02-28-12 CC Park WS Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD
WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PARK COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012
AGENDA
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Attachments
1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING
A. Roll Call
City_ Council
Mayor Liz&
Hotvet
Siakel
Woodruff
Zerby
Park Commission
Quinlan
Edmondson
Gooch Hartmann
Gordon
Kjolhaug
Robb
Swaggert
B. Review Agenda
2 Resident Survey Summary related to Parks /Recreation
3. Council Goals
4. Gideon Glen
5. Badger Park
Administrator's
memo
Administrator's
memo
Administrator's
memo
6. Adjourn
#2
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and Nark Conimission
FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator
DATE: February 1 -1, 2012
S1d1111JEC'T: ,mint Meeting- Resident survey suninrar•y relate to Parks /Recreation
Last summer, the city council awarded a contract to the National Research Center to conduct a
residential survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on resident satisfaction
with city services, quality of life issues and feedback on specific strategic direction of the city.
The survey asked questions directly related to the city's park system amenities and activities.
What follows is a brief summary of the results of the survey as it relates to park and recreation
activities.
In general. residents are quite satisfied with the city and believe Shorewood is a good place to
live and raise a family. Residents feel the school systems are strong and value the city's
protection of open space.
As stated by Council member Siakel at the recentjoint planning 1 council meeting, the survey
shows the city is doing many things right and there are a few areas where the city could do
better.
Related to park and recreation specific items, residents expressed the following concerns
94% of respondents rated Shorewood parks as excellent or good. This is much better than the
nation and small city benchmark. Small cities being those with populations of 10,000 or less.
88% of respondents who participated in recreation programs rated them as excellent or good. It
should be noted that approximately 50% of respondents indicated they had not participated in
programs in the past year.
87 of respondents who participated in programs at the SSCC rate the overall service as
excellent or good. Again, a significant number of residents indicated they did not visit or attend
events at the SSCC.
Services to youth were rated by 79% of the respondents as good or excellent and 76% stated
services to seniors is goad or excellent.
The troubling item is participation in community activities. On the positive side, 87% of
respondents indicated they visited a Shorewood park in the past year.
Only 36% participated in a recreation program or activity and only 30% reported visiting or using
the SSCC in the past year.
Broken down even further, music in the park saw the most participation with 23% of the
respondents stating they attended an event in the past year. Arctic Fever was next in terms of
participation with 10% indicating they participated in the past year.
Again, 60% stated they didn't participate in any of the programs or services offered by the city or
MCE in Shorewood.
In terms of amenities in the parks, 80% used the paths /trails; 38% used the playground
equipment; 26% used the skating rinks; 22% used warming houses; Tennis courts and grills
were used by 18% of the respondents; 17% used the baseball fields; 14% used the picnic
shelters; Multi -use buildings were used by 4% of respondents; the volleyball court was used by
1 %.
Respondents were asked to consider the importance of several initiatives the Council has
discussed or considered in the past. Residents were asked to rate the item as essential, very
important, somewhat important or not at all important.
With regard to park related items, 28% of respondents felt that improvements to park facilities
were essential or very important and only 21 % felt this way with regard to expanding recreation
and social programs for residents of all ages.
Road improvements and environmental improvements rated highest in this area.
Park project specific it seems that residents did not express a strong desire to invest in parks or
recreational programs. The highest rated item was expanding programs for seniors and older
adults with 25% indicating this is essential or very important.
t'#3
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
OOD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council and Park Commission
FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator
DATE: February 21, 2012
S1JR.1FC'T: .1t)int Meeting — C'ouncil Goals
Beginning in February 2011, the Council and staff met in several sessions to begin to develop a
strategic plan. During this process, the Council and staff developed seven (7) goals. The
Council chose to hotd-off on further work on the plan until a resident survey was completed,
which was completed in December 20111.
Council took up the planning process aging this year and during discussions at the February 13,
2012 meeting, included another goal related to financial management.
Council wants to share with the Park Commission the eight goals Council will assign priorities
and establish specific, or key, outcomes for the goals. The attached document identifies the
goals; these are not in priority order.
Council is looking for your feedback as well as how you would rate the goals as well.
