Loading...
020999 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, ''FEBRUARY 9, 1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Da11man Arnst Themig Cochran B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of January 13, 1999 (Att. -#2 Draft Minutes) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Report From Little League Representatives 4. TRAIL REVIEW -MARK KOEGLER A. Review Format for February 23 Meeting (Att.44A) B. Review Handouts/Exhibits for February 23 Meeting C. Review Roll of Park Commission D. Consider Targeted Mailings E. Consider aTime Line for 1999 Trail Planning Process (Att.44E) (Hurm) F. Update on Funds Allocated for Park Planner (Att.44F) (Harm) G. Other Issues 5. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI - PURPOSE BUILDING - LARRY BROWN Action: A. Review Revisions to Drawing and Cost Estimates B. Discussion/Questions C. Develop Time Line D. Next Steps 6. REVIEW ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICIES (DRAFT) AND FEE FORMULAS Action: A. Finalize Policies (Att.4%A) B. Decide on Funding Formula (Att.46B) C. Set Date/Format for Session With Sports Organizations 7. REVIEW 1999 "TO DO" LIST (Att. - #7) Action: A. Make Additions/Deletions B. Develop Schedule PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999 PAGE 2 OF 2 8. REVIEW PARK DEDICATION FEE (Att. - #8) Action: A. Recommendation to the City Council 9 REPORT ON LETTER TO COUNCIL REGARDING WAGNER PROPERTY (Att. -#9) 10. OTHER BUSINESS I1 NEW BUSINESS Establish Next Months Agenda (Att. -#11) 12. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: Feb. Themig Mar. - Colopoulos CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. 1. CONVENE PARK COMMIS S ION MEETING Commissioner Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p. m A. Roll Call Present: Commissioners, Dallman, Arnst, Colopoulos, Themig, and Cochran Commissioner Bensman (arrived 7:35 p.m.) Administrator Jim Hurm; Park Planner, Mark Koegler Absent: Chair Puzak; Council Liaison Scott Zerby moo- .-. B. Review Agenda Administrator Hum asked that item #6 be puffed from the agenda and said that item #5 will be only a brief report. The Commission agreed to those changes. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Mnutes of November 24, 1998 Commissioner Dallman pointed out that the header date on pages 2 through 6 was incorrect. The change will be made to November 10, 1998. Commissioner Colopoulos asked for clarification of list item #7 on page 5. It will be changed to say: "We have yet to consider the islands ". Themig moved, Colopoulos seconded, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously. B. Park Commission Mnutes of December 8, 1998 Arnst moved, Themig seconded, to accept the minutes as presented. The motion passed 510 with Colopoulos abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Administrator Humi explained that Council Liaison Scott Zerby could not make the meeting. He then reported about the request from the South Lake Nfmnetonka Public Safety Department ( SLMPSD) for $500 to help fund the purchase of a snowmobile. Hurm reminded the Commissioners about a previous request for snowmobile funding where the Park Commission suggested that the SLMPSD look into other funding options. Some money was made available, but there was still a shortage and SLMPSD has now approached each of the four Cities they serve to make up the balance. The City Council has asked that the Police Chief, Bryan Litsey, attend their next meeting to further m k Park Commission Meeting • Wednesday, January 13, 1999 Page 2 explain the request. The Council has also directed the Park Commission to stay active on this issue and make a recommendation back to them. It was agreed that Hurm will invite the newly appointed Police Chief to attend the next Park Commission meeting as well. 4. TRAIL REVIEW Park Planner Koegler explained that the first couple of items are carryovers from previous meetings which need some final approval. Modifications have been made to the evaluation form and line items were added regarding goals and objectives. A. Approve Trail Site Evaluation Form Commissioner Themig asked if a follow -up question should be provided for a "No" response to question B. Bensman agreed that it would be good to have documentation as to why any certain trail segment was not developed. Koegler will add aline or two to allow for further explanation of a "why not" response. Themig also asked how a segment is defined. Would it be block to block or from point "A" to point "B ", for example? Koegler replied that it would be identified from some origin point to some terminus. Administrator Hurm suggested that staff be removed from the final section which shows approval, rejection and date of action. Themig added that the approval (or non - approval) will be shown in the • CIP. Koegler suggested that the last section be replaced with a space to record what action, if any, was taken with reference to the trail segment under consideration. Themig added that the word, "rejected" sounds too strong. Dalhnan asked Koegler to make changes to the bottom section accordingly. Colopoulos noted that everything above the dotted line is data, except for question "B" which calls for an evaluation. Hurm suggested that the final part could simply state the Park Commission Recommendation and Date, plus Council Action with Date. Themig asked about a rating system for prioritizing. It was agreed that discussion sessions are the appropriate place to prioritize Colopoulos added that this form authenticates the development of a particular segment without requiring immediate construction of it. Koegler pointed out that the revised form can still be adjusted. It serves as a working model. Bensman asked if the School District should be included in part "F ", Administration Review. Hurm stated that they may not want to be obligated to attend meetings, but he will ask the Transportation Director, since they could offer some details that would be helpful to the process and to their own needs. Themig asked about the role of utilities such as NSP and Minnegasco who are also included in part ' F." Koegler explained that they may be able to flag major hurdles. Part "I" was also discussed. It was agreed that it indicates prioritization, which maybe premature to include at this point. It will be scratched There were no other comments. B. Approve Goals, Objectives and Policies Koegler explained that the current draft is a carryover with language changes as previously discussed. The order of items has also been adjusted according to prior meeting outcomes. Dalhnan asked if it • Park Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 13, 1999 Page 3 was agreeable to everyone that these points do accurately state the goals, objectives and policies. Themig moved that the Park Commission adopt the Trail Planning Goals, Objectives and Policies as presented. Cochran seconded and the motion passed unanimously. C. Complete Trail Concept Map -With Identified Alignments Koegler prefaced the map - drawing