02-28-22 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022
For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for
the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Labadie___
Siakel___
Johnson___
Callies___
Gorham___
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening
under a single motion. These items have been reviewed by city council and city staff and there shall be no further discussion by the
council tonight on the Consent Agenda items. Any council member or member of city staff may request that an item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for separate consideration or discussion. If there are any brief concerns or questions by council, we can answer
those now.
Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of February 14, 2022 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2022 Minutes
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
D. Approve 2022 Concession Operation Agreement Park & Rec Director Memo
E. Approve T-Mobile Lease Amendment East Tower City Administrator Memo
Resolution 22-020
F. Approve Hiring for Planning Technician Position City Clerk/HR Director Memo
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, which is not on
tonight's agenda, to the attention of the mayor and council. When you are recognized, please use the raise your hand feature. Please
identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. After this introduction, please limit your comments to
three minutes. No action will be taken by the council on this matter, but the mayor or council could request that staff place this matter
on a future agenda. (No Council Action will be taken)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATION
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Page 2
6. PARKS
A. Report by Commissioner Gallivan on 02-08-22 Park Commission Draft Minutes
Meeting
7. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Maddy on 02-15-22 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Meeting
B. Request for Time Extension to Correct Code Violations Planning Director Memo
Location: 5885 Hillendale Road Resolution 22-014
C. Variances for Dock Consulting Planner Memo
Applicant: Jennifer and David Labadie Resolution 22-021
Location: 5510 Howards Point Road
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Strawberry Lane: Final Design Direction, City Project 19-05 City Engineer Memo
Resolution 22-022
B. Birch Bluff Road: Draft Scoping Document and Communication Plan, City Engineer Memo
City Project 21-01
C. Approve Plans for Lift Stations 7, 9 and 10 and Authorize City Engineer Memo
Advertisement for Bids, City Projects 20-12 and 21-08 Resolution 22-023
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Accept Quote for Integrated Pest Management Plan City Administrator Memo
B. COVID Testing Policy City Administrator Memo
C. Review Status of Meetings City Administrator Memo
Resolution 22-024
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Staff
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING (Held via interactive
technology/videoconferencing)
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, Gorham, and Callies; City
Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; and
Director of Public Works Brown;
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Callies, Siakel, Gorham and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed 5/0.
2. SIGN ORDINANCE
Planning Director Darling stated that staff was directed to provide a review of any necessary
changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to election signage at the January 24, 2022 meeting.
She noted that included in the packet was language from the State statute as well as the
Shorewood City Code. She explained that what staff is hoping to accomplish is to strip down the
proposal just to the most important issues to minimize any impact that changes to the signage
may cause. She stated that staff would like to move the ordinance towards content neutrality and
have a clear time period for enforcement of election signage and add a substitution clause to
allow more opportunity for non-commercial speech signs outside of the election time period. She
reviewed the improvements that staff are proposing as outlined in the staff report. She noted that
a new public hearing would need to be held by the Planning Commission before any changes
could be adopted. She stated that in order for this to be in place prior to the election, the ordinance
would need to be approved and published prior to May 1, 2022.
Councilmember Callies stated that she had already spoken with Planning Director Darling
regarding some of her questions. She stated that overall, she agrees with what is being proposed
and thinks it is helpful to have this meeting prior to the public hearing so the Council can try to
winnow down what is being considered by the Planning Commission. She noted that in her
opinion, a distance of ten feet from the street surface is too much for many neighborhoods in the
City. She stated that she would like to see the City stick with the five foot distance that is located
elsewhere in the ordinance for non-commercial speech signs. She stated that she understands
why the City wants to have consistency for all types of elections, however, she thinks it is too
drastic of a change from the current language. She reviewed the time period between the primary
and general election for the school board and noted that 46 days for the other type of public
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 2 of 6
elections is not really keeping it the same for the type of elections because the time period
between the primary and general election for some, is longer than that time period. She stated
that she would like to keep it at one-hundred days as it is in the current ordinance. She asked
where signs like ‘Happy Birthday’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’ would fit into the ordinance and why the
City was doing a substitution clause.
Planning Director Darling stated that regarding the setback being too large, the City has the ability
to alter that particular setback. She stated that she thinks five feet may be too close in some
situations and gave the example of situation where there are improved shoulders adjacent to the
paved roadway, unless they alter the setback to be from the improved roadway which takes into
account shoulders. She stated that regarding the time period for signage being one-hundred
days, as long as it is clearly written and can be enforced so it does not allow one-hundred days
before every primary and every election, she thinks that would be acceptable. She explained the
substitution clause which allows any sign that is allowed in any district to be substituted, so you
can substitute out the non-commercial speech message for whatever the allowed message is on
the permitted or listed sign. She gave the example of address signage as one that is allowed at
two square feet, so most of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ or “Blue Lives Matter’ signs would fit into that
square footage allowance, so they would be allowed to have that on the property as a substitute
for the address sign.
City Attorney Shepherd gave a brief explanation of the substitution clause and noted that it is a
mechanism that helps the City address some of the issues that arise in the sign ordinance
especially in light of recent case law. He referenced the most recent Supreme Court case of Reed
v. Gilbert and noted that what needs to be considered is that there can be no content based
regulation but the City can have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, such as setback
from the road. He stated that there are things in the Code that still need to be worked on to ensure
that the City is complying with the content neutrality issue.
Councilmember Callies stated that she finds the substitution clause a bit confusing, not because
of the way Planning Director Darling has written it, but because it is a confusing principle. She
noted that the City could be put at risk if it did not have the ability to substitute this type of sign
and understands that it is a good thing to have and feels it is of benefit to citizens.
Councilmember Gorham stated that he was also confused by the substitution clause because
from reading it, it appeared that you could substitute a campaign sign for a ‘Black Lives Matter’
sign which means it would then be restricted by the timeframe. He stated that it looks like it refers
to a different subdivision so you have to do that bit of digging to understand it. He stated that he
would like to see the distance be closer, such as five feet. He asked about Section 3, Subd. C.(3)
where it states, ‘No portion of any sign shall be located within five feet of any property line, except
as permitted in b.(1)(d) of this subdivision.’ He stated that this says five feet, but the subdivision
it references says ten feet and noted that he felt this was a strange way to word it.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed that there are a lot of situations in the City where
ten feet does not make sense. She asked if there could be a distinction between a County
roadway versus a side street. She stated that for the most part, five feet, in Shorewood, seems
to make sense and would like to see if there would be a way to differentiate between the type of
street for five feet versus ten feet. She gave the example of a sign in her yard being back ten feet
and explained that it would never be seen. She stated that she agreed with the comment made
by Councilmember Callies regarding school board election signs going from one-hundred to forty-
six days and understands why the City would want to align that number.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Mayor Labadie stated that she agrees that there are portions of the City where ten feet would
make signs not visible. She asked if Public Works Director Brown had any concerns from a Public
Works standpoint with a five foot setback versus a ten foot setback. Public Works Director Brown
stated that the City could specifying a setback from a corner because that is typically where you
get into most site distance issues. He suggested that there be something similar to the
landscaping ordinances where there is a site triangle requirement at the intersections.
Mayor Labadie stated that she does not want to get to the point where the City is out actively
policing signs and has become an enforcer. Councilmember Siakel stated that the City has not
done this in the past and noted that she was not sure why this issue has become such a big deal.
She stated that she understands updating the ordinance because of some of the things such as
the Supreme Court decision, but does not think this should be punitive. She stated that if
someone wants to be able to put up a sign in their yard, she feels they should be able to do that.
Councilmember Callies asked about the statement made earlier by Planning Director Darling
when she talked about distance from the improved roadway versus the street surface. She stated
that, to her, that sounds like the same thing. She stated that she believes that there have been
complaints in every election so she understands the City has to have something in the Code, but
in her opinion, the less said, the better.
Mayor Labadie stated that this came about because of complaints during the last election. She
explained that she would like this ordinance to get to the point where anyone can understand it
clearly. She stated that she feels the current language was not easily understood, which is where
Councilmember Callies explanation that ‘less is more’ would be beneficial.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the specific complaints were and suggested that perhaps the
discussion needed to focus on those specific areas. She stated that if the goal is to simplify it and
make it easily understood, she would say that saying something has to be five feet from an
‘improved road surface’ is probably confusing for most people.
Public Works Director Brown stated that they did check on some signs based on complaints that
were received and explained that all the complaints they received were based on setback
concerns. He stated that he thinks road surface is adequate language and is easy for anyone to
check.
Planning Director Darling stated that during the last election, the City had complaints in two
different areas of the City where signs were placed so close to the road and in such number that
the callers were frustrated by having an overwhelming amount of signs right up to the street. She
explained that in previous years the complaints were, in general, about too much signage and
noted that what the City can enforce, is setbacks.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he did not see any regulations for overall non-commercial
speech signs size. Planning Director Darling explained that during the election period, the City is
not allowed to regulate the size of signs or the number of signs. Mayor Labadie suggested that
the Council take a look a defining the edge of the road and determine how far back they would
like to go.
Councilmember Callies stated that based on the discussion, she feels the Council has consensus
to have signs be allowed five feet from the edge of pavement. Public Works Director Brown noted
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 4 of 6
that the City has three gravel roadways so there may need to be some provision made for those.
He stated that if the roadway is unimproved then it would be from the edge of the aggregate
surface. Councilmember Callies stated that she believes the Council also had consensus on
allowing one-hundred days for other types of elections, such as school board.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she sees Mr. Yelsey’s hand raised and stated that this may be
a good time to allow public input. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he agrees with
most of the statements made by Councilmember Callies. He stated that he feels the five foot
setback and allowing one-hundred days for elections other than the State mandated ones makes
sense, although he would prefer a three foot setback. He stated that he does not like the
substitution clause and does not feel it is stated clearly. He stated that the Council has not yet
addressed the concern that caused many citizens to be unhappy which was what happens to
signs outside of the election period. He stated that there is no language that clearly says you can
put up any kind of signs that you want, in your lawn, with minimal or no restrictions. He stated
that he feels this is free speech and would suggest that there be language that says for non-
commercial signs, outside of the election period, here is what you are able to do. He stated that
he believes it is illegal for the City to call out holiday signs or illumination of holiday signs and
would ask that they be treated as any other non-commercial signage and not to restrict it in any
significant way because that is also free speech. He reiterated that the substitution clause as it
is, is unfathomable and would encourage the City to create simple language. He stated that he
has raised the issue of right-of-way several times and it is still there because the City actually
prohibits signs in the right-of-way. He stated that the City allows mailboxes and plantings, but
does not allow signs and suggested that language also be corrected and make it clear that people
can put up signs in the right-of-way with a setback. He stated that theft has also been an issue
with signs and explained that he would love to see a clause that addresses that issue and makes
it a misdemeanor in the City. He stated that the City may also want to limit hate speech.
Mayor Labadie asked City Attorney Shepherd or Planning Director Darling to address Mr. Yelsey’s
comments on right-of-way, hate speech, theft, holiday signs, and the three foot setback.
Planning Director Darling explained that, in general, staff would want to preserve the right-of-way
for the purpose it was created for, which would be things like drainage projects and allow no
private improvements. She noted that mailboxes have to be allowed in order to allow for mail
delivery. She stated that improvements in the right-of-way require permits but signs are generally
not something the City would issue permits for.
Councilmember Callies stated that it appears as though non-commercial speech signs are
allowed in the right-of-way as permitted, which seems to address Mr. Yelsey’s concern. Planning
Director Darling explained that staff wrote this section to allow them during the election period,
but not at any other time. City Attorney Shepherd stated that Council may want to make a
distinction between non-commercial speech signs during the election period versus others.
Mr. Yelsey stated there is encroachment and right-of-way language included in the Code that
says you cannot do what Councilmember Callies just stated can be done. He stated that the
language conflicts and is confusing because it says nothing can be put into a right-of-way other
than a mailbox and landscaping. He stated that most people do not know how large the right-of-
way is on their property from the roadway.
City Attorney Shepherd stated that staff can look at other language that is purported to be
conflicting with the right-of-way provision in the sign ordinance because the City does not want
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 5 of 6
people to be confused about the restrictions or lack thereof. He stated that to address Mr.
Yelsey’s comment related to hate speech, that would be considered a content based restriction.
He stated that tonight’s discussion certainly addresses the election related provisions of the sign
ordinance but as he noted earlier, there are other provisions of the sign ordinance that need
amendment. He stated that the substitution clause is sort of a preservation clause that is
recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities and preserves the ability of the residents to
have non-commercial signs when there is otherwise conflicting regulations in the Code. He
explained that he thinks it is important to have in the Code, but noted that staff could take a look
at ‘wordsmithing’ it a bit to make it a bit more clear.
