June 22, 2026 Shorewood Council Meeting 5 Minute Recap

NOTE: Relevant links are at the end of this article

Worth knowing from Monday’s Shorewood City Council meeting:

Expenditures of interest:

Met Council (waste water): $100,018
Bolton & Menk (engineering): $59,051
SRF (Hwy 7 corridor): $32,283
Campbell Knutson (legal fees): $8,059
HKGi (code amendments): $4,825

Total all expenditures this period: $408,320

Matters from the Floor

1. Todd Murtha (25650 Mapleview Court) — Watten Ponds EAW appeal record

Murtha warned the council about a serious defect in the documents the city filed with the Court of Appeals regarding the council’s decision requiring an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Watten Ponds project. His main points:

• • The Appeals Court only judges whether the council’s decision was reasonable based on the documents provided. Important portions of those documents are missing.
  • Examples of missing documents included Murtha’s EAW letter (submitted with an explicit request that it be entered into the public record) and residents’ statements at a February Matters from the Floor discussion-the only forum for residents to present information, due to council-imposed restrictions.
  • Murtha said “residents were simply erased.”
  • Murtha’s sharpest point was that the council’s administrative team had let them down. The people responsible for preparing the response documents were effectively deciding the case by not filing all of the documents, making the council look like it acted without “willy nilly.”

2. Barry Brown (6050 Burlwood Court) — Shorewood Lane Ravine project (Project 17-15)

Brown raised cost-transparency, scope creep and process concerns about the long-running ravine project. Bolton & Menk has invoiced the city 36 times totaling roughly $149,475 since November 2021. He cited it was originally budgeted around $300,000 in 2014. The project now runs $640,000-$885,000. He acknowledged legitimate reasons for the growth (permitting issues and design changes). He said a project nearly tripling in cost “deserves a clear public accounting,” and asked staff to confirm the outcomes of several pending grant applications. His main request: because nearly every action on this 12-year project has been buried on the consent agenda with no discussion since August 2023, he asked it be on a regular agenda as a standalone item before spending more. Staff confirmed there will be an update.

3. Mill Street residents (summarized together)

Several residents spoke on the Mill Street water main proposal (item 4F), some in support in principle but alarmed at the cost. Two residents living on Mill Street spoke in favor. Estimates range from roughly $10,000–$75,000 per property. There was confusion over why both Shorewood and Chanhassen were each assessing fees, and frustration with a confusingly worded survey. Some flatly opposed connecting, noting they would rather drill new wells for a fraction of the cost. Residents criticized the city’s communication as “poor.”

Agenda Items

Curbside Organic Recycling (Item 4E)

Ahead of a state mandate requiring cities of 5,000+ to offer a curbside organics option by 2030, recycling coordinator Eric Wilson sought council direction between Option 1: organized city collection, when the city negotiates one price with a single hauler; and Option 2, where residents choose their hauler. The council leaned toward Option 1 for fewer trucks on roads and consistency with recycling. Staff was directed to gather more resident input.

Mill Street Water Main Project (Item 4F) — the night’s most contested item; ultimately failed on a 2-2 tie

The city awarded a bid in April to install water main along Mill Street as part of the Hennepin County trail project, to carry water purchased from Chanhassen. In May, Chanhassen raised unexpected connection fees. Staff negotiated these down to 56% of Chanhassen’s current hookup charge, then proposed spreading the cost of 15 affected parcels across all 25 in a designated service area, lowering the per-property Chanhassen fee to ~$3,307 added to Shorewood’s access fee of $10,000. Gorham and Labadie voted aye; Sanchagrin and DiGruttolo voted no. With only four members present, the 2-2 tie failed the motion. The council then unanimously voted to rescind the previously approved City Project 24-07, formally ending the project.

Excelsior Fire District JPA Changes (Item 4G)

The city of Deephaven proposed amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement governing the Excelsior Fire District, including a controversial provision giving both Deephaven and Shorewood two votes each. The council was opposed to acting now, recommending postponement. The reasons:

• Fire board representative Councilmember Maddy was absent and has the necessary background and context.
• The district is in transition after firing its fire chief and has only an interim chief.
• Members objected to “nit-picking” the 20-year-old document piecemeal.

On the two-vote proposal, Councilmember DiGruttolo said the quiet part out loud, observing that had Shorewood and Deephaven each held two votes, the former fire chief would still be in place tying the proposal to frustration over the chief’s removal. She argued this was all the more reason not to have the conversation without Maddy.

Sanchagrin also disliked “serving at the pleasure of the board” language as undercutting the district’s collaborative spirit. Feedback will be relayed to Maddy for the fire board.

Staff & Council Reports (Item 5)

City Administrator Nevinski: Nevinski reported the police chief says the Flock camera contract has been terminated effective at the end of the year, when the cameras will be removed. What was originally a two-year contract will now be just a one-year contract. This followed earlier discussion of resident privacy concerns about the cameras and the provider.

Other reports (brief):

• Councilmember Gorham relayed LMCC updates: revenue slightly above projections; candidate forums won’t be offered this year due to staff/studio capacity.
• Labadie reported that the controversy on the Police Coordinating Committee has escalated due to Greenwood’s insistence that its mayor serve on both police committees because that city does not have a city administrator to take the coordinating committee position. Greenwood has been given no options other than for the city of 200+ homes to hire an administrator.

(“Um” was used 185 times in this meeting…up from 84 at the last meeting.)

More info:

Read the full meeting packet
Watch the meeting any time
View the Police Coordinating Committee Meeting regarding Greenwood Mayor