session by stating that the first step is to finish the designation of any more potential sites. They will then step back and select the four or five segments that make the most sense. This is part of the preparation for the first public meeting. Colopoulos reiterated that these sites are `potential" rather than "planned" trail segments. The segments that were added to the map as potential sites were: Smithtown Road from Eureka Road, west to the Victoria border (linking m Victoria's trail system) Howard's Point Road from Smithtown to Edgewood Cathcart Road from Smithtown to the LRT Trail Vine Hill Road Covington Road from Vine Hill Road to Silverwood Park St. Albans Bay Road from Minnetonka Blvd. to Manor Park Mill Street from the Chanhassen border (linking to their trail system) to Excelsior • Some comments made in discussion: Koegler commented that when this map is compared with the old Trail Plan of 1992, there are many of the same segments and there are some segments which are not common to both. He also reiterated that the Park Commission is identifying some areas to walk for just a starting point These are not sited as trails to be built, but trails to evaluate in the spring. Bensman and Colopoulos noted that the interest for a trait in the west part of Shorewood is high making it very practical to include on the map. It may even serve as a model for future development of trails. Themig asked if the next draft of the map could be less cluttered and adjacent cities be drawn with shading to distinguish the boundaries of Shorewood for ease of reading at the community open house. Also, could we add an estimated completion date to the various segments? The Park Commission should not be timid in identifying potential segments. A little "dissension" will encourage response from the community and greater attendance at the open house. Some points of interest discussed were Crescent Beach and downtown Excelsior. Arnst asked if a partnership with the City of Minnetonka could be considered for the Vine Hill trail segment. It was agreed that Vine HiIl Road is very hilly and dangerous and therefore warrants atrail on both sides of the street. • Park Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 13, 1999 • Page 4 D. Identify Priority Alignments The following poential trail sites were selected as priority alignments: Smithtown Road from Eureka Road, west to the Victoria border (linking to their trail system) Howard's Point Road from Smithtown to Edgewood Vine Hill Road Covington Road from Vine Hill Road to Silveuwood Park St. Alban's Bay Road from MinnetonkaBlvd. to Manor Park Mill Street from the Chanhassen border (linking to their trail system) to Excelsior There was a five minute break. E. Prepare for Public Infomnation Meetings 1. Date and Times: Administrator Hurm suggested the fourth Tuesday of February which is typically the date of Park Commission work sessions or special meetings. The date and time agreed to was Tuesday, February 23, 1999 from 4.30 p. m to 730 p. m The location will be at the Southshore Community Center. 2. Further Data Needed: Illustrations or photos of various trail designs will be provided, showing several options including on -street and off - street trails. Information showing the reference and research work that has been done up to this point will also be available. Comment cards will be on band for residents to complete. 0 3. Role of Park Commission: At least one Park Commissioner will be present throughout the three hours. Arrival times of the Commissioners wall be: 4:30 Themig and Dallman; 5:15 Arnst; 6:00 Cochran, Colopoulos and Bensman. (Puzak was not present to offer an arrival time.) 4. Format for Meeting: It will be an informal "open house" format with attractive visual displays such as maps, policy statements, outline of the process. Some staff and Council Members may be present as observers, but the Park Commission will be hosting the event 5. Format of Newsletter Insert: Include abrief summary of survey results and history of the trail planning process. Offer options for feedback such as the Shoreline number, e-mail address, but do not include a "clip- out - and - return" response form. That may discourage attendance at the open house. (Commissioner Thernig mentioned that he will be attending an open house regarding DNR grant programs on January 14. There may be information provided which is of interest to the Park Commission.) 5. REPORT ON DRAFT ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICY Commission Arnst reported that Themig, Hunn and she have met and fine -tuned the language of the Athletic Association Policy. They would like to present a recommendation for a formula needed to determine costs of park use. Staff is working on estimates. A full report, including some sample formulas wall be presented at the February 10 Park Commission meeting. The policy concept will be presented to the sports organizations before a recommendation is made lo Council. 0 Park Commission Meeting • Wednesday, January 13, 1999 Page 5 6. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT AND LOCATION OF FREEMAN PARK MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING Postponed to February meeting. 7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999 PARK COMMISSION OFFICERS AND LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMIS S ION Colcpoulos stated that he would like to make a motion on the fust part of this agenda item Colopoulos moved, Cochran seconded the nomination of Ken Dallman as Park Commission Chair and Pat Arnst as Vice Chair for 1999. Themig asked Dallman if he is interested in the position. Dallrrran replied yes, his is willing to accept the role of Chair. Bensman asked about the policy of Vice Chair moving to the Chair position for the following year. (Commissioner Arnst's term is to end after this next year.) Hurm said that it is tradition for the Vice Chair to roll into the Chair position after one year, but it is not a requirement Bensman asked if a motion was still on the table, explaining that she would like to nominate Pat Arnst as Chair since her term will end in January 2000. Dallman said he would be willing to step down from the nomination. Colopoulos suggested an amendment to the active motion. Themig asked if . Dallman would no longer serve as Park Foundation Liaison if he served as Chair and said he would hate to lose Dallman from that role. Dallman said he would probably not do both jobs. Arnst was asked if she would consider serving on the Park Commission after the end of this term. She did not know. Amst suggested the idea of appointing two Co-Chairs.. Hunn read from the_ Municipal Code and found that there was not an objection stated there. Colopoulos amended the motion to recommend to the City Council that Ken Dallman and Pat Arnst serve as Co- Chairs on the Park Commission for 1999. Cochran seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Hurm asked for clarification on the Vice Chair position. It was verified that here will be no Vice Chair. Commissioner Colopoulos volunteered to serve as Liaison to the Planning Commission. He explained that he may be interested in serving as a Planning Comrissioner offer his Park Commission term ends and would like to explore that possibility. Themig moved and Arnst seconded that the Park Commission designate Bill Colopoulos as Planning Commission Liaison for 1999. The motion passed unanimously. • Park Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 13, 1999 • Page 6 8. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO COUNCIL Park Commissioners will attend the 1999 City Council men following schedule: January Arnst February Themig April Dallman May Cochran July Puzak August Amst October Colopoulos November Dallman stings as liaison according to the March Colopoulos June Bensman September Themig December Puzak 9. DISCUSSION ON A COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR 1999 The work plan for 1999 will clearly include the trail process and multi- purpose building at Freeman Park. To prepare a month -by -month work plan for 1999, the new Co -chairs of the Park Commission will work on some ideas and present a draft plan to discuss at the next Park Commission meeting. 10. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst asked to revisit the issue of the Wagner property. She noted that Chair Puzak has mentioned a concern for the 30 foot strip of land which could alleviate safety and traffic problems at Freeman Park. She asked if the Park Commission could prepare a letier to the City Council and the Planning Commission to let them know of this strong interest and to document the concern for the record. Hurm said that he does not know the current status of the land's availability, but the suggestion is a good one Colopoulos and Cochran also agreed that it would be a good idea. Arnst moved and Cochran seconded that the Park Commission draft a letter of • recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council to state that in the event the acquisition and/or development of the Wagner property comes before the City, the Park Commission requests 30 to 50 feet of land to improve safety of the ball field area. The motion passed unanimously. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 12. ADJOURNMENT Colopoulos moved, Themig seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bas tyr Recording Secretary • City of Shorewood • Athletic Association Park Use Policy (1/25/99 Draft) Background Shorewood City parkland has been acquired and park facilities and . improvements have been provided over the years by various .: sources. The City itself, Athletic Associations to varying degrees, civic organizations and many volunteers have helped make our parks what they are today. Once installed, the facilities and improvements become part of the park and assets of the City. The athletic associations have provided quality organized sports activities for the youth and adults of our community, Purpose RecognMg the increased need for quality athletic facfftlei, the Shorewood Park Commission has developed a policy to work more effectively with athletic associations. The purpose of this policy is to: • Establish a basic park facility level. • Discuss facility improvement funding options. • Establish a process for requesting facility improvements. _ • Establish ongoing funding sources to maintain parks and facility improvements. • Basic Park Through general funds, the City will provide the following basic Facilities park facilities in all parks: *Park Property •Field/Play Space *Play Equipment •Rest Room Facilities (including portable units) *Parking *Trash Receptacles and Removal The specialized athletic associations are responsible for preparation of the fields (i.e. striping, placing and removing nets). Facility Athletic facilities or special use facilities are considered above and Improvements beyond basic park facilities. As the need for quality athletic facilities is increasing, funding for facility improvements is decreasing in Shorewood. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the athletic associations and the City to work cooperatively in addressing facility improvements. When an association determines a reed for a facility improvement, the association must present the request to the City for consideration. Approval and implementation of the request is greatly enhanced as the, proportion of funding' provided by non -City sources increases. A meritorious proposal with full outside funding is likely to be implemented quickly, while the same project requesting full or partial City funding must be considered as. part of the City's five -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This consideration will involve evaluation of need verses other projects waiting funding. If the improvement promotes safety, the City may actively pursue the improvement. In order to effectively evaluate projects requesting City funding, the proposal should be submitted to the Park Commission during the summer for consideration in the budgeting process. All proposals* should include the following: • A thorough description of the improvement. • Maps or drawings. • The demonstrated need. • Estimated Costs. • Possible funding. • How the improvement will be completed (volunteers, contracted work, etc.) *City staff can assist in providing information (such as maps, drawings, etc.) for the proposal. If an improvement is approved and completed, the improvement becomes the property of the City of Shorewood. If major repair or replacement is needed, the association may provide funding or work with the City in identifying the need and scheduling in the five -year CIP. Exclusive Use Recognizing the community benefits of park land, Shorewood Parks of Improved are available on a "First Come, First Served" basis to the Park Facilities community. However, athletic associations my request exclusive use of improved park facilities. Requests for use are to be submitted in January for consideration by the Park Commission. Requests for use should include: • ` Organization • Requested facilities • - General days and times the facility(s) will be used Reservation In exchange for exclusive use, athletic associations will contribute Fee funding to operate these facilities by paying a reservation fee. This fee will be dedicated to the park operation fund. The fee is determined by: data/pa&s/Athletic Assoc. Policies 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MN 553314927 W2) 474 -:3 FAX(612)474-0128 web she: www.staW rafthorewooa E MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Jun FIurm, City Administrator FROM: harry Brown, Director of Public Works,' DATE: February 1, 1999 SUBJECT: Park Cost Breakdown Attached are calculations regarding the costs for operations of the parks. The following is a brief description of the definitions of `Base Costs," "Above Base Cos," and "Irrigation Costs." "Base Costs" include the following: • Mowing • Weed Control • Trash Pickup • Aeration • Park Equipment (amortized over the service life of the machine) • General Turf Care These costs apply to all of the turf areas of the park that are maintained on a reguW basis. "Above Base Costs" include the following items: • Dragging/Grooming Ballfields • Equipment Specific to Ballfields • Materials • Fencing and Fence Repairs "Irrigation Costs" include the cost of the water used, costs to operate the pumps for irrigation, and associated annual repairs. I will present these costs to the park Commission during the regularly scheduled meting- <.J �J Summary Ta Summary of Calculated Costs Base Costs /Ac. S 1,697 Above Base Co st/Ac. S 827 Irrigation Costs/Ac. S 967 Above Base Cost/Ac. S 2,550 ble - Ballfield Costs per yr per yr. Little League/Softba"aseball per yr. per yr. Soccer Association Costs No MOMMMOMENNOW Grand Area Base Above Irrigation MCES ; Total Total Park Descri Lion Ac Cost/Yr. Base/Yr. Cost/Yr. Services COWyr. CostlYr- Badger Football 1.60 $ 2,715 $ 1,323 S - $ 232 S 1,W S 70 Freeman. Field 1 .1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ - $ 232 , $ 1,208 S . 