Mayor Labadie asked about the issue related to theft of signs. City Attorney Shepherd stated that
he thinks theft of signs can be prosecuted as any other theft under State law. He stated that theft
is not called out in the Code, but does not think it needs to be in order for it to be prosecuted.
Public Works Director Brown noted that the City has had incidents of theft that the SLMPD has
been involved in and noted that he believes that they were prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
Mr. Yelsey explained that he has had many signs stolen and noted that the owner of the sign is
often the political party and sometimes it is the property owner. He stated that it would be nice to
have a clause in the Code that clearly states it is a misdemeanor just to help preclude people
from doing that. Councilmember Siakel noted that most people who are stealing signs are most
likely not reading City Code. She stated that it will go back to going to the police department and
filing a complaint.
Mr. Yelsey explained that many times it is kids doing the stealing and feels their parents need to
know that this is a serious crime and not just fun and games like taking a pumpkin at Halloween.
Guy Sanschagrin, 27725 Island View Road, stated that he would like to touch on theft and
vandalism of signs. He explained that he had many signs stolen and vandalized during the last
election. He stated that he feels it is not just the ‘law’ but also what is done to communicate,
enforce, and encourage people to follow the law. He stated that he is challenged by complaint
based enforcement. He also gave the example of the Birch Bluff area and noted that he did not
think any of those properties would be able to have signs on them because the hedges are right
along the roadway even with a five foot rule. He stated that he feels Shorewood can do better
than it did during the last election. He stated that it should not just be about enforcement and the
law but should be about everyone coming together as a community to have a fair and just election.
Councilmember Siakel stated that anybody who has run for office has had some situation where
a sign has disappeared and does not think that is unique to one candidate or one election. She
stated that she would encourage people that want things to change, to start with themselves.
Mayor Labadie asked Councilmember Siakel to comment on the comment made regarding
hedges in the Birch Bluff area. Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the comment made
by Mr. Sanschagrin is probably accurate, which is one of the reasons that she suggested five
feet from the roadway. She explained that ten feet would make it very difficult for anybody on
Birch Bluff and many other streets within the City. She noted that Mr. Yelsey brought up some
points that probably should be discussed and suggested that the Council divide this topic and just
focus on campaign signs tonight and cover the other points at a later time.
Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed that there should be two discussions and that
tonight can focus on the campaign signs in order for that to be completed prior to the election.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 6 of 6
She stated that the Council can then deal with the other items that need to be updated at a later
date.
Councilmember Gorham stated that the misdemeanor language does not feel to him like it
belongs in City Code because it is not within their control of how it is enforced. He suggested that
perhaps it is something that is noted in the Shore Report or the newsletter that theft activity is
discouraged. Mayor Labadie stated that she also felt a letter in the Sun Sailor and/or on the Shore
Report would be a good idea to remind people that vandalism and theft of signs is a punishable
offense. She stated that she feels this may be a more appropriate route than modifying the actual
Code language. She asked about the timeline for making these changes.
Planning Director Darling stated that she feels that there will be enough time to make these
changes prior to the election season, if the public hearing is held in April.
3. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
February 14, 2022, at 6:58 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: Siakel, Callies, Johnson, Gorham, and Labadie voted aye. Motion passed 5/0.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING (Held via interactive
technology/videoconferencing)
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson (arrived at 7:05 P.M.), Siakel, Gorham
and Callies; City Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR
Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of
Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Budde
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Callies moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented.
Roll Call Vote: Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Gorham explained that he and Councilmember Callies serve on the Personnel
Committee for item F. He expressed his appreciation to the candidates who were interested in
the open positions. He noted that the City was fortunate to have such great candidates who
expressed interest. Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed that there were great
candidates for the positions which created difficult choices for the Personnel Committee.
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of January 24, 2022
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2022
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List
D. Accept Donation from Lucky’s Station, LLC for 2022 Arctic Fever Event,
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-011, “A Resolution Accepting Donations to
the City of Shorewood 2022 Arctic Fever Event.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 2 of 11
E. Appointment of Public Works Operator and Authorization to Advertise for
Light Equipment Operator
F. Commission Appointments, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-012, “A
Resolution Making Appointments to Shorewood Commissions.”
G. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for Enchanted and
Shady Islands Reclaim Project, City Project 18-11, Adopting RESOLUTION
NO. 22-013, “A Resolution Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final
Payment for the Enchanted Island and Shady Island Street Reclamation
Project.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle stated that the Council had just held a work session to discuss
non-commercial signs. He stated that he wanted to inform the public that when one considers
non-commercial sign, because they are not using the term ‘political’ signs, any change in
language by the City Council would need to apply to any non-commercial signage and not just
political signs. He stated that he does not feel it is necessary to call out holiday signs and people
should be allowed to have those displayed however they like. He stated that he also believed
that right-of-way should not restrict the placement of signs.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. PARKS
7. PLANNING
A. Request for Time Extension to Correct Code Violations
Location: 5885 Hillendale Road
Planning Director Darling explained that the property owner has requested additional time in order
to clear up a number of nuisance items and remove the unlicensed vehicles. She stated that staff
had originally recommended denial of the request and that enforcement should begin, however,
she received a phone call this afternoon that explained why the applicant had not made any
progress. She stated that both she and the person that had been hired to help have been severely
ill and were not able to do the work, nor was she aware that she had been called to find out why
there had been no progress. She stated that staff is recommending that this be brought back to
the next Council meeting
Mayor Labadie stated that this seemed reasonable and the Council would basically be granting a
small extension.
Councilmember Gorham asked about whether the property owner had committed to resolving the
issue during the recent phone call. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant has
committed to doing as much of the clean up that is allowed by law. She stated that there is a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 3 of 11
tenant in the home as well that has some items that she may not be able to get rid of, but the
removal of the majority of the items will be substantial progress on this particular property.
There was consensus to bring this item back to the next Council meeting and allow for this
extension of time in order to allow for time for a new Resolution of approval with the
additional days left in the 30 day period.
B. Request for Time Extension to Correct Code Violations
Location: 5765 Echo Road
Planning Director Darling explained that the applicant has a number of accessory buildings and
fences that were put in without a permit. She stated that due to the season and the health
constraints of the property owners, she is asking for more time than is typically allowed because
they will need to get contractors to help them with the improvements. She stated that they have
asked that the building and zoning permits be to City Hall by May 31, 2022 and the necessary
work be completed by June 30, 2022.
Mayor Labadie stated that she feels this approach seems reasonable.
Councilmember Gorham stated that there is a labor shortage and is concerned about the property
owners being able to get quotes and a permit by May 31, 2022. He stated that it may be more
realistic that it be changed to having a permit by June 30, 2022 rather than May. Planning Director
Darling explained that they are interviewing contractors this week.
Councilmember Gorham asked if the Council needed to adopt a resolution and vote on the
previous agenda item. City Attorney Shepherd stated that after the Council acts on the resolution
in front of them, it would make sense to go back to agenda item 7.A. and take a vote so it is very
clear the Council has made the extension until the next meeting. Councilmember Siakel stated
that she did not think this should be pushed further down the road and would like to get some
resolution with relation to showing progress and compliance.
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-015, “A Resolution
Approving a Request for Extension to Correct a Code Violation for Property Located at
5765 Echo Road.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
7.A. – continued: Request for Time Extension to Correct Code Violations
Location: 5885 Hillendale Road
Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, granting an extension of 28 days, to the March 14,
2022 City Council meeting, for the Code Violations at 5885 Hillendale Road, to allow the
property owner to remedy the situation.
Councilmember Callies noted that she was not sure this would be enough time to take care of the
problem, considering the health problems of the homeowners. Planning Director Darling clarified
that she was proposing that the item be continued to the next Council meeting when staff would
put a resolution in front of the Council to extend the term out for whatever the remaining days
would be for the 30 day period.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 4 of 11
Gorham withdrew his motion, Johnson withdrew his second, based on the information
shared by Planning Director Darling.
Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, to continue this item to the February 28, 2022 meeting
in order to allow for staff to bring a resolution to the Council for extension of 30 days for
the Code Violations for property located at 5885 Hillendale Road.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion carried 5/0.
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Strawberry Lane: Final Design Direction, City Project 19-05
City Engineer Budde explained that on April 28, 2021, the Council approved the Scoping Study
for the Strawberry Lane Reconstruction and Trail Project. He noted that following that meeting
the City heard a fair amount of feedback from residents that the eight foot trail and five foot
boulevard was excessive so Council gave direction for staff to look at alternative options. He
stated that on June 22, 2021 staff held a virtual neighborhood meeting to present the information
on the sidewalk options. He stated that the City received a fair amount of feedback following this
meeting as well and the Council directed staff to consider a few more options. He explained that
on November 10, 2021, the City hosted an Open House to discuss these items where the general
themes were: the need of justification for a sidewalk; minimizing impacts to yards/trees by
reducing the proposed street width; and, shifting the alignment on the south end towards the west.
He stated that staff is looking for direction from the Council on how to move forward on those
three design items. He noted that if this moves forward, the general timeline for the project would
possibly be for tree removals and utility relocations in the fall of 2022 with construction in the
summer of 2023, with the goal of completion by the first day of school. He reviewed the
sidewalk/trail options and noted that there is consensus in favor of a six foot sidewalk at the back
of the curb. He reviewed the discussion surround the width of the street and noted that, in general,
residents along the corridor are in favor of a narrower roadway footprint to twenty-four feet or less.
He explained that staff is still recommending a twenty-six foot wide street and noted that it would
allow for on-street parking and meets State Fire Code width minimum. He stated that the other
item that was discussed was the alignment of Strawberry Lane on the south end of the project.
He stated that staff received a fair amount of feedback that many residents favor the western
alignment which means the proposed roadway would generally stay in the same location as the
western edge of the existing roadway. He noted that at the last meeting, that he had
recommended shifting the roadway alignment to the east, but the feedback from residents was
that they preferred it be shifted by six feet west, which is what he is now recommending. He
stated that this would require the acquisition of additional easements from four property owners
in order to accommodate this layout. He stated that would like to pursue drainage and utility
easements from these property owners because it will not change the setback line for the
homeowners. He summarized that staff is recommending Alternate 2 of the proposed alternatives
and noted that it will cost a bit more than the others because of the unknown costs of property
acquisition.
Mayor Labadie explained that there have been four public hearings that have been held on this
item, so no public comments would be taken this evening, but they did give residents the
opportunity to submit comments in writing. She noted that some of these comments had been
included in the meeting packet. She noted that there were questions from residents regarding
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 5 of 11
this street compared to the Glenn/Amlee/Manitou project, especially the differences in the
recommended width of the roads.
City Engineer Budde explained that he sees Strawberry Lane acting more like a collector roadway
for the City where it provides side roads connecting to it and those roads lead out to Smithtown
Way and Highway 7. He stated that the Glenn/Amlee/Manitou project from last year was a
residential neighborhood with fifty homes that had no other way out as a ‘dead end’ neighborhood
and not more of a through street like Strawberry Lane.
Councilmember Gorham thanked City Engineer Budde for thoroughly investigating this project.
He stated that he does not think the project got off on the right foot, but feels the City has tried as
hard as it can to make up for the miscommunication that it began with. He stated that the fire
code argument is not super strong for him because he knows that there are fire hydrants
elsewhere, but he does accept the argument that this is a connector street and noted that he
personally travels it to get his kids to Minnewashta. He stated that he would like to see on-street
parking remain and explained that he feels it will help to slow traffic down. He stated that he
thinks the proposed plans are a good compromise to make the location of the street more
equitable through the western alignment.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he agreed with Councilmember Gorham’s comments and
would just add the point that he does not see how it would be feasible to adequately enforce no
on street parking.
Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed with most of the recommendations from the City
Engineer. She stated that this design is looking towards the future. She stated that she does
have some concern about the acquisition of the additional easements because the City already
has right-of-way on the other side of the roadway. She stated that she is in favor of not moving
the alignment to the west and keeping it on the east side and noted that she did not see it as
unfair, because it is already public right-of-way.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed that this is implying that the people on the west
side would give the City the easements. She asked if the City has reached out to those property
owners and had any indication that it would be given, if the City asks for it.
City Engineer Budde stated that he met with property owners last summer and did not get a strong
consensus one way or the other from the residents. He noted that at the time he was telling them
the City would want roadway easement and he is now recommending pursuing drainage and
utility easement ,which is different.
Councilmember Siakel noted that the City does not know, for a fact, that those property owners
would give the City the necessary easements. She stated that she tends to agree with
Councilmember Callies comments and stated that the City has made accommodations and tried
to work with residents. She stated that she feels the twenty six foot wide road and sidewalk is
appropriate, but reiterated her concern about assuming that the City has easements that they do
not have.
City Engineer Budde stated that if the City pursued the western alignment, the intent is that the
City would go acquire the easements. He stated that there is time in the project schedule, if it
came down to condemnation to still deliver the project in 2023.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 6 of 11
Councilmember Siakel asked why the City would condemn, when they already own the other side.