00
70
O
�L
Q
L
m
a)
QL
^
W
r
M > ,
O .O
N o
N a)
o
N �
0)
O
O °'
N �
� o �
m
0
ca
ca
07
N
N
O
U
7
a)
Q
a)
`—
M
cn
a)
>
4--
L
4--
O
a)
6)
�C
m
N
O
O
_
Q
a)
a)
a)
N
�O'
—_
a)
�
cn
a)
_0
m
E
+
a)
O
O
Q
U
E
a)
a
cn
(�
O
a)
U
Q
O
L
m
to
U
U
O
O
a)
O
N
t'
+_-
•�
)
_0
a)
L
C
O
�
a)
L
>
a)
O
O
C
}r
L
O
_
0
W
O
L
a)
E
_0
�
CL
o
>
75
a)
c
Q
(�
L
L
L
a)
a)
_0
O
O
a
0
0
N
M
N
O
O
m
Q
:3
c
U_
0
O
a)
U
N
N
O
O
+J U
�01
S2
O
�
U)
4�4�
O
U�U-
O
E���Q
W
L
L
-0
m
wn
—
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ici
c�
U
C�
C f �
T
' O
V 1
O
•
LJ
U
O
V1
U
C�
C f�
[ T �
T
O
m
• O
• r--I
4-j
4-j
U
O
O
0
W
W
L
a�
U
m a)
P E
0) cn
Z3
m —
c�
c�
ca
L
0)
O
L
t�
a)
m Q
LU
W
(� a)
>
O
a) CDL
m
L
0 Q
U
cn
W
U
� U
CD-
0
m a)
o
Q LL
t�
cn a) N
N
cn L
O E
a)
m N
. . . . . . . .
Q)
m
O
U-
Q)
O
Q)
C�
Q)
U
O
O
O
O
a�
0
0
i
co O i
co co
W r
O x
� O
j
O
O
U O
co
N �
Q)
� o
� N
O
0)
cn
cn
O
O
L
�Na)
LAS
0)
m
E
U
N
>
'U
a
in
N
cn
L
O
L
•
z3
ca
W
0 1�
n
0
O
.
.
.
v
O
Q)
m
O
U-
Q)
O
Q)
C�
Q)
U
O
O
O
O
a�
0
0
i
co O i
co co
W r
O x
� O
j
O
O
U O
co
N �
Q)
� o
� N
O
O
U
O
N
O
i
co
N
X
N
O
O
0
LO
LO
O
co
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
i
N
O
N
co
O
O
N
O
3
N
O
N
c�
N
O
IL
Z �l
IL
N
O
O
N
4-
O
co
i
co
N co
N
j O
O
�. O
N O
O b9�
N �
C N
4-- O
Z co
CU Z3
O O p
O
U
N cB
U)
� Y
• • •
Ici t O t ,
A �
I
o
• O
r� • r�
N sn�
I r T
1�
O
m
E
O
70
N
ca
FD
L
a)
.>
U
I
(0
O
0)
cn
O
-0.-
0
W
t�
W
L
cn
U
N
O
L
ca
cn
L
0)
O
^ L
LL
N
E
ca
N
L
W
^; L
0
L
O lV
O }�
c n . O \
U U
.Q N
Q (� Q
Q L
M O O
cn
t�
O (�
cn cn
0
W
O � O
U CU
O O L In
� � O
O O - 0
O
^` O
W cn
W
N N cn
O O O
> Q Q Q
O
Q o 0 0
E
0
cn
0)
^ W
W
O
�
Q
O
Q
cn
U
cn
N
O
•
cn
O
L
cn
E
0)
L
�1L^�`_1
W
�`
cn
W
O
(�
E
.�
U
L
_0
C:
cn
-0 0
+�
N
O
N
cn
(�
0)
to
m
U
Aa
O
3
-
0
Z
N >
U
Z
> ,
o
0
0
E
o
0
0
0
0
U
U
U-
(0
O
0)
cn
O
-0.-
0
W
t�
W
L
cn
U
N
O
L
ca
cn
L
0)
O
^ L
LL
N
E
ca
N
L
W
^; L
0
L
O lV
O }�
c n . O \
U U
.Q N
Q (� Q
Q L
M O O
cn
t�
O (�
cn cn
0
W
O � O
U CU
O O L In
� � O
O O - 0
O
^` O
W cn
W
N N cn
O O O
> Q Q Q
O
Q o 0 0
E
0
N
r)
J
U)
70
r)
LL
LU
N
70
U
O
70
ca
U
O
L
t�
U
_N
N
O
(B
U
Q
Q
m
70
cn
^
W
CDL
O
(B
O
L
CDL
Q
W
ca
F
m
N
(a
^
W
cn LL
U �
O Q
Q 0
U �
O
L
U O
a� U
W
•
cn
N
>
U
N
O
N
cn
O
a
O
O
O
O
cB ,�
�+ O
i
^ y"
co N
Z3
N i
O
z O
CO
i
O WW
i
Cl) 4.