3,210 Field 2 2.44 $ 4,140 $ 2,018 $ - $ 232 $ 2,254 S ` 6,39 Field 3 1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ 1,141 $ 232 :S 2,349 '$: 4,352 Field 4 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 S; 232 S 4,216 S 7,982 Field 5 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 $ 232 S4 $ 7,982 Field 6 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 $ 232 $ 4,216 S 7,982 Soccer 2.06 $ 3,495 $ 2,550 $ 1,993 $ 232 $ 4,77$ S- 34 70 Manor Field 1 1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ - $ 232 $ 1Zf)8 S 3,210; Cathcart ** Field 1 1.18 $ 1,101 $ 976 $ - $ 232 S 1 ,2fl8 S 2,349 otes * *Cathcart±] ' ted to 559 Base due to shared a nse Chanhassen Su of Hockey Costs Park Descri tion Cost/Yr. Badger Brooming/Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities $ 935 Biff Rental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental $ - Subtotal 97,770 Freeman - Brooming/Grooming $ - Utilities $ - BiffRental $ - MCES Services $ - Maintenance Bldgs $ - Shelter Rental $ - Subtotal $ - Manor Brooming/Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities " $ 244 Biff Rental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental " $ - Subtotal $ 7,079 Silverwood Brooming(Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities -$ - BiffRental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ - Shelter Rental $ - Subtotal $ 6,585 Cathcart Brooming/Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities $ 664 BiffRental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental $ 2,200 Subtotal $ 93,699 • • • City Of Shorewood Base Cost Breakdown Base Park Costs Description Annual Cost Mowing & Routine Turf Maint Labor $ 17,333 Seasonal Help $ 10,400 Weed Control Contractual $ 3,400 Chemical Supplies $ 350 Trash Pickup Routine Pickup Labor $ 6,300 Aeration of Turf Areas 3 times per year $ 3,004 Equipment Park Truck $ 3,429 Groundsmaster $ 2,037 Groundsmaster $ 2,037 Groundsmaster $ 2,037 Walk Mower $ 167 Ford Tractor $ 6,405 Equipment Trailer $ 308 John Deere AMT $ 745 General Turf Care Seeding, Topsoil, etc $ ' 16,000 Total Base Cost $ 73,148 per year Area of Turf Maintained Park Area (Acres) Badger 7.25 Freeman 28.69 Manor 3.78 Note: Area of Cathcart Fork has been adjustedfim ac ad Silverwood 0.82 area of 468 acres for "Base Cost" oakulattons since Cathcart Park * 2.57 Chanhassen sees 45 percent of base cosU Total Area 43.11 • Resultant Base Cost per Acre of Turf HAinfained Total Base Cost $ 1,697 r acre Total Area per year Above Base Costs Softball Fields Description Annual Cost Dragging Ballfields Labor $ 6 Equipment Sandpro $ 770 Materials Ag Lime 225 tns/yr. $ 2,185 Bases & Misc. $ 300 Fencing & Repairs N isc. $ 1,200 Total Above Base Cost $ 10,455 Total Softball/Little League/ $ 12.64 ac Field Area Resultant Above Base Cost per Acre Softball- Little League Total Above Base Qost $ $27 Mr acre Based on total'balffleld area' Area Total ea p er )war pe .Y$ o 12.64 .f acres Above Base Costs Soccer Fields Mowing Additional Labor $ 2,550 Ad (tonal labor due to nets and goal anchors Irrigation Costs Description Annual Cost Irrigation Water Use $ 7,025 Based on 4.8 moon guns *wd Repairs $ 2,000 per season Electrical Costs Pumps $ 551 Total Irrigation Cost, $ 9 Resultant Irrigation Cost per Acrrr Total Above Base Cost 967 txr acre Based on total b7iga ied area Total Area per year of 9.94 acres Summary Ta Summary of Calculated Costs i Base Costs /Ac. $ 1 Above Base Cost/Ac. $ 827 Irrigation Costs/Ac. $ 967 Above Base Cost/Ac. $ 2,550 r- --q L--.� ble - Ballfield Costs per yr: per yr. Little League1So, ftba&Bcwlall per yr per yr. Soccer Table l Summary of Association Contributions ociation 1997 1998 Tonka United Soccer $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Little League $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Adult Softball $ 3,000 $ 1,170 Table 2 Association Costs Grand Area Base Above Irrigation MCES Total Total Park Description Ac Cost/Yr. Base/Yr. Cost/Yr. Services ` CoWYr, CostlYr. Badger Football 1.60 $2 15 $ 1 $ - $" 232 $ 1,555 $ 4;270 Freeman Field 1 1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ - $232 $ 1,208 $ -3,219 Field 2 2.44 $ 4,140 $ 2,018 $ - ' $ 232 $ 29M S 6,390 Field 3 1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ 1,141 $ 232 $ 2,349 -$ . 4,352 Field 4 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 $ 232 $ 4,216 $ 7,982 Field 5 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 $ 232 $ 4,216 $ - 7,9$2 Field 6 2.22 $ 3,767 $ 1,836 $ 2,147 $ 232 S 4j216 $ 7 Soccer 2.06 $3,495 $ 2,550 $ 1,993 $ 232 S S 8470` Manor Field 1 1.18 $ 2,002 $ 976 $ - $ 232 ` $ 1,208 S 3,210 Cathcart ** Field 1 1.18 $ 1,101 $ 976 $ - $ 232 $ 1,208 $ 2,309 otes **Cathcart Ad 'usted to 55% Base due to shared ffense Chanhassen Table l Summary of Association Contributions ociation 1997 1998 Tonka United Soccer $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Little League $ 3,000 $ 3,500 Adult Softball $ 3,000 $ 1,170 Table 2 Summary of Hockey Costs Park Description Costtyr. Badger Brooming/Grooming $ 6,400 Utilities $ 935 BiffRental $ 225 MCES Services $ 364 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental $ - Subtotai S 7,770 Freeman Brooming/Grooming $ - Utilities $ - Biff Rental $ - MCES Services $ - Maintenance Bldgs $ - Shelter Rental $ - Subtotal $ - Manor Brooming/Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities S 244 BiffRental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental $ - Subtotal S 7,079 Silverwood Brooming/Grooming $ 6,000 Utilities $ - BiffRental $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ - Shelter Rental $ Subtotal S 6,585 Cathcart Brooming/Grooming S 6,000 Utilities $ 664 Biff Renttal $ 225 MCES Services $ 360 Maintenance Bldgs $ 250 Shelter Rental $ 2,200 Subtotal ` S 9,699 �j LJ Park Description Cost/Yr Crescent Beach Beach Maint $ 1,200 MCES $ 3,400 Subtotal $ 4,600 Christmas Lake Acc. 1 Biff $ 813 Maintenance $ 1,200 Subtotal $ 2,013 • 1999 "TO DO" LIST DRAFT • Multi- purpose