She stated that she does not think she has ever voted to condemn anything. Councilmember
Gorham stated that his understanding is that once it moves to condemnation it would be operating
outside of the schedule.
City Engineer Budde explained that condemnation has a very defined scheduled time frame and
noted that they have accounted for that possibility within their schedule.
The Council discussed the easement acquisition process.
Mayor Labadie stated that she agreed with Councilmember Siakel’s earlier statement that she
does not think she, in her time serving the City, had ever voted for a condemnation. She stated
that she wished that the City already had a go ahead message from those property owners that
they supported this option. She stated that she does feel shifting the roadway to the west is more
equitable for both sides of the street, but it involves an unknown factor acquisition from four
parcels.
Councilmember Johnson noted that he had a discussion with one of the property owners on the
western side who was in favor of a drainage and utility easement possibility and was upset about
the potential shift to the east, however, this was resident has moved. He stated that he is in favor
of exploring the easements before they eliminate the possibility of the western shift.
Councilmember Siakel stated that would be fine, but she is not in favor of eminent domain or
condemnation, and would not vote in favor of that option. City Engineer Budde stated that
negotiations typically take about two months and they would know by that time if they would agree
or not. He stated that if they were not going to come to some agreement, the option could be to
continue eminent domain with those properties, or change the alignment back to the east.
Councilmember Gorham asked if staff had done any appraisals on those easements yet. City
Engineer Budde stated that they had not done any appraisals. Councilmember Gorham asked if
there were existing easements on the opposite side. City Engineer Budde explained that
anywhere that has been platted already has a ten foot drainage and utility easement outside of
the right-of-way. He noted that on the corridor it is a bit hit or miss on which areas have been
platted and which have not.
Councilmember Callies asked if there were still some easements that had to be acquired that
have nothing to do with the southern alignment. City Engineer Budde noted that there were about
nine properties that the City would still have to get some form of easement from. He noted that
these would typically be a drainage and utility easement and explained that any one of these
could also go to condemnation as well.
Mayor Labadie asked if these negotiations would also take about two months. City Engineer
Budde stated that two months is about what it takes to get a really good feel on the negotiations
with residents and allow them time to think about their options. He stated that the ones north of
the trail will be needed regardless, but they will take a further look to try to reduce the roadway
easements to drainage and utility easements if possible.
Councilmember Callies stated that the City is going to be in the eminent domain/condemnation
process for the properties north of the trail if an agreement is not reached. She stated that the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 7 of 11
Council will either need to vote in favor of the negotiated price or for proceeding with
condemnation, if they want to move forward with the Strawberry Lane project.
Councilmember Siakel asked if something could be incorporated in the motion that the Council
approves what has been recommended and put a date in that if the easements are not received,
that the plan reverts to the other options of keeping the roadway towards the east in the existing
right-of-way.
City Attorney Shepherd stated that he believes it is really a function of timing for the roadway
design, but in terms of whether that can be done, the answer is yes. City Engineer Budde stated
that he believes that there is time in the schedule to try to acquire the property on the west side
and if that did not come to fruition, there would still be time in the schedule to make some tweaks
to the plans that essentially shifts the roadway six feet east.
Councilmember Siakel asked how long it would take City Engineer Budde to pull together offers
to these residents. City Engineer Budde stated that he thinks he could get potential offers out to
the four residents within two weeks, but would need to give them time to review and respond. He
stated that he thinks within about a month they would have a pretty good feeling as to whether
those residents will entertain the offer or not. He reiterated that there is room in the project
schedule to account for this activity.
Mayor Labadie likes this proposal and noted that the reason the Council deviated from the existing
right-of-way is the concept of equity, however the concept of condemnation is very difficult for her
to swallow when there is existing right-of-way across the street. She stated that she is in favor of
pursuing the acquisition of the four parcels for a drainage and utility easement.
City Attorney Shepherd suggestion that this item be continued to the next meeting in order to
bring back a resolution with a few more parts to it in terms of the ins and outs of the exploration
of the easements, but also approving some pieces of the project such as six foot wide sidewalks
and the twenty-six foot wide street, with some timelines built in so it is clear to both the Council
and the community.
City Engineer Budde stated that he felt that approach could work. City Administrator Lerud stated
that he was not sure that continuing this for two weeks will be enough time and suggested it may
be better to extend it a month in order to give adequate time.
Councilmember Callies stated that in two weeks her understanding is that staff will bring back a
resolution that has more specifics such as the Council accepts the six foot sidewalk, twenty-six
foot wide street, that the City will begin negotiating with the parties, even though that portion will
not be completed in that timeframe. Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed with
Councilmember Callies and noted that the City may have an idea of where the conversation is
headed with the acquisition.
Councilmember Gorham suggested that the Council just move forward an approve the resolution
that is being presented tonight and amend it, if it looks like it is heading towards condemnation to
follow the eastern alignment. Mayor Labadie stated that she would agree with that approach along
with directing City Engineer Budde to pursue acquiring the easements from the four parcels on
the western side.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 8 of 11
Councilmember Siakel stated that she disagreed because it is saying that the Council is agreeing
with what has been put before them and she is saying that she does not want to do that until there
is something more firm around those properties on the western side. She stated that she is not
agreeing to the western alignment until the City has those answers. She reiterated that she
agreed with Councilmember Callies and City Attorney Shepherd’s suggestion to bring this back
in two weeks with the details like they agree on the six foot sidewalks and the twenty-six foot wide
street width.
City Attorney Shepherd stated that the Council could make a motion to adopt this resolution and
edit it to just agree to the six foot sidewalk and the twenty-six foot width and leave out the western
alignment. He cautioned that sometimes when edits to resolutions are made on the fly, things
are missed and he would suggest that it be brought back so there is a more clear resolution.
Siakel moved, Callies seconded, to Deny RESOLUTION NO. 22-016, “A Resolution to
Provide Final Design Direction for Strawberry Lane, City Project 19-05”, and direct staff to
bring back a new resolution at the February 28, 2022 meeting which specifies the twenty-
fix foot wide roadway, six foot wide sidewalk, and a timeline and steps for alignment to the
west side of Strawberry lane.
Roll Call Vote: Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Johnson voted Nay. Motion
passed 4/1.
B. Grant Street Drainage: Accept Bids and Award Contract, City Project 18-04
City Engineer Budde stated that on January 10, 2022 the Council gave authorization to advertise
and open bids for the Grant Street drainage project. He explained that twelve bids were opened
on February 8, 2022 with the low bid submitted by Schneider Excavating & Grading. He noted
that the bid is about thirty-three percent below the engineer’s estimate and explained that the City
has successfully worked with Schneider in the past on the Freeman Park drainage project in 2021.
He noted that they expect substantial completion by July 31, 2022 with final completion by the
end of August of 2022. He stated that also included in this is the agreement with Our Savior’s
Lutheran Church for the drainage and utility easement on their parcel in exchange for the City
completing the long term maintenance over their pond.
Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-017, “A Resolution
Awarding Contract for the Grant Street Drainage Project, City Project 18-04.”, AND,
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-018, “A Resolution Approving Drainage and Utility
Agreement with Our Savior Lutheran Church, City Project 18-04.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Flexible Work Arrangement Policy
City Clerk/HR Director Thone explained that this policy was presented to the Council in June of
2021 and was tabled until a later date. She stated that it was brought back for discussion at the
Council/Staff retreat in November of 2021, where it was decided to be brought back for review
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 9 of 11
and further discussion at tonight’s meeting. She clarified that flexible work arrangements are not
new and currently exist in the City’s personnel policy. She stated that this proposed policy just
provides more parameters for the flexible work arrangements that employees and supervisors
can use as guidance to manage them. She stated that it also replaces some outdated remote
access policy and telecommuting language that is contained in the current personnel policy.
Councilmember Callies asked if the flexible work arrangement has been working well for staff.
City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that it has been very popular and is used by almost all City
Hall employees. She stated that there are several employees that work a compressed work week
schedule and a few that have a remote work day. She stated that the remainder of the City Hall
employees do some sort of flexible schedules where they start or end at different times.
Councilmember Callies noted that she had not received any complaints about lack of accessibility
of staff. She stated that she understands it is popular and her question would be whether it is
effective for completing City business, but reiterated that she has not heard of any issues in that
regard.
City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that currently they do not have a lot of staff that take
advantage of the remote work days, other than the staggered schedules. She stated that the
remote schedule in the current personnel policy is more generous than the remote schedule with
the new proposed policy. She stated that staff does not feel this new policy will diminish their
service levels at all. She stated that she feels that in some cases, the City has been able to retain
employees because they love their schedule and appreciate that the City allows some flexibility
for them to have alternate schedules. She stated that she sees this is a great tool for retention
and possibly even a great recruiting tool for the City.
City Administrator Lerud stated that he would echo City Clerk/HR Director Thone’s comments.
He stated that it is important to know that for staff, maintaining coverage for all departments for
the regular work day is critical, so anything they do will always point to that.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she understands that Public Works is a unionized work force,
but they cannot have a flexible work schedule. She asked if there was any impact on the morale
of City employees because it is not all for one and one for all. City Administrator Lerud noted that
Public Works can have a compressed work schedule or staggered start times. He stated that she
was correct that they do have to be present to do their jobs and cannot drive a dump truck
remotely, but noted that there were some flexible options available to Public Works. Public Works
Director Brown stated that City Administrator Lerud is correct and noted that most of their job is
‘boots on the ground’.
Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Flexible Work Arrangement Policy
which includes the removal of the Telecommuting and Remote Access Policy, Section 4 of
the current Personnel Policy.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
B. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 Funds
Finance Director Rigdon explained that this item is basically an affirmation of what Council has
already directed, as far as the ARPA funds. He stated that fifty percent of the funds were received
in the summer of 2021 and the second half should come in July of 2022. He stated that the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 10 of 11
current projects utilizing the ARPA funds are the Covington Road Watermain Improvement Project
and the Water Meter Repair and Replacement Project.
Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-019, “A Resolution to
Spend American Rescue Plan Act Funds.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Public Works Director Brown stated that a few weeks ago the Council received a draft report that
related to the watermain breaks that have been experienced along Vine Ridge Road and
Covington Road. He stated that they have done some research and have determined that one of
the other breaks on the back side of the horseshoe was a failure of hardware or bolts due to either
electrolysis or hot soils. He stated that this confirmed their suspicions that this entire looped
watermain is probably deteriorating beyond repair due to electrolysis or hot soils. He stated that
he has asked City Engineer Budde to put together a proposal for replacement of that watermain
for Council consideration.
City Engineer Budde stated that tentatively for the next City Council meeting, they would be
looking to present information on the Birch Bluff scoping document and hopefully proceed with
more public engagement with residents along that corridor.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City received a grant award of $10,000 toward equipment
in Badger Park which include bleachers, tennis court equipment, practice wall, and some of the
fencing. She stated that City staff is aware that there may be a development proposed on the
east side of Lake Como between Radisson Road and Highway 7. She stated that the City
received notification of a neighborhood meeting that a developer is holding by invitation tomorrow
night at 7:00 p.m., but noted that the City has not yet received any applications.
City Administrator Lerud explained that they have closed the application period for the Planning
Technician and have conducted first round interviews. He stated that he is hoping that they will
be able to bring a recommendation to the Council at their February 28, 2022 meeting in order to
fill the position.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Gorham expressed his appreciation to City Engineer Budde for his work on
Strawberry Lane and his candor with the community. He stated that he thinks City Engineer
Budde’s overall temperament helps with this process. He explained that he wanted him to know
that the City appreciated his work and his patience in dealing with the Council and the community.
Mayor Labadie stated that she attended the Regional Council of Mayors meeting and noted that
there were about thirty-five mayors present. She stated that the main topics were overview of
national and local economic conditions and the five factors shaping the current workforce. She
stated that the Star Tribune, yesterday, featured the Highway 7 project and MnDOT study. She
explained that last week she had testified in front of the House Transportation Finance and Policy
Committee where she highlighted the Galpin Lake Road sidewalk request. She noted that this
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 11 of 11
was basically a fact finding work session for the committee that was centered around pedestrian
safety. She stated that she also attended the League of Minnesota Cities seminar for Advanced
City Leaders which was extremely interesting and noted that the agenda and presentation are
available on the League’s website
11. ADJOURN
Johnson moved, Callies seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of
February 14, 2022, at 8:45 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
2D
Title / Subject: 2022 Concession Operation Agreement
Meeting Date: Monday, February 28, 2022
Prepared by: Twila Grout, Park and Recreation Director
Attachments: Concession Agreement
Background: Derek Withum has agreed to provide concession services for Eddy Station for the
2022 season.
The Park Commission at its February 8, 2022 meeting agreed to have Derek Withum provide
concession services at Freeman Park, Eddy Station in 2022. Services will be provided Monday
through Sunday, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. on or about May 1 and continue through August 1 or
when the sports organizations have concluded their events.
