sanitary sewer was $142.85 and is now $184, and that would not be disputed with the city, as that is the Met Council. He added that his bill went up over $100 a quarter. He added that, for the water maintenance fund, the City must believe there is plenty of money in it, because no one on Birch Bluff or Peach was assessed. He noted that he asked who made the decision, and no one knows. He shared that on Mill Street, where a water main is being installed, nine homes may or may not hook up to the water, and the city will not assess them. He stated that since the city is not going to assess anyone anymore, then the city should reimburse everyone who had water put on their streets and was assessed. He shared that he did not want water going down Eureka Road, that very few homes wanted it, and that the only reason it was put in was for the development of Watten Ponds. It was cheaper for the developer not to install wells. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if there is information on the website for utility increases. City Administrator Nevinski stated that information about the increases has been disseminated. He added that it could be discussed as soon as the budget process starts, but if the issues need to come back sooner, it Page 16 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 6 of 12 could be discussed. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin stated that there should be clear communication explaining it all to the public. Barry Brown, 6050 Burlwood Court, stated that when the last speaker mentioned Northland Securities, there were many puzzled looks, and he wanted to clarify something that may have been missed. Northland Securities prepared the Long-term Financial Management Plan, which suggested a 60 percent increase in the storm sewers and a 30 percent increase in the sanitary sewers. He noted that they also suggested an increase in water, but the Council stated that it would not be implemented this year and would be implemented next year. He noted being fully behind the last speaker, when he says that if he had to pay $10,000 and many others had to pay that as well, but that is not being done in the city anymore, then something should happen for the people who had to pay. ## 4. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS ## A. Change Order Policy City Administrator Nevinski presented the change order policy as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked whether the Policy would prevent the Staff from fixing a situation in which there is no water. City Administrator Nevinski stated that if there is a water main break, the City would be out there dealing with it. He noted that the estimate was that two-thirds of change orders go back to the Council before the work proceeds. There are times when decisions need to be made, and there is not a Council meeting soon enough, but the policy is the Staff’s charge to get the matter before the Council quickly. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked whether the policy applies only when things are under budget. Councilmember Gorham noted that the budget and the contract are two different things; this would be a change to the contract. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that, under the policy, the Public Works Director or City Engineer was removed and replaced with the Project Manager. She asked if the Project Manager works for the city. City Administrator Nevinski stated that the Project Manager works for the city. It could be the City Engineer or the Public Works Director, but someone else could also be the project leader, making them the Project Manager. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked whether the Council would receive periodic aggregate reports on all administratively approved change orders to identify patterns or lessons learned over time. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the intention is for all change orders to be tracked, and if they fall below a certain threshold, they will come to the Council at the end. However, if a threshold is hit, the Staff will come to the Council. He stated that a sample change order track is included in the Packet. Councilmember DiGruttolo pointed out that she is just seeing whether data will be available to identify a pattern, especially in contractor behavior. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how the city ensures that cost savings on projects are treated with the same level of transparency as cost increases. She noted, highlighting the savings more, and it is a good news story to tell. City Administrator Nevinski stated that when a Public Works-type project is finished, the Staff returns the project to the Council, which is ready to accept the improvements. At that point, the opportunity would come to talk about where the city is at, budget-wise. Councilmember DiGruttolo pointed out that seeing the good change orders would also be worth highlighting. Page 17 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 7 of 12 Councilmember Gorham noted that the policy's thresholds are solid and make sense. He shared that the exceptions are oddly specific. City Administrator Nevinski stated that those are just examples. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that the Statute speaks to health and safety and gives the administration flexibility. He added that a change order related to permits or traffic flow seems interesting, unless there is a safety issue. City Administrator Nevinski explained that the thought was that, if something needed to be addressed in terms of buttoning up a road so traffic could get through, it would be addressed until something more formal could get back to the Council. He noted that the Council requested some examples and that it is difficult to provide them when speaking in the abstract. Councilmember Gorham noted that the policy gives the administration leeway, and if there is a question, the City Attorney could be called. City Administrator Nevinski asked whether the Council would like the examples removed. Councilmember Gorham stated that the examples are fine, given the small percentage that those occur, and that there is enough leeway to interrupt what might need to be done. City Administrator Nevinski added that the Policy should be reviewed periodically, particularly as it is implemented. Action Mayor Sanschagrin stated that he is on board as well and that the Policy is a significant process improvement. Gorham moved, DiGruttolo seconded, Adopting the Change Order and Work Scope Modification Policy. Motion passed 3/0. ## B. GIS Equipment Public Works Director Morreim presented the GIS Equipment information as found in the Agenda Packet. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin stated that he can easily see how this can enhance the City’s operations. He noted that one helpful thing for this and any future purchases would be to provide the payback. He asked Public Works Director Morreim to articulate the payback time. Mr. Morreim shared that the biggest payback on the unit will be from the utility locating. There is generally one person doing utility locating during the construction season, and their time with the new unit would be much less, with all the utilities 100 percent mapped out. He added that the mapping could be done in-house and would save on consulting costs. Utility locating would become about 25 to 50 percent more efficient, allowing points to be located or relocated during difficult periods of the year. He noted that the unit would pay for itself sooner rather than later, especially with the utility locating. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if it would be six months or a year. Mr. Morreim stated that he would be guessing, but within two to three years. He added that one of the other features is the laser operations. So when the City goes out to do sewer and water inspections, the staff go out, inspect, and then put together a drawing to locate the utilities. With the unit, the Staff would be able to point the laser at the water to find a location, and then, in the future, all the Staff would have to do is walk to that point. He noted that the equipment allows the Staff to be more accurate and safer in the inspections. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that when Mr. Morreim stated the equipment is being bought with money saved from last year, that is how things should be done. She thought it was a good purchase. DiGruttolo moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Purchase of the EOS Skadi Gold Unit with the Detailed Options. Motion passed 3/0. Page 18 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 8 of 12 ## C. Water Connection Program City Engineer Budde presented on the Water Connection Program as found in the Agenda Packet. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin stated that Councilmember Gorham had left at 8:33 P.M. He asked whether the meeting could continue. City Administrator Nevinski shared that the meeting could proceed, but if a vote were needed, Councilmember Gorham would need to be present. City Engineer Budde continued with the presentation. Councilmember Gorham returned to the meeting. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that the Program looks pretty good, the Staff did what they were asked to do, and that it is clear and easy to follow. She asked when the residents pay the $1,000. City Engineer Budde noted that, in previous conversations, there would be more work for the Engineering Staff. Still, the Staff has been able to scale that back to about an hour-long meeting, so there is no expectation that the residents will pay anything up front. He added that there are about two to two and a half hours of work where the resident has the engineer's estimate. Then everything would be packaged together, with more of the cost coming in. Councilmember DiGruttolo pointed out that the initial $167-per-hour cost to determine the cost was high. She added that the City is asking residents to pay the $10,000 water access charge, plus a consultant to tell the resident how much it will cost, and then however much it will cost for the internal plumbing changes, and the amount of money to abandon the well, plus the cost of the actual water connection. She asked how many houses can be built with only $175,000 being fronted by the City. That would be only about ten houses. City Engineer Budde stated that only 10 houses are being considered for the first round. Public Works Director Morreim noted that the $10,000 water access charge, and in many of the places mentioned, the city has already borne that cost. He added that, in addition to the resident's $17,000 cost, the only additional cost would be the curb stop, which is already at the house and may be less than $20,000. The $10,000 already there is for infrastructure to bring water to their property line. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that she likes what the Staff has done; most of it is clear. She added that some of the claims might put people off, saying the water is cleaner than the well water. Many people do not believe that. She asked if that spot could be word-smithed a little to make it sound better. The objective is to get the residents to think this is a great idea and that it should be done. She noted that the quick FAQs are good, except for the “old plumbing, and that adjustments may need to be made to meet current building codes. She suggested adding additional costs so that the information is not hidden. She noted that this will be a huge ask for people and is glad that only ten people will be doing this at first. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked whether mitigating language, such as "it can do certain things," would be helpful. Councilmember DiGruttolo agreed that stating it can do this would be better than saying it will do this. Declarative language can be argumentative. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin noted that the city does not want to overpromise and then underdeliver. There are also perception issues, such as the fact that some people might like the iron in their water. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that her goal is to make the language as honest and transparent as possible while also making it attractive to people. Councilmember Gorham shared that things look great and that he is really pleased with how far the program has come. He added that the sample email to residents could use some more detail and is missing a thought or two. He suggested adding a sentence to help with the sales pitch. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin stated that something that might be helpful, and one of the reasons the water quality might be better, is that the aquifers are deeper, which would help to give further explanation. City Engineer Budde stated that it goes into a lot of detail and would be good information for the website, but the Staff would once again go over all of the communication. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that Communications/Recycling Coordinator Page 19 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 9 of 12 Wilson might have some good ideas about resident language and what resonates with residents. If asking residents to spend money, it may be helpful to discuss the overall savings they achieve. She added that the language need not be the same for everyone. City Engineer Budde stated that Councilmember DiGruttolo is right and that not everyone feels the same way about their water. He noted that the hope is that the meeting will be very informative for both parties, because oftentimes the City hears about people’s treatment systems. Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that the city wants to attract people who are water curious. She added that she has a well, has paid her $10,000, and is curious how much this would cost her to hook up. If the cost is reasonable, then she would be willing to hook up. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked how the priorities for the houses came about. City Engineer Budde stated that there are certain areas where people have shown interest. The second spot is an area that has been underutilized, with its street in poor condition. The third spot has attracted significant interest from residents and remains underutilized. That is how the top three started, and a similar methodology was used for the other areas. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin pointed out that Glenn Road has a new road, but the stubs are right out to the road. City Engineer Budded shared that the stubs are GPS-located and can be found easily. Gorham moved, Sanschagrin seconded, Directing Staff to Initiate the Program by Distributing Communications, Coordinating with Residents, and Soliciting Quotes. Motion passed 3/0. ## D. SCEC Task Force (formerly Consent Agenda 2.G.) Park and Recreation Director Czech presented the memo as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how many on the Task Force are Shorewood residents. Mr. Czech stated that four people were: Tena, Janet, Barry, and Gina. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked for clarification on whether the Task Force is intended to explore the full range of strategic operations or to operate under a narrower financial recovery. Mr. Czech stated that the project's scope is to achieve 70 percent, so that will be the Task Force's focus as it develops recommendations. He added that, as noted in prior meetings, potential partnerships or collaborations could be part of that. Still, the Council's overall intent was to maintain current operations as much as possible while improving utilization and narrowing the gap between revenues and expenses. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked if that includes repurposing or doing what is being done now, but better, so more money is made. Mr. Czech explained that it is following the current operational structure. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked what would happen if the Task Force could not reach 75 percent. Mr. Czech stated that this had been discussed at prior Council meetings. If that number is not achievable, it will be brought back to the Council, and alternative options will need to be explored. Still, the goal is to maintain current operations while increasing utilization and closing the gap. Councilmember Gorham asked that a Chair be elected for the Task Force. Mr. Czech explained that a Chair will not be elected; the consultant will lead and facilitate. Councilmember Gorham asked whether, ahead of time, the consultant prepares an agenda and leads roundtable discussions. Mr. Czech stated that it is correct and that more information is available, but did not want to push it out until the Task Force approved it. Councilmember Gorham asked what the end product would be. Mr. Czech shared that the consultant will provide a summary of the minutes and a memo from the meetings, and that the outcome will be recommendations to the Council on options for proceeding with the building. Councilmember Gorham asked if the consultant would prepare the document. Mr. Czech noted that the consultant would prepare with assistance from City Staff. He added that those not designated for the Task Force, as well as the Page 20 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 10 of 12 general public, will be able to provide input through various channels. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that there is a Task Force, and that is a great accomplishment. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked how many meetings were held. Mr. Czech shared that there are three with the option of one more if needed. The Staff is super excited about the Task Force. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked for a reminder of the timeline. Mr. Czech shared that at the end of August, there should be final recommendations to the Council. As the process takes place and things develop, there will be updates on the status. Gorham moved, DiGruttolo seconded, Approving the SCEC Task Force. Motion 3/0. ## 5. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS ## A. Staff Park and Recreation Director Czech shared that the Task Force Kick-off Meeting would take place on May 20. He stated that for Movie in the Park, there were a few changes: moving from the end of August to September 19, with hopes of increasing engagement, and voting on the movie to be shown via the City website. City Engineer Budde stated that the contractor for the 2025 Mill and Overlay should be out within the next two weeks to finish punch list items. He shared that the Southeast area, where the City replaced the well's filter media, is complete and up and running. He noted that the Mill Street trail project, which the County is leading, has a preconstruction meeting scheduled for two weeks. Then he will have a better idea of the schedule. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked about the new filtration for the well and whether there is a way to measure how much the filtration improved the water quality. Public Works Director Morreim shared that the well, without any treatment, has about 2.0 to 3.0 milligrams per liter of iron, and with the filter, before being taken offline, 0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per liter of iron. With the initial filtration test, the reading was 0.02 milligrams per liter of iron, which is within the expected range. He added that water consumption has not increased much. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked whether those measures are at a point where people would no longer need an iron filter in their homes. Mr. Morreim stated that minimal, if any, would be needed. City Clerk/HR Director Thone shared that spring cleanup at the Public Works facility would be on Saturday, along with the Shred Event at City Hall. She stated that in preparation for elections, staff will be trained on Thursday. Sixty election judges have been recruited, three seasonal Public Works employees will be starting soon, and the Senior Accountant. Councilmember Gorham asked those considering running for office what the filing period is. Ms. Thone stated that candidate filing runs from July 14 to July 28, and has been moved up this year. She noted that two Council seats are available and will be on the general election ballot. Attorney Schmidt noted that she was filling in and does not have a report. City Administrator Nevinski gave an update on the Highway 7 Transit Management organizational study that has been working on over the last year. The study had its last meeting. There will be a report out with Page 21 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 11 of 12 all the recommendations, documenting the conversations and the directions that the organization wishes to take. He added that one highlight is that, rather than creating a new organization, individual cities can decide whether to join the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition and work through that existing structure. He noted that the Highway 7 communities want to continue to have discussions so that Highway 7 does not get lost in the bigger picture. There was a commitment by the group to keep it going. He shared that the communities are all on board with completing an application for a regional solicitation grant. That part of the process will involve reviewing the various intersections and projects likely to receive the highest funding. He added that hopefully there will be some bonding dollars coming out of the Legislative session. ## i. Tentative Upcoming Agenda Topics Councilmember DiGruttolo shared that if the Staff is looking for future topics of work sessions or regular meetings, then she would like to get the engineering discussion back on the schedule. City Administrator Nevinski stated that it is on there for June 8. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that, for police and fire reporting, given the number of issues over the last year, she asked whether there could be regular reporting rather than just the annual report. City Administrator Nevinski stated that the intent was to have Public Safety before the Council, beyond the budget process, because that is not enough. He added that a lot is going on with Public Safety, and that is the intent to see them more and get more information. He noted that he also added minutes from the SLMPD board meetings, and that this will be seen more in the future for information. Councilmember DiGruttolo stated that it is part of transparency, even if the information is for informational purposes. She appreciated that thought was being put into making more information available and into providing opportunities for input and questions. City Administrator Nevinski shared that there is a conversation about improving communication and information flow. Councilmember DiGruttolo asked that the compensation schedule be put on the agenda. She added that it has come up several times, and not all of the Council is familiar with it. If the schedule comes every three years, then she would like to be prepared. City Administrator Nevinski stated that it could definitely be put on an Agenda. He added that one of the reasons it came up in 2023 was that the staff was running into issues and did not have a current system to review. The process was put in place to establish a system for hiring and compensation. He noted that it could be part of the budget discussion. ## B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Gorham stated that he had read the Shore Report and was struck by how much content it contained. He gave credit to Mr. Wilson for his work and acknowledged that a lot of big things were happening, and it was fun to see it all in one report. He saw the election information in the report and wanted to point out that it was happening in July. He noted that, with the elections coming up, the signs would be going up. He asked if there was any information in the Shore Report about where signs can go. Ms. Thone noted that she did not recall whether that was in the Shore Report, but all candidates receive the sign procedures, and most of the sign ordinances go away. Councilmember Gorham stated that it might be with it to put the information in the Shore Report. Ms. Thone thanked the Council for recognizing Mr. Wilson. She noted that by finding a new printer, a lot of money was saved, and the City was able to make the Shore Report longer. Acting Mayor Sanschagrin asked if there would be a place to document all the areas where the Council is saving the residents money. He added that he would be at the Recycling event. ## 6. ADJOURN Page 22 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## MAY 11, 2026 Page 12 of 12 DiGruttolo moved, Gorham seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 11, 2026, at 9:18 P.M. Motion passed. ## ATTEST: ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 23 of 193 City Council Item 2.C. ## Title/Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## Attachments ## 1. 04.07.26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## Background Approved minutes from the April 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting are attached. Minutes were approved by the Planning Commission during the May 5, 2026 Planning 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. ## Budget Impact Minute preparation costs vary based on length of meeting and level of detail. ## Action Requested Accept the minutes from the April 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting. Page 24 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ## ROLL CALL ## Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Holker, Longo, and Braithwaite; Planning Director ## Griffiths; City Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy ## Absent: Commissioner Magistad ## 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Huskins noted that Item 5.A. will be removed due to Commissioner Magistad's absence. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Braithwaite seconded, approving the agenda for April 7, 2026, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## • March 3, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Huskins stated that before the meeting, he found a single edit and shared it with the Staff, and the item will be corrected. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments. ## 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE ## 5. OTHER BUSINESS ## A. Planning Commission Photo ## B. 2026 Planning Commission Work Plan Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Work Plan was discussed in detail at the last meeting. The plan was put together, and there were no significant changes from the Staff between the two meetings. He added that the Staff is seeking approval of a recommendation to the City Council on the 2026 Work Plan. Page 25 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Chair Huskins shared that he was not present at the last meeting, so he is relying on the Commissioners who were present to ensure the plan reflects what was discussed. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, recommending approval of the 2026 Work Plan. Motion passed 4/0. ## C. Planning Commission Bylaws Planner Osowski summarized the Commission’s bylaws as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted the new information about the Commissioner Liaison at the Council meetings, Matters From The Floor, and alternated Commissioners. He stated that the Youth Commissioner was not included in this draft of the bylaws. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the language used for the Alternate Commissioner was taken from that used by most other cities in the Metro area. He added that the Alternate would fill in in the case that a Commissioner was gone from a meeting and then step back down. If someone left the Commission, then the Alternate could step into their place. He stated that Staff is looking for a recommendation to the Council. The Park Commission is also close to finalizing its bylaws, and both could go to the City Council at the same time. Chair Huskins stated that the Commissioner Liaison to the City Council would be in attendance and then provide any information if asked. He asked whether a Commissioner in attendance who wanted to speak could do so. Planning Director Griffiths explained that, on page 22 of the Agenda Packet, language was added to allow a Commissioner to speak if they wish. He added that Staff will finish their presentation and then ask the Liaison if he/she wishes to speak. Chair Huskins stated that many matters come before Commissioners that are not decided at meetings, and that discussions can take place before those meetings. He noted that leaving it to the Alternate Commissioner to decide whether to attend the meeting could be problematic, as the Commissioner would not have all the information from previous discussions. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, in conversations with other cities, they strongly recommended allowing the Alternate Commissioner to choose whether to attend the meeting, as it was logistically challenging to have the Alternate there. He added that the Alternate Commissioner will receive all the same information the Commissioners receive, such as the Staff Reports and meeting minutes. He noted that the Staff is open to whatever direction the Commission takes. Commissioner Holker stated that it is the Alternate's commitment to read all the material, as it is now, when someone misses a meeting. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the language in the draft states that the Alternate Commissioner’s presence may not be needed at every meeting, but that the Alternate Commissioner is expected to stay up to date on the business of the meetings. Chair Huskins added that the language in the draft is sufficient, but the information may need to be reviewed if revisiting a topic discussed at a previous meeting. Planning Director Griffiths pointed out that the Staff is always willing to step in and meet with the Alternate at the end of a longer project, if asked, to make a decision. He explained that, as the bylaws are reviewed annually, if something is not working with the Alternate, it can always be changed. An Alternate Commissioner would not be brought in until next year, but if approved this year, some of the City Code would be rewritten and submitted as an amendment at the end of the year for approval. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Braithwaite seconded, recommending approval of the Planning Commission bylaws as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Huskins asked when the matter would go before the Council. Planning Director Griffiths stated it would be either April 27 or May 11, depending on the Park Commission. Page 26 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 3 of 6 ## D. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project Overview Planning Director Griffiths noted that this item was for discussion purposes only. He gave an overview of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins asked the question: What is the state of Shorewood today, and if there was any looking back at where the City was in the past. Planning Director Griffiths added that looking back is a big part of the Plan, and the consulting firm is currently doing that work to establish where the community has been and where it is now. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation of the memo as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins noted that the plan would include an opportunity for community engagement. He asked if, in the past, the residents had taken up their responsibility or opportunity to participate. He noted that it is the community’s only opportunity to share its input. Planning Director Griffiths stated that because he was not in Shorewood at the time, he may defer to others who were. He added that, in the past, engagement and open houses were poorly attended. For this cycle of the Comprehensive Plan, the Staff proposes a robust community engagement plan. He shared that the first year of the project will focus on community engagement before deciding what the plan will look like. Chair Huskins noted that, with the Watten Ponds decision, many community members felt the decisions made were not aligned with the current Comprehensive Plan. To avoid the same problem in the future, the more community input on the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, the better, fostering ownership of the plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that with more community buy-in, there is greater success. Council Liaison Maddy shared that he was on the Planning Commission when the last Comprehensive Plan was completed, and the input received came from people already involved with the City. As a City of 8,000, the Staff needs to find a way to get more than 10-15 people to share their thoughts. He noted that he does not know the solution to increase involvement, but that it needs to be done, as involvement was lackluster 10 years ago. Chair Huskins stated that it does not seem right not to get the community input, then put out a plan and communicate that plan to the community. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the next time this is on the agenda, the Staff will really hit on the plans that they have to get community engagement. Planning Director Griffiths shared the Regional Planning Cycle issued by the Met Council. He added that there is a city or the Met Council that is always talking about the topics of a comprehensive plan. Any decision that the City makes will fit into the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that there are two new sections with Climate and Natural Systems. The Met Council has requirements for the City: within residential districts where single-family homes are allowed, the City must allow one additional housing type. An example is the R1-A housing district, which consists only of single-family homes; the City is required to allow an additional housing type. He added that how the Met Council calculates the requirements will change, and he will have to go through to put the new plan together. Planning Director Griffiths stated that engagement efforts will be made to reach everyone. He continued to review the memo in the Agenda Packet. He noted that Staff hopes to have the plan ready by 2027 and reviewed the plan's phases. He explained the approval process of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 27 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 4 of 6 Chair Huskins asked whether residents would have the opportunity to provide input after the other entities have had their input. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would depend on the suggested changes. He added that if the Met Council changes anything, another public hearing must be held, and the whole process starts over. Commissioner Holker noted that the Met Council can tell the City exactly what needs to be in the plan, and then the public hearings would be telling the community that it has to be done this way because the Met Council is requiring it. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is why the last Comprehensive Plan, which was supposed to be completed in 2018, was not completed until 2023, which is somewhat typical. Chair Huskins stated that the State Legislature could also change things. Planning Director Griffiths shared that indicators suggest there will likely be no major changes this session, but there could certainly be something that comes up in State law. Planning Director Griffiths explained where things would go from that meeting with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a website that will launch before May 1, as well as an article in the City Newsletter. He added that the Commission is the steering committee for the plan and will have many opportunities to get involved. He asked that the Commission be an advocate for the project. Chair Huskins stated that the overview was very clear and helpful to know where things are going before the project gets started. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the project website will be a great resource for all the questions. He encouraged Commissioners and residents to reach out with any questions as well. ## E. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Engagement Plan Planning Director Griffiths shared the Draft Plan for Public Engagement as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted that the document was high-level and intended as a resource for the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths asked whether any audience portions of the document were missing. Chair Huskins shared that within the Interest Groups, there are also citizen websites that share many opinions on decisions. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, in the Draft Plan, Interest Groups are defined and should be heard from, regardless of the platform. Chair Huskins added that it seems as though neighbors are taking advantage of a website where others agree with them, and that it could be a way to gauge what residents are saying without having to ask for input. Commissioner Braithwaite explained that an inventory of the Interest Groups would reflect what the groups are interested in, and those websites are for the audience. He noted that those who fall into the Interest Groups may also fall into other categories, and that the information may be repeated. Even have a voluntary registration. Chair Huskins shared that being invited to those parts of the community who do not regularly attend meetings and letting residents know they can provide information however they prefer. He added that asking those residents how they feel would be a good way to convey the information they want to share. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff plans to be very intentional in inviting residents to share information, as it works best for them. Chair Huskins shared that meeting residents where they are, rather than requiring them to come to the City, would be very helpful. Commissioner Longo stated that looking at the City beyond its geographic boundaries is important, and he has seen this in various things in the past. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the engagement approach as found in the Agenda Packet. Page 28 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Chair Huskins shared that when there is a project, the City will go to the community with a blank slate before any plan is started. Some people like that, but others do not, noting that some may not participate in the early phase. He added that more information about where things are will cause those people to interact and provide feedback. At different stages of the project, people will feel more engaged, and the City needs to recognize that there will be different types of respondents. Planning Director Griffiths shared engagement strategies as found in the document in the Agenda Packet. He noted that there are interactive maps that residents can engage with. Chair Huskins asked whether the contributor could be identified to ensure they are a member of the community. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the person would have to verify they are a Shorewood resident and that, typically, there has been no outside involvement. He added that responses to the interactive map would likely come from a specific geographic region. Planning Director Griffiths continued to discuss upcoming events that would include information on the Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the Agenda Packet. Commissioner Holker asked whether a table could be set up during voting, as much of the traffic is in the Community Center that day. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it has not been looked into, but will be. If it is allowed by law, then that would be a great place to have a table. Commissioner Longo noted thinking about community champions who could be on a list to email when the Staff is headed to an event. Those champions could also host things within their own neighborhoods, where someone from the City could come to talk about the plan. Chair Huskins offered that, as the conversation is decentralized, there should be a booklet as to what is being said about the plan so that everyone is saying the same things. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the consultant will provide a “Meeting in a Box,” an opportunity for those doing engagement work or for staff who need to meet with a group; a preset meeting will be available to use. Planning Director Griffiths shared information about the scheduled City Meetings, as outlined in the Agenda Packet. He added that the Staff will attend any meeting, are willing to go places, and that office hours will also be available. He noted that not everything will work, but with as many ideas as possible, it will lead to what is working. He explained how the communications will take place. Word of mouth is the greatest way to inform people of what is going on. Chair Huskins shared that, after an event, when there is a summary of what was discussed, it will also be helpful to note how many people participated. It also builds momentum; when others see that people are participating, it may lead other residents to participate as well. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is not the level of engagement the City has undertaken for other projects and may be the most engagement ever for a single project. He is confident there will be many more touchpoints with people in the community. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation of the engagement plan as found in the Agenda Packet. He pointed out the schedule for the community engagement. Chair Huskins asked whether the outreaches would cover all areas included in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they would be. He noted that with a big plan like this, it is really important to keep the focus on what is tangible for residents, and much of that is the vision work. The goals that emerge from the vision discussion will be turned into Page 29 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 6 of 6 policies. Chair Huskins stated that as the project continues, some topics may be highlighted more than others, so certain events may need to be tailored to those topics. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff will try to be adaptable, so if they find that one topic needs more feedback, they will focus on it. He added that if there is a lot of feedback on one thing, it needs to be focused on. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff is looking for a recommendation on the Community Engagement Plan. Commissioner Holker asked whether it would be possible to include the motion, subject to revision, as more information is learned. Planning Director Griffiths explained that at the end of each phase, the Staff will bring back an engagement summary. So, the motion does not need to include that as the Staff already plans to be open to revision based on the summaries at a minimum. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, recommending adoption of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Engagement Plan, incorporating feedback from the meeting. Motion passed 4/0. ## 6. REPORTS ## A. City Council Council Liaison Maddy gave a brief overview of recent Council discussions and decisions. ## B. Staff Planning Director Griffiths stated that, for the May meeting, there will be a PUD concept plan with a public hearing, and the consultant will be there to review the draft Zoning Code update. Commissioner Holker noted that she would not be at the May meeting. Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Liaison for the April 27 Council meeting. Commissioner Longo volunteered. ## C. Commission Chair Huskins shared that attending the webinar on Land Use was excellent and very helpful. He shared that he has a copy of the webinar if anyone would like it. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the League of Minnesota offers many great resources. ## 7. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2026, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Page 30 of 193 City Council Item 2.D. ## Title/Subject: Park Commission Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Mitchell Czech, Park/Rec Director ## Attachments ## 1. 04.28.2026 Park Commission Meeting Minutes ## Background Approved minutes from the April 28, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. Minutes were approved by the Park Commission during the May 19, 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. ## Budget Impact Minute preparation costs vary based on length of meeting and level of detail. ## Action Requested Accept the minutes from the April 28, 2026 Park Commission Meeting. Page 31 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD ## PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL ## TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Hirner convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. ## A. Roll Call ## Present: Chair Hirner, Commissioners Garske, Stern, and Sylvester; Park ## and Recreation Director Czech ## Absent: Commissioner Bahneman ## B. Review Agenda Garske moved to approve the agenda as written. Sylvester seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## A. March 24, 2026 Park Commission Meeting Minutes Garske moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2026, meeting as written. Sylvester seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. Park and Recreation Director Czech welcomed Commissioner Kim Stern to the Commission. He noted that Commissioner Stern is a long-time Shorewood resident and asked him to share why he joined the Parks Commission. Commissioner Stern shared that he grew up in Shorewood and used to ride a dirt bike at Freeman Park until a park was built there. He noted that his children and grandchildren have played baseball and soccer at Freeman Park. He added that he has been with the Excelsior Fire Department for 51 years and is looking to retire soon, finding something to fill his time and give back to the community. ## 4. GENERAL BUSINESS ## A. Park Commissioner Handbook Review Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that there would be an annual review of the Handbook and asked if there were any suggestions or questions for this year. Commissioner Sylvester stated that this year she skimmed the document and did not find anything that jumped out at her. Mr. Czech shared that there was some rearranging based on last year's feedback. Page 32 of 193 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 ## PAGE 2 OF 5 Chair Hirner pointed out on page nine of the Handbook, which discusses the trails, that the referenced Trail Plan Implementation Report is from 2011, and the Commission should look into getting it updated. He noted that page 13 of the Handbook discusses meeting agendas, minutes, and documents, which are mostly available on the website. The website reference should be included in the Handbook. He added that it goes for anything in the Handbook, such as the Park Master Plan; there should be a link or a website reference. He mentioned that there is a lot of reference to the City Code, which was not there when he started, so it is good to have all of that in one place. Commissioner Sylvester asked whether the shared space created for the Commission was also included in the Handbook. Mr. Czech noted that it was not yet included, but a reference or link should be added to the Handbook as well. Commissioner Garske noted that the Handbook was a lot. He shared that he was looking for ways to cut it down a little without compromising quality. There is nothing that adds no value, so that is a positive thing. He suggested removing the community feedback from the Parks Master Plan or the sample minutes from the Handbook, because with all the pages, people may be less likely to read. Mr. Czech pointed out that veteran Commissioners should not have to read the whole Handbook, but the document is there for the onboarding process. Chair Hirner asked how a document of this size would compare to other cities. Mr. Czech shared that some cities have nothing, something very brief, or similar to this document. He added that, from a Staff perspective, more is better for orientation. If someone who has never been involved before gets involved, many of the items in the Handbook are great references. He stated that as things evolve, more technology can be put into it. Chair Hirner noted that it is possible to download the document, put it into ChatGPT, and ask it to summarize it, which will then give a good running start. He pointed out that the Handbook is long because it includes two large documents. He added that Commissioner Stern's perspective will also be helpful. Chair Hirner asked if the Handbook would be approved at a future meeting. Mr. Czech shared that no approvals are needed, as it was approved last year; the Commission is just updating as things go along. The Handbook and Commission Bylaws will be updated annually. Commissioner Garske asked whether the Handbook included anything on the meeting process or how votes are taken. Mr. Czech noted that the Appendix contains a rules-of-order sheet outlining the meeting. Commissioner Sylvester asked about filling in the Council Liaison on page six. Chair Hirner shared that it can be done at the end of the meeting. He added that if there are standard topics discussed in a specific month each year, they should be included in the Handbook. Commissioner Garske agreed and noted that the work plan is also in the Handbook. ## B. Spring Parks Unplugged Review Park and Recreation Director Czech reviewed the Spring Parks Unplugged as found in the Agenda Packet. Commissioner Stern noted that the flyer for the Parks Unplugged On the Road states May 28. Mr. Czech shared that the date was changed yesterday, so the flyer will need to be updated to May 27. Page 33 of 193 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 ## PAGE 3 OF 5 Chair Hirner asked whether there might be an opportunity to learn about any available sports through the sports groups in the parks. The event would be directed at the little kids. Mr. Czech called it a sports demo day, with each association having a station. He added that it is a great idea. Chair Hirner suggested a "learn to ride a bike" or "how to fix your bike" day; Erik’s Bike Shop might be willing to host it. Commissioner Garske noted liking both the upcoming events. He asked about the Freeman Park tree-planting and whether saplings could be handed out to take home and plant. Mr. Czech noted that the saplings would have to be donated; the purchasing policy does not allow for buying and handing out. He shared that it would be a great idea. Chair Hirner shared that the Arboretum may have things to donate. Commissioner Garske asked if the Camp Fire Minnesota event has a capacity. Mr. Czech shared that this is why the dates were switched: staffing will be more adequate on May 27, and Camp Fire Minnesota is ready to go with any number of attendees. He invited the Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Garske asked if help was needed for the setup. Mr. Czech stated that it was not needed; the Commission could attend. C. 2026 Movie in the Park Park and Recreation Director Czech gave an update on the 2026 Movie in the Park as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Hirner pointed out that the list included many great movies. How to Train Your Dragon was good, but maybe not for the younger kids. Commissioner Sylvester shared that the movie was a remake of the original. Chair Hirner noted that he had seen it and that Hoppers was a good movie for all ages. The Minecraft movie is for the older kids. Commissioner Garske shared that both his five-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter love The Minecraft Movie. All of the movies are good picks. Chair Hirner stated that the movies are fairly new, which is fabulous. Commissioner Garske noted that the Super Mario movie has not yet been released. Mr. Czech stated that a few of the movies are not available until August, so that they will be fresh. He added that there is usually a theme to the activities as well, so if any of the movies align with that nicely, that would be helpful. Commissioner Sylvester shared that she had not seen any of the movies but picked four from a variety of genres and explained how the movies could have fun activities or a them incorporated. She picked Super Mario, Zootopia 2, Smurfs, and How to Train Your Dragon to have a variety. Commissioner Stern mentioned that he picked the same four because they sounded likely to appeal to many people. Commissioner Garske stated putting Minecraft on the list because it is super popular. He suggested swapping it out of the list Commissioner Sylvester suggested for How to Train Your Dragon. Garske moved to select Super Mario Galaxy, Zootopia 2, Smurfs, and A Minecraft Movie as the selected movies for community voting for the 2026 Movie in the Park. Sylvester seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ## D. SCEC Facility Analysis Update Park and Recreation Director Czech presented on the SCEC Facility Analysis Update as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Hirner stated that he is surprised that it is only a four-month effort, given the many years of discussion that remain unresolved. Commissioner Garske shared that he is happy action is being taken, as it has been a pain point for years. Mr. Czech explained that, looking back at the Page 34 of 193 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 ## PAGE 4 OF 5 history of conversations, they seem very similar to now, with the goal of the SCEC getting more use and breaking even. So, getting expert insight will be really valuable to finding solutions. ## 5. REPORTS / UPDATES ## A. City Council Park and Recreation Director Czech gave a brief overview of recent Council discussion and actions. Commissioner Garske asked whether the Youth Commissioner's age, 16 to 18, was at the time of appointment. Mr. Czech noted that being correct. Commissioner Garske shared that he knows someone on the Waconia planning commission who has alternates, so that may be a good contact point. Mr. Czech shared that many planning commissions have alternates, but few park commissions do. He added that it makes sense because the impact of the parks commission may not be as great in the grand scheme of things as that of the planning commission. Chair Hirner shared that, after talking with the high school, this will need to be done soon because many students need to get volunteer hours in. There could be students who would want to get in hours over the summer. Mr. Czech stated that a flyer was being prepared and sent to the volunteer coordinator at the high school and to the Vantage Program. The intent is to get the information out in the next week. Commissioner Sylvester mentioned that the Handbook stated the Youth Commissioner would be 14 to 18, so that will need to be updated to 16 to 18. Mr. Czech shared that he would get all of that adjusted. Mr. Czech continued to give an overview of the recent Council discussion and actions. ## B. Staff Mr. Czech shared that the Adopt a Garden Program, which maintains certain areas in the City, is seeking a few more volunteers to help weed and keep the plants looking nice. There are still plots available at the community gardens at South Shore Park. Chair Hirner asked if doubles were done for those wanting two plots. Mr. Czech noted that it had been done, and the Staff is tracking plans at South Shore to ensure the plots are maintained. If the plots are not being filled, that can create a burden for both the Staff and the other gardeners. Commissioner Sylvester asked how much it cost to have a spot in the garden. Commissioner Stern shared that the charge is $30, and a $35 deposit, and if the plot is not cleaned at the end of the season, then the deposit is not returned. Chair Hirner assumed that the remaining spots are the really shady ones. Commissioner Stern shared that his garden is at Freeman in a shady spot, and he had a great garden last year. Chair Hirner shared that, in considering a potential move of the plots at South Shore, some people have put a lot of work into their plots, and if moved, those people would have to start over. Commissioner Stern asked whether anyone was interested in getting involved in the Adopt a Garden Program and where they should go. Mr. Czech shared that they can call or email the Parks and Rec Department. Mr. Czech shared that there would be a controlled burn at Gideon Glen sometime soon, when conditions are favorable, and that the Watershed Department would conduct it. The burn helps Page 35 of 193 ## PARK COMMISSION MINUTES ## TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 ## PAGE 5 OF 5 to manage invasive species. He added that the Staff has been securing quotes for the Cathcart tennis court resurfacing project. While companies were out there, they were asked to provide a basketball court as well, if the two were to be packaged. The basketball court is on the list to be completely redone in two years, but the question is whether resurfacing it would extend its lifespan. He added that it would be on the Agenda for next month to review the quotes and develop a plan. Chair Hirner asked whether the inclusion of the Freeman North playground on the list of projects for next year meant the work would be completed then. Mr. Czech shared that the intent is for much of the work to be completed this year so that the playground will be complete next year. Chair Hirner stated that there needs to be enough time on the agenda to discuss what is being installed in the playground, especially with the thought of saving money. ## i. Vegetative Management Plan Update Mr. Czech shared that the Council did approve a Vegetative Management Plan. He shared that the Public Works Director put a lot of time and effort into the Plan. He noted that a request for proposals was issued to develop a plan for the City, but the proposals were extensive and did not align with the goals or budget. The project was then taken on internally. He explained that the Plan addresses all parks, natural areas, the right-of-way, stormwater facilities, and any land that the City maintains. The Plan outlines what the City does and how it is done, and provides a tracking mechanism throughout. He stated that since the Plan relates to the City Parks, there is no change in park management. He added that the Council was eager to see the Plan, so the draft could not go before the Commission first. ## C. Commission Commissioner Sylvester asked about the Cathcart hockey rink boards getting painted and the dog park. Mr. Czech stated that he reached out to a painting company that has supplied paint in the past to see whether that could be done again, and the company is checking on it. He added that he connected with the church by the park, and they are interested in volunteering, which could be a potential partnership. Now that it is nice, he is going to visit other cities that use hockey rinks as dog parks to gather ideas to bring back to the Commission. Chair Hirner stated that if enough help is available, some other things at Cathcart could be fixed at the same time. ## 7. ADJOURN Garske moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of April 28, 2026, at 8:05 p.m. Sylvester seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Page 36 of 193 City Council Item 2.E. ## Title/Subject: Claims List ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Jeanne Schmuck, Finance Director ## Attachments 1. Payroll 05-18-2026 AP 2. Payroll 05-18-2026 3. Council 05-26-2026 ## 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 05-18-2026 $65,376.64 Payroll 05-18-2026 AP $52,713.63 Council 05-26-2026 $489,860.84 ## Total Claims: Checks & ACH $607,951.11 ## 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 193 ## User: ## Printed: ## Distribution Report ## Clearing House jschmuck@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## 05/18/2026 - 12:40PM ## Batch:00004.05.2026 ## Account NumberDebitCreditAccount Description 700-00-1010-0000 ## 52,713.63 0.00CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2010-0000 ## 0.00 52,713.63ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 52,713.63 52,713.63 Report Totals: 52,713.63 52,713.63 Page 1CH-Distribution Report (05/18/2026 - 12:40 PM) Page 38 of 193 ## User: ## Printed: ## Distribution Report ## Clearing House jschmuck@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## 05/18/2026 - 11:57AM ## Batch:00018.05.2026 ## Account NumberDebitCreditAccount Description 700-00-1010-0000 ## 65,376.64 0.00CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 ## 0.00 65,376.64GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 65,376.64 65,376.64 Report Totals: 65,376.64 65,376.64 Page 1CH-Distribution Report (05/18/2026 - 11:57 AM) Page 39 of 193 ## User: Printed:05/20/2026 - 4:21PM jschmuck@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Computer Check Proof List by Vendor ## Accounts Payable Batch:00006.05.2026 - Council 05-26-2026 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## Vendor:ADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLCCheck Sequence: 1ACH Enabled: True887 ## 601-00-4400-0000110221Boulder Bridge Well Troubleshooting 1,078.0005/26/2026 601-00-4400-0000111070Amesbury Controls Troubleshooting 913.5005/26/2026 1,991.50Check Total: ## Vendor:ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONSCheck Sequence: 2ACH Enabled: True105 ## 101-19-4221-0000INV379101 ## Konica Minolta/C658 Copier-Monthly Base Rate Chg May 2026 52.0005/26/2026 52.00Check Total: ## Vendor:Nathaniel AlbrechtCheck Sequence: 3ACH Enabled: False1639 ## 101-00-3472-0000Tree RefundTree Sale Refund 193.6005/26/2026 193.60Check Total: ## Vendor:ARCPOINT LABS OF EDINACheck Sequence: 4ACH Enabled: False817 101-32-4305-000019137Drug Testing 220.6505/26/2026 220.65Check Total: ## Vendor:BANK OF MONTREALCheck Sequence: 5ACH Enabled: True868 ## 101-13-4331-0000Apr2026Brenda IIMC Annual Fee 135.0005/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisH Paper 17.1405/26/2026 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisH Grass seed for parks 765.0005/26/2026 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisH Grass seed for parks 1,020.0005/26/2026 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisH Misc. Parts 29.0005/26/2026 101-33-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisPConcrete for Mailbox 8.5905/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisPBottled Water 33.5205/26/2026 101-33-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisPMailbox Parts 229.2905/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 1 Page 40 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 101-32-4400-0000Apr2026ChrisPBrush Disposal 260.8205/26/2026 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisPDock Wheen 79.9905/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026ChrisPChest Waders 329.9505/26/2026 101-32-4400-0000Apr2026CtyCard Public Works 492.7905/26/2026 ## 621-00-4400-0026Apr2026CtyCard Organic Recycling Svcs 361.9205/26/2026 601-00-4263-0000Apr2026CtyCard Chanhassen-18505-000 water 753.4105/26/2026 601-00-4263-0000Apr2026CtyCard Chanhassen-18505-000 water 7.6905/26/2026 201-00-4400-0000Apr2026CtyCard SCEC Garbage 156.8505/26/2026 ## 101-33-4245-0000Apr2026Eric Matt Morreim Business Cards 43.9105/26/2026 621-00-4400-0026Apr2026Eric Compost Bags for Office 62.9905/26/2026 ## 101-13-4200-0000Apr2026Eric Paper for Spring Cleanup Flyers 138.6205/26/2026 101-32-4351-0000Apr2026Eric Truck Decals 206.0005/26/2026 ## 101-33-4245-0000Apr2026Eric Matt Morreim Business Cards 27.9905/26/2026 621-00-4347-0000Apr2026Eric Calculators for Spring Cleanup 8.4205/26/2026 ## 101-13-4245-0000Apr2026Eric Sign Holder Brouchure Holder Planner 35.6305/26/2026 ## 101-13-4331-0000Apr2026Eric Safety Lost Control Workshop 20.0005/26/2026 101-18-4200-0000Apr2026Jake Office Supplies 28.3605/26/2026 101-18-4331-0000Apr2026Jake Continuing Education 58.0005/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyGenerator Battery 398.9005/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyOil & Tools 80.2105/26/2026 101-32-4212-0000Apr2026JeremyOil 86.4505/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyHydro Fittings 173.9605/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyFilters/Lights 202.9205/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyBlade & Oil 255.3905/26/2026 101-32-4221-0000Apr2026JeremyHydro Fittings 179.2605/26/2026 ## 101-11-4331-0000Apr2026Marc Annual Conference Labadie 425.0005/26/2026 101-32-4400-0000Apr2026Matt Pest control services 90.0005/26/2026 101-32-4400-0000Apr2026Matt Duplicate-Credit to be issued 1,125.0005/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026Matt Urinal Screens-PW 171.8705/26/2026 101-32-4331-0000Apr2026Matt Travel-Conference 140.0005/26/2026 101-32-4321-0000Apr2026Matt Communications 17.0005/26/2026 101-32-4400-0000Apr2026Matt Weather monitoring service 1,125.0005/26/2026 101-32-4200-0000Apr2026Matt Laptop docking station 109.9905/26/2026 601-00-4433-0000Apr2026Matt Control communication service 760.1405/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 2 Page 41 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026Matt Trash bags & Food for Training 38.5105/26/2026 101-32-4200-0000Apr2026Matt Wireless mouse 9.9705/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026Matt Trash bags & Food for Training 38.5005/26/2026 101-52-4245-0000Apr2026Matt Paper towels 111.9205/26/2026 101-53-4245-0000Apr2026Mitch Staff Scheduling 15.0005/26/2026 201-00-4400-0000Apr2026Mitch Tablecloth Cleaning 102.7705/26/2026 101-13-4331-0000Apr2026Nelia MMCI Registration 640.0005/26/2026 101-13-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia Admin Supplies 6.5105/26/2026 ## 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia General Supplies-18.9905/26/2026 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia Admin Supplies 48.0105/26/2026 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia General Supplies 228.8105/26/2026 101-19-4200-0000Apr2026Nelia Office Supplies 175.2805/26/2026 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia General Supplies 283.4605/26/2026 101-13-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia Admin Supplies 33.5005/26/2026 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia General Supplies 8.5405/26/2026 ## 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026Nelia General Supplies-18.9905/26/2026 ## 601-00-4245-0000Apr2026RobertH West Water Tower 8.7905/26/2026 ## 601-00-4245-0000Apr2026RobertH West Water Tower 44.9905/26/2026 101-32-4212-0000Apr2026RobertH Fuel 36.2005/26/2026 101-19-4223-0000Apr2026RobertHo City hall air filters 3.9905/26/2026 101-32-4245-0000Apr2026Ryan Misc. supplies 2.5905/26/2026 ## 101-52-4410-0000Apr2026Ryan Garden Tiller Rental 126.8805/26/2026 601-00-4223-0000Apr2026TimParts for West Water Tower 322.2305/26/2026 101-32-4240-0000Apr2026TimTools 45.9805/26/2026 101-32-4250-0000Apr2026ToddScraper-Patching 29.9705/26/2026 101-19-4245-0000Apr2026ToddCity Hall Tools 31.9905/26/2026 101-32-4212-0000Apr2026ToddFuel 53.4205/26/2026 101-24-4212-0000Apr2026WadeCar Wash 18.9005/26/2026 101-24-4331-0000Apr2026WadeContinuing Education 68.9105/26/2026 13,149.61Check Total: ## Vendor:BOLLIG & SONS, INC.Check Sequence: 6ACH Enabled: False999 ## 101-24-4400-5815410375815 Club LN Demolition 64,991.0005/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 3 Page 42 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 64,991.00Check Total: ## Vendor:BOLTON & MENK, INC.Check Sequence: 7ACH Enabled: True677 101-31-4303-00000394184Proj.# 0C1.123603-General Engineering 2,894.0005/26/2026 611-00-4303-00000394185Proj.# 26X.143287.000 Sanitary Televising 1,269.0005/26/2026 880-00-2210-00000394186Proj.# 26X.142587.000 Escrow 25485 Hwy 7 PUD 180.0005/26/2026 880-00-2210-00000394187Proj.# 24X.135611-6180 Cardinal Drive 205.5005/26/2026 ## 101-31-4303-00000394188Proj.# 25X.141779.000 Engineering Building Permit Review 422.0005/26/2026 880-00-2210-00000394189Proj.# 0C1.127485-Excelsior Woods 205.5005/26/2026 422-00-4303-00000394190Proj.# 0C1.125586-Galpin Lake Road/TH7 Trail 958.5005/26/2026 601-00-4303-00000394191Proj.# C16.120898-4-GIS-Utilities-Water 720.0005/26/2026 101-31-4303-00000394191Proj.# C16.120898-4-GIS-Utilities-Street 720.0005/26/2026 880-00-2210-00000394192Proj.# 0C1.130016-Lake Park Villas 205.5005/26/2026 880-00-2210-00000394193Proj.# 0C1.127484-Maple Shores Developmen 68.5005/26/2026 417-00-4303-00000394194Proj.# 0C1.129164-Mill Street Trail 1,659.5005/26/2026 601-00-4303-00000394195Proj.# 24X.136257-SE Area Water Improvement 10,795.0005/26/2026 631-00-4303-00000394196 ## Proj.# C16.120341-Shorewood Ln Ravine Restore 7,524.5005/26/2026 631-00-4303-00000394197Proj.