Shorewood Citizen Advocates
Building positive change through communication, education and advocacy
Below is my statement made to the Shorewood City Council on August 25. I made a similar statement on July 28.
For background, despite there being a MN Statute that allows cities to assess “utility availability fees”, I really feel that it is unfair and heavy handed. I’ve had 2,000+ views of my post(s) on NextDoor. But there are only a few residents who seem to know or care.
One of my concerns is that of transparency. The Mayor voiced a lengthy justification of all the ways that the City is now trying to communicate with residents about such matters. But the reality is that a resident must read the message that a budget is being worked on, then go to the web site, find the correct links for agendas and work session documents, then scan through 50 – 100 pages of content to maybe find the one or two pages of the “proposed 2026 Master Fee Schedule”. I don’t feel that is true transparency.
As part of their brainstorming and review process, the city should put the new and increased fees in a clear front page article in the ShoreReport and on its web site, asking for resident feedback. The city will get it. I am convinced that these topics have the support of the Mayor and the Council and will be passed unless a significant resident uproar is made. When it comes out in 2026, it will be too late.
My name is Dale Newberg. We have lived at 26960 Beverly Drive, Shorewood for 35 years.
I wish to reiterate my concerns and strong disapproval of the newly proposed water availability fees. I’ve read the work session documents that you reviewed tonight prepared by the Finance Director and reviewed by the City Administrator.
It would appear that the new $32.51/quarter fee for “water availability” is still included in your 2026 financial and budget considerations; and a $10/quarter fee in 2027 to all residents, even those with no water availability. Other residents have called this a “money grab” and “grounds for a lawsuit”. I urge you to drop these proposals from the budget considerations.
I am not in favor of any program that assesses fees to any resident that has access to city water but has freely chosen not to hook up. Fees based on availability or potential usage are inherently unfair. There is no other city utility that charges an “availability” fee.
Fees should only be based on actual subscribers’ usage and direct benefit. You can’t start to charge fees for services which you’ve allowed residents to choose or not choose for the last 40 plus years.
If your water system is not breaking even financially then reduce costs and/or increase the base rate and usage fees to the actual users of your water. Increase the graduated usage fee structure for heavy users.
I am not in favor of requiring water hookups upon the sale of a home that has city water access in the street in front of the house. That is infringing on my right to price and sell my home. It is a taking of my rights and revenue from my private ability to sell my home.
If your objective is to incentivize residents to hook up to city water, then use actual incentives.
Waive the $10.000 water connection fee. Increase the City connection fee assessment period to 10 years. Don’t charge interest. Include contractor/plumber connection fees in a 10 year assessment program. Don’t charge interest. Provide a Free Trial period with no or reduced quarterly water usage fees. Have staff brainstorm incentives instead of punishments.
Finally, provide the actual transparency to your constituents on these issues that many of you campaigned on. Put these new proposed fees on the front page of the ShoreReport, or on your web page, or in the official newspapers rather than burying it in work session documents. Behind closed doors are you plotting to require residents with water availability to connect?
Register Here to Receive Email Notifications of New Content