Financial Considerations: The contractor has agreed to pay the city $394 for the 2022 season.
Payment will be due September 30, 2022. A copy of the agreement is attached.
Action Requested: The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve formalizing the
Concession Agreement for 2022 with Derek Withum.
Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound
financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Independent Contractor
2022 Concession Operation Agreement
By and Between City of Shorewood and Contractor
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ___ day of __________, by and between the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its offices located at 5755 Country Club Road,
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (the "City") and Derek Withum, 1563 Sandbar Circle, MN 55387 (the
“Contractor”)
REClTALS
WHEREAS, the City is engaged in the business of providing municipal services including park
and recreation opportunities within the corporate limits of the City. The City has constructed a
concession/restroom/picnic facility in Freeman Park within the City known as Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide concession services to the patrons of Freeman Park
through the facility of Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City further desires to enter into an agreement with the Contractor for the
operation and provision of concession services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.) Schedule of Operation. Contractor agrees to provide concession services Monday
through Sunday, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., commencing on or about May 1 or whenever the first organized
sports events begin. Concession operations will continue through August 1, or whenever Freeman Park
ceases its summer use by MGSA, Adult Softball and Tonka United Soccer. Contractor agrees to
coordinate operations with the Park Scheduling Coordinator.
2.) Contractor Responsibilities.
a.) Contractor agrees to be present each day for opening, training of sales
volunteers, and all duties involved with closing the operation at the end of the day. Contractor
agrees that if for any reason he is not able to be present for any period of time, while the
concession operation is open, he will be available by pager or cell phone for immediate
assistance at the site.
b.) Contractor agrees to be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the
concession area.
3.) Contractor Payment. The Contractor agrees to pay the City $394 for the year 2022.
Payment due to the City by September 30, 2022.
4.) Purchasing. The Contractor agrees to purchase the necessary products and supplies
associated with concession sales at Eddy Station.
5.) Equipment. The City agrees to provide the hot dog machine, popcorn machine, cash
register, pop cooler, refrigerator and coffee machine.
6.) Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason, upon
thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement without notice
for cause. "Cause" includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, failure to meet deadlines, criminal conduct,
or breach of this Agreement.
7.) Status of Contractor. As intended by both parties, this Agreement calls for the
performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be
considered an employee of the City for any purpose.
a.) The manner and means of performance of Contractor shall be entirely at
Contractor's discretion. Contractor is free to employ personnel to assist Contractor in providing
services to the City, but such employees shall be Contractor's responsibility and not that of the
City. The City shall not provide Contractor or Contractor's employees or agents with any benefits
from the City such as workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, health
insurance, income tax withholding, or social security contributions. The City does not control the
performance of Contractor and Contractor accepts all risk of profit and loss flowing from the
services provided under this Agreement. All expenses must be borne by Contractor and shall not
be reimbursed by the City. Those expenses include furnishing Contractor's place of work, payroll
expenses, taxes, and insurance.
b.) Contractor shall conspicuously identify himself to all persons and organizations
as an independent contractor and shall not represent or imply that this Agreement authorizes
Contractor to act as an agent for, or on behalf of, the City. Neither the City nor Contractor shall
be responsible for any agreement, representation, or warranty made by the other, nor shall the
City be obligated for damages to any person or organization for personal injuries or property
damage arising directly or indirectly out of the conduct of Contractor's business or caused by
Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct or negligence.
8.) Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and
against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from Contractor's actions, failure to act,
conduct, or negligence while performing services pursuant to this Agreement unless such damage or
liability arises from or in connection with faulty or defective materials or facilities provided by the City.
Contractor agrees to carry Commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.
9.) Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
and no amendment hereto shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. There is
merged herewith all prior and collateral representations, promises, and conditions concerning Contractor
and the City. This Agreement supersedes and nullifies any preexisting agreements between the parties
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All agreements as to payments to be made to Contractor
for particular projects must be in writing.
10.) Severable. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid the
remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
11.) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be
sufficient if it is in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to Contractor's residence or to the
principal office of the City, which ever shall be applicable.
12.) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONTRACTOR
By:_______________________________ By:___________________________________
Its:_______________________________ Its:____________________________
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
2E
Title/Subject: T-Mobile First Lease Amendment - East Tower
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney
Attachments: Proposed first lease amendment, Resolution
Background: The city was contacted by T-Mobile requesting the city consider and
approve a lease amendment to their tower lease on the East water tower. For the past
several months, staff has negotiated terms of the amendment. Staff and the City
Attorney have reviewed the draft amendment and all our requests have been
incorporated into the draft. All terms of the original agreement not changed by this
amendment will continue in full force and effect.
On a related note, due to the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, T-Mobile has given us
notice that they are terminating the Sprint lease on the east tower. They will be
removing their equipment per the terms of the lease.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The original agreement expires in 2026, at that
that time, the terms provide for a base rent of $2,500 with annual escalator clauses of
three percent.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approving the lease amendment as
presented by adopting the Resolution.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 22-020
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER TOWER SPACE
AGREEMENT WITH T-MOBILE CENTRAL, ON THE CITY’S WATER TOWER
LOCATED AT 5500 OLD MARKET ROAD
WHEREAS, The City of Shorewood was contacted by representatives of T-Mobile
requesting the City consider an amendment to the Tower Lease Space Agreement
signed in 2004; and,
WHEREAS, City staff negotiated with representative of T Mobile for terms; and,
WHEREAS, A tentative agreement has been reached,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The “First Amendment to Water Tower Space Lease Agreement” with T-Mobile
Central, to their current agreement for the city water tower located at 5500 Old Market
Road is hereby approved as presented.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the city
of Shorewood.
th
Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 28 day of February, 2022.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
6A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022 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 Gallivan, Heinz, Tauer, and Schmid
(arrived at 7:13 p.m.); City Council Liaison Callies; City
Administrator Lerud; Parks and Recreation Director Grout; and
Planning Director Darling
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Heinz moved to approve the agenda as written. Tauer seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion carried 4-0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2021
Tauer moved to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2021 meeting as presented. Gallivan
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Motion carried 3-0-1 (Gallivan abstained).
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review Christmas Lake Access Ordinance
City Administrator Lerud review some of the history and background surrounding public access
area on Christmas Lake and the work staff has done with the Christmas Lake Homeowners
Association (CLHA). He gave a brief overview of the agreements signed with the DNR in 1986
and 2015 for cooperation and maintenance of the public access and explained that it is the City’s
responsibility to maintain the access. He noted that last year, the City approved a site plan
amendment and variance will free up one parking space and allow the cleaning equipment to sit
off the space which led them to take a look at what is happening with parking, overall. He
explained that with regard to loading of the lake, the recommended amount is 20-30 acres/boat
to preserve the ecology of the lake, reduce the number of near misses, allow for a complete and
more thorough inspection. He gave an overview of the proposed amendments to the ordinance
and reviewed points such as; the landing is considered a park area, proper disposal of bait, no
overnight parking, and limiting the number of boats that can use the landing to the number of
parking spots available in the landing area. He noted that there is a gate there that has not worked
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 2 OF 7
for many years but has been repaired and is functional again. He stated that the proposal is to
increase the number of spots available for vehicles with personal watercraft, such as kayaks, but
limited to 7 spots for boats on trailers that are allowed in the lake at any one time.
Chair Hirner asked about the calculation of 20-30 acres/boat and if that took into consideration
the number of boats from the people who live on the lake, because that would end up being
significantly above the threshold and asked how that is factored into the conversation about safety
on the lake. City Administrator Lerud stated that the City does not have control of the number of
watercraft on the lake at any time. He explained that the only control that they would have would
be that the City is responsible for the landing.
Chair Hirner confirmed that the 7 parking spots refer to a boat and trailer parking and asked what
would happen if there were 14 cars with kayaks. He asked if it would be limited to just 7 vehicles
or if the larger number would be allowed to park there because there is space. City Administrator
Lerud stated that the ordinance allows them to park in those spots if one is available.
The Commission discussed details of the proposed ordinance and details surrounding use of the
gate and AIS inspections. Joe Schneider, CLHA, explained that they begin inspections as close
st
to ice-out as possible and continue through October 31 of every year and explained how they
taper the hours at various times of the year.
Council Liaison Callies stated that the CLHA sets the inspection times and asked that would work
if the City ended up hiring a part-time position for this purpose. City Administrator Lerud explained
that the Council had approved a DNR Delegation Agreement which commits the City to doing the
AIS work on behalf of the DNR. He stated that in turn, the City works with the CLHA and they
hire a contractor and agree to perform the inspection services that the City has committed to doing
under the Delegation Agreement.
Commissioner Gallivan asked what kind of engagement there has been with the CLHA regarding
this ordinance. City Administrator Lerud stated that the City has had extensive conversations with
representatives from the HOA and they are in support of the ordinance.
Commissioner Schmid arrived at 7:13 p.m.
Peter Lehman, 21285 Radisson Road and 21265 Radisson Road, explained that he lives adjacent
to the public access and has been there since 1986 when the public access was created. He
stated that he is not against anything in the ordinance, but there are some things that he believes
should be considered, for example, the possible side effect from these restrictions to the times
when boats, such as pontoons are transferred. He stated that he is concerned about the
occasional lines that form along Merry Lane for the AIS inspection and asked what would happen
to those boats when the access is closed. He explained that currently they would go through the
AIS inspection and then could park off site if this lot is full. He stated that when the gate is closed,
it will be difficult for a boat with a trailer to back out, if they got there and the lot was full. He noted
that his other concern is that many homeowners do not have their own pontoon trailers so the
contract companies end up staging boats along Merry Lane on concrete blocks during this
process. He stated that he is concerned about the effect this may have on traffic flow or
emergency vehicle access in the area. He reiterated that he is not against the ordinance but is a
bit concerned about the potential side effect on Merry Lane from not allowing boats to pass
through because of the gate.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 3 OF 7
City Administrator Lerud stated that they have talked about it this issue. He noted that they do
not have a solution yet but have discussed things like having some type of advance notice out by
the frontage road that shows how many parking spaces are available. He gave the example of
the electronic signs that are sometimes seen at rest areas that let people know how many spaces
there are, so the boats/trailers should not end up lining up on Merry Lane when there is no room.
Mr. Schneider stated that if this ordinance is approved there will need to be a fair amount of
communication with the community. He stated that he likes City Administrator Lerud’s idea about
utilizing electronic signage and explained that the CLHA would be happy to be involved in that
effort. He noted that the CLHA is also committed to getting more cameras up at the landing. He
noted that he feels that Mr. Lehman’s concern about the transferring of pontoons won’t be a large
issue because it does not happen during the busy season on the lake because they happen in
May and then September/October at the beginning and end of the season.
Mr. Lehman noted that he would like the staging of the pontoon transfers to take place inside the
public access in the vacant bays rather than along Merry Lane. He stated that the new area that
is being set up for the power washer is less than 100 feet from his beach and would prefer, if there
is an expansion of the public access, that the City consider relocating that equipment to the west
side.
Chair Hirner asked staff to take note of the preference from Mr. Lehman if the topic of expansion
comes up in the future. Planning Director Darling stated that she can but noted that when the
Council granted the variance for the existing location, there were several reasons why the
alternative location recommended by Mr. Lehman did not work. Mr. Lehman stated that he had
proposed another location on the island and now he is asking that it be considered because there
seems to be an interest in acquiring additional land.
City Administrator Lerud clarified that this would not be additional land and is land that the City is
already occupying with the landing. The acquisition would just be transferring it into the City’s
name. Mr. Lehman stated that he believes he saw 4 parking spots for single vehicles penciled in
on the engineering drawing and explained that his idea was that if there are additional parking
pads constructed, they should be considered for the power washing equipment.
Gallivan moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 576, An ordinance Establishing
Section 902.05, Subdivision 4 of the Code of Ordinances, Establishing Regulations for the
Christmas Lake Boat Landing and Adjacent Parking Lot. Heinz seconded the motion. Roll
Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried.
B. Review and Discuss Donation for a Bench at Freeman Park
Chair Hirner gave an overview of the request by Charles Babcock to donate a bench for Freeman
Park so people could watch their children go sledding. He noted that he had gone to take a look
at a similar bench to what is being proposed that is being used in Deephaven and felt that it looked
good, seemed sturdy, and also seemed to be holding up really well.
Parks and Recreation Director Grout asked if the Mr. Babcock was aware that a concrete slab
would also need to be installed with the bench.
Chair Hirner noted that he had brought that issue up to Mr. Babcock.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 4 OF 7
Commissioner Heinz stated that as long as the bench reflected the high quality of the City’s park
system, he would support accepting this donation. He noted that he would like to make sure that
moving forward that these things are consistent with the image the City is trying to protect.