co
O O
N N
N �
U N
Z3 co co
W
O U
U
• •
C�
U
N
N
C/1
U
N
C/1
C�
U
O
U
C�
0
U
O
a)
U
a)
H
O
a)
O
^ O
LL
i
co
Q)
U
O
Q)
0
LO
CO
0
0
N
O
CO
U
U
CO
Q)
I-
O
n
CO
a)
i
Q)
Q)
CO
O
N
U
• •
E
E
O
U
a)
m
cn
M
O
a)
0
O
m
~
N
U
a)
O
-
N
U
a)
O
a)
7
a-
O
a)
o
a)
O
m
>
cn
N
O
O
cn
O
U
O
O
H
O
N
_0
�
N
c
L
O
L
O
O
m
O
L
Z3
> >
cI)
Q
Q
-C
cn
a
U) U)
Q
^ L
I..L
O
a)
U
a)
H
O
a)
O
^ O
LL
i
co
Q)
U
O
Q)
0
LO
CO
0
0
N
O
CO
U
U
CO
Q)
I-
O
n
CO
a)
i
Q)
Q)
CO
O
N
U
• •
O
C/1
4
C/1
`_
C/1
4-
U
O
c�
U
C�
C�
^ O
,-4
ct
c�
L
a�
0
• •
cn
a)
U
a)
O
a)
cn
cn
^ O
LL
i
co
Q)
U
Q)
0
LO
a�
a�
� o
� U
Cl) o
co U
Q) �
o �
� o
co
Rz �
� U
Q
• •
U)
a)
- Fu
O
U
a)
o
a)
a)
U
�
cn
o
a)
L
>
�i
U_
E
U
O
�
�_ ^1
m
U
L
a
O_
cn
>
LL
a)
U
E
+�
cn
o
(�
L
} �
•>
�
E
cn
Q
^ L
LL
c�
L
a�
0
• •
cn
a)
U
a)
O
a)
cn
cn
^ O
LL
i
co
Q)
U
Q)
0
LO
a�
a�
� o
� U
Cl) o
co U
Q) �
o �
� o
co
Rz �
� U
Q
• •
4
•l
C�
U
N
U
^ O
r�
C�
C�
O
C�
r�
C�
C�
►�
V1
�-1
i
1�
C�
• r-I
r--4
C�
ip
1�
0
0
m
E
E
O
70
N
N
L
W
t�
.>
U
I
O
O)
cn
O
N
W
L
L
cn
^
W
O
L
(B
cn
L
0)
O
/•
PO
O
O
^
W
t�
W
L
O
U)
N
N
E
E
N
+�
cn
N
m ^`
N
C
>,
cn
—
a)
+
O
L
O
Z3
}�
m
c
O
3:
E
>%
L -
a)
�^^``
0
O
W
(U
^a)
W
N
V
cn
L
_
O
N
70
a)
•V
U
�
-0
N
C
Z
_
p
O
E
�
N
U
C
Q
� : ^`
0)
cn
C Q
cn
O
W
.
C D
L
N
a)
a
W
L
Q
70
L
-0
L
L
cn
N
C:
E
^
+
p
m
N
W
O
Q
N
cn
^
a)
I..1.
^,
HW
W
cn
E
0)
�
W
O
a
U)
N
3:
G
vJ
G
O
O)
cn
O
N
W
L
L
cn
^
W
O
L
(B
cn
L
0)
O
/•
PO
O
O
^
W
t�
W
L
O
U)
N
Q
E
N
+�
cn
N
N
C
>,
cn
—
a)
+
O
a)
j
Z3
m
c
O
3:
E
>%
L -
a)
0
O
O
(U
N
t
cn
c
_
O
N
70
a)
•V
U
�
-0
N
C
Z
_
E
N
U
C
Q
� : ^`
0)
cn
C Q
cn
O
W
.
C D
L
N
W
L
Q
70
L
-0
L
D)
cn
N
C:
C:
m
E
U
+
p
m
N
- 0
Q
N
^
a)
I..1.
^,
HW
W
N
U
N
^
W
cn
cn
//•
1
i
CO
W
CO
'i
co
U
i O
co Cl)
j,
U �
L J O
rf
N � X
Co
� O X
co
C
O O
Co
Z3
%-- a
LQ O W
N
O
Q
0 0 0 0
C/1
4-j
O
P4
w
C�
0
�h
I
n �
h�
4 ,
• r�
�uu
1�
(0
O
m
O
^ 0
W
N
L
W
t�
.>
t�
U
I
ca
O
m
O
70
N
N
L
t�
U
N
O
L
CDL
70
cn
E
L
0)
O
^ L
LL
0
cn
N
t�
U
N
^
_W
cn
cn
^ O
LL
0
C/1
O
U
N
4-4
O
4-4
N
O
O
U vs
O U
vs �
•� N
4-j O o
� N
O
m
O
7
a)
c�
a)
L
t�
U
a)
O
L
QL
70
cn
L
0)
O
^ L
LL
cn
a)
U
a)
O
a)
cn
cn
^ O
I _
#4
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
OOD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council and Part: Commission
FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator'
DATE: February 21, 2012
SIIR.1FC'T: C ideon Den
Several years ago, the city worked with the MCWQ to acquire and improve the area known as
Gideon Glen. The agreement established maintenance requirements for the area. For the first
five years following establishment of the vegetation the MCWD was tasked with maintaining the
area. It is my understanding that this changed at some point so that the MCWD is responsible
for the ongoing maintenance of this area.
The park commission is interested in looking at this area as part of the overall park system.
Additionally, the park commission is also interested in considering the SSCC as an asset for the
park commission.