building construction =* Explore partnership with Senior Center /youth for operating concession stands => Consider nighttime lighting policy* =* Consider liquor policies* • First successful trail segment completed • Approve and implement sports organizations policies => Create a written legal document that transfers ownership of improvements to the City • Park Tours • 2000 CIP • Comp Plan Review Other ideas from Commission: *These issues, among others yet to be identified need to be considered as a pro - active measure.' • They may arise as a result of the completion of a multi purpose, multi- season facility that will invite more diverse use than the picnic shelter alone. • 1/25/99 data/parks/Commission/Parks To Do 99 b. r ll% To: Park Commission i From: Jim Hurm, City Administrator Date: January 28, 1999 + Re: Park Dedication Fees In surveying some area cities staff has learned that we may want to consider increasing our park dedication fees which are set by Resolution at $1,000 per unit (or lot). The survey is enclosed. The Commission may wish to recommend an adjustment to the City Council. • • r SURVEY OF CITY PARK FEES JANUARY 1999 pity Park Dedication Shorewood $1,000 per unit Minnetonka $700 /unit Mound 10% of fair mkt value of land $500/lot minimum Orono 8% of fair mkt value of land $4,900 maximum Plymouth $1,500 /unit residential $4,500 /acre C/I Tonka Bay $1,200 /unit in 1999 $1,000 /unit in 1998 Victoria Unknown $1,500 /unit Park Imp Fee Wayzata SF 7% of fair mkt value of land $450 min, $2,000 max/unit MF 7% of fair mkt value of land $300 /unit minimum CA 3.5% of fair mkt value of land Chanhassen $1,200 Park/unit $400 Trails /unit r� U 0 • • r � a To: Mayor and City Council Paula Caliies, Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Members From: Pat Amst & Ken Dallman, Co- Chairs Elect, Park Commission Date: January 21, 1999 Re: Wagner Property/Freeman Park cc: Park Commission In past discussions concerning the sale of the Wagner property, the Park Commission has agreed that it would be very helpful to acquire 30 -50 feet of the westerly edge of the Wagner property for park purposes. The use of the land would be to relocate the park roadway exiting Highway 7 to the east, onto that strip of property. Doing so, would move the roadway away from the ballfield fences and allow for safer passage of pedestrians between the roadway and the fences. We respectfully ask that if the Council or Planning Commission is involved in any future plans for this property, our request be given consideration in the implementation of those plans. Thank you. • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CI PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMB' FT TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Arnst Themig Cochran B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of February 9, 1999 (Att. -#2 Draft Minutes) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR • 4. TRAIL REVIEW A. Decision on Trail Alignments to be Walked and Times for Walks 5. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO PARK/TRAIL SECTION 6. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting with Police Chief on Snowmobile Enforcement and Reporting 7. NEW BUSINESS Establish Next Months Agenda 8. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: Mar. - Colopoulos Apr. - Dallman • To: Park Commission From: Jim Hurm and Mark Koegler Date: January 28, 1999 Re: Stations for the February 23 Trail Open House Mark will have boards and handouts available for the February 23 meeting. We suggest stations as listed below: 1. Sign in area. • 2. Board and handout on the trail process schedule. 3. Board and handout on goaWobjectives/policies 4. Several maps (likely the most popular area to congregate). 5. Photo board of trail types. 6. Comment sheet area with tables and chairs. R Regular Meeting Night P - Planning Commission has Chambers 4th - 4th Tuesday * - Daylight savings time has started data /parks/trails/trailstimetine DRAFT TRAIL TE%IELINE MARCH - MAY, 1999 Mar. 2(P) 6:02p.m. Mar. 9(R) 6:1 1p.m. 4 Decision on trail alignments to be walked and times for walks. Mar. 16(P) 6:30 p.m. Mar. 23(4th) 6:29 p.m. Mar. 30 6:38 p.m. Spring Break Apr. 6(P) 7:47 p.m.* 5 6:00 -7:45 Trail Walk? Apr. 13(R) 7:56 p.m. 5 6:00 -7:45 Trail Walk? Start meeting at 8:00? Trail Walk? Apr. 20(P) 8:04 p.m. 5 6 :30 -8:00 Apr. 27(4th) 8:13 p.m. 5 6:30 -8:00 Trail Walk? May 4(P) 8:22 p.m. 5 6:30 -8:00 Trail Walk? May 11(R) 8:30 p.m. Park Tour 6:00 -8:00? Start meeting at 8:00? 6 Decision on sites to be included in 5 year C1P 7 Begin inclusive design process for 1999 and 2000 trails May 18(P) 8:38 p.m. May 25(4th) 8:46 p.m. Park tour 6:00 -8:00? R Regular Meeting Night P - Planning Commission has Chambers 4th - 4th Tuesday * - Daylight savings time has started data /parks/trails/trailstimetine • To: Park Commission From: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Date: January 19, 1999 Re: Update on Funds Allocated for Park Planner 1998 Budget: $3,000 came from the park budget and $3,000 was budgeted to be transferred from the trail fund for a total of $6,000 1998 Actual: $3000 was charged to the park budget and the remainder $5,812.68 was charged to the trail . fund. 1999 Budget: $3,000 was budgeted from the park budget and an additional $6,000 is budgeted to be transferred from the trail fund for a total of $9,000. Comment: Although more trail funds were used during 1998 from planning than anticipated, we went well beyond the original concept for Mark Koegler's services envisioned in late 1997. It seems to me that Mark's trail planning services can be significantly reduced once the trail walks have been identified (March) and trail improvement program adopted (May). Identifying and assisting to acquire outside funding may then become a major part of Mark's work. Therefore trail planning may come in under budget for 1999. Parks: 1/ 19 /99Budget • Shoreline Message • January 27, 1999 Hi, I'm a Shorewood resident and I think the latest issue of the Citizen Informer has excellent ideas for the maps for new trails and new trail system. One of the most significant additions (I think ought to be high priority) addresses the current and very significant problem, which is all of us that live south of Highway 7 in Shorewood. We cannot allow our children, therefore children have no access to any of the trail systems that exist on the north side of Highway 7, which is essentially all that currently exist. So a plan that connects the Southeast corner of Shorewood via Covington Road and over Highway 7 (I assume) into the St. Albans Bay area or Lake Minnetonka or downtown Excelsior area is a very significant step forward. And I just like to state that it ought to be the highest priority for the community to link what is the southern half of Shorewood cut off from the northern • half of Shorewood due to Highway 7. Thanks very much. • 1� 4 Trail System Input Tue, Jan 26, 1999 4:05 PN From: Jdbuppgaol.com To: cityhall@dorthy.state.net Date: Tue, Jan 26, 1999, 2:30 PM • Subject: Trail System Input Your work and ideas on improving the trail system as outlined in the Citizen Informer insert are excellent, and I commend those that authored it. One very significant addition, and one that innumerable "South Shorewood" (those south of highway 7) families desperately and quickly would like to see, is trail access and connections that bridge those of us south of 7 with trails, churches, and schools north of 7. Essentially, those of us south of hwy 7 in "South Shorewood "'are cut off ( for biking /walking /running) from "North Shorewood ", Excelsior, Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven School, our churches, and most current trails, and cannot allow our children to risk life and limb to ride thier bikes or walk to grade school, church, nor to the most desireable sites and uses our community has to offer. By way of example: One, though I live only 3/4 of a mile from the lake trails, my 7 year old son (who along with his buddies love to ride to the lake trails) and I have to load our bikes.onto our car, drive to the lake trails, find parking, unload the bikes, ride, then reload our bikes, and return home; and a second example, none of the children in our area of many hundreds of homes who are served by Deephaven School, can ride or walk to thier own school that is but a couple of miles away. In both examples parents must ensure thier children avoid the traffic and risks of engaging high volumes of speeding cars and trucks on a thoroughfare that bisects and seperates one Shorewood into two Shorewoods! A pedestrian bridge for biking and walking /running in the Old Market Road /Covington Road & Hwy 7 intersection area solves the problem and reconnects our community. Please, make bringing our community together into one Shorewood, and one set of trails, by bridging north and south Shorewoods with a new biking /walking trail connector the ton trail system Driority for Shorewwod. The idea of a Page 1 _ of 2 Trail System input Tue, Jan 26, 1999 4:05 PIV "Covington Connector" or "Old Market Overpass" at Hwy 7 (as implied in your lastest map) is one all residents would support, and enthusiastically 0 appreciate as a true "resident value - added" accomplishment for the City of Shorewood. Thanks. Page 2 of 2 46 11: I To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout Date: February 1, 1999 Re: Agenda Item #5 - Design Concept of Freeman Park Multi- Purpose Building Agenda item number 5 will not be discussed at this meeting. This will be added to March's agenda. n U • � SOUTH TONKA BASEBALL October 27, 1998 To: City of Shorewood, City Council Members From: South Tonka Baseball Board of Directors The Board of Directors of South Tonka Baseball would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the City Council at last evenings public input on the purchase of the land adjacent to Freeman Park. We felt that it is important to provide you with a historical perspective of the development of the baseball fields at Freeman Park. During the 1960's, a group of volunteers created an area for youngsters to play baseball. In 1970, this land and its ballfield improvements were donated to the City of Shorewood. Around 1980, a local resident donated $15,000 to build what is now known as Field 92 (the only full -sized field). About 1990, the Tonka Men's Club financed the construction of Field 93. • The land for Cathcart Park was donated to the City of Shorewood and the original ballfield was built by South Tonka Baseball. No taxpayer dollars have been used to purchase these lands or build these baseball facilities. Currently, South Tonka Baseball has approximately 450 players of ages 6 to 15 years old. If the land east of the existing baseball fields could be purchased, we could better provide for the recreational needs of our young baseball enthusiasts. Two areas come to mind as immediate needs: 1. The need for more baseball fields for games and practices. We are presently using neighborhood fields in Chanhassen, Excelsior, Tonka Bay and Shorewood. The quality of many of these fields is adequate for practice, but do not accommodate our game needs. 2. Freeman Park is safer and more convenient for families with two or more children playing games (baseball and soccer) on the same day or evening. The development of this community park is consistent with the improvement of the recreational opportunities in the area. As the City Council considers the purchase of the "Wagner property ", South Tonka Baseball would like to be considered in those deliberations. Thanks again. • South Tonka Baseball Board of Directors �4n-vian-�- r .... . ..... he most recent City newsletter there was an insert about the trail process currently being considered for Shorewood. On the map, your street was identified as one to be initially evaluated for a potential trail site. That is why you are urged to stop by the upcoming informational meeting to talk with Park Commissioners, City Council members and neighbors about the concept. Your opinions and participation in the decision making process are very important! Tlie open House will be at the Southshore Senior Community Center, 5735 Country Club Road and will include visual displays with more detailed information, plus the opportunity to visit with Park and City representatives. Please stop in any time between 4:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, February 23, and participate in the process. a ffn. r _ + -id City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Att: Trails Gentlemen /Ladies 1 E� C�F5P `1`I FP �. 61 i , Sd i X 13 As a life -time resident of the Lake Minnetonka area and likely to remain a Shorewood native for the remainder of it - I salute your efforts to aggressively promote recreational trails in the municipality. With the prospects of a metro wide -- perhaps Statewide LRT and trail system becoming a reality -- we have a unique long term obligation in our local area to both support such efforts and to undertake within our city boundaries thoughtful action to tie into such a system. Shorewood is an increasingly desirable place to live for people of all ages. A well- conceived local trail system cannot help but enhance our area and property values - as well as necessarily tie us to adjoining communities. Hiking, Biking, Running and [gasp] even snowmobiling are activities both popular and healthy for a large number of residents. The necessary useful, attractive and safe trail system should be high on the priority list for our city government. • We cannot please all residents. This is a given. Yet the unique opportunity, the needs of the majority of out active citizenry and the long term viability of the city and our neighboring communities should indeed be our major concern. Certainly trail location, make up and financing is subject to opinion, deliberation and even negotiation. But we should not let small numbers of people with vested interests -- or even legitimate concerns -- bog down our efforts to construct a thoughtful trail system. The benefits are too