Chair Hirner stated that someone from the City will need to let Mr. Babcock know what the cost
of the concrete slab would be if he is expected to cover those costs as well. He stated that before
the bench is ordered the color should be checked to ensure it fits in with what the City would like.
Planning Director Darling noted that the concrete slab work may be quite expensive and will likely
have to be combined with another larger project in order to get the work completed.
Chair Hirner asked if the Commission should table action until all the details discussed regarding
concrete slab costs and design consistency are ironed out with Mr. Babcock.
Planning Director Darling asked the Commission how they felt about accepting an atypical park
bench.
Commissioner Heinz reiterated that he feels the City should be consistent with the amenities that
are put into the park.
Commissioner Tauer stated that in her opinion, the bench needs to match the integrity of the park,
but does not necessarily need to be identical to the other benches. She gave the example of
eyebrows, which are sisters, but not twins. She stated that she thinks things can still look nice
throughout the park, but look a bit different, because that can bring something special to the park.
Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks the City needs to be consistent with things such as
color, but thinks a slightly different style would not bother him.
Commissioner Schmid stated that she would like it to blend in with the other benches in the area.
Chair Hirner stated that this bench is likely to be the only one that is over in this area on the edge
of the parking lot, so there will be nothing else around it. He stated that he does not think the
proposed bench is completely out of character from the park, but would agree that the City may
want to have a say in the color of the bench. He reminded the Commission that a similar bench
to what is being proposed can be seen in Deephaven. He suggested that perhaps the other
information such as the color and cost for the concrete pad be reviewed with Mr. Babcock before
this moves onto the Council. He stated that he would like to continue this item to a future agenda
in order to have that conversation with Mr. Babcock so they have a complete picture of the cost
that will be related to the donation.
Hirner moved to table discussion of the donation of a bench at Freeman Park until the
March 2022 Park Commission meeting. Gallivan seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion carried.
C. Discuss Options for Southshore Community Park
Chair Hirner noted that he would like the Commission to discuss options and ideas for Southshore
Community Park. He reviewed some of the ideas that came out of the survey such as pickleball
or a splash pad and whether the focus should be on being family friendly or focus on seniors.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 5 OF 7
Commissioner Gallivan stated that given the proximity to the highway, the idea of making this into
a playground or large scale project is not appealing. He stated that the 2 best options that stand
out to him beyond expanding the community garden, is either the pickleball courts or some of the
senior equipment that has been considered in the past.
Commissioner Heinz stated that he agrees that anything that is done in this location should be
more adult oriented.
Chair Hirner asked about the trees along the highway and what their expected lifespan is because
if they are nearing the end of that cycle it may open up what can be done with this park.
Planning Director Darling explained that pine trees usually have a lifespan of 40-70 years, but she
is not sure when those were planted. She stated that she can go back through the aerial photos
and try to determine their general age.
Chair Hirner stated that he feels the City should take a look at what some options may be for
providing a barrier between the park and the highway, such as a fence or sound wall. He stated
that he agreed with the recommendation that the focus remain more adult oriented and likes the
idea of pickleball courts.
The Commission discussed ideas of additional usage options that may be appropriate for this
park considering its proximity to the highway.
Planning Director Darling noted that this is just a continuing discussion item for the Commission
and explained that the City is not scheduled to begin doing the Master Plan until 2024.
D. 2022 Work Schedule/Park Meeting Schedule
Chair Hirner reviewed the 2022 Work Program Schedule for Commission action and asked if there
was anything the Commissioners would like to add.
Commissioner Heinz explained that he has been working on a way to keep the City’s park on the
top of the list for attractiveness and usage. He explained that he has been doing interviews in the
City parks and has gotten very interesting feedback and would be happy to present his information
at an upcoming meeting.
Park and Recreation Director Grout suggested that it be put on the agendas for discussion in
March and/or April.
Chair Hirner stated that he would like to discuss this information prior to conducting the park tours
because he believes the information gathered may be helpful to those conversations during the
tours.
Tauer moved to approve the 2022 Work Program, as revised, and the Park Commission
meeting schedule as proposed. Gallivan seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all.
Motion carried.
E. Determine Liaisons for City Council Meetings
February 28, 2022 – Commissioner Gallivan
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 6 OF 7
March 14, 2022 – Commissioner Tauer
April 25, 2022 - Commissioner Schmid
F. Accept the 2022 Concession Agreement
Park and Recreation Director Grout gave an overview on the history of concession services being
provided by members of the Withum family.
Heinz moved to recommend approval of the 2022 Concession Agreement, as presented.
Tauer seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Senior Programs
Park and Recreation Director Grout reminded the Commission that she had reached out to
Mound, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Victoria, and Minnetonka about what senior programming they
have available in their parks. She reviewed the information that she found out from each city as
outlined in the October 26, 2021 staff report. She reviewed some of the programs that the City
has held in the parks in the past. She asked if the Commission had suggestions for other
programs that could be tried for the seniors.
Commissioner Heinz noted that the Music in the Park was well attended by the senior
demographic.
Chair Hirner reviewed some of the activities that are available in the senior community where his
father-in-law lives.
Park and Recreation Director Grout reviewed some of the groups and activities available at the
senior center, such as a knitting group, cribbage, woodworking.
Chair Hirner stated that they also had things like tai chi, yoga, and other more outdoor activities.
He noted that perhaps those could be organized via the park rather than with the other activities
at the senior center.
Park and Recreation Director Grout noted that they do offer pickleball lessons at Badger Park.
She stated that they have had tai chi in the past, but there was not enough interest to continue
that activity, but she is open to trying some of these activities again and see if the interest has
increased.
Commissioner Tauer stated that she likes the idea of doing some sunrise yoga classes during the
warmer months, and suggested that it be more ‘community’ focused than just ‘senior’
programming.
Chair Hirner stated that he also likes the idea of creating a walking group, for example, at Freeman
Park.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
PAGE 7 OF 7
Park and Recreation Director Grout stated that she will check into some of these ideas and see
about getting them scheduled at the parks.
6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS / UPDATES
A. City Council
Council Liaison Callies gave an overview of recent City Council activities.
B. Staff
a. Update on Grant for Freeman Field 2 Fencing
Park and Recreation Director Grout noted that the City had received a grant for Freeman Park
Field 2 to fix the footings and the fencing which will take place this coming spring.
b. Update on January 15, 2022 Arctic Fever Event
Park and Recreation Director Grout reported that Arctic Fever was held on January 15, 2022.
She stated that there was a really nice turnout from the public for this event and noted that there
demonstrations on outdoor camping and a story stroll that were new this year.
Chair Hirner asked when the contractor would finish the work at Silverwood Park.
Planning Director Darling stated that they do not have a timeline yet because it is still pretty early
in the year. She explained that she knows it will be one of their first projects in order to finish the
install of the swing sets and the awnings. She stated that she will be working with engineering to
finish the improvements so the slides can be installed.
7. ADJOURN
Tauer moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of February 8, 2022 at 8:58 p.m.
Schmid seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried.
7B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Request for Additional Time to Correct a Code Violation
Location: 5885 HIllendale Road
Property Owner: Petra Rand
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Violation Notice dated January 20 2022
Written Request from Property Owner for Additional Time
Resolution Approving the Request
Continued from the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting
In November, the City received a complaint regarding the property at 5885 Hillendale Road
stating the property has miscellaneous broken items and nuisance items stored all over the
front yard and unlicensed vehicles, some of which are being used for storage.
Property Inspections
In December, staff inspected the complainants’ concerns. At that time, staff observed that the
number of items and unlicensed vehicles was extensive. Staff sent correction notices on
January 20, 2022 (attached).
Enforcement Action
The previous property owner died in December. One of the current owners requested the
extension on January 25, 2022 (attached) and indicated that she was beginning the clean-up
process. Because of the reasons stated in the letter, the property owner is requesting 30 days
to complete the clean-up and removal of the unlicensed vehicles. She indicated that they
would have much of the materials and vehicles removed from the site by February 7.
On February 8, 2022, staff visited the site and noted that almost no work had progressed on
the site. Except for one trailer, no other vehicles had been removed from the property; the
dryer was still located outside and various other nuisance items were still present.
On February 14, 2022, the property owner called staff and said that both she and the person
that she hired to help with the work were sick and had been unable to complete the work they
had intended.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approving the extension because
the property owners have not shown that they are actively working to find a solution to the
code violations. Any council action on this request requires a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the extension is approved, staff will notify the owners in writing
and suspend enforcement until the end of March to give them more time to remove the items.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
Marie Darling
From:p rand <petrarand@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:54 PM
To:Marie Darling
Subject:Amended request for 5885 Hillendale Rd
Hi Marie,
Just following up from our conversation on 1/24 regarding the 5885 Hillendale Rd property.
I had received the letter 1/24 at my home in Norwood about cleaning up and removing some items from the property.
While I have no problem removing most of these items there may be some people who reside in the home that I may
have trouble getting to agree to remove certain items and help and I am not sure what legal stand point I do or don't
have and will need time to figure out if they wish to be complicated about this.
I can guarantee that the Dodge truck, dryer, bikes and clutter by the upstairs front door will be removed asap, by 2/7 at
the latest if the city would give me some grace period considering I just received the letter. I will then request that I am
given more time for any clutter that is at the basement door of the home, the red Grand Am and the red trailer as the
owners of these things don't sound like they want to help at this time and I will need time to figure out what I can do
about it as a property owner in the mean time. For this I was hoping you would extend until the end of February so some
things can be sorted out. John has passed away 12/12 and this has further complicated things at this home as you could
imagine but I am working on them and the home and would appreciate any grace period given on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration,
Petra Rand
1
RESOLUTION 22-014
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO CORRECT A
CODE VIOLATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5885 HILLENDALE ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood sent a violation notice to Petra Rand (“Property
Owner”) regarding a violations of City Code on their property addressed as 5885
Hillendale Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has requested more time to correct the violation as
allowed by chapter 104.03 subd. 2 a. of the City Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal for additional time to correct the
violation at its regular meeting on February 28, 2022, at which time the Planning
Director’s memorandum was reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council
from the Property Owner, staff and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Property Owner has indicated that they will complete the cleanup of the
property from the property as indicated in the submitted letter.
2. The City Council hereby approves a 30-day extension to correct the violation which
expires on March 30, 2022 and directs staff to suspend the enforcement process as
outlined in City Code Chapter 104.03.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
th
this 28 day of February, 2022.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
7C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Dock Variances
Location: 5510 Howards Point Road
Applicant: Jennifer and David Labadie
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
Prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, Consulting City Planner
Review Deadline: March 23, 2022
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the February 15, 2022 Meeting
Correspondence Received
Resolution
Background: See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request.
The application includes three variance requests:
1. A variance to allow a dock greater than four feet in width and
2. A variance to the dock setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL).
At the February 21, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend
approval of both variances. The Chair clarified that approval of the variance will allow the dock
to remain in the current configuration, but not to be expanded or enlarged.
In addition to the applicant, there were nine residents who spoke on this item. Five residents
spoke in opposition to the request and four residents spoke in favor of the request.
Additionally, there were 12 letters and emails that were submitted after the packet went out
and were sent to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. Those letters and
emails were entered into the public record.
Following the Planning Commission meeting additional comments were received. All
comments received prior to distribution of this packet are attached.
There were a number of comments that were unrelated to the variance request. Several
people stated that they did not think the application met the variance standards, that the site
should be brought into compliance and the variance should be denied. Several others noted
that the dock has been in place for years, that it should be grandfathered in and the variance
approved.
The City Attorney noted that the applicant did make an assertation that the dock is a legal
non-conforming structure (“grandfathered”) in the application for the variances; however, that
argument would be part of an administrative appeal to the nuisance violation notice that
triggered the application. The applicant did not appeal the notice within the timeline required
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
C:\\Users\\bpricco\\Desktop\\7C 2022-02-28 Council Report_Labadie Variance.docx
by Section 104.03 of the City Code and instead chose to try to resolve the complaint through
the variance application.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request. A resolution with findings is attached reflecting the
discussion and consistent with the decision of the Planning Commission. The Commission
wanted to be clear that no expansion is permitted. Staff has included a condition that a survey
of the existing conditions be submitted to the City within six months of the date of approval to
memorialize the approval conditions.
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a variance for C Jennifer
and David Labadie for property located at 5510 Howards Point Road based on the findings in
the attached resolution.
Any action on this request would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the code violation complaint would be
resolved, as a variance grant would render the dock in conformity with City Code.
Marie Darling
From:Heidi Robertson <hrob24@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:03 PM
To:Planning
Subject:Variance
Good afternoon, as for the variance request being reviewed. Given all that has happened recently in regards to the dock
variance process in this neighborhood, I agree to the point made by the Sanschagrin residence in the letter questioning
the overreach in general, as stated:
Lastly, if the Mayor wants her dock “as is”, the City could just do away with the dock regulations
completely as they are likely over reaching into the jurisdiction given to the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District (LMCD). They already refer to the LMCD as their base code and then add their
limitations on top of it. This would bring the City code into agreement with the LMCD code, which was
the intent of forming the LMCD in the first place (uniform rules for the whole lake). To do this, they
would remove dock from the definition of “ACCESSORY BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR USE” and
delete all of 1201.03 subdivision 14.