# 26X.143042.000-Woodside Lane Drainage 3,985.5005/26/2026 31,813.00Check Total: ## Vendor:Brandon BraithwaiteCheck Sequence: 8ACH Enabled: False1640 ## 101-00-3472-0000Tree RefundTree Sale Refund 95.2005/26/2026 95.20Check Total: ## Vendor:CAMPBELL KNUTSON P.A.Check Sequence: 9ACH Enabled: True1221 ## 101-16-4304-00003526-0000G 52 3526-0000G 52 General Matters/Administration Apr 2026 3,136.0005/26/2026 101-16-4304-00003526-0001G 523526-0001G 52 Planning & Zoning Services Apr 2026 196.0005/26/2026 101-16-4304-00003526-0009G 403526-0009G 40 Code Enforcement-5815 Club Lane Apr 2026 757.8005/26/2026 101-16-4304-00003526-0997G 323526-0997G 32 Additional Prosecution Svc Apr 2026 336.0005/26/2026 101-16-4304-00003526-0999G 553526-0999G 55 Prosecution Apr 2026 2,869.7205/26/2026 7,295.52Check Total: ## Vendor:CENTERPOINT ENERGY-GASCheck Sequence: 10ACH Enabled: True136 101-19-4380-0000April 20265755 Country Club Rd Apr 2026 177.6705/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 4 Page 43 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 101-52-4380-0000April 20266000 Eureka Road Apr 2026 141.0005/26/2026 601-00-4396-0000April 202628125 Boulder Bridge Apr 2026 113.7205/26/2026 601-00-4394-0000April 202620405 Knighsbridge Rd Apr 2026 57.0505/26/2026 101-32-4380-0000April 202624200 Smithtown Rd Apr 2026 258.0005/26/2026 747.44Check Total: ## Vendor:CENTURY LINKCheck Sequence: 11ACH Enabled: True137 101-32-4321-0000April 2026Acct#333778780-PWs-952-470-2294 Apr 2026 71.8005/26/2026952-470-2294-642-PWs 101-19-4321-0000April 2026Acct#334037388-C.H.-952-470-6340 Apr 2026 110.7205/26/2026952-474-6340-989-C.H. 182.52Check Total: ## Vendor:CINTAS CORPORATION (Formerly HUEBSCH)Check Sequence: 12ACH Enabled: False915 201-00-4223-00004268440708SCEC - Mat Maintenance 70.6705/26/2026 101-19-4400-00004268440735City Hall - Mat Maintenance 189.1405/26/2026 259.81Check Total: ## Vendor:CSG FORTE PAYMENTS, INCCheck Sequence: 13ACH Enabled: True1394 201-00-4450-00000015563761Credit Card Processing Apr 2026 227.5705/26/2026 201-00-4450-00000015563918Credit Card Processing Apr 2026 81.3605/26/2026 308.93Check Total: ## Vendor:DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC.Check Sequence: 14ACH Enabled: True1096 101-32-4400-00009000230670Forestry Consulting Services 383.7505/26/2026 383.75Check Total: ## Vendor:FERGUSON WATERWORKS, LLC. No.2518Check Sequence: 15ACH Enabled: False186 601-00-4265-00000565376Meter Gaskets 85.4005/26/2026 85.40Check Total: ## Vendor:Four Ace ProductionsCheck Sequence: 16ACH Enabled: False1636 101-53-4443-0000May 2026Safety Camp Presentation 425.0005/26/2026 425.00Check Total: ## Vendor:GREENER BLADE FERTILIZATION CO. LLCCheck Sequence: 17ACH Enabled: False1199 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 5 Page 44 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 101-52-4400-0000118277Turf Maintenance-Freeman Park-Soccer Fields 1,140.6105/26/2026 101-52-4400-0000118278Turf Maintenance-Freeman Park 918.1305/26/2026 101-52-4400-0000118280Turf Maintenance-Manor Park 290.0005/26/2026 2,348.74Check Total: ## Vendor:HAWKINS, INC.Check Sequence: 18ACH Enabled: True211 601-00-4410-00007423292Chemical Tank Rental 130.0005/26/2026 130.00Check Total: ## Vendor:HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECheck Sequence: 19ACH Enabled: False689 ## 101-32-4321-00001000267458800 Mhz Radio Fee Apr 2026 239.8405/26/2026 239.84Check Total: ## Vendor:HIGHVIEW PLUMBING, INC.Check Sequence: 20ACH Enabled: False628 611-00-4400-000018011Camera Sewer Service 295.0005/26/2026 295.00Check Total: ## Vendor:HKGiCheck Sequence: 21ACH Enabled: True1456 101-18-4400-0000025-059 - 5Zoning Code Update Apr 2026 7,425.0005/26/2026 7,425.00Check Total: ## Vendor:ISGCheck Sequence: 22ACH Enabled: False1637 201-00-4302-0000131362SCEC Facility Analysis 3,919.0005/26/2026 3,919.00Check Total: ## Vendor:DREW KRIESELCheck Sequence: 23ACH Enabled: False247 201-00-4248-0000Apr 2026SCEC Event Setup/Teardown Apr 2026 592.0005/26/2026 592.00Check Total: ## Vendor:LB Carlson, LLPCheck Sequence: 24ACH Enabled: False1619 ## 611-00-4301-00002551772025 Audit Field Work 1,721.2505/26/2026 ## 631-00-4301-00002551772025 Audit Field Work 1,721.2505/26/2026 ## 101-16-4301-00002551772025 Audit Field Work 1,721.2505/26/2026 ## 601-00-4301-00002551772025 Audit Field Work 1,721.2505/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 6 Page 45 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 101-16-4301-00002568322025 Audit Field Work 417.5005/26/2026 ## 601-00-4301-00002568322025 Audit Field Work 417.5005/26/2026 ## 611-00-4301-00002568322025 Audit Field Work 417.5005/26/2026 ## 631-00-4301-00002568322025 Audit Field Work 417.5005/26/2026 8,555.00Check Total: ## Vendor:LOFFLERCheck Sequence: 25ACH Enabled: True1163 101-19-4400-0000535215Folding Machine Service May 2026 165.0005/26/2026 165.00Check Total: ## Vendor:MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INCCheck Sequence: 26ACH Enabled: False1607 601-00-2060-0000March 202624x.136257 #4-7,910.9105/26/2026 601-00-4640-0000March 202624x.136257 #4 Mar 2026 158,218.2505/26/2026 150,307.34Check Total: ## Vendor:MAYA MAINTENANCE LLCCheck Sequence: 27ACH Enabled: True1378 101-32-4400-00001827Janitorial Services-PWs Facility Apr 2026 520.0005/26/2026 201-00-4248-00001841 ## Janitorial Services-SCEC-Event Setup/Teardown 140.0005/26/2026 201-00-4400-00001841Janitorial Services-SCEC 460.0005/26/2026 1,120.00Check Total: ## Vendor:METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATER)Check Sequence: 28ACH Enabled: True279 ## 611-00-4385-00000001205765Monthly Waste Water Svc Jun 2026 100,018.0905/26/2026 100,018.09Check Total: ## Vendor:MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCYCheck Sequence: 29ACH Enabled: False302 101-32-4400-000010000233264Hazardous Waste Fee-MPCA 410.8505/26/2026 410.85Check Total: ## Vendor:MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATIONCheck Sequence: 30ACH Enabled: False1320 601-00-4433-000010566MRWA Annual Membership 1,481.0505/26/2026 1,481.05Check Total: ## Vendor:NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INCCheck Sequence: 31ACH Enabled: False1612 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 7 Page 46 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 101-53-4351-000050016ShoreReport Printing 224.7705/26/2026 101-13-4208-000050016ShoreReport Postage 605.8205/26/2026 621-00-4208-000050016ShoreReport Postage 109.2905/26/2026 201-00-4351-000050016ShoreReport Printing 112.3805/26/2026 101-53-4208-000050016ShoreReport Postage 109.2905/26/2026 101-13-4351-000050016ShoreReport Printing 1,236.2505/26/2026 621-00-4351-000050016ShoreReport Printing 224.7705/26/2026 201-00-4208-000050016ShoreReport Postage 54.9605/26/2026 2,677.53Check Total: ## Vendor:PERRILLCheck Sequence: 32ACH Enabled: True903 611-00-4400-0000266105ROWay Web App-Monthly May 2026 50.0005/26/2026 101-32-4400-0000266105ROWay Web App-Monthly May 2026 50.0005/26/2026 601-00-4400-0000266105ROWay Web App-Monthly May 2026 50.0005/26/2026 150.00Check Total: ## Vendor:SAFE-FAST INC.Check Sequence: 33ACH Enabled: True1324 101-32-4245-0000INV324433PPE Gloves 231.7205/26/2026 611-00-4245-0000INV325093Utility Marking Flags 213.9805/26/2026 601-00-4245-0000INV325093Utility Marking Flags 213.9805/26/2026 659.68Check Total: ## Vendor:Trevor ScherberCheck Sequence: 34ACH Enabled: False1638 601-00-3712-0000Permit 6797Refund Duplicate Payment Permit 6797 100.0005/26/2026 611-00-3727-0000Permit 6797Refund Duplicate Payment Permit 6797 150.0005/26/2026 250.00Check Total: ## Vendor:SORENSEN CONSULTINGCheck Sequence: 35ACH Enabled: False842 101-13-4400-0000S:2.26Employment Assessment - Kraay 500.0005/26/2026 500.00Check Total: ## Vendor:SPRINGBROOK HOLDING COMPANY LLCCheck Sequence: 36ACH Enabled: True1101 621-00-4450-0000INV-023934Springbrook-CivicPay Fees Apr 2026 412.7505/26/2026 631-00-4450-0000INV-023934Springbrook-CivicPay Fees Apr 2026 412.7505/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 8 Page 47 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 601-00-4450-0000INV-023934Springbrook-CivicPay Fees Apr 2026 412.7505/26/2026 611-00-4450-0000INV-023934Springbrook-CivicPay Fees Apr 2026 412.7505/26/2026 1,651.00Check Total: ## Vendor:SRF Consulting Group, Inc.Check Sequence: 37ACH Enabled: True1570 404-31-4400-001218960.00 - 10Hwy 7 TMO Study Apr 2026 28,508.4205/26/2026 101-18-4400-000019866.00 - 3Comp Plan Update Apr 2026 9,288.2205/26/2026 37,796.64Check Total: ## Vendor:TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL, INC.Check Sequence: 38ACH Enabled: True694 101-13-4400-000032373Council Meeting 4/27/2026 500.0105/26/2026 101-18-4400-000032376Planning Meeting 5/5/2026 330.6305/26/2026 830.64Check Total: ## Vendor:DAVID TRETTELCheck Sequence: 39ACH Enabled: False1255 ## 101-00-3472-0000Tree RefundTree Sale Refund 193.6005/26/2026 193.60Check Total: ## Vendor:TWIN CITY WATER CLINICCheck Sequence: 40ACH Enabled: True386 601-00-4400-000024938Monthly Water Testing Apr 2026 120.0005/26/2026 120.00Check Total: ## Vendor:VALLEY-RICH CO. INC.Check Sequence: 41ACH Enabled: False392 601-00-4400-000035590Watermain Break 10,955.3305/26/2026 601-00-4400-000035598Watermain Break 8,894.3305/26/2026 19,849.66Check Total: Vendor:AS PAYMENT AGENT WM CORPORATE SERVICES INCCheck Sequence: 42ACH Enabled: False401 621-00-4400-00008248473-1593-7Recycling Services Apr 2026 15,757.2905/26/2026 15,757.29Check Total: ## Vendor:WM MUELLER & SONS INCCheck Sequence: 43ACH Enabled: True408 101-32-4250-0000322569Asphalt Patch Material 356.7205/26/2026 101-32-4250-0000322657Asphalt Patch Material 300.9605/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 9 Page 48 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 101-32-4250-0000322737Asphalt Patch Material 753.9205/26/2026 101-32-4250-0000322879Asphalt Patch Material 322.1405/26/2026 101-32-4250-0000322971Asphalt Patch Material 314.8605/26/2026 101-32-4250-0000323043Asphalt Patch Material 316.6805/26/2026 2,365.28Check Total: ## Vendor:XCEL ENERGY, INC.Check Sequence: 44ACH Enabled: True411 ## 611-00-4380-000012729546434915 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 22.2405/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012729553975600 Woodside Ln 36.6305/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127295692325800 State Highway 7 24.9005/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127295709525800 State Highway 7 2.9505/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127295713520630 Manor Road 1.5405/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127295717020630 Manor Road 2.5905/26/2026 101-19-4380-000012729572045590 Covington Road 0.5805/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729572105755 Country Club Road 0.2105/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729572455755 Country Club Road 2.9205/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729572795755 Country Club Road 19.0905/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729572915755 Country Club Road 2.5505/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573165755 Country Club Road 8.1405/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573245755 Country Club Road 1.1205/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573315755 Country Club Road 341.4705/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573415755 Country Club Road 1.7005/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573465755 Country Club Road 1.4905/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012729573534390 Enchanted Ln /MOUND CITY 79.9405/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729573905755 Country Club Road 49.6205/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012729574075755 Country Club Road 372.3205/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-0000127295741926055 Birch Bluff Rd 21.5405/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127295923425800 Highway 7 18.3505/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000012729595774996 Shady Island Pt /MOUND CITY 23.5105/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127295960127922 Smithtown Rd 44.0405/26/2026 601-00-4396-0000127296076026352 Smithtown Rd 20.5605/26/2026 101-52-4380-000012729618333801 W 62nd St 60.9005/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127296289826550 Noble Rd 28.3805/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127296316027145 Edgewood Rd 88.6105/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 10 Page 49 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 611-00-4380-000012729634065295 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 25.7305/26/2026 ## 101-19-4380-000012751130975755 Country Club Rd 587.4105/26/2026 101-32-4380-0000127511345424200 Smithtown Rd 241.5205/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511361425800 Highway 7 140.2605/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012751147275505 Radisson Ent 19.3305/26/2026 101-32-4399-0000127511525721382 Highway 7 43.3005/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127511581620995 Minnetonka Blvd 45.0005/26/2026 ## 601-00-4398-000012751162355500 Old Market Rd 22.5205/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012751172165705 Christmas Lake 33.6805/26/2026 ## 101-19-4380-000012751173335755 Country Club Road 184.4605/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511794925800 State Highway 7 17.9005/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511798925800 State Highway 7 18.5905/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511803220630 Manor Road 9.7405/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511806120630 Manor Road 16.5405/26/2026 101-19-4380-000012751181085590 Covington Road 3.6805/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751181145755 Country Club Road 1.3305/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751181525755 Country Club Road 18.5705/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751181795755 Country Club Road 122.2805/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751181925755 Country Club Road 16.0605/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751182265755 Country Club Road 51.2705/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751182355755 Country Club Road 7.0605/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751182515755 Country Club Road 2,137.2305/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751182635755 Country Club Road 10.6205/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751182705755 Country Club Road 9.3105/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751183155755 Country Club Road 45.1005/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012751183275755 Country Club Road 338.4605/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127511833920630 Manor Rd 40.9905/26/2026 101-32-4399-0000127511935019832 State Highway 7 76.0305/26/2026 601-00-4398-000012751197205755 Covington Rd 1,503.2705/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012751200924773 Lakeway Terr 34.8205/26/2026 601-00-4395-0000127512024224253 Smithtown Rd 118.8905/26/2026 ## 201-00-4380-000012751213985735 Country Club Rd 655.9305/26/2026 101-52-4380-000012751214435655 Merry Lane 17.6405/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127512201320465 Radisson Rd 107.9305/26/2026 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 11 Page 50 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference 611-00-4380-0000127512289620615 Radisson Rd 8.6905/26/2026 601-00-4394-0000127512310120405 Knightsbridge 1,548.3405/26/2026 ## 601-00-4398-000012751255805500 Old Market Rd 30.1105/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127573995325800 State Highway 7 17.9005/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127573995425800 State Highway 7 2.9705/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127573995520630 Manor Road 1.5605/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127573995720630 Manor Road 2.6505/26/2026 101-19-4380-000012757399585590 Covington Road 0.5905/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399595755 Country Club Road 0.2105/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399605755 Country Club Road 2.9805/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399615755 Country Club Road 19.6205/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399625755 Country Club Road 2.5605/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399655755 Country Club Road 8.2105/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399665755 Country Club Road 1.1405/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399675755 Country Club Road 342.0105/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399685755 Country Club Road 1.7005/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399695755 Country Club Road 1.5005/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399705755 Country Club Road 9.0405/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-000012757399715755 Country Club Road 67.7005/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-0000127573997226055 Birch Bluff Rd 15.4005/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127573997327922 Smithtown Rd 44.7605/26/2026 101-52-4380-0000127573997525800 Highway 7 46.4505/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000012757399774996 Shady Island Pt /MOUND CITY 20.0305/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127573998026550 Noble Rd 26.5705/26/2026 101-32-4399-0000127573998323750 Highway 7 61.4805/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012757399864390 Enchanted Ln /MOUND CITY 83.6305/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000012757399884915 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 20.7605/26/2026 101-52-4380-000012757399903801 W 62nd St 22.9705/26/2026 611-00-4380-0000127573999227145 Edgewood Rd 87.5305/26/2026 611-00-4380-000012757399955600 Woodside Ln 33.4205/26/2026 ## 611-00-4380-000012757399985295 Shady Island Rd /MOUND CITY 18.9705/26/2026 101-32-4399-000012757400015700 County Rd 19 63.7505/26/2026 601-00-4395-0000127574000224253 Smithtown Rd 17.0305/26/2026 ## 101-19-4380-00009754039035700 County Rd 19 113.6205/26/202609 5755 Country Club Road AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 12 Page 51 of 193 ## Invoice NoDescriptionAmountPmt DateAcct NumberReference ## 601-00-4396-000097551298428125 Boulder Bridge 1,855.7805/26/202616 28125 Boulder Bridge Drive 101-32-4399-0000Interest on LigInterest on Lighting-306.9905/26/2026 ## 101-32-4399-0000Lighting AdjustLighting Adjustment-4,437.3005/26/2026 7,857.68Check Total: ## Total for Check Run: ## Total of Number of Checks: 489,860.84 44 AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (05/20/2026 - 4:21 PM)Page 13 Page 52 of 193 City Council Item 2.F. Title/Subject: Adopt Resolution Approving a Special Assessment for Dale & Karan Newberg, ## 26960 Beverly Dr ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner ## Attachments 1. 26-31 Resolution Approving and Adopting Special Assessment - Newberg - 26960 Beverly ## Dr ## Background To assist in managing the cost of connecting to City water, the City allows homeowners to request the water access charge (WAC) of $10,000 be specially assessed to their property and paid through property taxes through an assessment agreement. The owners of the above captioned address wish to enter into such an assessment agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. The special assessment will be certified to taxes and will be payable in five annual installments beginning in 2027 at an interest rate of 5.0%. The assessment will run with the property, and the owners may pay off the assessment balance at any time. The owners also waive any rights to appeal the assessment, and the agreement will be recorded against the property. ## Strategic Alignment ## Fiscal Responsibility The water access charge supports the City’s water utility fund. ## Functionally & Financially Sound Infrastructure An additional connection to the City’s water infrastructure helps to ensure the system’s financial solvency. ## Budget Impact Connecting to City water provides revenue which supports the City’s water utility fund. ## Action Requested Motion to adopt the resolution approving and adopting a special assessment agreement and authorizing the Mayor to sign the assessment agreement. Page 53 of 193 225851v1 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## RESOLUTION NO. 26-31 ## A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, Dale and Karan Newberg, (“Owners”) have requested that the Shorewood City Council specially assess water access charges that affect Owners’ property at 26960 Beverly Drive, Shorewood, Minnesota (PID 32-117-23-33-0006) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the City has received the following signed Assessment Agreement, Exhibit B attached hereto, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements and requesting to be assessed for the water access charge in the amount itemized therein for the Subject Property. ## NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ## SHOREWOOD: 1. The signed Assessment Agreement is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The water access charge amounting to $10,000.00 is hereby adopted and shall constitute a special assessment against the Subject Property and hereby made part of this Resolution by reference and that the tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the charge and connection to municipal water in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments without deferment extending over a period of five (5) years, the first of the installments to be payable with taxes paid in 2027 and shall bear the interest rate of 5.0% per annum. 4. The Owners, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, may pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this Resolution; and such owner may at any time thereafter, pay the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. The Owners may also at any time prior to November 15, of any year, pay the remaining unpaid principal balance with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such prepayment is made. 5. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Page 54 of 193 225851v1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 26 th day of May 2026. ___________________________ ## Mayor Jennifer Labadie ## ATTEST ______________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 55 of 193 225851v1 ## Exhibit A ## Lot 12, Block 2, Afton Meadows, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 56 of 193 225851v1 ## Exhibit B ## Assessment Agreement Page 57 of 193 Page 58 of 193 Page 59 of 193 Page 60 of 193 City Council Item 4.A. ## Title/Subject: Presentation by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## Attachments 1. 2026Summer Safety Brochure ## 2. 2026 Shorewood City Council Presentation May 26 2026 ## Background The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will provide an update on the LMCC's activities and plans. ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance • Strategic and comprehensive long-term planning • Principled, data, and stakeholder-driven decisions • Culture of continuous improvement Engagement with the City's partner organizations strengthens understanding of the opportunities, challenges, activities and initiatives occurring within the community and informs Council decision making. ## Budget Impact ## None ## Action Requested No action is requested. Page 61 of 193 ## Photo credit: Vern Whitten Photography ## Lake Minnetonka Enjoying the lake safely and responsibly Be a safer boater. Know the rules of Lake Minnetonka. ## SUMMER RULES 2026 ## LEARN MORE ## Photo credit: Vern Whitten Photography Page 62 of 193 ## TABLE OF CONTENTS Summer 2026 | Page 1 ## LAKE MINNETONKA ## CONSERVATION DISTRICT ## SM ## WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO For more than 50 years, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has been managing the use of Lake Minnetonka in its mission to preserve and enhance the “Lake Minnetonka experience.” The LMCD is a regional governmental agency that brings together 14 different cities, two counties, and many state and local agencies to protect, preserve and enhance Lake Minnetonka’s economy and vitality. Since 1967, LMCD has worked to adopt rules, provide resources and funding, and promote lake safety. The LMCD is governed by a voluntary Board of Directors and run by a dedicated group of staff members. Scan the QR code to learn more and contact your local board member or a staff member to share any concerns or suggestions on ways we can better serve the lake community. ## LEARN MORE ## Greetings ## Summer Access Map ## Know Your Markers ## Top Summer Violations ## Safety Regulations ## Safety Regulations & Invasive Species ## Boating Safety ## Youth-Specific Regulations ## Agency Links & Resources 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 ## Back Cover Page 63 of 193 ## LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org ## A NOTE FROM OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Greetings! The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is committed to protecting Lake Minnetonka while preserving safe and enjoyable recreational use for all. As part of this ongoing effort, LMCD has updated its 2026–2027 Strategic Plan, with Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) recognized as a key focus within broader pollution prevention and lake protection initiatives. The LMCD Board will continue to evaluate and refine policies and strategies to strengthen AIS prevention and management efforts and respond to emerging environmental concerns. To learn more about best practices to address AIS, please see page 7 of this brochure. We encourage everyone to enjoy the 2026 summer season on Lake Minnetonka and thank you for doing your part to help protect it. ## DAVID KRUEGER ## LMCD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ## NEW RULES FOR 2026 • Nighttime bowfishing is allowed on the entire lake this year with a Special Event Permit from April 25 through June 30. Learn more on page 6. • The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has new education requirements for some boaters, effective July 1, 2026. Learn more on mndnr. gov/safety/boatwater. • New state watercraft registration fees went into effect this year. Learn more at mndnr.gov/licenses/watercraft. Page 64 of 193 ## SUMMER ACCESS MAP Summer 2026 | Page 3 ## LAKE MINNETONKA ## CONSERVATION DISTRICT !y !y !y !y !y !y !y!y !y !y y Public access / Boat launch Public toiletsQuiet w ater / Slow a rea (QWA) ## Weekend & Holiday q uiet / Slow a rea 300 f oot b uffer f rom s hore 1,000 ## Feet 0 0.25 0.5 ## Miles ## GRAYS ## WAYZATA ## BROWNS ## SMITHS ## HARRISONS ## JENNINGS ## CRYSTAL ## LAFAYETTE ## GIDEON ## EXCELSIOR ## ST ALBANS ## VETS ## LOWER LAKE SOUTH ## LOWER LAKE NORTH ## NORTH ARM ## MAXWELL ## STUBBS ## ST LOUIS ## ROBINSONS ## CARSON ## TANAGER ## LIBBS ## SETON ## ECHO ## SOUTH UPPER LAKE ## SMITHTOWN ## WEST ## UPPER ## LAKE ## PRIESTS ## HALSTEAD ## FOREST ## EAST UPPER LAKE ## CARMAN ## COOKS ## SPRING PARK ## PHELPS ## COFFEE COVE ## WEST ARM ## BLACK ## EMERALD - Minimum w ake 300 f ee t f rom the shoreline of the entire lake - Minimum w ake150 f eet f rom parked boats, swimmers, ect - ## Minimum wa ke in q uiet w aters ## Disclaimer: ## This map is based on estimates and intended for illustrative purposes only. ## Lake Minnetonka 2023 Informational Map ## Lake Minnetonka ## Regional Park (Three ## Rivers Park District) ## Halstead (City) ## Cooks(City) ## North Arm (Henn Cty) ## Maxwell ## (MN DNR) ## Wayzata (City) ## Grays (City / MN DNR) ## Carsons (City) ## Phelps (City) Page 65 of 193 ## IDENTIFYING INLAND WATERWAY MARKERS/BUOYS ## KNOW YOUR MARKERS/BUOYS BEFORE YOU SET SAIL! In land markers are used to help boaters safely navigate channels, direct traffic, control speeds, protect resources and identify dangerous waterways/areas. Thanks to the Hennepin County Water Patrol and LMCD Board Director Rich Anderson, brand-new solar lights, holders and batteries have been added. ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org Page 66 of 193 ## TOP SUMMER VIOLATIONS Summer 2026 | Page 5 ## TOP SUMMER VIOLATIONS Life jackets: All PWC operators and passengers must wear a U.S. Coast Guard- approved life jacket. Towed persons must also be wearing a life jacket or there must be one on board the PWC for the person/s being towed. Boating under the influence: Boating while under the influence of alcohol, or any other controlled or illegal substance, is illegal. The Minnesota limit is 0.08. Underage drinking is strictly enforced. Watercraft owners or operators may be held liable. Fire extinguishers: Fire extinguishers, horns, marine-grade carbon monoxide detectors (for specified watercraft) and lighting must be in compliance with state law. Riding on gunwales or decking: It is illegal to ride, sit on or operate a motorboat while someone is riding or sitting on the gunwale (top edges of the hull), bow, transom, decking over the bow, side or stern while underway (unless it is equipped with an adequate railing). Quiet waters/minimum wake zones: Motor-operated watercraft and waterborne aircraft cannot be operated in excess of 5 mph or at a speed that results in more than a minimum wake in quiet water areas. Navigational lights: Proper navigational lights (red to port, green to starboard, white 360 degrees around watercraft) must be displayed when boating after sunset and before sunrise. Public nuisances and noise: No person may commit or engage in any activity that constitutes a public nuisance—including excess noise, inappropriate behavior, indecent exposure, etc. Sound travels easily across the lake. Between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., sound from any device plainly audible at a distance of 150 feet is in violation of LMCD code. Sanitation: If bathroom facilities are not available on the watercraft, find a location with public facilities. Find a list of Lake Minnetonka amenities at lmcd.org. Wakes: It’s illegal for your watercraft’s wash and wake to endanger, harass or unnecessarily interfere with any person or property. View wake safety info at dnr.state.mn.us. Channels & navigation: No person may interfere or block navigation of watercraft, moor, or otherwise create safety hazards in channels or public passageways. Swimming, towing, jumping from bridges and overtaking boats in channels is also prohibited. The LMCD Code and links to applicable state laws can be found on the LMCD website. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ## LAKE MINNETONKA ## CONSERVATION DISTRICT Page 67 of 193 ## SAFETY REGULATIONS ## UNIQUE LAKE MINNETONKA REGULATIONS BIG ISLAND PUBLIC SAFETY LANES: Public safety lanes are installed at the north end of Big Island to provide better access by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office for emergency purposes. Buoys delineate these lanes and extend 600 feet from shore. Watercraft may not be anchored in these lanes but may use them for traveling. BOWFISHING: The LMCD has approved a Special Event Permit authorizing nighttime bowfishing on Lake Minnetonka during a limited event period from April 25, 2026 through June 30, 2026. The permitted area has been expanded to include the entire lake, rather than being limited to four designated bays as in the previous year. Bowfishing is allowed from one-half hour after sunset until 1:00 a.m. ## SPECIAL "HIGH-WATER" AND "LOW-WATER" DECLARATIONS: When the LMCD declares “High Water,” minimum wake restrictions are implemented for user safety and shoreline protection. During “High Water,” watercraft must maintain minimum wakes within 600 feet from shore for some bays and entirely for other bays, or as otherwise directed. When the LMCD declares “Low Water,” dock extensions may be allowed under certain conditions. Watch for updates at lmcd.org. ## MAXIMUM WATERCRAFT SPEED LIMITS ## KEY DEFINITIONS ## DAYTIME Speed limit: 40 mph ## NIGHTTIME Speed limit: 20 mph ## AT ALL TIMES FOR ALL WATERCRAFT Speed limit: 5 mph within • 300 feet of the shore • 150 feet from dock structures, authorized bathing areas, swimmers, scuba diver’s flag, anchored craft or structures WATERCRAFT: Any vessel, boat, sailboat, canoe, raft, barge, paddleboard, sailboard, or any similar device used or usable for carrying and transporting persons on the lake. MINIMUM WAKE: The wave moving out from a watercraft and trailing in a widening ‘V’ of insufficient size to affect other watercraft or be detrimental to the shoreline. HOURS OF OPERATION: Thirty minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset— except when weather or other conditions do not provide sufficient light to see people or watercraft at a distance of 500 feet. ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org Page 68 of 193 ## SAFETY REGULATIONS & INVASIVE SPECIES ## BEWARE OF ELECTRIC SHOCK DROWNING (ESD) ESD results from paralysis caused by electrical currents from electricity leaking into the water from faulty wiring of boats, docks and lifts. ESD kills both humans and animals. There are many ways to prevent ESD. The most important of these is to never enter water around boats and docks using electrical power. For more information, LMCD code and links to state laws, visit lmcd.org an ElectricShockDrowning.org. ## AUTOMATIC CUTOFF DEVICES If a watercraft is equipped with a lanyard-type engine cutoff switch, it must be attached to the operator when underway. It may not be altered, disabled or removed. Learn more about the federal regulation. ## CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SAVE LIVES State law requires functioning marine-grade CO alarms on certain motorboats. To learn more about CO alarms, stickers and when they are required, visit the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources website at dnr.state.mn.us/safety/boatwater. ## MARINE TOILETS & WASTEWATER DISCHARGE To prevent accidental or intentional discharge of sewage into the lake, any watercraft must have macerater/grinder pumps removed and discharge valves (“Y-valves”) locked. ## BLUE-GREEN ALGAE Blue-green algae blooms can pose safety risks to you and your pets. Make sure to keep pets leashed around bodies of water and don't let them drink from bodies of water that appear contaminated. When in doubt, stay out! ## IT'S THE LAW: KEEP AIS OUT OF LAKE MINNETONKA Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are non-native plants, animals and other organisms that live primarily in water. They can drive out and eat native plants and wildlife, and spread disease. Clean: Clean visible aquatic plants, zebra mussels and other invasive species off watercraft, trailers and related equipment before leaving water access or shoreland. Drain: Drain water-related equipment (boat, trailer, ballast tanks, portable bait containers, motor) and drain bilge, livewell and baitwell before leaving water access or shoreline. Dispose: Be prepared! Transport your catch in a cooler. Dispose of unwanted bait—including minnows, leeches, worms and fish parts—in the trash. It is illegal to release bait into the water or release worms onto the ground. Summer 2026 | Page 7 ## LAKE MINNETONKA ## CONSERVATION DISTRICT Page 69 of 193 ## BOATING SAFETY ## PERSONAL WATERCRAFTS All regulations for motorboats apply to personal watercrafts (PWCs or “jetskis”) in addition to the following specific PWC requirements. ## CARELESS OPERATION A PWC may not be operated in a manner that unreasonably or unnecessarily endangers life, limb or property. This includes weaving through congested boat traffic or swerving at the last moment to avoid a collision if you weren’t paying attention. ## WAKE JUMPING PWC operators may not jump wakes within 150 feet of another watercraft or PWC. ## PROLONGED OPERATION PWC may not be operated more than 30 consecutive minutes in a single area (defined as a small area where noise emanating from the PWC may be a nuisance or cause substantial annoyance to one or more shoreline properties). ## RENTAL REQUIREMENTS A PWC may not be rented or leased to anyone less than 18 years of age. Businesses are required to: 1. Distribute summary of laws free of charge 2. Provide required safety equipment 3. Ensure renter has a valid permit or is an exempt operator; and is 18 years or older. ## TOWING (SKIING, WAKEBOARDING, WAKESURFING, ETC.) ## NUMBER TOWED No more than three persons may be towed at one time. ## OBSERVER In addition to the watercraft or PWC operator, an observer (not a rear-facing mirror) is required to continuously observe the person(s) being towed. The observer must be at least 12 years old and able to communicate with the driver. ## HOURS Towing is prohibited 30 minutes after sunset until sunrise. For PWC, 9:30 a.m. to one hour before sunset. PWCs cannot be operated more than 30 minutes in a single area. ## LENGTH OF TOW Maximum length of 85 feet (except with written permission from the Sheriff). ## EMPTY TOW An unoccupied tow line may not be dragged behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org Page 70 of 193 ## LIFE JACKETS All PWC operators and passengers must wear a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket. Towed persons must also be wearing a life jacket or there must be one on board the PWC for the person/s being towed. ## DISTANCE Towing may not occur within 150 feet of a swim area, skin or scuba diver’s flag, swimmer, watercraft, or dock or pier (except dock/pier initially operating from). ## TOWING IN CHANNELS No person shall tow or be towed into or through any marked channel connecting two bodies of water. It is unsafe. ## BOATING SAFETY Summer 2026 | Page 9 ## SHARE THE LAKE ## SURF IN THE ## MIDDLE OF THE BAY ## AVOID REPETITIVE ## PASSES ## KEEP THE ## SOUND DOWN ## LAKE MINNETONKA ## CONSERVATION DISTRICT ## SAFETY TIPS FOR NONMOTORIZED WATERCRAFT If you are kayaking, canoeing or paddleboarding, you can make yourself more visible to other lake users to prevent accidents by: • Wearing vibrant clothing • Flying a flag • Installing a light • Paying attention to lake conditions such as wakes, boat traffic and weather Page 71 of 193 ## YOUTH-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS ## YOUTH REGULATIONS State regulations for operator’s permits and minimum age are vigorously enforced on Lake Minnetonka. Know the rules and keep your boating experience fun and safe! ## CURFEW Youth may not be on a watercraft during the following hours unless accompanied by a parent or guardian: • Under age 15: 10 p.m.–6 a.m. • Ages 15–17: midnight–6 a.m. ## OPERATOR’S PERMIT Permits may be obtained by successfully completing an approved boating safety course. ## PWC-SPECIFIC AGE MINIMUMS • Operators less than 12 years of age: Cannot operate (even with an adult on board). • Operators 12-21 yeas old must possess a valid watercraft operator's permit for personal watercraft. Effective July 1, 2025, adults born on or after July 1, 2004, must hold a permit to operate PWC. ## OPERATOR’S PERMIT & BOATING SAFETY COURSES ## LMCD BOATER SAFETY EDUCATION Operators 21 years and younger are required to possess a valid watercraft operator's permit for motorboat and personal watercrafts. Operators younger than 13 years of age may operate motorboats with less than 75 horsepower if an accompanying operator is in the motorboat. Learn more at mndnr.gov/boatingsafety for more information. ## BOAT MINNESOTA: MN DNR’S ONLINE BOATING SAFETY COURSE The Minnesota DNR offers an online watercraft operator’s permit program. Adults who want to learn more about boating safety or enhance their current knowledge can also take the course. Some insurance companies offer premium discounts for certification; check with your company for possible discounts. For more information, visit the MN DNR site at mndnr.gov/boatingcourse. ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org Page 72 of 193 ## SM ## Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) ## Conservation Officers ## 500 Lafayette Road ## St. Paul, MN 55155 DNR Information Center: 651-296-6157 or 888-MINNDNR (646-6367) ## Officer Locator: mndnr.gov/officerpatrolareas Website: mndnr.gov • Boating and fishing regulations and enforcement • AIS prevention and management ## Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) ## Water Patrol Unit ## 4141 Shoreline Drive ## Spring Park, MN 55384 ## Emergency: Call 911 Non-Emergency 24/7 Dispatch: 952-258-5321; Office: 612-596-9880 ## Website: HennepinSheriff.org/water-patrol • Patrol and enforcement of State and LMCD laws on Lake Minnetonka • Emergency and rescue operations • Special events ## AGENCY LINKS & RESOURCES ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) ## 5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200 ## Mound, MN 55364 Office: 952-745-0789 Connect with us at: Email: lmcd@lmcd.org Website: lmcd.org ## LakeMinnetonkaConservationDistrict @LakeMtkaCD • Licensing and surface regulations • Docks, structures and watercraft storage • Solar lights program • Some services funded by SAVE the LAKE Fund contributions ## LakeMtkaCD ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District www.lmcd.org Page 73 of 193 ## Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) To preserve and enhance the “Lake Minnetonka experience” ## Presented by David Krueger ## LMCD Executive Director Page 74 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 2 ## I.About Lake Minnetonka ## II.Current Topics ## • Summer Rules Brochure ## • Rental Watercraft License • PILOT - Nighttime Bow Fishing 2026(April 25- ## June 30) Entire Lake access III.City Council discussion topics • 2027 Budget & Levy • AIS (Strategic Plan) • Wake regulations • LMCD regulations & city ordinances ## OVERVIEW Page 75 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 3 Page 76 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 4 Page 77 of 193 ## LMCD May 26, 2026 6 ## STRATEGIC PLAN In 2026, the LMCD revised its Strategic Plan, resulting in the following four pillars: ## • Docks, Applications, Licenses, Surface Water Management ## • Lake Use Safety ## • Lake Protection ## • Operational Effectiveness As a result, the LMCD continues to see great strides in lake management, lake safety and lake protection. Page 78 of 193 ## LMCD May 26, 2026 7 ## CURRENT TOPICS ## • Summer Rules Brochure ## • Rental Watercraft License ## •2nd Season - Nighttime Bow Fishing (April 25-June 30) 2026 Page 79 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 8 ## RENTAL WATERCRAFT LICENSE REQUIREMENTS On August 28th, 2024 the LMCD Board passed a ordinance adoption new Rental Watercraft Licensing requirements that went into effect on January 1st, 2025. 2026 our 2nd year, an increase in licensing from those that flew under the radar in the past. This ordinance requires all watercrafts, both restricted and non-restricted, that are rented on Lake Minnetonka to be inspected by Hennepin County Water Patrol and restricted watercraft to obtain a license through the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). It also requires that prior to renting watercrafts, watercraft owners need to obtain the official LMCD Rental Watercraft Sticker that will be given out alongside Hennepin County Water Patrol’s sticker upon completion of inspection. Page 80 of 193 ## LMCD May 26, 2026 9 ## NIGHTTIME BOW FISHING SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT A Special Event Permit has been approved by the LMCD Board for a second season which will allow Nighttime Bow Fishing on Lake Minnetonka for a limited event period of April 25, 2026 through June 30, 2026. 2026 Change - Bow Fishing open to the entire lake. A Special Event Permit must be carried by each participant. Users can bow fish from one half hour after sunset until 1am. Page 81 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 10 Page 82 of 193 ## LMCD May 26, 2026 11 ## CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPICS • 2026 Budget & Levy ## • AIS • Wake regulations • LMCD regulations & city ordinances Page 83 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 12 Page 84 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 13 • In 2020, disbanded AIS Harvesting Program and sold all equipment resulting in surplus of funds entering our reserves. • At that time, auditors advised best practice on reserve fund balances remain between 30% and 50% of annual operating expenses. Thus, LMCD reduced the levy in 2022 to $300,000 to begin responsible spend down of excess reserves and to bring our fund balance within the recommended range. • 2023–2025, the levy was further reduced and held steady at $255,000 to continue alignment of reserve balance with the target of 35%. • By the end of 2025, reserve fund balance will fall within the desired 30–50% range. Specifically, $130,000 in reserves in 2025 to bring the balance below 40%, followed by a drawdown of $60,000 in 2026 to achieve our target of 35%. ## STRATEGY BEHIND LEVY % CHANGE Page 85 of 193 ## LMCD May 26, 2026 14 •In 2026, the levy will increase to $375,000 to offset operating expenses, specifically the reinstatement of a full-time Executive Director, replacing the current part-time interim contractor. This adjustment ensures we maintain strong leadership and organizational capacity moving forward. •Though this is a significant increase from 2025, $375,000 is only 40% of the Maximum Levy Amount for the State of Minnesota ($942,665) Per MN statute 103B.635.In 2027 with budget not using any reserves the budget will likely be in the 14% to 20% range depending on passing of new fee schedule. ($5218-$7,484 increase possible) •Prior to the reduction, the levy was set at $375,000 in 2021. Thus, returning to this amount is a reinstatement rather than an unforeseen change. ## STRATEGY BEHIND LEVY % CHANGE, cont’d Page 86 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 15 ## AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (AIS) In 2020, the LMCD decided to end the harvesting program and work with partnering agencies that are better equipped to fund, coordinate and scientifically evaluate the most effective methods of management aquatic invasive species. From 2021-23, LMCD awarded grants to local entities supporting their AIS treatment efforts. At this time, the LMCD does not have any active budgetary programs to manage AIS. In recent years. In 2026 LMCD Board added AIS back into our strategic plan. The Board will decide what its involvement in AIS maybe in future year 2027. The Save the Lake work group is working to determine how funds maybe used to help educate and Identify AIS in the future Page 87 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 16 In 2023, the LMCD incorporated a new rule for all watercraft to maintain a minimum was with in 300ft of all shoreline and 150ft of all structures, parked watercraft, swimmer, etc. The LMCD continues to work with Hennepin County Water Patrol to education the public through our website, public launches, summer rules, brochures and enforcements. In 2025, Hennepin County Water Patrol made stops for both educational and enforcement purposes and will continue to make stops in the future if a watercraft is found to in violation. No tickets were issued to wake boat operators for violting the 300ft ordiance. We continue to see improvements around the lake and will address further research as it provided to us. ## WAKE REGULATION UPDATE Page 88 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 17 Page 89 of 193 ## LMCD ## Ma y 26, 2026 18 ## LMCD ORDINANCES & CITY ORDINANCES • In 2019, there was a change in LMCD authority at the legislature removing LMCD’s ability to regulate above the 929.4 ordinary high watermark. Thus, any activity on land such as boat storage. • Since then, LMCD has changed the way Licensees are expected to comply. o It is the Licensees responsibility to comply with any relevant regulations of all ## LMCD, Federal, State, County and Municipal rules and regulations. Violations may result in revocation of these approvals. Page 90 of 193 City Council Item 4.B. ## Title/Subject: Minnetonka Baseball Bigsy Tournament Request ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Mitchell Czech, Park/Rec Director ## Attachments ## 1. Minnetonka Baseball Amplified Music Resolution ## Background Minnetonka Baseball Association (MBA) is a valued partner to the Parks & Recreation Department. They are hosting their annual Bigsy Baseball Tournament this year on June 5–7, and will be utilizing Freeman Park Fields 1–3 on June 5 & 6. MBA is planning to hold two games on each field on Friday evening and 5–6 games on each field on Saturday. The games will run from approximately 4:00pm - 8:00pm on Friday, and 8:00am - 8:00pm on Saturday. Freeman Park does not have lights on its baseball fields, so no games will be played after dark. MBA is requesting the City to allow participating teams to play music at a reasonable volume during games for the 2026 Bigsy Tournament. A similar request was made in 2024 when MBA asked to allow music at the fields during practices, games, and the Bigsy Tournament. The Council expressed concerns regarding enforceability and neighborhood impacts. A modified motion to allow music for the tournament only was made, but ultimately failed on a 2-3 vote. This year, MBA is requesting a limited, event-specific exception to allow music to enhance the participant and spectator experience. Many teams come from out of town, and the tournament is a great way for them to experience Freeman Park as well as local establishments. A fun, positive environment encourages teams to come back in future years. Tournaments across the state allow music as well, so many out-of-town teams are used to this experience. The speakers used at these other tournaments are generally small in size. MBA has proposed the following: 1. MBA tournament staff, volunteers, and coaches will monitor noise levels to ensure they do not exceed reasonable levels. 2. If there is a complaint, the team will receive a warning to lower the sound level. Upon a second complaint, the team would be banned from playing music for the rest of the tournament. 3. Speakers utilized shall be directed away from adjacent homes. 4. Only age appropriate music without profanity will be played. 5. The exception is for June 5–6, 2026 only. This does not apply to the rest of the season games or practices. 6. MBA will comply with any other guidelines that the City Council may suggest. Representatives from Minnetonka Baseball Association will be in attendance during the City Council meeting to be available for questions. Page 91 of 193 ## Strategic Alignment ## Organizational Strength & Good Governance • Strategic and comprehensive long-term planning • Principled, data, and stakeholder-driven decisions • Culture of continuous improvement Maintains a positive relationship with a valued partner of the Cities Parks & Recreation Department. ## Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact for this item. ## Action Requested A motion to approve resolution 26-32 allowing music for the 2026 Minnetonka Baseball Association Bigsy Baseball Tournament on June 5-6, 2026. Simple majority vote is required. Page 92 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## RESOLUTION 26-32 ## A RESOLUTION APPROVING MUSIC FOR THE 2026 MINNEOTONKA BASEBALL ASSOCIATION ## BIGSY BASEBALL TOURNAMENT ON JUNE 5-6, 2026 WHEREAS, Minnetonka Baseball Association (MBA) is hosting the 2026 Bigsy Baseball Tournament at Freeman Park on June 5-6, 2026; and WHEREAS, MBA has requested authorization to allow limited amplified music during the tournament including pre-game music, brief walk-up music, and short intervals between innings; and WHEREAS, the City requires approval by the City Council to allow for amplified music within a City park; and WHEREAS, MBA has proposed reasonable measures to monitor and manage levels, including tournament staff, volunteer, and coach oversight; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a limited, event-specific exception with appropriate conditions can balance community benefit with protections in place for neighboring properties. ## NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, ## MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. MBA tournament staff, volunteers, and coaches will monitor noise levels to ensure they do not exceed reasonable levels. 2. If there is a complaint, the team will receive a warning to lower the sound level. Upon a second complaint, the team would be banned from playing music for the rest of the tournament. 3. Only small, portable speakers can be utilized and shall be directed away from adjacent homes. 4. Only age appropriate music without profanity will be played. 5. The City reserves the right to require the sound level to be lowered or turned off at any time. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 28th day of May, 2024. Page 93 of 193 __________________________ ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## Attest: ___________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 94 of 193 City Council Item 4.C. ## Title/Subject: Appeal Hearing on a Massage Therapist License Denial ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. Massage Therapist License Denial for Qiyan Zhao ## 2. Qiyan Zhao Appeal to Council ## 3. Notice of Appeal Hearing ## Background On April 30, 2026, the city denied a Massage Therapist License submitted by Qiyan Zhao. The license was denied because it did not meet the city code requirements for education and training required in Chapter 311.05(c). Pursuant to Shorewood City Code 308.10, the applicant may appeal the denial within 14 days of receiving the notification. On May 13, 2026, the city received the Appeal from Qiyan Zhao (attached). On May 14, 2026, the City scheduled the Appeal Hearing for May 26, 2026, and notified the applicant. The applicant will be available to set forth fully at this meeting their grounds for appeal. While performing the background investigation on the applicant, it was discovered the applicant's massage school training as presented, the Greater DFW International Massage Academy LLC located in Plano, TX had been shut down, its license revoked, and all operations ceased by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The action by Texas regulators came after they had cause to believe the Greater DFW International School of Massage Academy LLC was in violation of major policies, including falsifying student records, students not meeting the education or attendance standards, links with illegal massage parlors, and human trafficking. The school's practices allowed people to get massage therapy licenses without completing the required training. The following are Shorewood City Code requirements in determining an applicant's compliance with the education and training requirements: 311.05 (c) Certificates shall be issued only to persons who have received and can furnish proof of receiving a qualifying amount of education. These minimum requirements are any of the following: 1. Hold an associate's degree or greater level degree in a field of nursing or physical therapy from a state-accredited, post-secondary educational institution, and hold a current license, in good standing, from the State of Minnesota to practice nursing or physical therapy; 2. Has completed 500 hours of certified therapeutic massage training from a member school of Page 95 of 193 the National Certification Board for Massage Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) or other organization of therapeutic massage professionals which has a similar written and enforceable code of ethics as approved by the City Clerk. 3. Successfully pass the National Examination for Therapeutic Massage within the year prior to application as offered by the U.S. National Organization Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. 4. Have been previously licensed by the city and provide documentation that shows an ongoing effort to maintain or improve their massage therapy skills. The Massage school does not meet the requirements under section 2. It appears the TDLR is proactively working to assist legitimate students impacted by the decision on how to receive verification of legitimate course hours and certification. This may be an avenue the applicant could take to meet the city code requirements for licensure. Adhering to this requirement of Chapter 311, other applications have been denied in past years for similar certification and training inconsistencies with the code. The city has denied certification and education hours from the American Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in Roseville, MN as it was shut down by the MN Office of Higher Education (OHE). ## Strategic Alignment ## Safe & Secure Community • Strong, proactive, strategic, and cost-effective public safety services Enforcing city code requirements for massage businesses consistently and transparently upholds public safety and community standards. ## Budget Impact The cost of licensing should equal the fees associated with obtaining a license. When additional steps are taken, the cost will exceed the application and licensing fees. ## Action Requested Simple majority vote is required. Council may affirm the denial of the license, modify the license or add conditions, or reverse the denial and approve the license. Staff recommends a Motion to Uphold Denial for the Reasons Outlined in the Notice of Denial and the Agenda Report. Page 96 of 193 City of Shorewood | 5755 Country Club Road | Shorewood, MN 55331 952.960.7900 | www.ci.shorewood.mn.us April 30, 2026 Qiyan Zhao New Life Club LLC DBA Tonka Wellness 5960 Grant Street 23570 Highway 7 ## Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 ## NOTICE OF DENIAL: MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE ## Dear Qiyan: This letter is to inform you that your application for your 2026 Massage Therapist License has been denied by the City of Shorewood for the following reasons: Pursuant to Shorewood City Code, Section 311.05(2)c.2, the applicant must have “completed 500 hours of certified therapeutic massage training from a member school of the National Certification Board for Massage Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) or other organization of therapeutic massage professionals which has a similar written and enforceable code of ethics as approved by the City Clerk.” While conducting the background investigation for the applicant’s license it was found: 1. The applicant supplied a hard copy of a License and unofficial transcript dated August 13, 2025, issued by the Greater DFW International Massage Academy in Plano, TX. The investigation revealed that the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) issued to stop operations and revoked the school’s license in March of 2026, after links to human trafficking was discovered, as well as falsifying records and ties to illegal massage businesses. 2. The applicant’s training does not meet Shorewood City Code Section 311.05(2)c.2. As a result of these findings and non-compliance with Shorewood City Code, Chapter 311 and a review by the City Clerk and City Attorney, the City of Shorewood is denying this application for a Massage Therapist License. The applicant may appeal this denial in accordance with the procedure specified in Shorewood City Code Chapter 308, section 308.10 by filing, within 14 days after notice is received, a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for appeal. The Council shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal and notice of the hearing shall be given to the person appealing by mailing to the address set forth on the application at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. ## Sincerely, ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk ## City of Shorewood ## CC: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator/Jerad Shepherd, City Attorney Page 97 of 193 Page 98 of 193 City of Shorewood | 5755 Country Club Road | Shorewood, MN 55331 952.960.7900 | shorewoodmn.gov May 14, 2026 ## Qiyan Zhao ## 5960 Grant Street ## Shorewood, MN 55331 ## New Life Club LLC DBA Tonka Wellness 23570 Highway 7 ## Shorewood, MN 55331 ## NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF A DENIAL ## OF A MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE FOR QIYAN ZHAO ## Dear Qiyan: This letter is to inform you that we have received your Appeal to the city’s denial of your Massage Therapist License on May 13, 2026. Pursuant to Shorewood City Code Chapter 308, section 308.10, an applicant may appeal against a denial in accordance with the procedure specified in Shorewood City Code by filing, within 14 days after the notice is received, a written statement setting forth fully the grounds for appeal. The Council shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal and notice of the hearing shall be given to the person appealing by mailing to the address set forth on the application a written notice at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The Appeal Hearing on this matter will go before the Shorewood City Council and has been set for Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 7:00 PM at the regularly scheduled Shorewood City Council meeting. The meeting will be held in the Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331. Please be prepared to share with the city council your grounds for appeal. The City Council has the right to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision. ## Sincerely, ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk/Human Resources Director ## City of Shorewood sthone@shorewoodmn.gov 952-960-7911 ## CC: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## Jared Shepherd, City Attorney ## Shorewood City Council Page 99 of 193 City Council Item 4.D. Title/Subject: 25485 State Highway 7 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner ## Attachments ## 1. May 5, 2026, Planning Commission Memorandum 2. Excerpt of May 5, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes ## 3. Site Location Map ## 4. Project Narrative ## 5. Existing Survey ## 6. Civil Plans ## 7. Zoning Map 8. Floorplan and Elevations ## 9. Tree Preservation Worksheet ## 10. Excelsior Fire District Comments ## 11. MN Rules 1309.0313 Townhouse Fire Sprinklers ## 12. MSFC Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads ## 13. Engineering Dept Comments ## 14. MNDOT Comments ## 15. MNDNR Comments 16. Public Comment 1 17. Public Comment 2 18. Public Comment 3 19. Public Comment 4 20. Resolution 26-30 Approving a PUD Concept Plan for 25485 Highway 7 ## Background See the attached Planning Commission Memorandum for detailed background on this request. The applicant is seeking approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan to construct six townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. At the May 5, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the concept plan and recommended unanimous approval to the City Council with conditions. Draft minutes from that meeting were reviewed earlier in tonight’s agenda. Two residents spoke during the public hearing, and their comments are summarized in the attached draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. In addition to the nine recommended staff conditions, the Commission requested that five additional conditions be imposed upon the applicant: 1) add additional sound and safety abatement measures along the property’s southern edge with Highway 7; 2) reduce the project’s impervious surface coverage to meet the 27.9% limit; 3) reduce the number of units from six to five; 4) for City staff to request further project feedback from the Minnesota Page 100 of 193 Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and 5) improve the ingress and egress to the property for emergency vehicles. These conditions are included in the attached resolution. City staff spoke with MnDOT’s project manager for the Highway 7 improvements on May 19. He stated that the proposed improvements have yet to enter the preliminary design process, which will begin in fall 2026. The study proposed a three-quarter intersection for the Highway 7/Eureka Road intersection, which would prohibit drivers from turning east onto Highway 7 from Eureka Road. Because this project has yet to enter the preliminary design phase, it is unknown whether there will be any impacts to adjacent rights-of-way. ## Strategic Alignment ## Comprehensive Approach to Planning & Development • Clear standards and processes for development with strong controls • Balance the desires of both new and long-term residents The application generally relates to the strategic priority of a comprehensive approach to planning and development; however, planning and land use applications are reviewed on their own merits relative to the Comprehensive Plan and City Code requirements. ## Budget Impact The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of processing the request. Any engineering and legal costs associated with review of the applicant’s request are billed to the applicant’s escrow, or directly to the applicant if the escrow funds are insufficient. ## Action Requested The City Council is requested to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and decide on the PUD Concept Plan application. If the Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the following motion is requested: Motion and second to adopt the attached resolution approving the PUD Concept Plan. If the Council disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council must develop findings of fact to support its decision, and the following motion is requested: Motion and second to direct staff to draft a resolution for consideration at an upcoming meeting to deny the PUD Concept Plan application based on the City Council’s discussion and stated findings of fact. A simple majority vote (3/5) of the City Council is required for either motion. Page 101 of 193 Page 102 of 193 Page 103 of 193 Page 104 of 193 Page 105 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ## ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo, Magistad, and Braithwaite; Planning ## Director Griffiths; Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy ## Absent: Commissioner Holker ## 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Magistad moved, Longo seconded, approving the agenda for May 5, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## A. April 7, 2026 Planning Commissioner Meeting Minutes Chair Huskins stated that before the meeting, he found and submitted errors to the Staff. Longo moved, Braithwaite seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Brad Rosenberger, 19722 Waterford Court, stated that he was at the meeting to find out information about the development of Highway 7. He noted that the last information that he was on the stoplights at Old Market Road would be eliminated, and an exit going East onto Old Market Road, and an exit going East onto Highway 7 from Old Market Road, and no left-hand turns there. He asked if that was still the case and noted that the development is still a couple of years off. Planning Director Griffiths shared that there could be more conversation outside the meeting, but MnDOT has approved no official design at this point, and the project is largely unfunded. He shared that the City Engineer and the MnDOT rep would have the most up-to-date information, and he could put Mr. Rosenberger in contact with them. Mr. Rosenberger shared that his only concern is that if the last plan seen is the final plan, a lot of traffic would be going onto Radisson Road, the service road on the north side of Christmas Lake. The road is not designed to handle many cars passing because it is very narrow in places. ## 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS ## A. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN ## Applicant: Merle Steinkraus ## Location: 25485 State Highway 7 Page 106 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 2 of 13 Chair Huskins stated that this evening, the Planning Commission would consider a planned unit development concept plan for 25485 State Highway 7. Planner Osowski reviewed the request for a PUD as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins asked Planner Osowski to point out what the front, rear, and side are to determine the setbacks. Planner Osowski stated the front of the building is on Eureka Road, so a side along Highway 7. Chair Huskins asked if the distance to the property line conforms to the setbacks. Planner Osowski shared that it does conform to the zoning standards that are being requested. Chair Huskins pointed out that it is a major unknown, but there is a possibility that MnDOT could need more right-of-way than is being suggested in the application. Planner Osowski noted a potential, but in MnDOT’s review letter on the application, they did not state it as a concern. Chair Huskins asked if it is fair to state that there is a risk. Planner Osowski shared that it could potentially be a risk given that it is unknown what MnDOT is doing specifically with the intersection, if anything. Chair Huskins stated that it would not be unrealistic to assume that, if approved, the development would be underway or completed before the intersection is reconfigured. Planner Osowski shared that the development is likely to be underway or completed. Chair Huskins wondered what the risks are for the developer or the City of undoing something that has been approved. Commissioner Longo asked what is on the East side of the property. The map shows a ravine, and that is probably where the stormwater would go if there were more impervious surface. Planner Osowski asked whether he was referring to the lot's exterior boundaries. Commissioner Longo stated yes. Planner Osowski explained that it is a common area owned by the Walnut Grove Villas homeowner’s association, and the area is either a wetland or a stormwater pond. Commissioner Longo confirmed that the water would go there with more impervious surface, which is why he wondered what would go there. Planner Osowski noted that the Applicant could answer in a little more detail, which is probably why a stormwater pond is proposed on the East end of the property. Commissioner Magistad noted that the engineering report included a couple of requirements beyond those in the soil report. He asked if Planner Osowski could explain the requirements, line by line. Planner Osowski stated that the City Engineer mentioned providing a soil report based on the soil data, which indicates it might not be suitable for infiltration and that the Surface Water Management Plan Regulations may not be met, as basements may not be possible. He noted that the Engineer had several requirements. Commissioner Magistad noted that other agencies are mentioned, including MnDOT and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Planner Osowski noted that the Applicant would be required to get a permit with the Watershed District regardless. Commissioner Magistad asked if, as part of the requirements, the Applicant would be required to get permits from the Watershed District. Planner Osowski noted that it would be a requirement. Commissioner Longo stated that, in the previous planning, this zone was low-density, and there have been many conversations about the locations of low- and high-density zones in the City. Technically, being on a major throughway in the City, it could have been a high-density, or at least middle-density, area like the other nearby areas. He asked if there were any reasons why that specific corner was zoned low-density. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, as the surrounding neighborhoods have developed over time, the former property owner has not wished to participate in those development projects. So, the property remained with the low-density designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, while all the other property was developed around it with higher-density housing. He shared that there were no specific conversations about the Page 107 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 3 of 13 property, and the previous owner was not interested in developing it. Commissioner Longo asked whether there were any concerns about a roundabout or whether the space is needed for something else. Planning Director Griffiths shared that that was not the case. During the previous Comprehensive Planning cycle, any improvements by MnDOT were not known at that time, and are still not known. Typically, the Comprehensive Plan does provide higher-density housing locations along the busier roadways in the City. He added that, to his knowledge, there had been no in-depth conversations by the Council or the Commission on this area. Chair Huskins assumed that traffic studies had been done along Eureka Road when the other developments went in. He wondered what the traffic reports indicated about the increase on Eureka Road, rather than just paying attention to the incremental increase, because that would not be very much from just six homes. However, if the roadway is already at capacity, the six additional homes might affect traffic flow on Eureka Road. He asked if those traffic studies exist and if they could be made available. Planning Director Griffiths noted not being sure what was done with the previous proposal, as Shorewood Ponds is ten to fifteen years old at this point, so the information would have to be reviewed again. He added that, as part of the review conducted by Engineering and Public Works, the traffic capacity of Eureka Road was assessed. At this point, the addition of six homes would not significantly impact traffic. It would be good to work with MnDOT on the intersection, though. Ben Passolt, Civil Engineer, ELLIOTT Design Build, INC, shared that the Applicant hired his company to review the project at the conceptual level and help reach the first step in deciding what can be done with the site. He shared that the site is a leftover lot along the highway where there was one single-family home. There are denser homes to the North and denser multi-family units to the West. He stated that the thought was that townhomes would be a good use of the site, and that the concept was the best use. He noted that the impervious does go slightly over the limit, but at this stage, rights-of-way could change, so the limit is unknown. The setbacks are also a little unknown at this point, but the R-3 setbacks were what we were trying to meet, even though the application is a PUD, in case the Applicant did not go with a PUD option. He added that, since the application is just a concept plan for stormwater, no hard-and-fast designs have been done yet, but he tried to show the best solution for the site's stormwater from a high-level standpoint. There are many options for addressing stormwater. Chair Huskins asked if the snow would be plowed down to where the retention pond would be. Mr. Passolt shared that this is probably what would happen, but did not know whether Shorewood had a specific snow storage requirement; usually, it is ten percent. He added that snow storage would not be too big of an issue on this property. Chair Huskins noted that there is no need for a turnaround for the emergency vehicles, as the road is only 120 feet long. He asked how Mr. Passolt imagined the vehicles getting back out onto Eureka. Mr. Passolt stated that the Applicant is working with what the Fire Marshal told them to do, and that he does not know how the emergency vehicles get in and out. Commissioner Magistad asked why the Applicant landed on six units, since it does not necessarily fit within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Passolt stated that the six units fit the site well within the setbacks, and depending on what is done, certain approvals would be necessary. He added that six would fit with stormwater requirements and setbacks. Commissioner Magistad asked if two units would fit. Mr. Passolt agreed that two units would fit. Chair Huskins presumed that two units would be better conforming to the impervious surface. He asked if moving to two units was a feasible solution. Mr. Passolt stated that moving to two units would be a significant change to the design and would essentially be a complete redesign of the site. He added that this is why the Page 108 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 4 of 13 Applicant is there: to see what can be done from a development standpoint. Chair Huskins asked about four units. Mr. Passolt explained that, with four units, the architectural plans include a cut line, so the development could go to five units, which would be below the impervious limit. Commissioner Braithwaite asked whether, although this is just a concept plan, the location of the mailboxes has been looked into at all. Mr. Passolt shared that, at the concept stage, it had not been examined. Commissioner Longo asked whether the garages were single-car. Mr. Passolt shared that the garages are two-car, 23 feet wide. Commissioner Longo noted very small garages. Mr. Passolt explained that 23 feet is not that small; a standard two-car garage can be as small as 20 feet. Commissioner Longo asked where guests or additional cars would go. Mr. Passolt stated that more parking means more impervious surface. In previous iterations, there were three stalls off the back. He added that since the Applicant does not know what the parking requirement would be, it is unknown how many would need to be offered. Commissioner Longo stated that adding three stalls would significantly increase the impervious surface. Mr. Passolt noted that he did not know the number off the top of his head. Chair Huskins opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. Glen Coakley, 25430 Park Lane, stated that he recognized the hearing was a preliminary hearing and that some of his questions had already been addressed. He noted that one of the outstanding issues is that when he purchased his house about a year ago in the Walnut Grove Villas, he was informed of a height restriction of less than two stories. The application would be three stories high. He asked if that would require a variance. Chair Huskins noted that he was unaware that the units would be three stories; he thought that they were two. Mr. Passolt shared that the units are two stories. Mr. Coakley stated that, despite a garage below, the units are still only two stories high. He asked whether developing a multistory garage with two living spaces above it, each reaching 50 feet in height, would still be considered only two stories. Planning Director Griffiths shared that there is a bit of nuance in the rules for the Walnut Grove Villas and this property. He explained that the Walnut Grove Villas neighborhood was approved under its own PUD. In Walnut Grove Villas, there is a restriction that the homes cannot exceed two stories. He added that this application is not a part of that project. In this area, the rest of the City Code applies, which limits the maximum height to 35 feet or less. He stated that, at this time, the proposal would conceptually comply with the City Code. Still, the Applicant could request a deviation from the City Code, just as Walnut Grove Villas did with several different matters. He noted that at this point in the project, there is something to consider: the surrounding area has its own rules that differ from the City Code. He stated that the Applicant can request to create their own rules for the neighborhood. Chair Huskins asked what Mr. Coakley’s particular concern is, assuming that the structures are higher. Mr. Coakley shared that he did not think the height would fit with the surrounding buildings and, aesthetically, be at that height rather than the others. Mr. Coakley asked if there was any further information about MnDOT’s plan or when there might be further information. Planning Director Griffiths shared that MnDOT completed its planning study and identified several conceptual layouts for Highway 7. He added that MnDOT has a small project slated for 2029, which is largely unfunded at this time. The City does not yet know what the project will look like, but may have a clearer idea when the Legislative Session wraps up on May 18. Page 109 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Coakley shared that there is work being done on the Northern part of Eureka, and he could not determine whether it would go all the way down to Highway 7. He added that he hoped effort would be given to coordinate the work on Eureka, Highway 7, and this possible new development. Planner Osowski noted that Midco is currently working on Eureka Road. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the City has been in communication with MnDOT, and whatever happens with the site will be coordinated with the agencies. Ted Koenecke, 25405 Park Lane, stated that he has two concerns. One issue is traffic, which has already been addressed, but it becomes increasingly difficult in the summer when Freeman fields are in use. He added that the density of six units and what that may add, as it is very dangerous to pull out during rush hour. The new units would take the issue and make things a little more complex. The other issue is the density of six buildings. He noted that being in the fourth building would not affect him directly, but if many barriers are removed without adding better barriers that block more sound, that could be an issue. He stated that there is no way of knowing what the buildings would look like, as there are only renderings right now. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Longo shared that his major concern is navigation. He stated that there would not be enough room for all units to navigate with all of the vehicles. He added that six units is too much. He asked if the quantity of the units is not being decided today. Planning Director Griffiths explained that at this point in the process, the Commission is reviewing a concept plan, a rough draft for the site. He shared that the Applicant is seeking to determine whether the Commission is favorable to the project, recommends changes, or has no path forward. The Commission can provide that feedback. Mr. Passolt stated to pull up the first page of the architectural plans, which shows the parking a little better. He added that parking or storage should not be a major concern for the units. Chair Huskins stated that MnDOT had commented that the trees might not block the sound from Highway 7, and that alternative technology might need to be considered. Mr. Passolt shared that since the project is still conceptual, the sound has not yet been determined. Trees are currently shown on the plans, but the Applicant is open to other options. Chair Huskins noted those would be reviewed at a subsequent stage. Commissioner Magistad asked if MnDOT could provide recommendations based on rights-of-way and future scenarios. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff could reach out again to see whether MnDOT is willing to provide a more specific recommendation. Still, the letter in the Agenda Packet is MnDOT's recommendation after reviewing the entire plan set. Chair Huskins noted concerns about the impervious surface, especially given the preliminary soil reports. He added that he is not opposed to the development at the concept stage, but if the number of units were reduced to four or five, that would be more appropriate for the site. Commissioner Magistad shared those concerns with Chair Huskins. He added that he is in no position to say how many units is the correct number, but there are too many contingencies for the rezoning of the one-acre parcel. Chair Huskins noted that the density is greater than that of any adjoining development. Merle Steinkraus, the Applicant, stated that the concept is preliminary and that he is there to see what the Commission would approve, so five units would be okay and there would be no problem. He shared that the plans allow for cutting off one of the units, and so the proposal would probably Page 110 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 6 of 13 be a three-unit backing up to Highway 7 and a two-unit backing up to the north side. Then the site would be in good shape for the impervious surface. Chair Huskins asked whether, if the Commission makes a recommendation for approval to the Council, the number of units on the property needs to be addressed. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the Applicant is at the meeting seeking the Commission’s preliminary feedback on the concept. If there are concerns or specific requests that the Commission would like the Applicant to address, they can be included in the recommendation. He added that the Commission can revisit things in the future, but if there are requests or changes the Commission would like to see, now is the time to provide feedback. Chair Huskins stated that a reduction to five units would be acceptable. He noted concerns with the part of the property that abuts Highway 7 from a sound and safety standpoint. In the Southeast corner, there was a note of property that could be used as joint property for all of the residents, but that is closer to the road. He raised concerns about the lane and asked whether the entire area would be the fire lane. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it is correct and in line with the understanding of the Fire Marshal’s comments. Many of the details would need to be fleshed out. No street parking would be allowed. Chair Huskins shared that the curbs would be painted yellow along the entire lane. He noted that his comments are in addition to the Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Magistad would like the City to follow up with MnDOT to ask specific questions about right-of-way and what the future might hold. Commissioner Longo shared that if MnDOT decides to add a roundabout, the entire design is gone. Chair Huskins shared that if the Applicant moves forward with the plans, it would be up to MnDOT whether there is new development that conforms to the plans or whether something that has been built needs to be undone. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff can reach out to MnDOT between now and the City Council meeting to see whether they will make a recommendation. Chair Huskins asked if there would be another public hearing. Planner Osowski shared that this meeting is the Public Hearing for the PUD concept plan, and that City Council would take it up for discussion. With future stages, there would be more public hearings. Commissioner Magistad stated there could be a new concept. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the PUD concept plan application is optional, and the Staff encouraged the Applicant to follow that process because the property is unique. Based on the feedback, the Applicant could provide another concept plan or, at their own risk, move forward with another application. Chair Huskins reiterated the need to be clear about the recommendations, including those from the Staff. He shared that, so far, there is a concern about the density of six units and that he was comfortable with five units. Commissioner Longo shared that five would be good to help with the impervious surface and to address the navigational issues. Commissioner Magistad shared that his concern is the impervious surface; if five units mitigate it, he would be fine with that. He shared that there are many contingencies and that if the City is being asked to rezone, the impervious surface requirements must be met. Commissioner Longo stated that they should be more specific with five units, as they are sized in the plan today. Mr. Passolt spoke on the impervious surface. The lot limit, with part in the Shoreland Overlay District, is 1,000 feet from Lake Minnewashta. The area that is not in Lake Minnewashta is 33 percent, and the area that is is 25 percent, so the impervious surface is right in between, about 1,000 square feet over. He added that, with the Watershed, a permit would need to be pulled regardless of what is done, as that is standard operating procedure. From an engineering perspective, 1.1 inches of rainwater needed to be captured over the area, which is about 600 cubic feet. In terms of the overall pond sizing, the only increase needed is approximately 10 percent at this rough concept stage. He added that Page 111 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 7 of 13 exceeding the impervious surface limit right now is not a major change, as the rate requirement, volume retention requirements, and water quality treatment would all still be met. Chair Huskins stated that it would be appropriate to stay within the Staff’s recommendation on the impervious surface requirements and that it would not necessarily have to be the five units. He noted being concerned about safety and sound on the part of the property that abuts Highway 7, and about the in and out of emergency vehicles without an obvious place to turn around. Commissioner Longo pointed out that keeping with the five units would limit the number of cars and residents who need to navigate around. Commissioner Braithwaite pointed out that the Commission could state five units with a higher footprint but still fall within the footprint, resulting in one fewer household. Chair Huskins added that this may also allow the movement of large vehicles. Commissioner Braithwaite noted that the vast majority of emergency vehicles would have to back out and provide their own traffic control, but being right off of Highway 7 is a little unique. Chair Huskins asked if both the requirements should be stated: the reduction to the units and the impervious surface requirements. Commissioner Magistad stated that he is okay with that, but also wants the MnDOT recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it can be included in the recommendation. Commissioner Braithwaite expressed appreciation to the Applicant for considering the future proposed right-of-way versus what the City has now. The setbacks are in line with that. He added that his biggest hesitancy is the risk of changes at the what-if intersection, especially in the case of a roundabout. The lower density may also allow for more space. He stated that the plan could be revisited if more information were obtained from MnDOT. Commissioner Magistad pointed out that this project may not be unique, as any development along Highway 7 may have the same issues. Commissioner Braithwaite stated that he is in favor of rezoning this area, as it can accommodate higher density. He noted liking the townhome concept. Chair Huskins asked about the project's height. Commissioner Braithwaite pointed out that if the project were a single-family home, the height may be higher as well. He stated that with the units being right next to Highway 7, they did not strike him as grotesque. He added that if there were height along Highway 7, that would be the appropriate corridor. The tree screening may help to eliminate that as well, and the majority of the trees on the north side are being kept. Chair Huskins summarized the concern to the Applicant: the Commission wishes the Applicant consider five units instead of six to conform with the stated impervious surface, consider the side of the property that abuts to Highway 7 and what type of trees might be enough for sound abatement and safety, more consideration given to emergency vehicles entering and exiting along the fire lane corridor, and all of the other recommendations of the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths noted the coordination with MnDOT. Chair Huskins asked if the Staff would do that. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff will reach out to obtain more information before the Council meeting. Chair Huskins stated that information would be shared with the Applicant. Chair Huskins asked to review the conditions from the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths shared that from the Staff’s perspective, the recommendations are fairly standard for any concept plan application of this kind. He reviewed the conditions that were in the Packet. Chair Huskins asked whether the Applicant understood the conditions and whether they wished to comment. Mr. Steinkraus stated that MnDOT may not be able to get back to the City before the Council meeting. He asked where that leaves the application, then. Planning Director Griffiths said they would do their best. Chair Huskins noted that any recommendation that the Commission Page 112 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## MAY 5, 2026 Page 8 of 13 makes would not be contingent on having that information. Commissioner Magistad noted disagreement with there being no contingency regarding whether MnDOT gets back to the City. Chair Huskins shared that it would be contingent upon the Staff reaching out. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, in his experience, MnDOT does not provide formal comments until a project is more fleshed out. He added that the City has a good working relationship with MnDOT and is fairly optimistic that there will be some response. He shared that the Commission and the Council could state that this needs to be figured out, and that, as the project moves forward, with the next application, this is something that absolutely needs to be said by MnDOT. He added that the Staff understands the Commission's direction. Braithwaite moved, Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 25485 State Highway 7, including the nine Staff conditions with additional recommendations of sound and safety abatement along Highway 7, to meet the impervious surface limits, to reduce overall density by one unit down to five, Staff requests further feedback from MnDOT, and to improve the ingress and egress. Motion passed 4/0. Planner Osowski stated that the application will be taken to the Council on May 26. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:18 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:23 P.M. ## 5. OTHER BUSINESS – ## A. Discuss Zoning Code Update Planning Director Griffiths introduced the HKGi consultants for a presentation. Beth Richmond, a Consultant with HKGi, stated that the presentation was intended to show what has been done over the last several months. She shared that the Phase One update to the Zoning Code has been in progress. She noted that, along with the Staff, a fully drafted document has been prepared. This is being presented to the Commission to answer questions or provide clarification before the information moves into the next Phase, which includes opening for public comment, Commission review, and formal adoption. She reminded that the project came out of the Zoning Code Audit, which was completed in October 2025. The Audit project was reviewing the existing code and identifying areas that needed changes, updates, or clarification. From the Audit came a comprehensive list of items intended to be changed during Phases One and Two. She added that the items were gone through with the Staff to determine what was Phase One and what was Phase Two. In Phase One, primarily, the items being addressed are those that make the Code more usable. That entails adding tables and graphics, reorganizing the Code, adjusting some zoning districts, and updating the Code's procedures. Ms. Richmond noted that the project was kicked off in December and that the Code updates were made in the winter and early spring. Now in May, the consultants are meeting with the Commission and the City Council to give them a preview of the full draft to review, with the Code adoption process taking place early this summer. She shared that the big goal of Phase One is to make the Code more usable by reorganizing, ensuring consistency with references, using different terminology and language, and improving graphics and tables. The graphics and tables can clarify and illustrate some of the trickier standards. She showed an example of a graphic that would be used in the Code. She explained that, right now, the Code has 26 sections, and, in reorganizing, they considered how to group the topics and sections in a way that makes sense to all. She gave an example of the base districts being consolidated in one place within the Code Page 113 of 193 952-960-7900 cityhall@shorewoodmn.gov 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 shorewoodMN.gov ## LOCATION MAP Page 114 of 193 5305 Wooddale Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: (612) 220-0152 www.elliottdesignbuild.com March 20 th , 2026 ## RE: 25485 Hwy 7 Development Concept Plan Project Narrative ## Background The subject property at 25485 Hwy 7 Shorewood, is a 1.01 acre lot currently zoned as R-1A Residential. There was a single-family house which has been demolished. There is a range of property types surrounding the subject lot. The property to the north was recently rezoned to a PUD with 14 single-family homes. The property to the west of Eureka Rd is a townhome development with several quadrominiums. The subject property is the leftover single-family lot that has not developed for higher density. The city has indicated that the west property line must be adjusted so there is 60’ of right-of-way along Eureka Rd. This concept plan was designed assuming the west property line was moved in line with the new property line for the development to the north. Elliott Design Build has prepared this concept plan submittal on behalf of the property owners to rezone to a PUD and construct two triplexes. ## Proposed Development The proposed development consists of two three-unit structures for a total of six units. The units are two stories, each with a 1,460 sf footprint. Each unit has a two-car garage with 2 guest parking stalls provided in front of the garage. Vehicle access would be provided off of Eureka Rd with a 25’ entrance and a 30’ wide drive aisle between the buildings. The proposed layout leaves a large common area in the southeast of the site which could be used as a recreation area. The subject property would be subdivided into 6 individual lots for each unit, with common space owned and managed by an HOA. The HOA would handle ongoing maintenance of the shared space and landscaping. The existing watermain ends around the intersection of Eureka Rd and Park Ln. This would need to be extended to provide water for the development. Sanitary sewer would also need to be installed. Stormwater would be managed by an infiltration basin in the east to capture and treat runoff in order to meet city and watershed stormwater requirements. Healthy and significant trees were tagged and identified by Stephen Mastey, PLA on 2/3/2026. Dead, damaged, or insignificant trees were not tagged. There are currently 52 healthy and significant trees on the property mostly clustered along the north side. The site layout is designed to minimize the impact on the trees. 21 trees are currently proposed to be removed. Per zoning code no more than 8 trees per acre can be required to be replaced and this scenario meets that requirement, but more than 8 trees would be replaced to provide sufficient screening along Hwy 7 and Eureka Rd. The southern portion of the site is within 1,000 ft of Lake Minnewashta. This portion is within the shoreland protection zone. The maximum allowable impervious is calculated using the weighted Page 115 of 193 5305 Wooddale Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: (612) 220-0152 www.elliottdesignbuild.com average of area in the shoreland protection zone. Maximum impervious for this site is approximately 28% assuming the west property line is adjusted. The proposed hardcover for the site is 31%. Additional impervious allowance is requested for the development. ## Neighborhood Fit The lot is currently designated as low density residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would allow for medium density development which fits with the surrounding land uses: medium density townhomes to the west and a low-density PUD to the north. The goal of this development is to provide a transition between Hwy 7 and the minimal density residential homes further north along Eureka Rd. These multi-family structures would increase the variety of housing options in the city and provide ownership opportunities at a more attainable price point. This housing type would appeal to young professionals trying to live in Shorewood and residents looking to downsize while staying in the area. ## PUD We are requesting the land be rezoned to a PUD for this development. The city has indicated that additional right-of-way may be needed along Eureka Rd and Hwy 7. Altering lot boundaries would impact setbacks, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious surface area. As the boundary line of the lot is uncertain, rezoning to a PUD would allow for greater flexibility during the design process. The site was designed to meet R-3A setbacks. ## Contacts • Civil Engineer – Lance Elliott, P.E. – Elliott Design Build Inc. (612) 220-0152 • Surveyor – Frank Cardarelle, RLS – Frank Cardarelle Land Surveying (952) 941-3031 We look forward to working with City staff, the planning commission, and the city council as this project moves forward. ## Sincerely, Lance Elliott, P.E. ## Civil Engineer Page 116 of 193 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 3.1% 5.8% 2.8% 2.5% 2.0% 3.0% 4.7% 4.4% ## FRANK CARDARELLE ## LAND SURVEYING ##  :OODDALE AVE ## EDINA MN  ## %US  ## EMAILCARDARELLELS#GMAILCOM ## I +ERE%Y CERTIFY T+AT T+IS SURVEY ## :AS PREPARED %Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND T+AT I AM ADULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORUNDER T+E LA:S OF T+E STATE OFMINNESOTAFRANK R CARDARELLE REG NO DATE  ## PREPARED FOR ## MERLE STEINKRAUS ## CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## F CARDARELLE ## DATE  ## PAGE N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## C ## REV  ##  OF  ## SI=E ; Page 117 of 193 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 60.0 75.