With a vote during the June 9th regular Shorewood City Council meeting, council members appear prepared to ignore the clear and unambiguous laws that are in force for municipal water installation. In this case, Shorewood Ordinance 903.18. It was passed in the early 2000s, is still active and clearly spells out the procedures for initiating a water system improvement (expansion) and how any costs for such improvements are paid.
The failure of city councils to follow the existing city law (ordinance §903.18) has contributed significantly to the financial deficit in the Water Enterprise Fund. This may seem confusing to many but the ordinance was written clearly and in simple terms.
Read below for a history of this project and analysis of council actions to date:
Shorewood had a two-month window (June-July) to decide whether to add a water pipe to its section of the Mill Street trail construction project. The decision also coincided with the first steps in the development of a city-wide municipal water plan. The financial advantages to incorporating the pipe with the project were clear: Hennepin County would pick up a significant portion of costs, saving the city $200,000-$300,000.
Twenty-five properties on Mill Street are impacted. The city sent a written survey to the property owners. Less than 1/3 (8) responded. Of those 8, 2 showed an interest in connecting within 2 years. (See project map below)
During discussion of financial considerations of the proposed project, Engineer Budde explained his understanding of how the city has been functioning to install water pipes within the water ordinance. His explanation did not align with Section 4 of the Ordinance 903.18 that clearly dictates what should happen:
By the initiative of the City Council. If the City Council determines to order an improvement, a feasibility report, as set forth in c. below, shall be undertaken and a public hearing shall be scheduled to consider the project. A simple majority vote of the City Council is needed to start the proceedings. If an improvement is ordered, benefitting properties shall be assessed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statute §429.*
The staff reported that Shorewood does not have an assessment “policy”. At some (admittedly unknown) point in time, city staff took the position that water improvement projects did not need to be assessed because there was “not an assessment policy.’” Budde says he has followed this precedent since coming on board. This practice has allowed the ordinance to be circumvented.
However, Shorewood does have an assessment policy for the installation of water main. The “policy” is clearly spelled out in ordinance §903.18, which preempts any informal policy. Neither the city staff, nor the city attorney explained, or clarified, the ordinance to the council during the discussion. It should be noted that only one member, Labadie, has been in office over the duration of the non-assessed projects. Gorham was present for the Birch Bluff vote and voted “no.”
___________________________________________________
*The definition of an ordinance is a law of a municipality (city, village or town) or a county that has the force of law within that municipality. An ordinance is legally binding and enforceable.
A policy is an internal guideline or procedure adopted by a city council or staff to guide decision-making or operations. A policy is not legally binding like an ordinance, but may still be authoritative within the organization.
NOTE: A cursory review of council meeting minutes since 2016 shows there has been no public discussion or decision by the council to by-pass the ordinance in favor of an in-house policy.
_____________________________________________________
After extensive and perplexing discussion regarding the wording of the motion, the council voted 4-1 (Sanschagrin opposed) to:
“Approve authorization to prepare final plans and specifications for Mill Street trail water main project, taking into consideration the WAC [water access charge] policy discussed and agreed upon by the city council whereby we will charge the $10,000 water access fee. Connection will be encouraged through the city-led organized connection program.”
During the course of the meeting, terminology used to describe the $10k fee was alternatively referred to as the “water access charge” (WAC), or “assessment.” Confusion built to the point where council member DiGruttolo had to reword her motion.
The Council is within their authority under the existing ordinance to order the project to move forward. The motion that was voted on and passed seems to confuse the plain language of §903.18 assessing benefitting properties with §903.04 which governs connection charges to existing service stubs.
Below is what is required by the ordinance when a council initiated water improvement project is ordered. The text is copied directly from the Shorewood ordinance:
|
Read the conversation summary here (scroll down to item 8b) or watch the discussion.
*Minnesota Statute Section 429 governs local improvements and special assessments in Minnesota municipalities. It outlines the procedures for municipalities to undertake projects like street improvements, utility installations, and other public works, and to finance them, in part, through special assessments on benefited properties. – Source: MN Office of the Revisor
Additional Reading
Read SCA, June 23, 2025
Read SCA, Feb. 25, 2025
Let city leaders know what you think.
- Best option: attend and /or speak up at City Council meetings and get it on the public record.
- Contact City Council Members
Dustin Maddy (612) 293-6727 dmaddy@shorewoodmn.gov
Jennifer Labadie (952) 836-8719 jlabadie@shorewoodmn.gov
Michelle DiGruttolo (517) 422-9528 mdigruttolo@shorewoodmn.gov
Guy Sanschagrin (952) 217-1289 gsanschagrin@shorewoodmn.gov
Nat Gorham (617) 780-7771 ngorham@shorewoodmn.gov