positive for the community -- in the long run. Personally, I believe to the extent possible - trails should be kept off of roads and away from peoples "front yards" as much as possible. Further, I believe trails should be run near and through some of our public parks, open spaces and wetlands - even if this increases the length and cost of the trail. Finally, I believe - so much as possible -- trails should be designed to tie into the LRT trail and to trails in other communities. it seems to go without saying -- trails are not roads. They should not be designed to necessarily get people from A to B as directly or expeditiously as possible. They are for exercise, enjoyment and to experience the outdoors - for people to socialize as well as commune with nature. So while I support strongly your attempts to develop a trail system. I further offer a few guidelines - personal preferences if you wish: -- Recognize you cannot please everyone. However, don't let anyone tie you up or prevent you from going forward. You must allow -- and to a reasonable extent accommodate -- diverse interests: Snowmobilers vs Bird Watchers and X- country skiers. Safety vs the person who doesn't want to share his front or back view with passers by. Bikers vs Hikers, etc. There is room for all. - -Try as possible to keep the trails off the side of roads. - -Give Snowmobilers a chance - at least to use the trails for access if not for normal running. - -Tie in to the LRT and to other communities. - -Do it right. If we are going to invite people from other communities into our own - make the facility a safe, useful and enjoyable one to traverse. - -Give trails a high priority. People really do use and enjoy them. Last, I've enclosed your map with a couple of potential trail locations. Yes, personal preference. But perhaps it may give you a few more ideas to consider. My best wishes in your endeavors. • Davi b *hton Lg 27150 Edgewood Road Shorewood, MN 55331 612 - 474 -6356 DLeig1919 @aol.com • .Si1I TN7lIV` / LA E MINNETDNCA Y' 2 � iL�iy a a aMp. :swe . :x a .w isuro w UUNNECTION .. a } 1 o .z o to r•r CONNECTING POINTS PARKS /OPEN SPACE EXISTING TRAILS An Jaea,411ap ue to widespread public interest, the City of Shorewood is in the process exiiining trails. Lines which have been placed to show various travel routes x , t roughout the City are a collection of ideas based on input over the years and through various sources. (Many of those sources were mentioned on the front of this flyer.) The markings indicate only ideas. This is not a drawing of a trail plan fret• Shorewood It is a drawing of Shorewood and many of it's possibilities. Only six of the potential trail segments have been identified for consideration at this time. Trail development will be a gradual, community led process which * nds to the needs of residents within neighborhoods and throughout the City. j :Park Commission and City Council are interested in your thoughts both about the possible routes and the six potential sites. What will trails look like? The design (off -street or on -st: and other details will be consi& such decisions will be driven suitability to the area. Some exa at the Open House on February What will trails cost me? The City has been allocating do! money can be used for construct grants, etc. The Park Commissit of outside funding, as well. Dire planned for residences which are What is the intended use of Trails are to be utilized by ped motorized travel). Shorewood orc on the Regional Trail only, or the . CI7Y�P ORD� _ CRY 6P SBDH@r/DOD To: City of Shorewood /Trail planning & design ideas From: Dave & Lindy Hanson, 5920 Covington Rd., Shorewood. Phone #470 -4240. Office #474 -4657. Fax #470 -6637. Greg & Sue Wefel, 5910 Covington Rd., Shorewood. Bob & Kirstin Slaney, 5900 Covington Rd., Shorewood. L� ra} T� 1� L 0 Covington Front Front Front Front Present paved sidewalk or trail ' Present gravel trail Our suggestion of future trail Front House location wlfrontage FED 81999 D' If [AFront K-1 L L� rr, Covington Rd Front Front Wetland Commerds: This is in response to the article in the City newsletter regarding proposed trails in Shorewood. A walking area is desperatel needed along Covington from Vine Hill to Silverwood Park. It becomes very dangerous when two cars meet and pedestrians are in the same area. It appears the trail is drawn on the South side of Covington on your map. We would suggest a trail location on the North side that would: 1. Provide safety for walkers on Covington Rd. Z. Minimize cost. 'there is already space available for a path on the North side of Covington a(l the way to Vine Hill Rd. Part of the area is already a gravel path. 3. Mimimize personal property changes especially for frontal locations. Our suggested trail area as designated by ® and follows on the North side of Covington Road. We would appreciate your consideration and your comments lquestions. Thank vou. The Hansons, the W efels, & the Slaneys. _ 2 r�Y L 'ti- ment prov s public land, accessible sidewalkslths and accessible parking. They also provide mainte- nance of the pier or shore fishing improvements and some development assistance. s? 'K ti R f Program purpose: To maintain and improve water quality through devel- opment and improvement of marina sanitation facilities for boaters. Who may apply? Public and private marinas and boating facilities. Eligible projects: Funding is available for the development or improvement of sanitation facilities for boaters (includes both pump -outs and dump - outs). Local match: A 25 percent local match is required. To find out more about these grant programs, call the DNR Information Center or check out our web page: Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road • St. Paul, MN 55155 -4040 651 - 296 -6157 (Metro Area) 1- 888- MINNDNR (646 -6367) (MN Toll Free) Telecommunication Device for the Deaf 651 - 296 -5484 (Metro Area) 1- 800 - 657 -3929 (MN Toll Free) http: / / www.dnr.state.mn.us Funding is provided by the Minnesota Legislature with program oversight provided by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). O Copyright 1998, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Mlnnesola Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department o nt f Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, nwrilal slas, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation or disability. Discrimina- tion inquiries should be sent to MN -DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 -4031; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. This information is available in an alternative format upon request. DEPAATYENiOf Printed on recycled paper containing a minimum of 10% post- consumer waste and soy -based ink. BANAAlAESOUACES o1n the Parinersh'l�, • Local Grants' Natural and Scenic Area Grant Program J I Program purpose: To increase, protect and enhance natural and scenic areas. Who may apply? Cities, counties, townships and school districts. Eligible projects: Projects must include the purchase of land . or conservation