Thank you,
Heidi Robertson
1
Marie Darling
From:Marie Darling
Sent:Saturday, February 19, 2022 5:39 PM
To:greg larson; Greg Lerud; Todd Eggenberger; Ken Huskins; Dara Gault; 'dmaddy@ci.
\\\\shorewood.mn.us'; Marc Riedel
Cc:Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL-Feb. 15 Planning session
Thank you for your comments Mr. Larson. Your letter (with this response) and all the other letters received after the
packet was published will be attached to the report that is sent to the City Council. All letters received after the packet
was distributed were sent to the Commissioners, the consulting planner and the Council liaison before the meeting and
the comments were summarized by the consulting planner in her presentation.
The Commission members are not able to respond to your email because a response from a quorum of Commissioners
outside a meeting would be violation of the open meeting laws.
Marie Darling
Planning Director
952-960-7912
mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email
communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal law, or temporary classification
that classifies it otherwise.
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us
From: greg larson <g.larson@mchsi.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 3:46 PM
To: Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Todd Eggenberger
<TEggenberger@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Ken Huskins <khuskins@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Dara Gault
<DGault@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; 'dmaddy@ci.\\\\shorewood.mn.us'; Marc Riedel <MRiedel@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: EXTERNAL-Feb. 15 Planning session
Administrator Lerud, Planning Director Darling, Planning Commission members;
1
I was unable to attend the online Planning Commission session on Feb 15 but did review the
information on the Labadie dock variance that was posted in the agenda packet. Seeing no
opposition to the variance it appeared, to me, that the community supported approval. That
conclusion was wrong.
Recently, I have found at least 10 letters in opposition. Though the city was in possession of
those letters, inexplicably, none were included in the packet or made available to the
public. Anyone reading the opposition letters would have viewed the variance request in a
very different light but the packet was dominated by opinions in favor of granting the
variance.
If the opposition letters had been included and considered, a much different outcome might
have occurred. It is wrong that a small number of elite are awarded voice and the majority
muted. You should know and understand that trust in government is fragile and once broken
is exceedingly difficult to repair
The opposition letters are logical and cogent with reasonable recommendations on solving the
issue without inviting a charge of favoritism. The letters/emails were received in time to allow
public view considering the packet wasn’t printed but digitized and posted to the city website.
If received too late to meet the requirement for the meeting notice, the letters should have
been placed on the “Agenda and Minutes” web page under the category of “more..” - as is
commonly done.
The oppositional arguments included important background information and commonsense
suggestions:
1. The configuration of the dock could be easily redesigned to stay compliant with the
ordinance.
2. Photos show that fairly recently the dock was reconstructed thereby
undermining the claim that the dock was original to the site.
3. The planning commission could refuse to act on the variance request and instead
recommend that city dock/lake ordinances be voided and enforcement left to the
LMCD, an agency with a history of fairness and with more expertise and financial
resources. This was suggested in the several written comments.
This variance, because it involved a legal favor to the sitting mayor, demanded that the
meeting be ultra-fair and unbiased and without hint of prejudice. But, instead the Commission
allowed a village bully to devolve the session into an unrelated and slanderous diatribe. After
which the Commission forged ahead with approval based on slanted technical analysis and
without discussion or consideration of alternative views and remedies.
2
Again, more than other issues considered by the commission, this specific variance demands a
process that is open, fair and beyond accusations of bias. That has yet to happen.
In view of that fact, the Planning Commission must now rescind the approval recommendation
of the dock variance. Reconsideration of the variance must be based on an honest and open
discussion of ALL available information. But more importantly, for the integrity of the process,
the city must apologize publicly for allowing vile slander to be injected into a public meeting
and for hiding important information that all citizens deserve to see and consider.
I expect a response from each of you including the city administrator and planning director.
Respectfully,
Greg Larson
Shorewood
612 325-7308
3
February 21, 2022
Planning Commission, City Administrator, Planning Director;
The reasoning in the city’s email response is suspect.
Let me be clear, I’m trying to uncover if, as it appears, the Planning Commission decision to recommend
approval of the dock variance was predetermined. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the outcome
was a fait accompli.
Justification of that conclusion is partially based on the fact that letters/emails opposing the variance
approval were not, before the meeting, made available to the public, thereby denying to the public
access to opinions, facts and data that would have allowed a broader discussion and may have led the
planning commission to reach a different conclusion.
The city erroneously claims that the oppositional correspondence was not included in the packet
because of time constraints based on the 72 hour requirement for publicly posting a meeting notice.
But according to the dates of the letters/emails, all were received on or before Friday, Feb. 11 and
stamped by the city as such. That means there was ample time, based on the meeting time and date of
7:00 PM, Tuesday, to include the oppositional letters/emails because the 72 hour notice requirement
began at 7:00 PM Saturday. Therefore, the oppositional emails were available well before the 72 hour
posting interval began. Moreover, because the packet was posted on city website, no physical printing
of any of the packet occurred.
My concern is simple: The public was denied access to data that the public had a legal right to view and
the city had an obligation to make available.
The city of Shorewood wants to hide behind the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. So here are legal and
legislative opinions that bolster my argument regarding the obligation the city of Shorewood had in this
case.
Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. The Commissioner of Administration stated in a July 9, 2008, opinion that
an e-mail sent to all members of a city council by the city manager was effectively “printed material”
that should be available to members of the public.*
And:
“A public body cannot fulfill its obligation to make members’ materials available in the meeting room for
inspection by the public if the public does not know they are available for inspection. While there is not
an affirmative duty to distribute copies to each member of the public in attendance at the meeting,
liberally construing the law to protect the public’s right to full access to the decision-making process of
public bodies requires a public body to provide easy access to the materials.” *
And more:
“The open meeting law requires that for open meetings, at least one copy of any printed material
prepared by the public body and distributed or available to all members of the public body also be
available in the meeting room for inspection by the public”. *
A reasonable interpretation concludes that the city was negligent and unjustified by not providing to
the public information that was available to the planning commission and as a result the decision
rendered by the planning commission is likely illegal and must be rescinded.
Another error in the city’s response to my 2/19 email misconstrued that I was calling for a private
meeting with the planning commission. I’m not sure how that conclusion was reached but it is wrong. I
wasn’t asking for a meeting, but dialogue between a commission member and me - hardly a quorum.
I find nothing in Minnesota statutes including chapter 13D (Minnesota Open Meeting) that justifies the
city’s argument that communications between a citizen and a member of a commission is unlawful. If
the city’s opinion is based on statute, law or ordinance, please provide the specific legal basis for the
claim. But keep this mind:
“Gatherings of less than a quorum of a public body are not subject to the law; a “meeting” is held when
the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers”.*
Instead of legal and fact based, the city’s argument looks like a blatant attempt to muzzle the planning
commission from interacting, one-on-one, with a neighbor and resident. I find that unacceptable and it
adds to my skepticism regarding the fairness of the process and calls into question the City of
Shorewood’s commitment and adherence to transparency and equal treatment under the law – pretty
fundamental concepts of good government.
So, I again request that each member of the planning commission contact me for a one- on-one
conversation.
Finally, here are the Minnesota Supreme Court’s stated three purposes of the Open Meeting Law:
• To prohibit actions taken at secret meetings
• To assure the public’s right to be informed
• To give the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body
I repeat from the earlier email: The Planning Commission must now rescind the approval
recommendation of the dock variance. Reconsideration of the variance must be based on an honest
and open discussion of ALL available information and the public must have access to those data. But
more importantly, for the integrity of the process, the city must apologize publicly for allowing vile
slander to be injected into a public meeting and for hiding important information that all citizens
deserve to see and consider.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/openmtg.pdf
Greg Larson 612 325-7308
.
RESOLUTION 22-021
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING DOCK ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5510 HOWARDS POINT ROAD
WHEREAS, Jennifer and David Labadie, (the “Applicant”) are requesting two variances for the
existing dock on property legally described as:
Lot 4, Auditor's Subd. No. 367, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the variance application is in response to a code enforcement violation notice.
WHEREAS, the first variance request is to allow a dock greater than four feet in width and the
second variance is to allow the dock less than eight feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW)
mark.
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation
is included in a memorandum for the February 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, a copy
of which is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on February 15, 2022 to review the
application, the minutes of the meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
February 28, 2022, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning
Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council
from the Applicant, staff and public.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS
1. The subject property is located in R1-A zoning district and is a shoreland lot with
frontage on Lake Minnetonka.
2. In 2006, the City Code was modified to adopt dock standards that were consistent
with the Lake Minnetonka Watershed District (LMWD) and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MNDNR) standards.
3. City Code Section 1201.03, subd.14c, limits properties to one dock and requires that
the dock to connect to the shoreline at only one location, no wider than four feet, and
requires that the dock shall extend into the lake at least eight feet beyond the OHW
mark before branching out to form slips. The width of the dock shall not exceed four
feet at any point, except that at one location the dock may be no wider than eight feet
for a length of eight feet.
4. In August 2021, the City received a complaint regarding the dock on the property.
5. In September 2021, the City inspected the property and observed that the dock did
not comply with ordinance standards.
6. The applicant received a Notice of Violation dated October 20, 2021.
7. On November 8, 2021, the City Council granted an extension to December 8, 2021
to allow the property owner additional time to address the violation.
8. The Applicant submitted a variance request as detailed on the application materials
and plans on November 23, 2021.
9. The center dock section has an eight-foot long, 3.5-foot wide section at the shoreline
and then expands to seven feet wide for 48 feet.
10. The center dock branches out near the shoreline in two sections. The eastern
section is approximately one foot from the OHW and the western section is
approximately four feet from the OHW.
11. The existing dock and the western boat slip have been in place since 1985,
according to aerial surveys and statements from two Lake Minnetonka dock
professionals, and remain in place year-round.
12. The dock professionals confirmed that the lagoon has an extremely soft bottom and
it progressively becomes softer as you proceed from the shoreline. Placing a dock
further from the shore could result in a less stable dock and potentially unsafe dock
situation. For that reason, Jeff Fox of Waterfront Specialties, Inc. opined that the
choice to install the dock close to the shoreline was intentional due to the
circumstances of the lagoon bottom.
13. Section 1201.05, subd. 1(b) of the City Code provides that the purpose of a variance
is to allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations.
14. Section 1201.05, subd. 1(b) provides the variance process is neither appropriate nor
applicable to allow a use on a property that is not permitted in the zoning district. A
dock is an allowed accessory use in the R1-A zoning district. See Section 1201.10,
subd. 3(k).
15. With respect to docks, Section 1201.03, subd. 14(f) provides no dock located within
a residential district shall extend further into the water than reasonably necessary to
provide docking space for boats and crafts used by the owner of the dock, and under
no circumstances shall a dock create a safety or navigational hazard or block any
channel or access to the lake from adjoining lots or parcels.
16. Section 1201.05, subd. 3 provides that any variance granted must consistent with the
intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning code, and must the applicant must establish that there are
practical difficulties with complying with the zoning requirements.
17. Section 1201.05, subd. 3(b)(7)(a) permits the Council to impose any condition it
considers necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, provided such
conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact of the
variance.
DECISION
A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby
approves the Applicant's request for a variance to allow a seven-foot wide dock where a
maximum width of four feet is permitted, based on the plans and materials submitted on
November 23, 2021.
B. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby
approves the Applicant's request for a variance to allow dock less than eight feet from the OHW,
based on the plans and materials submitted on November 23, 2021.
C. The City Council specifically finds that the Applicant’s request for the variances to
maintain their permanent dock meets the variance criteria listed in the City Code. Specifically:
1. The variances are consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. The applicants would continue to
use the property for residential purposes. The existing home is an allowed use and the
dock is an allowed accessory use to the home. These uses are consistent with the uses
anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has provided evidence that the dock has generally been in place for more than
36 years. The dock is a permanent structure and is not removed in the winter.
2. The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this
chapter.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter. The continued use of the permanent dock, which has
been in place for more than 36 years, is reasonable. The dock placement and its
width is reasonable in light of the unstable soils in the lagoon, and creates more
reliable and safe dock for the property owner.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by this landowner. The dock was originally installed more than 36
years ago by a previous landowner and remains in the lagoon year-round. The
application materials include signed statements from two local dock installation
professionals who provided their professional opinion that the soils in this lagoon
create a unique circumstance that would not allow the dock to be safely extended
further out into the lagoon. The extension of the dock from the OHWL is
incompatible with boat navigation patterns previously created by dredging of the
lagoon to create a channel for boat passage in and out of the lagoon. The
current location of the dock, and the variance herein, renders the dock
compatible with Section 1201.03, subd. 14(f) by avoiding the creation of a safety
or navigational hazard and blocking any channel or access to the lake from
adjoining lots or parcels.
c. The variances would not alter the essential character of the locality. The
continuation of the existing dock configuration in the location where it has been
for more than three decades would not alter the essential character of the
locality. The dock is consistent with the character of the area, which is a
residential, lakefront lot improved with a single-family home and an accessory
dock to access the lake.