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 75.2 75.2 34.2 30.0 30.0 54.0 90.0 54.0 90.0 | | | | | | | | | | | ## PREPARED FOR ## KIST STEINKRAUS DEVELOPMENT LLC ## CONCEPT PLAN ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## DATE ## PA*E N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## REV  ## SI=E ; ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR ## CONSTRUCTION ## L ELLIOTT  ## E ##  OF  ## ELLIOTT DESI*N %UILD ##  OLIVER AVE S ## MINNEAPOLIS MN  ## %US   ## EMAIL INFO#ELLIOTTDESI*N%UILDCOM ## ENTRANCE FIRE   Page 118 of 193 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ## PREPARED FOR ## KIST STEINKRAUS DEVELOPMENT LLC ## TREE INVENTORY ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## DATE ## PA*E N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## REV ## SI=E ; ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR ## CONSTRUCTION ## L ELLIOTT  ## E ##  OF  ## ELLIOTT DESI*N %UILD ##  OLIVER AVE S ## MINNEAPOLIS MN  ## %US   ## EMAIL INFO#ELLIOTTDESI*N%UILDCOM  ## ENTRANCE FIRE   Page 119 of 193 ## R-1 ## A ## R-1 ## A ## R-1C ## R-1 ## A ## PUD ## R-1 ## A Page 120 of 193 Page 121 of 193 Page 122 of 193 Page 123 of 193 Page 124 of 193 Page 125 of 193 Page 126 of 193 Page 127 of 193 Page 128 of 193 ## PREPARED BY: ## LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. ## STEPHEN MASTEY,  LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ## 202 Water Street, Suite 209 ## EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ## P. 651.246.1151 ## EMAIL : STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COM ## PROJECT SITE: 25485 Hwy 7 ## Shorewood, MN 55331 ## TREE INVENTORY 2/3/2026Page 1 of 3 Page 129 of 193 ## Tree Tag # ## Size (" dbh) ## Common NameScientific NameNotes ## 110,10,10 Apple Tree Malus species clump (3) /declining 210Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica 39Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 49Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 58Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 610Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 718HackberryCeltis occidentalis 811Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 914Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1022Black WalnutJuglans nigra 118Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 128Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1311Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1410Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1511Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1613Elm Ulmus americana 1716Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1815Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1913Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2016Black WalnutJuglans nigra 219Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2213Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2310Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2411Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2511Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2610Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2710Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2813Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2918Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3012Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 319Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3213Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3315Elm Ulmus americana 3418Black WalnutJuglans nigra 359Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3612Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 379Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2/3/2026Page 2 of 3 Page 130 of 193 ## Tree Tag # ## Size (" dbh) ## Common NameScientific NameNotes 3812Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3910Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4010Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4110Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 429Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4310Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 449Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4510Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 469Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 479Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 488Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4911Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 509Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 5114Black WalnutJuglans nigra 5226Red Maple Acer rubrum ## City Arborist Notes: Boxelder, Cottonwood and Willow Trees shall NOT be considered to be significant trees in the City of Shorewood. 2/3/2026Page 3 of 3 Page 131 of 193 February 9, 2026 ## Elliott ## 5305 Wooddale Ave ## Edina, MN 55424 ## Re: 25485 Highway 7 Project ## Dear Applicant, I have reviewed the plans for the three unit Townhouse project in Shorewood. Please make sure that the following issues are addressed as you complete your project. The list below is based on review of the plans received by the City of Shorewood, but not limited to, the review of future submitted plans, tests conducted, or items found during the construction process. ## General • Provide a construction/project timeline to the Excelsior Fire District. • Provide emergency contact information for the project to the Excelsior Fire District. ## Fire Prevention and Safety • The townhomes are required to have a Fire Sprinkler System installed. ## Minnesota Administrative Rules ## 1309.0313 SECTION R313, AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in townhouses. ## Exceptions: 1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in a two-unit townhouse, unless required by section R313.4. 2. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. ## Excelsior Fire District In partnership with the Communities of: ## Deephaven-Excelsior-Greenwood-Shorewood-Tonka Bay ## 24100 Smithtown Road ## Shorewood, MN. 55331  kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org 952-960-1692 Page 132 of 193 • The Access Road must meet the requirements of MSFC Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. The Excelsior Fire District requires narrative and plans that reflect the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code, Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. o Include sections D103.1 Access Road width with a hydrant in the narrative. • Notify the Excelsior Fire District if propane will be used to heat the town homes while they are under construction. Propane tanks and storage must follow NFPA 58 2017 Edition and other affiliated codes and standards. • Construction site fire extinguishers must be at least 4.5-pounds, shall be mounted and/or secure from tipping, be in plain sight, and assessable during construction. A fire extinguisher is required for each building under construction. • Construction site fire extinguisher(s) must have a current inspection tag and be assessable at all times. • Only combustible storage related to construction should be allowed on site. • Only the amount of gasoline, propane, or other fuels related to construction are allowed to be stored on site. ## Future Plan Submissions • Plan reviews require 14 business days to review from the date the plans, hydraulic calculations, data sheets, and other required documents are received by the Excelsior Fire District. All items listed above must be received before the plans are reviewed. o Note: The Excelsior Fire District will keep the items mentioned above for our records. o Plans from all five cities are reviewed in the order they are received and not by the size of the job or square footage of the building. ## Emergency Vehicles Access • Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained at all times. • “No Parking Fire Lane ” signs must meet the requirements of Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Road of the Minnesota State Fire Code. • Paint all the Fire Lane curbs yellow. • To always assure access for Fire Apparatus and other emergency vehicles, please advise, concrete companies, vendors, sub-contractors , delivery companies, and landscapers not to block access to the site or any hydrants regardless of their location. ## During Construction • The dumpster(s) must be placed per the Minnesota State Building Code, Section 304, ## Combustible Waste Material Page 133 of 193 ## Addressing ## Temporary Address During Construction: • Must be posted on each Townhome construction site as soon as construction begins. • Townhome numbers must be clearly displayed. • Numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • Should be in a place that it cannot be covered by snow, snow plowing, over growth, bushes, dumpsters, or garbage. • Note: The address may need to be placed in several areas to be seen by emergency personnel. ## Permanent Address Posting: • A permanent address is required before the residence can be occupied, see below for addressing details. • Townhome address numbers must be clearly displayed. • Townhome numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • Townhome numbers must be clearly displayed. • The address must be visible from the middle of the street during all times of the year and all hours of the day. • Numbers must be a contrasting color with background they will be mounted on or engraved in. • The address numbers must be permanently displayed, i.e., carved, engraved, or mounted. • Townhouse numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • The address should be in a place that cannot be covered by snow, snow plowing, overgrowth, bushes, garbage, or recycling cans stored or pulled to the curb. Page 134 of 193 ## Hydrants • The Hydrant location is approved by the Excelsior Fire District Fire Marshal based on the submitted plans (1-20-2026). • Hydrant signs cannot be within 3 feet of the hydrant. Minnesota State Fire Code Sections 507.5.4-507.5.6 • Hydrants require 3 feet of working space around them at all times, trees, shrubs, perennials, and other landscaping elements shall not impede on the 3 foot perimeter over time. ## Lease and/or Homeowners Association Fire Safety Recommendations • Electric bicycles and electric scooters ( e-bikes and e-scooters) o Should not be stored in the dwellings o Cannot be changed inside the dwellings. • No Grilling on roof tops or patios • Use Minnesota State Fire Code Appendix O, Fire or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios verbiage. Appendix available upon request. Note: I will be out of the office, and have limited availability from Tuesday, February 17 th to ## Monday, March 16 th . I will be available to respond to e mails and phones calls; however, there will be times I’ll be in areas where there is no cell service. 2-3 days. ## Respectfully, ## Kellie Murphy-Ringate ## Excelsior Fire District Fire Marshal 952-960-1692 ## Kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org Page 135 of 193 ## 1309.0313SECTION R313, AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.​ IRC section R313 is amended to read as follows:​ R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler​ system shall be installed in townhouses.​ ## Exceptions:​ 1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in a​ two-unit townhouse, unless required by section R313.4.​ 2. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required when additions or​ alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire​ sprinkler system installed.​ R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for​ townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA​ ## 13D.​ R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems. An automatic residential fire​ sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in one- and two-family dwellings, unless​ required by section R313.4.​ R313.2.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be​ designed and installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA 13D.​ R313.3 Installation requirements. When an automatic sprinkler system is required in​ two-family dwellings, it shall be installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA 13D.​ Automatic sprinkler systems required in two-family dwellings and townhouse buildings​ shall be installed in accordance with the following:​ 1. Attached garages are required to have one dry head sprinkler located within 5​ lineal feet of each door installed in the common wall separating the dwelling unit​ and the attached garage;​ 2. Attached covered patios, covered decks, covered porches, and similar structures​ are required to have automatic sprinklers with a minimum of one dry head for every​ 20 lineal feet (6.096 m) of common wall between the dwelling unit and the covered​ patio, covered deck, covered porch, or similar structure.​ Exception: Attached roofs of covered patios, covered decks, covered porches, or similar​ structures that do not exceed 40 square feet (3,716 m 2 ) of floor area.​ R313.4 State-licensed facilities. One- and two-family dwellings and townhouse buildings​ containing facilities required to be licensed or registered by the state of Minnesota shall be​ provided with an automatic sprinkler system required by the applicable licensing provisions of​ that agency or according to this part, whichever is more restrictive.​ Copyright © 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.​ ## 1309.0313​MINNESOTA RULES​1​ Page 136 of 193 Statutory Authority: MS s 16B.59; 16B.61; 16B.64; 326B.02; 326B.101; 326B.106; 326B.13;​ L 2017 c 20 s 1​ History: 32 SR 12; L 2007 c 140 art 4 s 61; art 13 s 4; 39 SR 91; 41 SR 1399​ Published Electronically:August 22, 2018​ Copyright © 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.​ ## 2​MINNESOTA RULES​1309.0313​ Page 137 of 193 Page 138 of 193 Page 139 of 193 Page 140 of 193 H:\SHWD\26X142587000\1_Corres\C_To Others\Concept Submittal 2\Highway 7 PUD - Concept Submittal 2 Plan Review .docx ## MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 2026 ## To: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## From: Andrew Budde, PE ## Subject: 25485 Hwy 7 Concept Plan Submittal #2 Review ## City of Shorewood ## Project No.: 26X142587 The following documents were submitted for a concept review of compliance with the City of Shorewood’s City Code/ Local Surface Water Management Plan and Engineering Standards: • 2026 02 03 – Tree Preservation Worksheet • Application • Civil Plan REV 1 3-25-26 • Floorplan and Elevations ## • Project Narrative • Survey ## • Zoning Map This review only included the documents listed above, primarily dealing with general site layout, utilities, tree preservation, and landscaping. These comments should be incorporated to future preliminary plat submittals. ## Grading, Drainage, Stormwater 1. Provide a Soil Report for the site. 2. Based on the soil data provided by USGS Soils Map, it appears the majority of the site is HSG C/D soil and may not be suitable for infiltration. 3. The property must meet the City of Shorewood Surface Water Management Plan Regulations (Section 5.3) including, but not limited to: a. Future discharge rates shall not exceed existing discharge rates modelled for the 1-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events b. Provide groundwater data and verify that the low floor elevation is i. 4.0 feet above groundwater elevations in the area. ii. 2.0 feet above known historic high groundwater elevations. iii. 1.0 feet above the 100-year high water elevation. c. Provide sizing calculations for abstraction of one inch of rainfall over the net new impervious of the site. 4. Due to potentially high groundwater, basements may not be possible. Page 141 of 193 Name: 25485 Hwy 7 Date: April 7, 2026 Page: 2 5. Proposed hardcover exceeds maximum allowable hardcovers established by the City and Shoreland zone. 6. Grade the property such that runoff rates to neighboring properties will not be increased from existing conditions, including MnDOT right of way. 7. Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter into an agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed and recorded with the final plat. 8. Permits will be required with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ## Sanitary Sewer/Watermain 9. A minimum 8” diameter watermain shall be extended from the Eureka Rd/Park Lake intersection. 10. An individual water service and curb stop shut off valve shall be provided for each unit (6 total). 11. A minimum 8” diameter sanitary sewer shall be extended from Eureka Rd. The eastern manhole shall be placed so all services are installed perpendicular to the main. 12. An individual sewer service shall be provided for each unit (6 total). 13. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with Shorewood’s Construction Standards and Details updated in 2025. 14. Utility installations will likely require road closures and detours of Eureka Road. Traffic control plans will be required prior to construction. 15. Easements shall be provided over sanitary sewer and watermains. ## Roadway 16. MnDOT is currently planning improvements to TH 7 and likely to include access changes at the TH 7/Eureka Road intersection. Construction is slated for 2029. 17. Additional comments will be provided on future plan reviews. Page 142 of 193 ## Metropolitan District ## 1500 County Road B-2 West ## Roseville, MN 55113 Page 1 of 3 March 10, 2026 ## Aaron Osowski ## Planner ## City of Shorewood ## 5755 Country Club Road ## Shorewood, MN 55331 SUBJECT: 25485 Hwy 7 ## MnDOT Review #S26-009 ## NE Quadrant of MN 7 and Eureka Rd ## Shorewood, Hennepin County ## Dear Aaron Osowski, Thank you for submitting the concept plans for the project at 25485 Hwy 7. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, and has the following comments: ## Highway 7 MnDOT Project MnDOT has a planned project for construction in 2029/2030 that could affect the access of Eureka Rd at TH 7. Possible changes could require different right-of-way needs. The developer should coordinate with the City of Shorewood and MnDOT. For questions and further coordination on this project, please contact Kyle Fitterer, West Area Engineer, at kyle.fitterer@state.mn.us or 651-440-4057. ## Water Resources From the plans provided, it is not clear where the site or infiltration basin will ultimately drain. If site grading and development alters drainage patterns or rates of discharge to TH 7 Right of Way, then a MnDOT drainage permit will be required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload this letter with the drainage permit application. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. Please contact Derek Beauduy, Water Resources Engineering, at derek.beauduy@state.mn.us or 651-234-7522 with any questions. ## Noise MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic Page 143 of 193 Page 2 of 3 noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities with the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy, please contact Natalie Ries in Metro District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at natalie.ries@state.mn.us or 651-234-7681. ## Permits Any use of, work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. The applicant can apply for permits and upload plans here: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please include a copy of this letter with all permit submissions. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Jeff Dierberger of MnDOT’s Metro District Permits Section at jeffrey.dierberger@state.mn.us or 651-775-0404. ## Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded to. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. You are welcome to contact me at regina.burstein@state.mn.us with any questions. ## Sincerely, ## Regina Burstein ## Senior Planner Page 144 of 193 Page 3 of 3 Copy sent via email: ## Derek Beauduy, Water Resources ## Jeff Dierberger, Permits ## Doug Nelson, Right of Way ## Zaheer Khan, Traffic ## Amrish Patel, Transit ## Natalie Ries, Noise ## Kyle Fitterer, West Area Engineer ## Ryan Wilson, West Area Manager ## Heather Gardner, Design ## Michael Kowski, Maintenance ## Tristan Trejo, Ped/Bike/ADA Planning ## Brandon Davis, Surveying ## Tod Sherman, Planning ## Cameron Muhic, Planning ## Joseph Widing, Metropolitan Council Page 145 of 193 This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. ## Outlook Re: Updated Application Received - 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan FromToot, Ryan (He/Him/His) (DNR) <Ryan.Toot@state.mn.us> DateTue 4/7/2026 8:14 AM ## ToAaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Aaron, Thank you for keeping me in the loop on this PUD. No comments from DNR. ## Ryan Toot (he/him) North Metro Area Hydrologist | Central Region | Ecological and Water Resources ## Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ## 1200 Warner Rd ## St. Paul, MN 55106 Office: 651-259-5822 Email: ryan.toot@state.mn.us ## From: Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 8:59 AM To: Marc Nevinski <mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Jared Shepherd <JShepherd@ck-law.com>; Andrew Budde <andrew.budde@bolton-menk.com>; Building <building@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; ## Jeanne Schmuck <jschmuck@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Cc: Toot, Ryan (He/Him/His) (DNR) <Ryan.Toot@state.mn.us>; Permitting <permitting@minnehahacreek.org> <permitting@minnehahacreek.org>; 'Kellie Murphy Ringate' <kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org> Subject: Updated Application Received - 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan You don't often get email from aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us. Learn why this is important Hi everyone, The City of Shorewood has received updated application materials for a PUD Concept Plan for a 6-unit, 2-building townhome development at 25485 Hwy 7, located at the intersection of Hwy 7 and Eureka Rd. Application materials are attached. Please review and provide any comments to me at aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov by Friday, April 10, or sooner. The property is located partially within a shoreland overlay district. There is an escrow for legal and engineering review. If you provided comments on this project when I sent out their initial application materials on Feb. 4, please let me know whether you would like your comments amended or kept the same. The application has only changed slightly since the first submission. Thank you! 4/7/26, 3:44 PMInbox - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQAEYy9udmYnNBkXkQCddCtg...1/2 Page 146 of 193 ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov 4/7/26, 3:44 PMInbox - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQAEYy9udmYnNBkXkQCddCtg...2/2 Page 147 of 193 Page 148 of 193 ## Outlook Fw: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## FromAaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> DateThu 4/23/2026 10:36 AM ## ToMerle Steinkraus <merle.steinkraus@gmail.com>; Jeff Kist <kistjl@gmail.com> ## CcLance Elliott <lance@elliottdesignbuild.com>; Work <bpassolt@elliottdesignbuild.com> Hi Merle & others, See the comment below from a Shorewood resident regarding your pending application. Just a heads up that this will be included in the Planning Commission packet. Thanks! ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov ## From: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:46 AM To: Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Marc Nevinski <mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: FW: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. Please see email below. It was addressed to City Council, but I did not forward to them. Thank you, ## NELIA CRISWELL ## Administrative Assistant ## City Hall: ## 5755 Country Club Road ncriswell@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Shorewood, MN 55331 www.shorewoodmn.gov -----Original Message----- ## From: Patricia Wolff <mnmaven@yahoo.com> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 7:31 AM 4/23/26, 11:06 AMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQACRvYJYvyO1Knq8QJ0zTgA...1/2 Page 149 of 193 ## To: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Dear Shorewood City Council: Please do not allow more homes to be built at the intersection of highway 7 and Eureka Road. There is already too much vehicle traffic along narrow Eureka Road and too much congestion at the dangerous intersection with highway 7. I have seen too many close calls with vehicles trying to get onto highway 7. Death and injuries caused by accidents at this intersection must be considered over financial profits. Furthermore, funneling traffic from this development to the north on Eureka and onto Smithtown Road makes no sense either as the streets are narrow and already congested with cars, delivery vans, work trucks, school buses, emergency vehicles, etc. Traffic flow is also impacted every time there are projects related to road maintenance, tree cutting, and utility work. In addition, the Eureka-Smithtown area is a corridor for wildlife, walkers, runners, and bicyclists, not to mention school kids going to and from the elementary school and Freeman Park. Their safety must also be considered. The residents along Smithtown and Eureka Road do not want more traffic congestion in this neighborhood. ## Patricia Wolff ## 25840 Smithtown Road ## Shorewood MN 55331 4/23/26, 11:06 AMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQACRvYJYvyO1Knq8QJ0zTgA...2/2 Page 150 of 193 1 ## Aaron Osowski From:CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:46 AM ## To: ## Jake Griffiths; Aaron Osowski; Marc Nevinski ## Subject: FW: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up ## Flag Status: ## Flagged Please see email below. It was addressed to City Council, but I did not forward to them. Thank you, ## NELIA CRISWELL ## AdministraƟve Assistant ## City Hall: ## 5755 Country Club Road ncriswell@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Shorewood, MN 55331 www.shorewoodmn.gov -----Original Message----- ## From: Patricia Wolff <mnmaven@yahoo.com> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 7:31 AM ## To: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Dear Shorewood City Council: Please do not allow more homes to be built at the intersecƟon of highway 7 and Eureka Road. There is already too much vehicle traffic along narrow Eureka Road and too much congesƟon at the dangerous intersecƟon with highway 7. I have seen too many close calls with vehicles trying to get onto highway 7. Death and injuries caused by accidents at this intersecƟon must be considered over financial profits. Furthermore, funneling traffic from this development to the north on Eureka and onto Smithtown Road makes no sense either as the streets are narrow and already congested with cars, delivery vans, work trucks, school buses, emergency vehicles, etc. Traffic flow is also impacted every Ɵme there are projects related to road maintenance, tree cuƫng, and uƟlity work. In addiƟon, the Eureka-Smithtown area is a corridor for wildlife, walkers, runners, and bicyclists, not to menƟon school kids going to and from the elementary school and Freeman Park. Their safety must also be considered. The residents along Smithtown and Eureka Road do not want more traffic congesƟon in this neighborhood. ## Patricia Wolff ## 25840 Smithtown Road Page 151 of 193 2 ## Shorewood MN 55331 Page 152 of 193 ## Outlook ## Re: Public Comments on 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan ## FromGeorge Greenfield <33greenie@gmail.com> DateWed 4/29/2026 12:00 PM ## ToAaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Dear Mr. Osowski: Thanks for your email.  You might want to include in that packet that about 18 months ago in Greenwood a car left Highway 7, went up a significant incline, crossed Old Excelsior Blvd, and crashed into a house.  The house was extensively damaged and the house's occupant would have been seriously injured or worse had she been in the path the car took.  The point being that these proposed triplexes are much closer to Hwy. 7 than this house is.  If the Hwy 7 safety zealots are actually serious about safety, this should concern them. ## George Greenfield On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 9:52 AM Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote: ## Hi George, I would save a PDF copy of the original email you sent, and it would be included in the official Planning Commission meeting packet available on the website and for all Commission members to view. ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov ## From: George Greenfield <33greenie@gmail.com> ## Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:32 PM ## To: Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Re: Public Comments on 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan ## Dear Mr. Osowski: My address is 24715 Yellowstone Trail Shorewood, MN.  If you have a minute, would you let me know if public comments are read verbatim or paraphrased by city staff.  The city's record of paraphrasing is poor, whether it be by the company that prepares the minutes of the council meetings or by staff bringing public comment to the council.  What will happen on a May 7 in tha regard?  Thanks. ## George Greenfield On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:36 PM Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote: ## Hi George, 5/14/26, 1:58 PMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQADwsd9MapzRNjKveqTLdZeI%3D?...1/2 Page 153 of 193 My name is Aaron Osowski, I'm with the City of Shorewood. I was forwarded an email you sent us with some comments regarding the proposed PUD Concept Plan at 25485 Hwy 7. I have sent your comments to the applicant so they can address them. In order to make your comments part of the public record, can you please provide your address? Thanks very much! ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov 5/14/26, 1:58 PMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQADwsd9MapzRNjKveqTLdZeI%3D?...2/2 Page 154 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## RESOLUTION 26-30 ## A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN FOR ## 25485 HIGHWAY 7 WHEREAS, Merle Steinkraus (the “Applicant”), has submitted a request for a PUD Concept Plan (the “Request”) for the construction of six townhomes at 25485 Highway 7 for the property legally described as: Lot 26, MEEKER’S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And further described as: ## COM AT THE INTERSEC OF N LINE OF HWY NO 7 WITH THE W LINE OF LOT 26 TH E ## ALONG SAID HWY DIS 210 FT TH N PAR WITH W LINE OF LOT 26 DIS 210 FT TH W PAR ## WITH SAID HWY LINE 210 FT TH S TO BEG WHEREAS, the Request has been submitted in the manner required for the development of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly consistent thereunder; and, WHEREAS, said Request is consistent with the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shorewood for the approval of such a request. ## NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, ## MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be added along property lines. 2. Applicant shall provide revised survey of existing property conditions to include easement and title information. 3. Applicant shall provide information on snow removal and landscaping responsibilities. 4. Applicant shall provide information verifying that delivery vehicles will be able to turn around within the private drive and not back onto Eureka Rd. 5. Applicant shall consider additional landscaping and buffering between the site and Highway 7 similar to the Shorewood Ponds development to the west. 6. Applicant shall address all remaining staff comments as part of future submissions. 7. With future phases of development, the applicant shall submit all application materials required as part of the PUD Development & Final Stage Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to City Code requirements. 8. The applicant shall provide HOA documents for the future townhome association to accommodate the applicant’s proposal. Page 155 of 193 2 9. Add additional sound and safety abatement measures along the property’s southern edge with Highway 7. 10. Reduce the project’s impervious surface coverage to meet the 27.9% limit. 11. Reduce the number of units from six to five. 12. Improve the ingress and egress to the property for emergency vehicles. 13. The approval of the PUD Concept Plan shall expire in 180 days if the applicant has not submitted a complete application for PUD Development Plan except that the applicant may request an extension of the approval subject to City Code 1201.25 Subd. 6. c. (5). ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD Minnesota this 26th day of May, 2026. ___________________________ ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ## ATTEST: _______________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 156 of 193 City Council Item 4.E. ## Title/Subject: Legislative Changes to AB Voting ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/ HR Director ## Attachments ## 1. 26-29 Approving Change to AB Voting Period 2. 26-29 Approving Change to AB Voting Period - Option 2 ## Background New legislation has passed allowing cities to choose shorter in-person early voting periods. Cities may now opt to offer 18 days of early voting instead of administering absentee voting in person for the full 46 days. All cities in Hennepin County are required to notify the county elections team on or before June 1, 2026. ## MN State Statute reference CHAPTER 102--H.F.No. 4240An act relating to elections; making various changes related to election administration; BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 203B.05, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Generally. (a) The full-time clerk of any city or town shall administer the provisions of sections 203B.04 to 203B.15 and 203B.30 if: (1) the county auditor of that county has designated the clerk to administer them; or (2) the clerk has given the county auditor of that county notice of intention to administer them. The designation or notice must specify whether the clerk will be responsible for the administration of a ballot board as provided in section 203B.121 and the municipality must determine whether the municipality's office will be designated to administer voting under section 203B.081 starting on the 46th day before the election or the 18th day before the election. ## History, Support, and Justification for Legislative Change The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) supported this bill and worked hard to get it passed for cities. ## Administering Absentee Balloting and Early Voting Issue: Eligible voters in Minnesota may vote by absentee ballot prior to Election Day. Starting 46 days before the election, a voter can request an application for an absentee ballot and, if approved, receive and cast an absentee ballot in one visit to their county or city election offices. Ballots can also be requested, applied for and received by mail and returned by the voter to the Page 157 of 193 election office by 8:00 pm on Election Day. Absentee balloting results are not known until combined with polling place results when the polls close on Election Day. The process for voting by absentee ballot in person was changed during the 2023 legislative session to establish early voting for the 18 days leading up to an election. Early voting will replace direct balloting, allowing voters to vote in person as they would on election day without filling out an absentee ballot application. The law also established additional non-business hours that cities administering absentee balloting must be open for early voting, including extended evening hours on the Tuesday before the election and required weekend hours for the two Saturdays and one Sunday leading up to election day. While the extended timeline for early voting allows for additional time to process absentee ballots and the early voting process creates some efficiencies, the mandated extended hours require additional staff and resources for cities that administer absentee balloting. For those who vote absentee in-person prior to the 18 days before Election Day, there is confusion and in some cases, frustration that they are not allowed to place their ballots directly into a tabulator. What happens during Absentee Voting? A voter can request to place their ballot in a series of envelopes similar to those returned by mail to be processed after they have left the building. City staff then processes them and couriers them to the county, just the same as if the voter mailed it in. Few, if any, voters request to place their ballot into envelopes. Many times they come into City Hall to vote during the AB period, and learn of the envelope process - they change their minds, have staff spoil their ballots, and come back during the early voting period (18 days before election day) where they can feed their ballot directly into the ballot counter. Voters will still have the option to drop off their voted mail-in ballots at City Hall to be sent to the county for processing. Current law allows for in-person absentee voting until 5:00 p.m. on the day before Election Day. This does not leave adequate time for election officials to process absentee ballots, prepare supplemental lists indicating which voters have already cast absentee ballots and deliver the lists to precincts prior to opening of the polls on Election Day. The current absentee voting process further requires that additional supplemental lists of final absentee voters be delivered to the polls after the last mail delivery on Election Day and often leads to administrative challenges and increased potential for errors in the process. There are several methods a voter can utilize to vote in each election. In addition to the 46-day absentee voting period in which a voter may request a ballot by mail, a voter can also vote before election day through early voting, vote during the extended hours required on the Tuesday before a general election or the three weekend days required before a general election, or a voter can vote on election day. Reviews of available voter participation data and anecdotal observation by city clerks on in- person absentee participation prior to the 18th day indicate that it accounts for as little as a tenth or less of total turnout in a given election. While Minnesota has a long absentee balloting time, the most popular days for early voting are the 18 days before the election. Approximately 70% of MN voters vote during this 18-day period. Many of the other 30% vote by mail. With the many opportunities provided to voters, including the new extended early voting period, requiring all cities to conduct in-person absentee voting before the early voting timeline begins may not be the most efficient use of resources for all cities. In most cases, decisions made in partnership between cities and counties on appropriate service levels for absentee voting tend Page 158 of 193 to work best as local jurisdictions best know their communities and trends regarding the demand for in-person voting. As more and more voters choose to vote early, improvements must be made to increase the efficiency of administering absentee balloting before Election Day, reduce the potential for errors, and to improve the voter experience. ## The League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Eliminating the option to place an in-person absentee ballot in a series of envelopes instead of a tabulator; b) Establishing an earlier and consistent deadline for ending all forms of in-person absentee voting; c) Allowing cities to only conduct early voting and opt-out of in-person absentee voting before the early voting period; d) Providing ongoing resources to cities that administer absentee balloting and early voting for the extended early voting period and additional weekend hours required during a general election. ## Shorewood AB In-Person Voting and Resources The City of Shorewood has four employees who serve as election staff during the election season. They include the City Clerk, who serves as the City's Election Administrator, the Deputy City Clerk, Administrative Assistant and the Communications/Recycling Coordinator. All four of these employees go through elections training and certification each election season to become election officials for the city. They all have demanding positions that require at least a 40-hour work week outside of elections. Election years can be very taxing on the staff, as they are still required to perform all of their regular duties in addition to administering elections; AB voting, early voting, candidate filing, health care facility voting, election judge training, equipment testing, polling place preparation, and election day operations. In 2024, the city administered 5 city elections. With the 46-day requirement, that is 230 days in one year! Shorewood elections staff unanimously supports the change to the 18-day Early Voting period. An informal survey of the 13 Lake Minnetonka cities revealed all of them were in support and proposing the change to an 18-day Early Voting period over the in-person 46-day period to their councils. It is exactly why the LMC pushed hard for the change. When administering the AB in-person voting, the city is required to pay all the costs associated with AB voting. We are a small city with limited resources. Costs for AB voting that are not associated with Early Voting are the additional staffing of at least two election officials to be available to administer AB voting for 28 days for each election or 4,480 hours plus overtime when needed. In addition, the city must pay for printing the applications and instructions, purchasing the secrecy envelopes and the ballot envelopes. I would expect savings in AB supplies of $1,100 per election or $2,200 for 2026, in addition to staff overtime, estimated at 2.5 hours per week (or 1/2 hour a day after closing to process AB ballots for 2 election officials) for 5.5 weeks at $1,443.75. This represents an approximate cost savings of $3,643.75. Page 159 of 193 ## Communication Plan ## Shorewood Communication Plan: 18-Day Early Voting at City Hall This plan helps the City of Shorewood clearly communicate that voters can cast their ballot during the 18-day early voting period at City Hall. The messaging will emphasize the new timeline, the convenience of voting early at City Hall, and the continued availability of Election Day and mail voting options. ## Key Message: Shorewood is moving from 46 days of in-person absentee voting to an 18-day early voting period at City Hall before Election Day. Residents should be encouraged to plan ahead, check City Hall voting hours, and take advantage of the 18-day early voting window where, for all 18 days, you can feed your ballots directly into the ballot counter like you do on Election Day! Residents who previously voted early during the longer absentee period can still do so by mail OR in-person at Hennepin County OR may drop their ballots off at City Hall to be sent to the county election offices. ## Communication Tactics: Website and social media: Highlight the 18-day early voting period at City Hall, including dates, hours, and reminders to plan ahead. Public information materials: Use newsletters, email updates, signage, and staff scripts to repeat one clear message: early voting is available for 18 days at City Hall before Election Day. ## Timeline: Before voting begins: Announce that early voting will be available for 18 days at City Hall and share dates and hours across all city channels. During the 18-day period: Post regular reminders that residents can vote early at City Hall and answer common questions about hours and options. Success means Shorewood voters understand that they can vote early during the 18-day period at City Hall and know where to find dates, hours, and instructions, in addition to their other options for voting. ## Council Options 1) Approve Resolution to Switch to the Early Voting period of 18 days before all elections. This includes the Primary and General elections for 2026. 2) Approve Resolution to Switch to the Early Voting period of 18 days before the Primary election, but keep the 46-day period for the General election. 3) Keep the 46-day period for all elections (no resolution needed). Page 160 of 193 Two resolutions as delineated above are included in the packet. ## Strategic Alignment Switching to an 18-day early voting period is an example of good governance because it creates a simpler, more efficient election process while still giving residents a clear and convenient opportunity to vote at City Hall before Election Day. It also improves transparency and service delivery by making the voting timeline easier to communicate, understand, and administer consistently and in a cost-effective manner. ## Budget Impact A change to the 18-day Early Voting period is expected to reduce the city's cost of elections by approximately $3,400 to $3,500 per election cycle when two elections are administered. ## Action Requested Simple majority vote is required. Staff recommends a Motion to Approve Resolution 26-29 to Change the AB Voting Period to the 18-Day Early Voting Period for all City Elections. Page 161 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## RESOLUTION 26-29 ## APPROVING CHANGE TO AB VOTING PERIOD WHEREAS, New legislation has passed allowing cities to choose shorter in-person early voting periods; and WHEREAS, Cities may now opt to offer 18 days of early voting instead of administering absentee voting in person for the full 46 days; and WHEREAS, All cities in Hennepin County are required to notify the county elections team on or before June 1, 2026, who in turn will notify the Secretary of State’s office by June 12, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council heard and voted on the item at the May 26 th regular city council meeting and affirmed the following: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood: 1) The city will switch to the 18-day Early Voting period for all Elections. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of May 2026. _______________________________ ## ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor _________________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 162 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ## STATE OF MINNESOTA ## RESOLUTION 26-29 ## APPROVING CHANGE TO AB VOTING PERIOD WHEREAS, New legislation has passed allowing cities to choose shorter in-person early voting periods; and WHEREAS, Cities may now opt to offer 18 days of early voting instead of administering absentee voting in person for the full 46 days; and WHEREAS, All cities in Hennepin County are required to notify the county elections team on or before June 1, 2026, who in turn will notify the Secretary of State’s office by June 12, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council heard and voted on the item at the May 26 th regular city council meeting and affirmed the following: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood: 1) The city will switch to the 18-day Early Voting period for the Primary Elections and keep the 46-day AB voting period for the General Elections. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 26th day of May 2026. _______________________________ ## ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor _________________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 163 of 193 City Council Item 4.F. ## Title/Subject: 2026 Deer Management Program Agreement ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner ## Attachments ## 1. April 27, 2026, City Council Memorandum ## 2. Excerpt of April 27, 2026, City Council Minutes ## 3. 2026 Deer Management Program Contract ## Background Since 2007, the City has partnered with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct an annual deer management harvest. The MBRB was established in 1995 to provide deer harvesting services to metro communities. Through the management program, MBRB sharpshooter-status archers are granted permission from private property owners to hunt on specific weekends during the late fall. Archers are also granted access to hunt on City-owned land, including parks. The MBRB carries liability insurance. Harvested deer are removed from properties for processing. On average, about 20 deer are harvested annually as part of the program. At the April 27, 2026, City Council meeting, the Council conducted its annual review of the deer management program and directed City staff to proceed with a status quo hunt in 2026. The memorandum and minutes from this meeting are attached. The hunts are conducted Fridays through Sundays. Friday hunts begin at 1:00 p.m. The three weekend hunts proposed in 2026 include: October 9-11 October 23-25 November 13-15 Since the previous year’s agreement with MBRB expired on December 31, 2025, a new agreement is needed for this year’s program. ## Strategic Alignment ## Environmental Stewardship The annual Deer Management Program helps sustainably manage the area’s deer population. ## Budget Impact The MBRB provides its services free of charge. The financial costs to the City are staff time from the Planning & Protective Inspections Department to administer the program, the aerial deer survey, and administrative costs associated with printing and mailing expenses which combined totaled approximately $3,600 in 2025. Page 164 of 193 ## Action Requested Motion and second to approve the attached 2026 Deer Management Program Agreement. This action requires a simple majority vote of the City Council. Page 165 of 193 City Council Item 4.C. ## Title/Subject: Deer Management Program Evaluation ## Meeting Date: April 27, 2026 ## Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## Attachments ## 1. Wildlife Management Plan - White Tailed Deer ## 2. City of Shorewood 2026 Aerial Deer Survey 3. Resolution 26-22 ## Background Since 2007, the City has partnered with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct an annual deer management program where volunteer sharpshooter status bow hunters harvest deer from select properties in the community. As part of the ongoing operation of that program, the City's Wildlife Management Plan for White-Tailed Deer requires the City Council to conduct an annual evaluation of the deer management program. This evaluation is based on the results of the aerial deer survey and feedback from residents of the community. A copy of the Wildlife Management Plan is attached for reference, which also includes information on the history and logistics of the program. During the 2025 hunt over three weekends, 20 deer were harvested which is consistent with yearly averages for the program. ## Aerial Deer Survey Results As specified in the Wildlife Management Plan, the City contracts with Three Rivers Park District to conduct an aerial survey of the deer population in the area annually. Some years, this survey is not possible due to a lack of snowpack which is required to collect accurate data. However, the survey was able to be completed in early 2026 while weather conditions were favorable. The results of that survey are attached, which found 44 deer within Shorewood city limits. The Wildlife Management Plan's goal is to maintain an overall deer population in the community of 75 deer or less (15 deer per square mile), and the results of this survey estimate that the City is exceeding that goal by 41%. ## Resident Feedback Resident feedback regarding the deer management program is mixed. Supporters of the program appreciate its potential benefits such as limiting damage to private property and limiting vehicle/deer collisions. Opponents are most often concerned with safety during the hunts, or are opposed to the program based on their personal beliefs and ethics. During the 2025 hunt, the City had 31 property owners volunteer to participate in the hunt, and the City received 16 complaints from residents who were opposed to the hunts. In addition to these complaints, the hunters spoke with a number of concerned residents throughout each of the hunt weekends. The following specific incidents involving residents were reported to the City: • One deer was shot on Enchanted Island that ended up expiring on a neighboring property. The neighboring property owner allowed the hunters entry to recover the Page 166 of 193 deer, but was not happy about the situation. After this incident, the hunters did not utilize this area for the remainder of the hunt. • One hunter was approached by a concerned resident after harvesting a deer near Silverwood Park. The hunter responded by explaining that they were a part of the authorized hunt, which the resident was already aware of. The resident later contacted SLMPD to verify that the hunter was allowed to be there. ## Logistical Challenges Since the first deer hunt in 2007, it has become increasingly difficult to find suitable properties for the program to utilize. Many of the original properties that were used by the program when it first started have been sold and developed and are no longer suitable for hunting. For example, one of the most successful hunt locations during the early years of the program was the Minnetonka County Club property, which has since been redeveloped into housing and has not been utilized since. During the 2025 hunt, there were originally 31 groups of properties which volunteered for the hunt. However, after being reviewed by MBRB only 16 were used during the hunt. Of those 16 groups of properties, one additional area was not utilized based on resident opposition during the first hunt weekend, reducing the number of suitable areas further. Looking ahead to 2026, at least one additional property which was historically used for the hunt has been sold and redeveloped into housing which will reduce the number of suitable areas down to 14. Based on the character of the community, this trend is expected to continue and it is not likely that new areas suitable for hunting will become available in the future. Of the 14 areas that could potentially be utilized during the 2026 hunt, 7 are City-owned properties. Deer also have a tendency to run after being struck, which can cause them to leave the properties who have volunteered to participate in the hunt and eventually perish on other properties outside the hunt limits or be lost entirely. Historically, MBRB's sharpshooters have done an excellent job limiting this issue and take rigorous steps to track and recover almost every deer that is harvested. However, incidents have occurred in nearly every year of the program. During the 2025 hunt, 2 deer which were struck were not able to be recovered after being tracked by MBRB over the course of multiple days. ## Strategic Alignment ## Environmental Stewardship • Clear and strategic environmental policies and practices Evaluation of the deer management program supports the City Council's strategic priority of environmental stewardship through clear and strategic policies and practices. ## Budget Impact While Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base provides their services at no cost, there are staff time and materials costs associated with the program. City staff tracked time and material costs during the 2025 hunt and found that 43 hours of staff time were devoted to the project, totaling $1,993.27 in expenses. In addition to staff time, material costs for mailings and postage were $102.50. The cost to contract with Three Rivers Park District to conduct the aerial deer survey was $1,500.00, bringing the total cost of the program to $3,595.77 in 2025. If the program continued to operate as status quo, it's anticipated that these costs would increase in the future due to material and labor costs. ## Staff Recommendation Page 167 of 193 Based on the results of the aerial deer survey showing the City is well under its deer management goal, as well as the mixed feedback from residents and logistical challenges, City staff would recommend not conducting a deer management hunt until the completion of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. This process is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2028. As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, a significant amount of community engagement will occur around topics like natural systems and wildlife management. By pausing the program, City staff would have time to engage the community and also compare the results of the most recent aerial deer survey with future surveys to gauge the effectiveness of the program. If in the interim, aerial deer surveys show that the deer population has rebounded above the City's management goal, staff would bring this item back before the City Council to consider the need for a management hunt sooner. ## Action Requested Motion to adopt Resolution 26-22 pausing the deer management program. A simple majority vote is required. Page 168 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 5 of 13 get people involved in the Commission before they become full members. Councilmember Gorham asked about the Park Commission having an alternate member. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it has not been as much of an issue for the Park Commission. He shared that the Planning Commission is unique in that it addresses land-use issues, and that it is really important to have a quorum at every meeting. He added that both commissions are taking one thing and experimenting with it, and if that thing works, then the other commission may adopt it in the future. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that the Park Commission commented that the alternate member seems to be creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. The Park Commission was not opposed to the idea but did not see the need for it at the time. He added that the Park Commission does not really have attendance issues. Planning Director Griffiths added that the intent of the bylaws is for the commissions to review them annually. Councilmember Gorham noted that a Youth Commissioner for the Planning Commission would seem to entail a heavier workload. Commissioner Longo added that having an alternate member is important to the Planning Commission, as there have been times when meetings could not take place or nearly did not take place. He shared that at least experimenting with the alternate member would be good. Also, having the alternate member present for all Commission proceedings is important because some matters may last longer than one meeting. He stated that, in considering a Youth representative, the Commission discussed some meetings that had become controversial and could be challenging for them. Mayor Labadie asked about the Planning Commission, how the Liaison would work, and whether the Commissioner would report after every variance. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it is correct. Mayor Labadie pointed out that, right now, the commissioners can leave after their reports, but with this, they may have to stay longer. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it was discussed, but the Planning Commission is very dedicated to the process. He noted that some things may come before the Council, and the Planning Commission may have no report or anything to add. Mayor Labadie noted that if the commissioners are willing to do that, it would be great. Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Planning Commission and Park Commission Bylaws. Motion passed 3/0. City Attorney Shepherd stated that there needs to be an amendment to the age for the Youth Commissioner. Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Planning Commission and Park Commission Bylaws with the revision to raise the Youth Park Commissioner age to 16. Motion passed 3/0. ## C. Deer Management Program Evaluation Planning Director Griffiths presented the annual evaluation of the deer management program as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted that if the Council disagrees with the Staff’s direction, then the Staff will be back before the Council with the annual agreement with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to continue the hunt for another year. Page 169 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 6 of 13 Councilmember Maddy asked where the 15 deer-per-square-mile figure came from. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the number has been in the management plan since 2010. He noted trying to take down how that number came into existence, but has not found much. At the time, the city conducted extensive resident engagement and surveying, and that was the expectation the community set for an allowable number. Councilmember Maddy asked what the thought is as to why so many deer are accumulating on the islands. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he does not have a great idea. In urban areas, deer congregate because they are looking for food. He added that the deer population on the islands is a bit deceptive because the survey was done in January, and no deer were found. Mayor Labadie stated that she is shocked that there are no deer in the survey, as she can see the islands from her house and has seen deer moving to them. Councilmember Gorham asked what the Council would direct MBRB to do if it directs MBRB to proceed this year. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would be a status quo hunt. The Staff publishes an article in the newsletter asking property owners to volunteer their properties. The Staff then works behind the scenes to secure the right-of-way for the hunters to access the properties. MBRB goes out to evaluate the sites, and then the Staff sends notices that the hunt will take place. He added that it has typically been over three weekends. He shared that before the hunt takes place, the MBRB staff holds a safety meeting and a briefing on the properties that will be hunted. Councilmember Gorham stated that the information is presented in a way that shows that the deer population is low. He asked whether, when MBRB goes out, they take what they can get, whether that is 40 or two. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the numbers have been the same every year. He added that MBRB would continue in the hunt, knowing the results of the survey. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that there seems to be more anecdotal evidence that the deer population is higher. He asked how much weight should be given to the survey. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the survey is included because the wildlife management plan calls for it. He added that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating that the deer population in Shorewood is high, but it has not been reflected in the survey. The survey is the most scientific method the city uses to collect data and is the same process used by many other cities. He stated that the Staff’s recommendation is largely based on what the plan calls for. The plan outlines conducting the deer survey, gathering resident feedback, and deciding on next steps. The Council has more discretion than the Staff does in this case. The recommendation is a middle-ground approach, with just pausing instead of saying "never do it again". Councilmember Gorham asked what would happen to the deer population if the hunt were conducted using the given data point, which is lower than 41 percent. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the deer population would be lower because deer would be harvested. He stated that, according to the DNR, deer seen in urban areas are typically not very healthy. He added that the DNR has stated there is no scientific way to prove these programs are effective. Councilmember Gorham asked how many deer were harvested last year. Planning Director Griffiths shared that 20 deer were harvested. Councilmember Gorham stated that the presentation mentioned losing parcels to hunt on. He asked how that fits into the argument of yah or nay. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the trend would indicate that the City would eventually run out of suitable properties. That was a Page 170 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 7 of 13 factor in the Staff’s rationale for the recommendation. Councilmember Gorham asked how that factors into a wait-a-year recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff’s recommendation is primarily focused on what the wildlife management plan says to do. He shared that it is a factor to consider, and over time, as more parcels are developed, the level of contention will likely increase. Councilmember Gorham stated that the information is important, but he is just not sure how it informs his decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the city could look into how other cities manage deer. Many cities allow individual neighborhoods to petition the Council to authorize a hunt for a specific neighborhood; the City Code does allow that. He added that the survey for that could be conducted for the community as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Councilmember Gorham asked if any parcels were being used on Enchanted Island. Planning Director Griffiths stated that last year, a large amount of interest was received from the islands. When the hunting group went out to look at parcels, there’s was one of the highest quality that is used every year. He added that, given the issue on the islands this year, he did not know what the likelihood was that the hunt would go back out there. From the Staff’s perspective, the islands were the source of the most complaints. Mayor Labadie shared that the only residents she has heard from have been from the islands, and they have been both pro and con. She added that it is not often that the city has a partnership of this nature that does not cost the city very much. She asked whether the number of deer taken since 2007, when the program was implemented, has changed dramatically. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the 2007 to 2010 Memo included deer numbers, and those numbers jumped after a year without taking any deer. Mayor Labadie shared that this is what she is afraid will happen if the hunt is canceled: a spike in deer numbers, a severed relationship with the MBRB, and then being unable to start again because they will be elsewhere. Councilmember Gorham stated that maintaining consistency with the parcels in use is important. Mayor Labadie agreed that if the program goes away and then comes back, there will be a higher level of complaint. Councilmember Gorham asked if what is being done is helping the islands. Mayor Labadie stated that the deer are migrating from the mainland. Councilmember Maddy noted being on the same page as the others. He asked why the hunt on the island was derailed so quickly. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the issue on the island was very contentious. The hunting properties on the island are very small, and almost every time, the deer does not end up on the property where it started. He added that the hunters decided not to go back out for a second weekend, because more issues would have popped up. Councilmember Maddy stated that the helicopter survey does not seem accurate to him. He suggested using the previous year's take as the basis for the policy, rather than paying $1,500. Councilmember Gorham asked if there were any other data points. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the department is working with the SLMPD to obtain data on reported vehicle collisions. He noted that this is a standard way that the data is collected. Councilmember Gorham stated that the policy would need to be changed if the Council wanted to go in a different direction. Mayor Labadie asked if there had been a similar issue on Shady Island. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the islands in general have been very divided. Page 171 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Maddy asked what the chances are that people on the island are feeding deer. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the chances are pretty high. Mayor Labadie asked if three weekends is an appropriate amount of time. Jared Fehrenbach, Hunt Coordinator with MBRB, stated that the most deer are taken on the first and third weekends. He added that during the hunt period, the rifle opener occurs, and it is an MEA weekend as well, so there are just not as many volunteers available. He noted that the hunt take has been roughly the same over the last four years. Planning Director Griffiths asked that, if the Council wishes to proceed with the hunt as usual, the resolution in the packet be ignored, and a stand-alone motion be made. Councilmember Maddy indicated that he would like to proceed as normal with the hunt. Councilmember Gorham agreed. Mayor Labadie asked about the $1,500 for the survey. Councilmember Maddy suggested putting that on the agenda for a work session, since it is against policy. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he did not know whether better information could be found beyond the helicopter process. Maddy moved, Gorham seconded, Directing the Staff to proceed as normal as has been done in previous years with the Deer Management Plan. Motion passed 3/0. D. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project Overview & Community ## Engagement Plan Planning Director Griffiths presented the information as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Gorham asked Planning Director Griffiths to elaborate on what number two means. Planning Director Griffiths shared that much of what is done with the Comprehensive Plan is a math problem, and right now, the Met Council states that the City is required to average 7 units per acre across the entire community. Under previous cycles, the Met Council stated that the city needed to prove that it could be done in year twenty. He shared that the Met Council is now stating that the city needs to prove that it can be done at year ten and year twenty. In effect, it will require the city to change how developments are timed because a component of the Comprehensive Plan aims to predict when development will occur. The city has to prove that development will happen at any time, rather than just at the end. He noted that the Met Council is trying to avoid communities that pile all the density onto a single property, the city knows will never develop. The Met Council is trying to ensure that what cities put in their plans is realistic going forward. Councilmember Gorham asked what the planning decade is. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the planning decade is from 2030 to 2040. Councilmember Gorham asked whether the Met Council wants to know whether the city is on target or will help with what is being tried to be done in 2050. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the plan must demonstrate that the city will be on target. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation as found in the Agenda Packet. Page 172 of 193 1 227293v3 ## PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ## Deer Management Program THIS AGREEMENT is made this May 8, 2026 (“Effective Date”) by and between Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc. a Minnesota corporation located at 7455 France Avenue South Box 409, Edina MN 55435, (“Contractor”), and the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 (the “City”): ## RECITALS A. MBRB is a non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization and is providing skilled archers for deer management. B. The City desires to hire Contractor to provide deer management services to control the deer population with the City of Shorewood. C. Contractor represents that it has the professional sharpshooting 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 deer management bow-hunting services within the City of Shorewood on public and private property as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). 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, 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 Services, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The Contractor shall provide the Services at no charge to the City, shall provide insurance for their members performing the Services, and shall attend City Council meetings, upon request, to explain the project, the results of the hunts, or other details of the project, as may be needed. The City agrees to provide the administrative costs for the program, including, but not limited to: 1) discussing the program with the public and recruiting willing property owners to participate, 2) preparing notification for the public, 3) providing maps of the applicable properties, 4) drafting and acquiring right- of-entry notices and etc. 4. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: Page 173 of 193 2 227293v3 A. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; B. MBRB may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or 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. 7. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 8. Remedies. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by MBRB, the City has the right to terminate the Services. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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. 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. Page 174 of 193 3 227293v3 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 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. 14. 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. 15. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 16. 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. Page 175 of 193 4 227293v3 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 __Jerod Fehrenbach__, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 22. 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 ## 7455 France Avenue South Box 409, ## Edina MN 55435 ## The City ## 5755 Country Club Road ## Shorewood MN 55331 or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 26. 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. Page 176 of 193 5 227293v3 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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 177 of 193 6 227293v3 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. ## Metro Bowhunters Resources Base, Inc. City of Shorewood: By: ___________________ ## Name: Mike Klarich ## Title: President, Board of Directors By: _________________________________ ## Jennifer Labadie, Mayor By: _________________________________ ## Sandie Thone, City Clerk Page 178 of 193 227293v3 ## EXHIBIT A ## SCOPE OF SERVICES /DEER HUNT RULES 1. Deer hunt locations are limited to the areas as identified on the maps provided by the City, which may include public property and private property volunteered by City residents 2. All hunters must attend the pre-season hunt orientation on October 8, 2026, at the Shorewood City Hall. 3. Hunts are conducted using sharpshooter status MBRB archers only and are held during Friday (evening), Saturday / Sunday on the following dates: October 9-11, October 23-25, and November 13-15. 4. All hunters are selected through the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc. (MBRB). 5. Hunters must follow all Minnesota DNR laws and all MBRB special rules. 6. All hunt periods are for either sex deer. 7. Hunters must carry a hunt authorization letter from the City at all times during hunt. 8. All archers must hunt from elevated stands. Only TMA approved stands/steps are acceptable. Use of any homemade stands/steps is prohibited for safety reasons. 9. Ground blinds may be used by disabled hunters only. In this case the MBRB hunt coordinator will place the blind in a safe location. 10. Hunters must have a flashlight and a warning whistle within easy reach during entry, egress, and while on stand. A cell phone is also recommended. 11. A five-point fall restraint harness is required to be used by hunters at all times while on stand. 12. Only buckthorn can be cut for shooting lanes. 13. Stands can only be up during the designated hunt periods and must be removed from the area at the completion of each hunt by 1 hour after legal shooting time on the Sunday evenings of each hunt period. 14. Archers must park in designated areas only. 15. Cars must have a City supplied parking permit properly displayed. 16. Only deer may be taken during special hunts. Page 179 of 193 227293v3 17. Hunters must log in and out of the hunt areas each time they leave. The MBRB hunt coordinator will provide a log-in sheet at an appropriate location. 18. Archers cannot track deer outside of hunt boundaries. Hunters must contact the MBRB hunt coordinator if deer retrieval is required outside of hunt boundaries. The hunt coordinator will make arrangements for police escort or obtain landowner permission before tracking deer onto adjacent properties. 19. Additional restrictions may be added at the required orientation meeting. 20. Hunters should immediately report any incidents to the MBRB hunt coordinator. 21. Hunters are directed not to speak to any protestors or news media. These incidents are to be reported to the MBRB hunt coordinator immediately. The MBRB hunt coordinator will contact the appropriate City staff and/or the Police who will handle any communication needed. 22. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department should be contacted immediately in the case of accidents. 23. Failure to follow rules will result in discipline up to and including removal from hunt. Page 180 of 193 City Council Item 4.G. ## Title/Subject: Vine Ridge Neighborhood Petition Against Deer Management Program on ## Adjacent City-Owned Properties ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner ## Attachments ## 1. Vine Ridge Neighborhood Petition ## 2. Location Map ## 3. April 27, 2026, City Council Memorandum ## 4. Excerpt of April 27, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes ## Background In May 2026, a representative of the Vine Ridge neighborhood dropped off a petition at City Hall signed by 11 neighborhood residents requesting the City “halt all further [deer] hunting in ‘green space’ and ‘wetlands’ adjacent to/surrounding our neighborhood.” In speaking with the petition organizer, they are specifically referring to Silverwood Park and the City-owned lot located at 19605 Waterford Place. The petition states that “this area is too small and dense with housing, family activity, and pets.” The City’s annual Deer Management Program, put on by the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB), is a bow deer hunt over three weekends each fall. The organization has had hunters stationed on these properties in previous years. In 2025, there was a confrontation between a nearby resident and an MBRB hunter.The MBRB noted that the hunter was on authorized properties only at the time of this confrontation, which was discussed by the City Council as part of its annual evaluation of the deer management program at the April 27, 2026, City Council meeting. The memorandum and minutes from that meeting are attached. After learning of this petition, City staff contacted MBRB organizer Jerod Fehrenbach, who has informed City staff that, in response to the petition, MBRB would like to remove Silverwood Park and 19605 Waterford Place from the list of authorized hunt locations. ## Strategic Alignment ## Environmental Stewardship The annual Deer Management Program helps sustainably manage the area’s deer population. ## Safe and Secure Community Removing these parcels from the hunt would limit potential future conflicts with residents and increase public safety. ## Effective Engagement & Communication Responding affirmatively to residents’ concerns about the impact of the Deer Management Page 181 of 193 Program improves public trust in the City and its relationship with residents. ## Budget Impact The MBRB provides its services free of charge. The financial costs to the City are staff time from the Planning & Protective Inspections Department to administer the program, the aerial deer survey, and administrative costs associated with printing and mailing expenses, which combined totaled approximately $3,600 in 2025. ## Action Requested Motion and second to acknowledge the Vine Ridge Neighborhood petition and remove Silverwood Park and 19605 Waterford Place from the Deer Management Program going forward. This motion requires a simple majority vote of the City Council. Page 182 of 193 Page 183 of 193 Silverwood Park & 19605 Waterford Place (in red): ## Vine Ridge Neighborhood Page 184 of 193 City Council Item 4.C. ## Title/Subject: Deer Management Program Evaluation ## Meeting Date: April 27, 2026 ## Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## Attachments ## 1. Wildlife Management Plan - White Tailed Deer ## 2. City of Shorewood 2026 Aerial Deer Survey 3. Resolution 26-22 ## Background Since 2007, the City has partnered with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct an annual deer management program where volunteer sharpshooter status bow hunters harvest deer from select properties in the community. As part of the ongoing operation of that program, the City's Wildlife Management Plan for White-Tailed Deer requires the City Council to conduct an annual evaluation of the deer management program. This evaluation is based on the results of the aerial deer survey and feedback from residents of the community. A copy of the Wildlife Management Plan is attached for reference, which also includes information on the history and logistics of the program. During the 2025 hunt over three weekends, 20 deer were harvested which is consistent with yearly averages for the program. ## Aerial Deer Survey Results As specified in the Wildlife Management Plan, the City contracts with Three Rivers Park District to conduct an aerial survey of the deer population in the area annually. Some years, this survey is not possible due to a lack of snowpack which is required to collect accurate data. However, the survey was able to be completed in early 2026 while weather conditions were favorable. The results of that survey are attached, which found 44 deer within Shorewood city limits. The Wildlife Management Plan's goal is to maintain an overall deer population in the community of 75 deer or less (15 deer per square mile), and the results of this survey estimate that the City is exceeding that goal by 41%. ## Resident Feedback Resident feedback regarding the deer management program is mixed. Supporters of the program appreciate its potential benefits such as limiting damage to private property and limiting vehicle/deer collisions. Opponents are most often concerned with safety during the hunts, or are opposed to the program based on their personal beliefs and ethics. During the 2025 hunt, the City had 31 property owners volunteer to participate in the hunt, and the City received 16 complaints from residents who were opposed to the hunts. In addition to these complaints, the hunters spoke with a number of concerned residents throughout each of the hunt weekends. The following specific incidents involving residents were reported to the City: • One deer was shot on Enchanted Island that ended up expiring on a neighboring property. The neighboring property owner allowed the hunters entry to recover the Page 185 of 193 deer, but was not happy about the situation. After this incident, the hunters did not utilize this area for the remainder of the hunt. • One hunter was approached by a concerned resident after harvesting a deer near Silverwood Park. The hunter responded by explaining that they were a part of the authorized hunt, which the resident was already aware of. The resident later contacted SLMPD to verify that the hunter was allowed to be there. ## Logistical Challenges Since the first deer hunt in 2007, it has become increasingly difficult to find suitable properties for the program to utilize. Many of the original properties that were used by the program when it first started have been sold and developed and are no longer suitable for hunting. For example, one of the most successful hunt locations during the early years of the program was the Minnetonka County Club property, which has since been redeveloped into housing and has not been utilized since. During the 2025 hunt, there were originally 31 groups of properties which volunteered for the hunt. However, after being reviewed by MBRB only 16 were used during the hunt. Of those 16 groups of properties, one additional area was not utilized based on resident opposition during the first hunt weekend, reducing the number of suitable areas further. Looking ahead to 2026, at least one additional property which was historically used for the hunt has been sold and redeveloped into housing which will reduce the number of suitable areas down to 14. Based on the character of the community, this trend is expected to continue and it is not likely that new areas suitable for hunting will become available in the future. Of the 14 areas that could potentially be utilized during the 2026 hunt, 7 are City-owned properties. Deer also have a tendency to run after being struck, which can cause them to leave the properties who have volunteered to participate in the hunt and eventually perish on other properties outside the hunt limits or be lost entirely. Historically, MBRB's sharpshooters have done an excellent job limiting this issue and take rigorous steps to track and recover almost every deer that is harvested. However, incidents have occurred in nearly every year of the program. During the 2025 hunt, 2 deer which were struck were not able to be recovered after being tracked by MBRB over the course of multiple days. ## Strategic Alignment ## Environmental Stewardship • Clear and strategic environmental policies and practices Evaluation of the deer management program supports the City Council's strategic priority of environmental stewardship through clear and strategic policies and practices. ## Budget Impact While Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base provides their services at no cost, there are staff time and materials costs associated with the program. City staff tracked time and material costs during the 2025 hunt and found that 43 hours of staff time were devoted to the project, totaling $1,993.27 in expenses. In addition to staff time, material costs for mailings and postage were $102.50. The cost to contract with Three Rivers Park District to conduct the aerial deer survey was $1,500.00, bringing the total cost of the program to $3,595.77 in 2025. If the program continued to operate as status quo, it's anticipated that these costs would increase in the future due to material and labor costs. ## Staff Recommendation Page 186 of 193 Based on the results of the aerial deer survey showing the City is well under its deer management goal, as well as the mixed feedback from residents and logistical challenges, City staff would recommend not conducting a deer management hunt until the completion of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. This process is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2028. As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, a significant amount of community engagement will occur around topics like natural systems and wildlife management. By pausing the program, City staff would have time to engage the community and also compare the results of the most recent aerial deer survey with future surveys to gauge the effectiveness of the program. If in the interim, aerial deer surveys show that the deer population has rebounded above the City's management goal, staff would bring this item back before the City Council to consider the need for a management hunt sooner. ## Action Requested Motion to adopt Resolution 26-22 pausing the deer management program. A simple majority vote is required. Page 187 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 5 of 13 get people involved in the Commission before they become full members. Councilmember Gorham asked about the Park Commission having an alternate member. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it has not been as much of an issue for the Park Commission. He shared that the Planning Commission is unique in that it addresses land-use issues, and that it is really important to have a quorum at every meeting. He added that both commissions are taking one thing and experimenting with it, and if that thing works, then the other commission may adopt it in the future. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that the Park Commission commented that the alternate member seems to be creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. The Park Commission was not opposed to the idea but did not see the need for it at the time. He added that the Park Commission does not really have attendance issues. Planning Director Griffiths added that the intent of the bylaws is for the commissions to review them annually. Councilmember Gorham noted that a Youth Commissioner for the Planning Commission would seem to entail a heavier workload. Commissioner Longo added that having an alternate member is important to the Planning Commission, as there have been times when meetings could not take place or nearly did not take place. He shared that at least experimenting with the alternate member would be good. Also, having the alternate member present for all Commission proceedings is important because some matters may last longer than one meeting. He stated that, in considering a Youth representative, the Commission discussed some meetings that had become controversial and could be challenging for them. Mayor Labadie asked about the Planning Commission, how the Liaison would work, and whether the Commissioner would report after every variance. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it is correct. Mayor Labadie pointed out that, right now, the commissioners can leave after their reports, but with this, they may have to stay longer. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it was discussed, but the Planning Commission is very dedicated to the process. He noted that some things may come before the Council, and the Planning Commission may have no report or anything to add. Mayor Labadie noted that if the commissioners are willing to do that, it would be great. Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Planning Commission and Park Commission Bylaws. Motion passed 3/0. City Attorney Shepherd stated that there needs to be an amendment to the age for the Youth Commissioner. Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Planning Commission and Park Commission Bylaws with the revision to raise the Youth Park Commissioner age to 16. Motion passed 3/0. ## C. Deer Management Program Evaluation Planning Director Griffiths presented the annual evaluation of the deer management program as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted that if the Council disagrees with the Staff’s direction, then the Staff will be back before the Council with the annual agreement with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to continue the hunt for another year. Page 188 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 6 of 13 Councilmember Maddy asked where the 15 deer-per-square-mile figure came from. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the number has been in the management plan since 2010. He noted trying to take down how that number came into existence, but has not found much. At the time, the city conducted extensive resident engagement and surveying, and that was the expectation the community set for an allowable number. Councilmember Maddy asked what the thought is as to why so many deer are accumulating on the islands. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he does not have a great idea. In urban areas, deer congregate because they are looking for food. He added that the deer population on the islands is a bit deceptive because the survey was done in January, and no deer were found. Mayor Labadie stated that she is shocked that there are no deer in the survey, as she can see the islands from her house and has seen deer moving to them. Councilmember Gorham asked what the Council would direct MBRB to do if it directs MBRB to proceed this year. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would be a status quo hunt. The Staff publishes an article in the newsletter asking property owners to volunteer their properties. The Staff then works behind the scenes to secure the right-of-way for the hunters to access the properties. MBRB goes out to evaluate the sites, and then the Staff sends notices that the hunt will take place. He added that it has typically been over three weekends. He shared that before the hunt takes place, the MBRB staff holds a safety meeting and a briefing on the properties that will be hunted. Councilmember Gorham stated that the information is presented in a way that shows that the deer population is low. He asked whether, when MBRB goes out, they take what they can get, whether that is 40 or two. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the numbers have been the same every year. He added that MBRB would continue in the hunt, knowing the results of the survey. Councilmember Gorham pointed out that there seems to be more anecdotal evidence that the deer population is higher. He asked how much weight should be given to the survey. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the survey is included because the wildlife management plan calls for it. He added that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating that the deer population in Shorewood is high, but it has not been reflected in the survey. The survey is the most scientific method the city uses to collect data and is the same process used by many other cities. He stated that the Staff’s recommendation is largely based on what the plan calls for. The plan outlines conducting the deer survey, gathering resident feedback, and deciding on next steps. The Council has more discretion than the Staff does in this case. The recommendation is a middle-ground approach, with just pausing instead of saying "never do it again". Councilmember Gorham asked what would happen to the deer population if the hunt were conducted using the given data point, which is lower than 41 percent. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the deer population would be lower because deer would be harvested. He stated that, according to the DNR, deer seen in urban areas are typically not very healthy. He added that the DNR has stated there is no scientific way to prove these programs are effective. Councilmember Gorham asked how many deer were harvested last year. Planning Director Griffiths shared that 20 deer were harvested. Councilmember Gorham stated that the presentation mentioned losing parcels to hunt on. He asked how that fits into the argument of yah or nay. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the trend would indicate that the City would eventually run out of suitable properties. That was a Page 189 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 7 of 13 factor in the Staff’s rationale for the recommendation. Councilmember Gorham asked how that factors into a wait-a-year recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff’s recommendation is primarily focused on what the wildlife management plan says to do. He shared that it is a factor to consider, and over time, as more parcels are developed, the level of contention will likely increase. Councilmember Gorham stated that the information is important, but he is just not sure how it informs his decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the city could look into how other cities manage deer. Many cities allow individual neighborhoods to petition the Council to authorize a hunt for a specific neighborhood; the City Code does allow that. He added that the survey for that could be conducted for the community as part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Councilmember Gorham asked if any parcels were being used on Enchanted Island. Planning Director Griffiths stated that last year, a large amount of interest was received from the islands. When the hunting group went out to look at parcels, there’s was one of the highest quality that is used every year. He added that, given the issue on the islands this year, he did not know what the likelihood was that the hunt would go back out there. From the Staff’s perspective, the islands were the source of the most complaints. Mayor Labadie shared that the only residents she has heard from have been from the islands, and they have been both pro and con. She added that it is not often that the city has a partnership of this nature that does not cost the city very much. She asked whether the number of deer taken since 2007, when the program was implemented, has changed dramatically. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the 2007 to 2010 Memo included deer numbers, and those numbers jumped after a year without taking any deer. Mayor Labadie shared that this is what she is afraid will happen if the hunt is canceled: a spike in deer numbers, a severed relationship with the MBRB, and then being unable to start again because they will be elsewhere. Councilmember Gorham stated that maintaining consistency with the parcels in use is important. Mayor Labadie agreed that if the program goes away and then comes back, there will be a higher level of complaint. Councilmember Gorham asked if what is being done is helping the islands. Mayor Labadie stated that the deer are migrating from the mainland. Councilmember Maddy noted being on the same page as the others. He asked why the hunt on the island was derailed so quickly. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the issue on the island was very contentious. The hunting properties on the island are very small, and almost every time, the deer does not end up on the property where it started. He added that the hunters decided not to go back out for a second weekend, because more issues would have popped up. Councilmember Maddy stated that the helicopter survey does not seem accurate to him. He suggested using the previous year's take as the basis for the policy, rather than paying $1,500. Councilmember Gorham asked if there were any other data points. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the department is working with the SLMPD to obtain data on reported vehicle collisions. He noted that this is a standard way that the data is collected. Councilmember Gorham stated that the policy would need to be changed if the Council wanted to go in a different direction. Mayor Labadie asked if there had been a similar issue on Shady Island. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the islands in general have been very divided. Page 190 of 193 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ## APRIL 27, 2026 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Maddy asked what the chances are that people on the island are feeding deer. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the chances are pretty high. Mayor Labadie asked if three weekends is an appropriate amount of time. Jared Fehrenbach, Hunt Coordinator with MBRB, stated that the most deer are taken on the first and third weekends. He added that during the hunt period, the rifle opener occurs, and it is an MEA weekend as well, so there are just not as many volunteers available. He noted that the hunt take has been roughly the same over the last four years. Planning Director Griffiths asked that, if the Council wishes to proceed with the hunt as usual, the resolution in the packet be ignored, and a stand-alone motion be made. Councilmember Maddy indicated that he would like to proceed as normal with the hunt. Councilmember Gorham agreed. Mayor Labadie asked about the $1,500 for the survey. Councilmember Maddy suggested putting that on the agenda for a work session, since it is against policy. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he did not know whether better information could be found beyond the helicopter process. Maddy moved, Gorham seconded, Directing the Staff to proceed as normal as has been done in previous years with the Deer Management Plan. Motion passed 3/0. D. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project Overview & Community ## Engagement Plan Planning Director Griffiths presented the information as found in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Gorham asked Planning Director Griffiths to elaborate on what number two means. Planning Director Griffiths shared that much of what is done with the Comprehensive Plan is a math problem, and right now, the Met Council states that the City is required to average 7 units per acre across the entire community. Under previous cycles, the Met Council stated that the city needed to prove that it could be done in year twenty. He shared that the Met Council is now stating that the city needs to prove that it can be done at year ten and year twenty. In effect, it will require the city to change how developments are timed because a component of the Comprehensive Plan aims to predict when development will occur. The city has to prove that development will happen at any time, rather than just at the end. He noted that the Met Council is trying to avoid communities that pile all the density onto a single property, the city knows will never develop. The Met Council is trying to ensure that what cities put in their plans is realistic going forward. Councilmember Gorham asked what the planning decade is. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the planning decade is from 2030 to 2040. Councilmember Gorham asked whether the Met Council wants to know whether the city is on target or will help with what is being tried to be done in 2050. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the plan must demonstrate that the city will be on target. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation as found in the Agenda Packet. Page 191 of 193 City Council Item 5.A.i. ## Title/Subject: Response: Duane Laurila, Matter from the Floor ## Meeting Date: May 26, 2026 ## Prepared By: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator ## Attachments ## Background At Matters from the Floor at the May 11 Council meeting, Mr. Daune Laurila, 5595 Eureka Rd, asked several questions about his utility bill. In 2025 the City engaged Northland Securities to develop a Financial Management Plan to serve as a guide for the city's ongoing financial management, which was discussed with Council on June 23, 2025. The plan functions as a model to estimate the taxes and fees needed to fund operations and capital improvements expected over the next ten years. The plan included a rate analysis for utilities, and the Council approved adjustments to utility fees in September to the 2026 Master Fee Schedule based the analysis as well as discussion at the June 9, 2025 meeting where water utility policy was discussed. To review, the following adjustments were made for 2026: ## Water The City separated the base fee from the consumption fee. Historically, the base fee included the charge for the first 5,000 gallons of water consumed and was charged to only those connected to City water. This new structure removes the base fee from the consumption fee. The base fee of $32.51 is designed to cover the fixed operation and maintenance costs of the water system and is now charged to all properties that have City water service available. Only properties using water are charged a consumption fee. Changes were also made to the consumption tier structure to promote conservation and fairness. The first tier of 0 to 5,000 gallons remained the same. The second tier of 5,001 to 50,000 gallons was split into two tiers: 5,001 to 25,000 gallons and 25,001 to 50,000 gallons. The split resulted in a fourth tier for those consuming over 50,000 gallons. The water access charge remained unchanged. ## Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer fee increased 30% in 2026 ($142.25-$184.93) to fund planned capital improvements and sewer treatment costs. The fee increases are expected to level off at 6% in 2027 and 3-4% in the following years. ## Stormwater The stormwater fee increased 60% for 2026 ($43.49 - $69.58) and is planned to increase 35% in 2027 and then level off to 2% annually in the following years. The increase is to fund improvements to the City's stormwater system and replace franchise fee dollars which were reallocated to the street fund. The increases average approximately $4.50 annually between Page 192 of 193 2026–2035. Mr. Laurila also commented that if the City is not going to assess a water access charge when installing watermain, a refund should be given to those who have paid the charge. While this is not feasible, it is worth noting that the city's policies and practices relating to water have changed over the years. Those who have paid the access charge have locked in that cost and will not face any increased cost if and when the charge increases in the future. The Council spent considerable time at a meeting last June considering options to promote connections to the water system. Expansion of the system is also expected to be discussed as part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan process where objectives and goals, along with implementation steps, such as plans and policies, can be identified. ## Strategic Alignment ## NA ## Budget Impact ## NA ## Action Requested No action is requested. Page 193 of 193