easements. The purchase of land is essential with this grant, however some funding may be used for interpretive, educational or boundary signs or protective fencing. Local match: Applicants must be able to fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state sources. Local governments, organizations and individuals throughout the state are working together with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to protect natural resources and provide recreational opportunities. Financial assistance is available through a variety of grant programs to help build these partnerships. From playgrounds our children enjoy today, to prairie acquisitions that ensure preservation for future generations, to trails for long distance travel, to facilities that provide access to our state's' water —DNR grant programs can help. Do you have an idea for a project? We are looking for partners to help preserve lands and provide new recreation opportunities. Call today! Outdoor Recreation Grant Program��� c� Program purpose: To increase and enhance outdoor recreation facilities. There are three types of grants available: • Local Grants • Trail Grants Cooperative Water Recreation Grants Who Mn y apply? Cities, counties and townships. Eligible projects: Funding is available for the acquisition, development or - redevelopment of parks. Examples of projects include: trails, picnic shelters, playgrounds, athletic facilities, boat accesses, fishing piers, swimming beaches and campgrounds. Local match: Applicants must be able to fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state contributions of cash, materials or in -kind services. Conselotion Pa -��� rtners Grant Program Program purpose: To improve fish, wildlife and native plant habitats t and to help fund research and surveys that improve habitats for fish Cooperative Trail Linkage Grant Program and wildlife. Program purpose: To promote relatively short trail connections between where people live and desirable destinations. Priority w'll be given for residential connec- tions to state and regional facilities, A secondary purpose , is to link existing trail segments. Who may apply? Cities, counties and townships. Eligible projects: Funding is available for land acquisition �aR and trail development. Local match: A 50 percent cash match is required for eligible elements of the project proposal. Match must not be other state funds, Metropolitan Council Grants or from the National Recreational Trail Program. , 3 - Regional Trail Initiative ra�tp ogr am,, Program purpose: To promote development of regionally significant trails funded with local or federal funding. Primary determinants of significance include length, expected use and resource quality/ attractiveness. Who may apply? Cities, counties Who may apply? Private organizations, cities, counties, townships and 'school districts. Eligible projects:` Funding is available for habitat enhancement projects including but not limited to: the restoration of natural plant communities, reforestation, protection of wetlands, establishment of native plant buffer strips along streams and lakes, protection of water quality and abatement of soil erosion. Research /Survey projects include but are not limited to: monitor- ing environmental indicators, surveying plant and animal populations, evaluating enhancement projects and researching methods to conserve or enhance fish, wildlife and native plant habitats.. Research /survey projects must be directly related to specific habitat improvement projects. Local match: Applicants must be able to fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state contributions of cash, materials or in -kind services. ® Trail Grantc� k 4, i Community Environmental Partnershi s'��'� P Grant Program 4. Program purpose: To encourage environmental service projects and related education activities through public and private partnerships...`` Who may apply? Private organizations, cities, counties, townships and school districts. Eligible projects: Eligible projects include but are not limited to: community environmental service projects to clean up natural areas such as streams, lakes and wetlands, production of environmental education products such as handbooks, manuals, videos and news- letters and development of educational sites and exhibits that dem- onstrate environmental conservation principles. Grant funds cannot I.= be used to fund curricula or existing staff and program activities. Local match: Applicants must be able to fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state contributions of cash, materials or in -kind services. and townships. Eligible projects: Funding is available for land acquisition and trail development. Priority will be given to projects that provide a usable trail. Local match: A 50 percent cash match is required for eligible I lements of the project pro - posal. Match must not be other local grants administered by the DNR, other state funds, Metropolitan Council Grants or from the National Recreational Trail Program. Cooperative Water RecrAion Who may apply? Cities; count zations sponp 'ed by locq Eligible proje,ctsi ' ,uo g is maintenance," m e, winter groom funding for some trail,:uses Local match: Up to 6� percer Shared for development and shared up to 90 percent of tc be in the form of cash or doi ment can be used in tandem accessibilit land acquit ment of en awareness iships and private trail organi- Lcu eiigivie cysts. 1N9.n- state rnatcn can am, ated services Grants'for neyv.develop with, the National Recreation Trail Grant Grants 0 Program purpose: To provide financial and technical assistance to local governments to improve water recreation facilities: public boat accesses and state designated canoe and boating routes facilities including carry -in accesses, rest areas and campsites. Who may apply? Cities, counties and townships. Eligible projects: Funding is available for the acquisition, develop- ment and improve- ment of public boat accesses, parking lots, docks and boat launching ramps. : Engineering and design assistance is also available. f � Local match: The level of grant and technical assistance varies depending on the project scope and sponsor's needs. '7 \ Program purpose: To improve fishing opportunities, especially to meet the needs of children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Who may apply? Cities, t 'A counties and townships. l Eligible projects: Funding is available for the installation of traditional DNR floating fishing piers. In some cases, the program provides for the development or im- provement of shore fishing sites where a traditional nip wn111r rmt wnr1 .� -- I , ^T^1 � LJ | | \ � \\\ \\\ `./ � FREEM C ARK ~�' ~ ) ' \ \ \ � �� ' ~r------- 'A l Fl EAT l (� � � � __. PRAIRIE MEW ESTATES --'------------- —WETLAND GOUNOARY AS OEU� BY BRAUH.INTERTEC 9/3/97, (TV FREEMAN PARK COMUM LOT 39 —35' SETBACK FR 47LAND y dc fA 30 29 23 33. 32 is 13 7 HEHWCKSON ACRES 24* 14 '\ ' �| 3V SEI GAKWWCCK - / !/ | ' itz / ~ / ~ o | / �\ \ TO 15 . 23 22 . Li / / ~�r vw�^�mw�^