3. The variances are not based exclusively on economic considerations. The applicants
have provided written statements from two local dock installation professionals who
performed work for the applicants in 2012. At that time, the dock was repaired where it
had been sinking on the end furthest from the shoreline and both professionals express
concern that moving the dock away from the shoreline and further into the lagoon would
create an unstable dock due to the soft soils in that area.
4. The variances to allow the dock to remain in place would not impair the supply of light
and air to adjacent property, increase congestion on the public street or endanger public
safety. As noted above, allowing the current dock placement supports public safety in
the lagoon as it allows ample room for navigation in the channel through the lagoon by
neighboring property owners.
5. The variances to allow the dock to remain in the existing location would not be
detrimental to the public welfare nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements
in the area. The dock has remained in this location for more than 36 years.
6. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to address or alleviate the practical
difficulties. Any change to the move the dock further into the lagoon would place it
nearer to the dredged channel in soft soils, which could create an unstable and unsafe
dock.
D. The variance approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a certificate of survey for the property and the dock
within six months of the variance approval date to memorialize the existing
conditions approved by the variance.
E. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
th
this 28 day of February 2022.
__________________________
Patrick Johnson, Acting Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 22-022
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FINAL DESIGN DIRECTION
FOR STRAWBERRY LANE
CITY PROJECT 19-05
WHEREAS, the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies improvements to
Strawberry Lane for improvements to the roadway, construction of a trail, installation of
nd
watermain and drainage improvements from West 62 Street to Smithtown Road; and
WHEREAS, the city prepared a Feasibility Study and Scoping Document for Strawberry
Lane and Trail project that summarized the costs and impacts of multiple roadway
alignments with varying widths and sidewalk/trail configurations; and
WHEREAS, the city hosted an Open House to gather resident feedback on the various
alternatives; and
WHEREAS, overwhelming feedback was received by the city from adjacent residents to
include a six-foot-wide sidewalk on the east side of the roadway, adjacent to the back of
curb, to minimize impacts to yards, trees, and other features along the corridor; and
WHEREAS, many residents adjacent to the project would prefer a 24 foot wide roadway
with no on street parking compared to the proposed 26 foot wide roadway that allows on
street parking. However, staff believes having a 26-foot-wide roadway that allows on
street parking is in the best interest of the community as it will provide convenience for
residents, calm traffic speeds, and provide separation from vehicles and pedestrians;
and
WHEREAS, may residents adjacent to the project prefer the roadway south of the Lake
Minnetonka Regional Trail follow the western alignment and require the acquisition of
additional easements from properties on the west side; and
WHEREAS, the city will pursue the western alignment of Strawberry Lane and negotiate
with the residents on the west side of the roadway for the acquisition of required
easements. However, if the city is required to engage in condemnation strictly to
facilitate the western alignment of Strawberry Lane, the city will then adjust the design
to follow the eastern alignment that minimizes easement needs; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota directs staff to incorporate
a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Strawberry Lane adjacent to
the back of curb, a 26-foot-wide roadway that allows on street parking, and south
of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail to follow the western alignment if it does
not require the need for condemnation. If condemnation is required staff shall
adjust the design to the eastern alignment. Staff should provide an update on
the final alignment for the area south of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail by
May 9, 2022.
th
Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 28 day of February 2022.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
8B
MEETING
TYPE
Regular
Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Birch Bluff Road: Present Draft Scoping Document and
Communication Plan, City Project 21-01
Meeting Date: Monday, February 8, 2022
Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Preliminary Layout, Draft Scoping Document, Project Process
& Decision Chart
*Due to the file size, a link to Attachments 1, 2 and 3 is shown here:
ci.shorewood.mn.us/councilmeeting22822
Background: On June 14, 2021, the City Council authorized the preparation of the
Scoping Study for the Birch Bluff Road Reconstruction project. The project is included
in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for construction in 2023. Attachment 1 is the
preliminary layout for the project.
The preparation of the Scoping Study is the first step to define options for the
improvements, define the project cost implications of those options, and to document
expectations from residents, staff, and the City Council. Attachment 2 is the draft
Scoping Document.
The project scope currently includes full reconstruction of Birch Bluff Road and Lee
Circle to the city standard width of 26 feet wide from face to face of the concrete curb
and gutter, addition of storm sewer and required stormwater management, the addition
of watermain, and the addition of a trail or sidewalk from Eureka Road to the Tonka Bay
City limits.
The Scoping Study also includes full topographic survey of the project area, delineation
of wetlands, evaluation of soil conditions, review of the existing sanitary sewer system
and lift station, preparation of preliminary storm sewer layout and ponding,
determination of preliminary construction limits, identification of preliminary easement
needs, updating project cost estimates, understanding overall permitting needs, and
developing a preliminary project schedule.
At this point in time, the document is considered “Draft”, while staff continues to engage
with residents along the corridor and hosts a Public Informational Meeting for the
project. To date the city has provided an online Story Map that provides preliminary
information and allows residents to provide comments that can impact the scope of the
project. Staff will update the Story Map content with information from the draft Scoping
Study and will solicit additional feedback from residents at the Public Informational
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Meeting. Staff will then utilize the public comments to provide recommendations to the
council, for consideration and direction to staff for final design.
It is noted that even after the initial approval, staff may need to continue to evaluate
other elements of the project scope, based on input and questions from residents.
After the public engagement process staff will finalize the scoping document, present it
to council seeking final approval and authorization to proceed with final design in April.
Another element that is recommended to be incorporated as an additional information
tool is the “Project Process and Decision Chart.” This has been included as Attachment
3. This interactive document helps clarify information that is known at various stages of
project development and provides residents key points when public input is most
effective. This is intended to help the city be transparent with the project information
and process, and provide education and guidance to residents when to engage with
staff and council. This also allows the city to be efficient in the project development
process.
Financial Considerations: This project has been budgeted for in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) in the year 2023 and includes four items from the CIP:
2023 Birch Bluff Street Reconstruction $2,071,008
2023 Birch Bluff Water $866,533
2023 Birch Bluff Sanitary $120,200
2023 Birch Bluff Stormwater Management $410,866
Total Budget $3,468,607
The above budget amounts include concept construction costs and project development
costs such as survey, engineering, legal, and administration. The completion of the
scoping study will allow for adjustments to the CIP if needed. Items that were not
included in the original budget items are the costs associated with Lee Circle
reconstruction and its watermain and the costs associate with the trail/sidewalk if it is
pursued.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends the city council select a date
to host an open house in March, and provide direction if this meeting should be
conducted in person or a virtual format.
Motion, second and Simple Majority required.
8C
MEETING
TYPE
Regular
Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement
for Bids for Lift Stations 7, 9 & 10 Rehabilitation Projects, City
Projects 20-12 & 21-08
Meeting Date: Monday, February 28, 2022
Prepared by: Matt Bauman, Assistant City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: CIP Excerpts, Site Location Maps, Plans and Specifications and
Resolution
*Link to Plans and Specifications: ci.shorewood.mn.us/councilmeeting22822
Background: The Covid 19 pandemic and variants dramatically impacted the ability to
complete several lift station (aka wastewater pumping station) rehabilitation projects, due
to material shortages and what had been perceived as inflated pricing for these types of
improvements. The past projects and current projects are summarized in Table 1 below.
Lift Station No. Location Original
CIP Year
10 4773 Lakeway Terrace 2020
7 5600 Woodside Ln. 2021
9 20995 Minnetonka Blvd. 2022
Table 1
On July 6, 2021, the city received bids for lift stations 7 and 10, however, the bids were
rejected due to what appeared to be inflated pricing, due to impacts of the pandemic.
Therefore, staff has opted to group all three lift stations together, attempting to take
advantage of economies of scale and hopefully an increase in the number interested
bidders.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Lift Station 10 was listed in the 2020 CIP, as shown in Attachment 1, in addition to
a site location map as Attachment 2.
Lift Station 7, was listed in the 2021 CIP, as shown in Attachment 3. A site location
map is shown as Attachment 4.
Lift Station 9, is listed in the 2022 CIP for reconstruction, as shown in Attachment
5. Attachment 6 is the site location map for this lift station.
Items under consideration for this agenda item is:
Approval of Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Lift Station 9
Rehabilitation Project.
Authorize Advertisement for Bids for all three lift stations 7, 9, and 10.
Authorize direct purchase of critical pump and control circuitry form Electric Pump,
Inc. for lift station 9. (Pumps, critical hardware, and circuitry for lift stations 7 and
10 were authorized previously by the City Council).
Our current practice with lift station projects has been to purchase directly, from a trusted
vendor, critical components. This typically includes control panels, circuitry, pumps and
hardware. This allows the city to have uniformity across all the lift stations, minimizes the
spare parts that are warehoused, and standardizes operations for employees. This is
especially important during failures and emergencies.
Therefore, staff has solicited a quote from Electric Pump, Inc. for the critical components
for lift station 9. The quote for the pumps, hardware and controls is $66,625.00 and is
included as Attachment 7.
It is noteworthy that if the projects move forward, the unsightly green “check valve vaults”
that exist at the present sites will be replaced with flush mounted access hatches. This
will improve the aesthetics of the sites dramatically.
Finally, Shorewood has many cultural resource monitoring locations and Lift Station 7
falls into one of those known areas. Provisions have been made to account for this
during construction. The site is considered previously disturbed, since excavations were
made when the lift station was originally installed.
Financial Considerations: The total project costs for each of the lift stations are listed
below:
Lift Station 10: $150,000 (As originally listed in 2020 CIP)
Lift Station 7: $240,000 (As originally listed in 2021 CIP)
Lift Station 9: $240,000 (2022 CIP)
Costs were unintentionally not updated with the latest round of CIP planning. The most
current total project cost estimates are:
Lift Station 7: $359,000
Lift Station 9: $344,600
Lift Station 10: $341,500
Timing: The following time schedule is being proposed for this project:
February – Order pumps, control panels and accessories and post plans for
bidding
April – Open bids and award project
August through October – Construction
Options: Staff recommends that the Council consider the following actions:
1. Approve the Resolution that approves the Plans, Specifications for the Lift Station
10, 7, 9 & Rehabilitation Project, and authorize advertisement of bids for City
Projects 20-12 and 21-08, and authorize purchase of lift station components for
City Project 21-08 from Electric Pump for an amount of $66,625.00.
2. Provide Staff with alternate direction.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the
Resolution as submitted that approves the Plans, Specifications for the Lift Station 7, 9
&10 Rehabilitation Project, proceed with bidding the project and authorize purchase of lift
station components from Electric Pump.
Link to Plans and Specifications: ci.shorewood.mn.us/councilmeeting22822
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 22-023
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE
BIDDING FOR THE LIFT STATIONS 7, 9 AND 10 REHABILITATION PROJECT
CITY PROJECTS 20-12 AND 21-08
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood approved the 2020 Capital Improvement Plan which
includes the Lift Station 10, Lakeway Terrace, City Project 20-12; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood approved the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan which
includes the Lift Station 7, Woodside Lane, City Project 20-12; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood approved the 2022 Capital Improvement Plan which
includes the Lift Station 9, Minnetonka Boulevard, City Project 21-08; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood purchased lift station components for Lift Station 7
and Lift Station 10 in 2021 and solicited pricing for Lift Station 9; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will help to maintain and extend the longevity
of the sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, combining the three projects is in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the project will be funded through the Sanitary Fund, and
NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED:
1. That the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby approves the Final Plans
& Specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids for the 2022 Lift Station 7,
9 and 10 Rehabilitation projects.
2. That the City Council hereby authorizes direct purchase of critical lift station
components for City Project 21-08 from Electric Pump for an amount of
$66,625.00.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28 day of February
2022.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
9A
Title/Subject: Accept Quote for Integrated Pest Management Plan
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney; Larry Brown Director of
Public Works
Attachments: IPM proposals
Background: Following the discussion at the January 24 work session about the city’s
pollinator policy not being adhered to, the City Council directed staff to reach out to
organizations of firms to assist the city in developing an Integrated Pest Management
program (IPM). Staff prepared a Request for Quote (RFQ) for the work to develop a
plan and an alternate quote to assist staff with ongoing implementation of the plan.
The RFQ was sent to nine parties. The city received three quotes: Davey Resource
Group (DRG), Bolton & Menk, the IPM Institute.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Below is a breakdown of the proposals
received:
DRG Bolton & Menk IPM Insitute
Quote $9,770 12,900 5,806
Alternate Quote 5,175 6,600 6,039
Options:
1. Accept one of the quotes.
2. Reject all quotes.
3. Request additional information from one or all of the organizations who submitted a
quote.
4. Provide staff alternative direction.
Recommended Action: All three proposals were comprehensive. The city has
relationships with both DRG and Bolton & Menk. Based on a recommendation from
Lauri Schneider, Executive Director of the Pollinator-Friendly Alliance, an interview we
held with Ryan Anderson at the IPM Institute, and the desire of staff to ensure that there
is no conflict of interest with this particular project and other services presently provided
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
by DRG and Bolton and Menk, staff recommends accepting the quote and alternate
quote from the IPM Institute by simple majority.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will work with the city attorney and the IPM Institute to
draft any necessary agreements for the city council to approve at a future meeting.
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
9B
Title/Subject: COVID-19 Testing Policy
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney; Sandie Thone, Human
Resources Director
Attachments: Draft Policy
Background: The City Council directed staff to prepare a COVID-19 testing policy and
bring the draft back to the February 28 meeting for consideration. Staff developed the
attach policy by reviewing similar policies from the State of Minnesota and the cities of
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth.
Vaccinations have shown to be quite effective in preventing COVID infections, and/or
limiting the severity of the illness if COVID is contracted. However, particularly with the
Omicron variant, break thru infections in the vaccinated have become common.
Because the goal of this testing program is to identify those who are infected and isolate
them before they can spread the virus, the policy has been written to require weekly
testing of all employees regardless of vaccination status. There has been a lot of
controversy about polices requiring employees be vaccinated or be subject to testing.
There has been far less controversy about implanting a mandatory testing policy and
program that impacts all employees equally.
Financial or Budget Considerations: $79.50 per employee per week for testing.
Testing 22 employees would cost $6,996 per month.
Options:
1. Adopt the policy as presented or amended. As presented, there are a couple of
questions where the city council would need to provide staff policy direction:
a. If the city council wishes to amend the policy, it should determine if contracted
city employees (city attorney, city engineer) should also be required to test.
b. What would the circumstance be that would lead to the suspension of the
policy, and similarly, if suspended, what would the conditions be to reinstate the
policy?
c. If still a factor later this year, would election judges be subject to the testing
requirements?
d. Other?
2. Not adopt the policy.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
3. Provide alternative direction.
Any council decision can be done by motion/second and simple majority approval.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends not adopting a policy at this time for
several reasons. First, since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, the city has
repeatedly communicated to employees the need to stay home and test if they are sick.
That policy has served the city well. We have followed MN Department of Health
policies regarding exposures, to vaccinated and unvaccinated employees, and isolation
procedures as they have evolved. Some employees have had COVID, but I can say
with a high degree of certainty, though not 100%, that city employees have not
experienced COVID transmission from employee to employee. What staff has been
doing has been working to prevent transmission of COVID.
Second, because it is possible to have and transmit COVID before being symptomatic
and testing positive for COVID, as shown by the recommendation that a person is not
tested for COVID until four days after the possible exposure, a weekly testing schedule
may be no better than the current policy in limiting the spread of COVID. It could be
possible for an employee who tests negative at their weekly test on Monday to finally
feel ill on Thursday, and in those circumstances the test failed to provide any advance
notice.
Third, not that Shorewood has to follow what other cities do, but there are few cities who
have adopted a testing/vaccination policy for workers, and most of them are large cities.
In addition, the number of mandates continues to decline. Relatedly, I have heard from
a couple of employees who recently attended training in their respective areas, and they
indicated that only a couple of the larger cities are keeping their vaccine/testing policies
in place.
While staff recommends against adopting a policy at this time, COVID-19 and its
variants have proved to be mutating and changing regularly. It is staff’s
recommendation that the city council and staff continue to monitor the pandemic and be
prepared to adopt appropriate policies should circumstances change.
COVID-19 EMPLOYEE TESTING POLICY
OBJECTIVE
To prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and variants by providing standards and expectations for
mandatory testing of City Employees.
POLICY STATEMENT
The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented and ongoing health challenge to the city. The virus
is highly contagious, including among asymptomatic people and is potentially deadly. According to the
Minnesota Department of Health, the best way to prevent infection and spreading the disease is by
being vaccinated. The vaccination, however, does not prevent the ability of vaccinated persons from
having and transmitting the COVID virus, especially more transmissible variants of the COVID-19 virus.
Testing staff for COVID-19 infection is a critical tool for minimizing potential exposure to COVID-19 and
enabling an early response to prevent further transmission of the virus. Therefore, to protect to the
extent reasonably possible, the health and safety of city employees, customers, and residents, it shall be
the policy of the City of Shorewood to require mandatory COVID-19 weekly testing of employees.
This policy is subject to change at the City’s discretion, including based on public health guidance, and
community transmission rates.
SCOPE
This policy applies to all City of Shorewood employees and volunteers who work in positions where they
regularly have contact with the public. Employees who have received a positive COVID-19 Test within
the last three months will be exempt from this COVID-19 Testing Policy until three months has passed
from the testing date that resulted in a positive test. Employees who have tested positive in the last
three months must submit a copy of their positive test result showing the date of the test to the Human
Resources Director.
DEFINITIONS
Employee: All Shorewood employees, whether full-time, or part-time, as well as volunteers who work in
positions where they have contact with the public.
COVID-19 Test: A medical test to determine if someone has an active COVID-19 infection. As methods
become available, recommended test may include a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or an antigen
test.
EMPLOYEE EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City will determine testing dates, which will occur at least weekly.
The City has sole discretion to choose or authorize the testing location and whether to accept the results
from a particular testing method. In the event on-site testing is not available, the City may send the
Employee to a testing facility.
Testing will occur during work hours and be considered work time.
Test results will automatically be reported to the Human Resources Director.
The COVID-19 test and results will be conducted and handled in compliance with all applicable rules and
laws. Due to the pandemic and Employees’ job-related interaction with others, COVID-19 testing is job
related and consistent with business necessity. A positive COVID-19 test result will not be used as the
basis for discipline or discharge.
Employees who refuse to test will be informed that they will be excluded from the workplace, and will
be subject to disciplinary action below, for refusing a work directive:
• 1st Offense: Verbal Warning
• 2nd Offense: Written Warning
• 3rd Offense: Five‐day Unpaid Suspension
• 4th Offense: 15‐day Unpaid Suspension
• 5th Offense: Termination
Employees who refuse to test will also be sent home and placed on unpaid leave until they have been
tested for COVID‐19 and have provided a test result or until Administration, in its sole discretion,
determines they no longer require COVID‐19 testing. Prior to being placed in no‐pay status, Employees
will be offered a meeting with their supervisor to learn the reasons for being placed in no‐pay status and
to tell their side of the story. The Employee may have representation at the meeting. Employees who
refuse to test will progress through the disciplinary steps each week they refuse, regardless of being
placed in no‐pay status.
Employees placed in no‐pay status who later determine they wish to be tested may obtain a COVID‐19
test on their own time at their own expense and have the results reported to the Human Resources
Director. Once documentation confirming a negative COVID‐19 test result is received by the City, the
Employee may return to work no later than the next day the Employee is scheduled to report to work.
Employees with positive test results or who are experiencing symptoms, regardless of their vaccination
status, must call their supervisor, and must follow the appropriate actions according to current City
guidelines listed here:
EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Communication. The City Administrator and Human Resources Director are responsible for
communicating this policy and the details of the testing program with the selected vendor, to all
employees to ensure that each Employee is aware of and understand the content and effect of this
policy.
B. Compliance. Department heads are responsible to ensure employees in their department are tested
according to this policy and that such tests are scheduled during regular work time.
C. Tracking and Reporting. The Human Resources Director is responsible for maintain all testing records
and informing department heads of positive test results for employees in their department.
D. Confidentiality of Medical Information. The City, through the City Administrator and Human
Resources Director, shall maintain the confidentiality of employee COVID-19 test results. All information
gathered under this policy, including test results, attestation, Requests for Medical Accommodation, and
Religious Exemption forms shall be retained by the city according to the applicable retention schedule
and in a secure medical file separate from the Employee’s personnel file. Testing results may be shared
with the Minnesota Department of Health, City employees with a business need to know, and others
authorized by law.
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
9C
Title/Subject: Review Status of Meetings
Meeting Date: February 28, 2022
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney
Attachments: Version 1 & 2 of Resolution
Background: At the January 10 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-
009 which called for meetings of the Council and advisory commissions to be held
virtually in response to the Covid1-19 Omicron variant. That requirement expires
without any further action on February 28, unless the City Council votes to extend it.
There is a planning commission being held on March 1. Because it was not known if
meetings would be in-person after February 28, staff had to determine a couple of
weeks ago whether the meeting would be held in person or remotely. Staff erred on the
side of caution and advertised the meeting as being held virtually.
Options:
1. Allow the provisions of Resolution 22-009 to expire without taking any additional
actions. Meetings of the City Council and advisory commissions would then go back to
in-person/virtual for Council meetings, and in-person for Advisory Commission
meetings.
2. Extend the provisions of Resolution 22-009 by determining a date to extend the
emergency and adopt the attached version 1 of the Resolution.
3. Extend the provisions of Resolution 22-009 until March 5, affirming the Planning
Commission meeting to be held remotely by adopting the attached version 2 of the
Resolution.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends version 2 of the attached Resolution be
adopted. Although the Omicron variant has retreated, staff will continue to be vigilant in
monitoring the pandemic and will bring a Resolution forward for council consideration
should conditions dictate.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 22 - 024
A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE OMICRON VARIANT SURGE OF THE
COVID-19 HEALTH PANDEMIC IMPACTING IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, The Shorewood City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-009 on January 10,
2022 in response to the Omicron Variant Surge of the Covid-19 Health Pandemic; and,
WHEREAS, that Resolution called for all meetings of the City Council and City Advisory
Commissions to be conducted by interactive technology/videoconferencing until February 28,
2022; and
WHEREAS, the provision of that Resolution would expire at 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2022
without future City Council action; and
WHEREAS, despite relaxation of state and local measures to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic, the pandemic persists.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAKES
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has stated that data
suggests that persons, regardless of vaccination status may, in some cases, become
infected with COVID-19 and its variants and transmit the same to other persons.
2. The existence of COVID-19 within the community poses a direct threat to the health,
safety, and well-being of the community.
3. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, subd. 1(1), and consistent with the previous
determination of Mayor Jennifer Labadie, the City Administrator, and the City
Attorney it remains neither practical nor prudent to hold in-person meetings of the City
Council or City advisory commission due to the status of the COVID-19 health
pandemic.
4. Furthermore, due to the measures necessary to contain and mitigate the impacts of
COVID-19, it has been determined that attendance at the regular meeting location by
members of the public is not feasible and that the physical presence at the regular
meeting location by at least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief
administrative officer is also not feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, as
follows:
1. The City Council finds that given the current impacts of Covid-19, that in-person
meetings of the City Council and all City advisory commission is not practical or prudent
due to current status of the COVID-19 pandemic and that all meetings of the City council
and meetings of City advisory commissions shall continue to be conducted by interactive
technology/videoconferencing under the authority and requirements of Minn. Stat. §
13D.021, so as to permit any persons, including but not limited to members of the City
Council or advisory commissions, to participate from a remote location not open to the
public.
2. This Resolution and its directives shall expire without further action at 11:59 p.m. on
_________________, unless rescinded or extended, as the case may be, by Resolution of
the City Council.
th
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 28 day of February, 2022.
___________________________
Mayor Jennifer Labadie
ATTEST
______________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 22-024
A RESOLUTION RESUMING IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.021, subd. 1(1), by Resolution 2022-09, the City
Council determined that all meetings of the City Council and advisory commission shall be conducted by
interactive technology/videoconferencing due to the surge of the Omicron variant of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, by its terms, Resolution 2022-09 and its directives expire without further action at
11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2022, unless rescinded or extended, as the case may be, by resolution of the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAKES
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. While the existence of COVID-19 remains a direct threat to the health, safety, and well-being of
the community, the immediate threat of the Omicron surge is waning as daily cases of COVID-19
reported by the Minnesota Department of Health are in significant decline.
2. The City should transition back toward in-person meetings in an orderly manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, based
upon the above recitals and findings, as follows:
1. All meetings of the City council and meetings of City advisory commissions shall be
conducted by interactive technology/videoconferencing under the authority and
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, so as to permit any persons, including but not
limited to members of the City Council or advisory commissions, to participate from a
remote location not open to the public through March 5, 2022.
2. All meetings of the City council and meetings of City advisory commissions shall be
in-person from March 6, 2022 forward.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of February,
2022.
____________________________
Mayor, Jennifer Labadie
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk