020822 Park Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022 7:00 PM
For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current meeting
for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with
questions.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
A. Roll Call
Hirner()____
Gallivan( )_ ___
Schmid()____
Tauer( ) ____
Heinz( )___
Council Liaison Callies (Jan-June)____
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes from October 26, 2021 – (Att.-#2A)
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(This portion of the meeting allows members of the public the opportunity to bring up items that are not on
the agenda. Each speaker has a maximum of three minutes to present their topic. Multiple speakers may
not bring up the same points. No decisions would be made on the topic at the meeting except that the item
may be deferred to staff or the City Council for more information.)
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review Christmas Lake Access Ordinance (Att.#4A)
B. Review and Discuss Donation for a Bench at Freeman Park (Att.-#4B)
C. Discuss Options for Southshore Community Park (Att.-#4C)
D. 2022 Work Schedule/Park Meeting Schedule (Att-#4D)
E. Determine Liaisons for City Council Meetings (Att.-4E)
F. Accept the 2022 Concession Agreement (Att.-#4F)
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Senior Programs – (Att.-#5A)
6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES
A. City Council
B. Staff
a. Update on Grant for Freeman Field 2 Fencing
b. Update on January 15 Arctic Fever Event
7. ADJOURN
Liaison for City Council Meeting on February 28 is Commissioner _______Reporting on
February 8 Park Commission Meeting
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Chair Hirner convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Chair Hirner, Commissioners Schmid, Heinz, and Tauer; City
Council Liaison Gorham; Parks and Recreation Director Grout;
Planning Director Darling
Absent: Commissioner Gallivan
B. Review Agenda
Tauer moved to approve the agenda as written. Heinz seconded the motion. Motion carried
4-0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2021
Heinz moved to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2021 meeting as written. Tauer
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Sam Larson Eagle Scout Project Application
Sam Larson, 5490 Wedgewood Drive, gave an overview of his proposed Eagle Scout project.
He stated that the project would be to make a compost bin at the Freeman Park Community
Garden and gave a presentation about his proposal and answered Commission questions.
The Commission discussed the need to find a flat location for the compost bin.
Hirner moved to support the Eagle Scout Project application from Sam Larson. Heinz
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Schmid noted that her husband had been an Eagle Scout and supports this project
because she thinks this kind of thing has been missing in the City.
Council Liaison Gorham stated that when this comes to the Council he thinks it would be good to
know where the bin will be going and what its finish will be.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021
PAGE 2 OF 5
Sam Larson stated that he is planning to buy lumber that has already been stained so it will not
deteriorate due to weather or the compost. He stated that he is also planning on finding lumber
where the treating chemicals will not adversely affect the compost materials for the garden. He
stated that he could paint the bin if that is something that the City would like.
Council Liaison Gorham stated that he just wants to ensure that the bin fits into the park. He
asked if this was only for plant composting or if it would also include food compost.
Planning Director Darling explained that right now everything from the garden is just thrown into
a pile and if it gets too big, Public Works comes and takes it away. She stated that it will be nice
to have a bin for this purpose.
Chair Hirner suggested that there could be a sign on the bin the outlines what materials are
welcome and what is not welcome.
Council Liaison Gorham stated that now that he has heard the current practice, he does not think
a sign will be necessary.
Commissioner Heinz asked if there would be signage indicating that the bin came from an Eagle
Scout.
Sam Larson stated that he could put up a sign that the project was completed by an Eagle Scout.
Following discussion, the Commission supported the suggestion of a sign identifying the
participation of the Eagle Scouts and recommended that Communications Director Moore
take a look before it is posted.
Commissioner Schmid stated her willingness to donate to this project.
Park and Recreation Director Grout stated that this item will be on the Consent Agenda at the
next City Council meeting.
B. CIP with Specific Discussion of Freeman Park North Playground and
Southshore Park
Planning Director Darling reviewed the proposed CIP for years 2022-2031. She stated that staff’s
proposal is in line with the proposal from last year and this would just update it. She noted that
the Badger Park tennis courts was finished in 2021; Freeman Park drainage project was
completed in 2021; the Silverwood Park playground equipment has been demolished in 2021,
however, the new equipment has been delayed a bit.
Commissioner Heinz asked if there was a sign posted explaining that the new equipment has
been delayed due to transportation and the manufacturer and it is not the fault of the City or the
Park Commission.
Planning Director Darling stated that there is not a specific sign out there but she can update that
information.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021
PAGE 3 OF 5
Chair Hirner stated that the City needs to make sure that the posts that are holding up the fencing
are low enough. He stated that is not completed before winter, there may need to be something
done to ensure safety because the posts are metal.
Planning Director Darling stated that she is hopeful that the equipment can be installed before it
snows. She explained that in 2023 the City is looking at repaving some of the trails in Freeman
Park and noted that the City no longer needs to replace the existing handrails on the North
Playground. She stated that the Commission needs to decide in what year the replacement
playground will be placed. She stated that the City has gotten an estimate to repair the ballpark
fencing and noted that they are looking to find grant funds to reduce the cost of that project.
The Commission discussed where the fence was heaving on the ballpark fields.
Planning Director Darling stated that the concrete pad for the aquatic invasive species equipment
at the Christmas Lake boat landing was approved at the October 25, 2021 City Council meeting.
She stated that there are a few other repairs at the boat landing that the City is working with the
HOA to resolve. She noted that the Commission had expressed an interest in discussing the
facilities offered at Southshore Park and noted that it is earmarked for 2028 and suggested that
the Commission discuss whether that is the correct timeframe. She stated that staff is working
hard to try to find grants for the City’s projects.
Chair Hirner stated that in Freeman Park, he thinks the work should all be done at the same time
so the park usage is only disrupted once and would like to see the City work with the Three Rivers
Park District on the scheduling the trailhead project.
There was consensus of the Commission to attempt to schedule the work so Freeman Park
is only disrupted once, if possible.
The Commission discussed the proposed upcoming CIP projects between the years 2022-2026.
The Commission discussed the Cathcart playground equipment and replacement of hockey
boards.
Chair Hirner noted that he would like to see the City start some sort of program to maintain the
hockey boards, such as budgeting a small amount of money each year for that purpose, so the
replacement could be pushed out a bit further. He stated that he thinks the Southshore Park is
very under -utilized but is unsure why and would like to see the City figure out what they want to
do with that park before a decision is made on where it should be in the overall CIP.
Council Liaison Gorham noted that he believes the $10,000 allocated in the CIP for Southshore
Park is probably too low.
The Commission discussed ideas for Southshore Park and ways to shift around projects that may
reduce costs, such as combining the tennis court resurfacing projects at the same time.
There was consensus among the Commission to move the tennis court resurfacing at
Cathcart to 2026 to align with Badger Park; leave Freeman Park trail overlay and Cathcart
Playground equipment where they are in the CIP.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021
PAGE 4 OF 5
Planning Director Darling stated that the available funds for 2022-2026 is $355,000. She noted
that the City does not have all of that money currently available so the projects will need to be
spaced out.
Council Liaison Gorham asked for clarification on budgeting because it does not appear as though
there will be enough money to complete the Cathcart playground equipment project.
Planning Director Darling confirmed that this project may need to be delayed by a year and
reiterated that staff is applying for grants which could help.
Council Liaison Gorham asked how urgent the situation is with the current playground equipment.
Chair Hirner stated that the playground equipment is in better shape than the swings and the
edging material. He stated that if the City can undertake some small improvements by utilizing
Public Works, he thinks the full project can be pushed out a year, but would not like to see it
pushed out further than that. He stated that he would like the Park Commission, over the next
two years to spend time discussing Southshore Park and its future plan.
Chair Hirner reiterated the changes that the Commission is suggesting to the CIP: Freeman Park
fencing moves from 2023 – 2022; Freeman Park North Playground was already taken care of by
the Public Works Department and add the replacement in 2030; Cathcart Park tennis court
resurfacing moved to 2026 to align with Badger Park tennis court resurfacing; Cathcart Park
playground equipment remains in 2024; Southshore master plan brought to 2024. He noted that
this CIP is more than the budget will allow so the Commission can revisit the Cathcart playground
equipment from 2024 to 2025, if needed. He suggested that the Commission add replacement
of the rubberized playground surface at Manor Park to its CIP in 2031.
Heinz moved to accept the revised CIP, as discussed. Tauer seconded the motion. Motion
carried 4-0.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Senior Programming
Park and Recreation Director Grout stated that at a previous meeting, the Park Commission had
asked her to reach out to some surrounding cities to see if they offer park programs for seniors.
She gave an overview of what she found out from the various cities. Mound: Does not have senior
programming at their park because it is done through their senior center; Chaska: senior
programming is handled through their community center; Eden Prairie: senior programming
handled through their senior center, they do have a biking club, walking group, and a fall color
hike; Victoria: has not gotten back to the City yet; Minnetonka: senior programming is handled
through their senior center, they do have a biking club and Adopt-A-Highway, a Night Sky
Observation Program, and a Fall Hiking Program.
Park and Recreation Director Grout explained that the City offered a painting class this past
summer at Badger Park, a nature program at Freeman Park, and Poker Walk at Badger Park,
however there were only a few individuals who signed up so they ended up being cancelled. The
one successful program was Car Bingo the first time, but not the second time. She stated that
she would love to try some senior programming again and see if there is better participation now
because she thinks the programs were hugely impacted by COVID-19.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021
PAGE 5 OF 5
Commissioner Tauer stated that she thinks it is a great idea to try senior programming again. She
suggested hosting something like a cribbage night because that could be moved outside if people
were more comfortable.
Park and Recreation Director Grout stated that there is a cribbage group that meets at the
community center so that may be a fun thing to promote.
Chair Hirner suggested that the Commission do some homework and think of some ideas for
senior programming to send to Park and Recreation Director Grout and be prepared to discuss
the ideas at the next meeting.
6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS / UPDATES
A. Commissioner Heinz - Summary of Discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting
Commissioner Heinz gave an overview of the October 5, 2021 Planning Commission meeting as
reflected in the minutes.
B. City Council
Council Liaison Gorham reviewed recent City Council discussions and action items.
C. Staff
Park and Recreation Director Grout reviewed some of the preliminary plans for Arctic Fever which
is scheduled for January 15, 2022 and noted that they will not be having activities Friday night
because of COVID-19.
7. ADJOURN
Tauer moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of October 26, 2021 at 8:37 p.m.
Heinz seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
4A
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
______
To: Parks Commission
From: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Christmas Lake Public Access Ordinance
Attachments: 1986 Agreement to establish a public access, 2015 cooperative
operation and maintenance agreement with the DNR, lake
carrying capacity information, Christmas Lake boat launch
analysis, Christmas Lake boat census, draft ordinance.
Background: City staff has been engaged in wide-ranging discussions with
representatives of the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA) over the last
year about the public access area. In 1986, the city signed the first agreement with the
MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to create the public access, and then in
2015 signed a 20-year cooperative operation and maintenance agreement with the
DNR.
The city is responsible for maintenance of the parking lot and surrounding area, with the
DNR responsible for the boat launch and adjoining dock. The city has a long-term
working relationship with the CLHA on the landing area as well as working together to
control invasive species. Short of the 2015 agreement with the DNR, the city has not
done any comprehensive look at the landing area to evaluate changes in the last 35
years.
Some of the items of this review includes evaluating the parking area, drafting an
ordinance for the boat landing rules, reviewing literature regarding safe number of boats
on a body of water, increasing available parking in the landing area, controlling Aquatic
Invasive Species, and working with Christmas Shores HOA on acquiring property.
Christmas Lake is 267 acres, of which 77 acres are littoral (less than 15 feet deep)
meaning the area available for recreational boating use is closer to 200 acres. The
CLHA has expressed concern about the number of “near misses” on the lake, as well as
some actual accidents. Boating use on Christmas Lake as changed since the 1986
Page 2
agreement was signed. In addition to an initial limit of 25 horse powered boats that
expired in 1993, increases in the popularity of personal watercraft such as kayakers,
paddleboarders as well as surf wake boaters have increased usage on the lake.
There is some literature (two examples are included with this memo) about safe levels
of boat activity on lakes. Density differs depending on the lake, but both studies identify
the average safe level of boat activity, for lakes where there is a variety of boating uses,
like Christmas Lake, is 20 to 30 acres per boat.
Also attached to the memo is a census for watercraft of all types “housed” on Christmas
Lake. The 2021 count is 319. Additionally, an access analysis was provided by the
CLHA for high use dates. There have always been seven vehicle/trailer parking places
in the public access. As you can see from the analysis, there are many days where the
number of launches exceed the number of parking places. On those days, boats are
launched and then the vehicle leaves and parks at nearby parking lots.
The public access creates an obligation on the part of the city to provide access to
Christmas Lake for the public. However, that access should not be interpreted as
unlimited access to the lake. Competing interests such as the need to control invasive
species, preserving the lake ecology, as well as providing as safe environment as
possible for the lake users regardless if they are in personal watercraft, non-motorized
boats, or speed or wake boats should factor into the number of watercraft that can be
on the lake at any given time.
Indeed, the city has previously recognized the desire to limit the number of boats
launching at one time through a couple of actions; first, the original agreement between
the DNR, City, and CLHA called for seven parking spots. Second, parking was/is
prohibited on Merry Lane. It was recognized that if a prohibition was not done, overflow
vehicles and trailers would have regularly parked on Merry Lane. That initial concern is
now being realized by the number of trailers parking farther away after launching.
The ordinance as proposed would limit access to launching to the number of parking
spaces available in the lot - seven. To that end, the CLHA has paid for installing a
remote control on the gate so the access can be controlled during AIS inspection hours.
The inspectors are at the landing every day from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Access
outside those hours will not be controlled. As the launch information shows, however,
most launches will be covered by this schedule. It is important to know that if the
ordinance is adopted, it will apply equally to residents on Christmas Lake.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Minimal additional expenses. The CLHA has
paid for modifications to the gate, and the inspectors from Waterfront Restorations, who
perform the boat inspections and cleaning, have agreed to control access as part of
their duties while they are at the landing.
Page 3
Options: The Parks Commission should review the ordinance and send a
recommendation to the City Council to either pass the ordinance as presented, modify
it, or request staff gather additional information before the City Council’s review.
Recommended Action: It has been over 30 years since the city has taken a
comprehensive look at the landing and how it functions. The review started last year
with the variance to relocate the AIS cleaning equipment to provide an additional on-site
parking stall and improved draining. This proposed ordinance looks to improve safety
for the lake users, and staff recommends passage as presented by simple majority.
Next Steps and Timeline: Following the Park Commission review and
recommendations, the matter will be placed on a City Council agenda.
Appendix A Literature Review
A.3.1 Calculating Spatial Carrying Capacity
Calculating the spatial carrying capacity is an essential step in describing the recreational boating
carrying capacity of a lake. This calculation will likely include use factors based on published optimum
boating densities. The spatial capacity may include consideration of boat type ratios as determined from
the field data of existing conditions. While many studies have suggested an optimal number of acres per
boat or boat type, the estimates vary widely and often are dependent on one activity in isolation rather
than in combination of other uses. Examples of published optimum boating densities are shown in
Table 1.
Table A-1. Summary of Published Optimum Boating Densities
Source Use/Type of Watercraft Suggested Density
1
Ashton (1971) All combined Uses 5-11 acres/boat
Waterskiing only 40 acres/boat
1
Kusler (1972)
All other uses15-20 acres/boat
Waterskiing and motor-boat 20 acres/boat
Fishing 10 acres/boat
2
Jackson et al. (1989)
Sailing, kayaking, canoeing 8 acres/boat
All uses combined 10 acres/boat
Warren and Rea (1989) Motorboats 9 acres/boat
Fishing Boats 1.3 acres/boat
Sailboats 4.3 acres/boat
Canoes/Kayaks 1.3 acres/boat
Waterskiing 12 acres/boat
1
Wagner (1991) All boating activities 25 acres/boat
1
Warbach et al. (1994) All motorized uses 30 acres/boat
National Recreation and Park All boating activities 4 acres/boat
2
Association (NRPA)
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation All boating activities 9 acres/boat
2
(BOR)
Arizona Outdoor Recreation All boating activities 10-20 acres/boat
2
Coordination Commission
2
Wisconsin Comprehensive Plan All boating activities 20-40 acres/boat
All boating activities 20-40 acres/boat
Louisiana Parks and Recreation
2
Commission
Olvany and Pitchford (2010) All boating activities 15-20 acres/boat
1
Found in Doshi 2006
2
Found in Bosley 2005
In a study of carrying capacity and lake user attitudes for three lakes in Oakland County, Michigan,
Ashton (1971) identified optimum boating density ranges of 5 to 9 acres per boat, 4 to 9 acres per boat,
and 6 to 11 acres per boat depending on the specific lake. Jaakson et al. (1989) studied three lakes in
north-central Saskatchewan and identified different boat densities depending on the type of boat (see
Table 1). Jaakson et al. (1989) assumed an average of 10 acres per boat for acceptable safe boating.
These conclusions were value judgements based solely on field observations, and the authors note that
such findings are not readily transferable to other lakes. Furthermore, Jaackson et al. (1989) state that
carrying capacity values for other lakes should be calculated based upon the “morphology of a lake,
Beaver Lake Boating Carrying Capacity Study Page A-13
Appendix A Literature Review
cultural tolerances of density, and safety considerations of the manner in which water-oriented
recreation activities are carried out.” Wagner (1991) reported that, based on the viewpoints of many
boaters, one boat per 25 acres of water surface is considered sufficient for all recreational boating
activities (racing, fishing, skiing). Racers and water skiers feel restricted at less than 10 acres per boat
and nearly all motorized watercraft users feel crowded at less than 5 acres per boat. Warbach et al.
(1994), concluded that approximately 30 acres per motorboat (greater than five horsepower) is an
appropriate boat density.
Olvany and Pitchford (2010) completed a study on Canandaigua Lake which included a field survey to
determine existing peak boat densities followed by development of a lake-specific carrying capacity
using four methodologies. The final recommendation was a carrying capacity range of 15-20 acres/boat.
Each of the four methodologies used to arrive at this recommendation is described below.
Carrying Capacity Analysis & Ordinances Providing Lake Access Regulations: This model for
developing a carrying capacity was developed in Michigan and uses a scoring matrix that accounts
for various characteristics of inland lakes. Scores for each characteristic fall under either a less
restrictive or more restrictive carrying capacity. The differences in sums of the less restrictive and
more restrictive categories is used to calculate overall carrying capacity. Characteristics
considered include a lake shape factor, bottom soil type, and percentage of shoreline
development. For Canandaigua Lake, the analysis resulted in a total carrying capacity of 38 acres
per boat.
Weighted Average Approach: This approach utilized suggested carrying capacities from the
literature by boat type as applied to the observed percentages of boats by type that were on the
lake during peak day field observations. For Canandaigua Lake, this method resulted in an overall
density of 12.6 to 16.8 acres/boat.
Proportion of High-Speed Watercraft Approach: This approach used the percentage of high-speed
watercraft from field observations in the equation: Carrying Capacity (in acres per boat) = 10 +
5*(proportion of high-speed watercraft). This approach resulted in a suggested carrying capacity
of 13.5 acres/boat for this lake.
Water and Land Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WALROS): The WALROS approach was applied
to Canandaigua Lake and resulted in a classification in the mid-range of the spectrum. Therefore,
the resulting carrying capacity identified from this approach was 15 to 35 acres per boat. The
WALROS approach is explained in detail later in this document.
Another method for estimating lake-specific, optimal, spatial carrying capacity involves multiplying zone-
specific boat type ratios collected during field studies by published optimum boating densities. This
approach was utilized in a carrying capacity study completed on Deep Creek Lake in Maryland (ERM, Inc.
2004). This study utilized the optimum boating densities proposed by Warren and Rea (1989) (shown in
Table 1). The results of this study are summarized in Figure 3.
Beaver Lake Boating Carrying Capacity Study Page A-14
Appendix ALiterature Review
Figure A-3. Deep Creek Lake Boat Use by Zone
The final carrying capacity calculationfor each lake zone takes into consideration the zone’s useable
surface area, boating use mix, and watercraft use factor(density).Warren and Rea (1989)have
developed a set of equations that first divide each zone’s usable acreage by the use factor to determine
the maximum number of boats by boat typeto give a number of boatsthat should use that zone at any
one time. The maximum number of boats is thenweighted by the zone-specific percentage of boat use
(per spatial analysis) to determine the estimatedcarrying capacity by boat type.
Similar calculations would be completed for each boat type and lake zone. Summations would be made
to determine total lake-wide optimal physical boating density. Optimal spatial carrying capacity
estimates are often compared with suggested boating densities determined by the WALROS
classificationfor the specific lakeas a means of validating assumptions.
A.3.2Calculating Social Carrying Capacity
There are no precisestandards for determining social carrying capacity. Warren and Rea (1989) suggest
that once 33-percent of respondentsto photo simulationsindicate that the pictured use levelis
sufficiently high to discourage boating, the carrying capacity has been reached. A study completed in
2004 (ERM, Inc.) suggeststhatsocial carrying capacity limits arereachedwhen mean crowding ratings
approach 5 on a 9-point Likert scale and over 40 percent of boaters report experiencingmoderate to
high crowding levels.
Setting appropriate thresholds involves an understanding of the specific lake context and characteristics,
user mix, and perhapsusehistory. Local focus groups might be helpful in identifying lake appropriate
thresholds for social carrying capacity.
A.3.3WALROS
As describedabove for the Canandaigua Lake study, one approach to evaluating capacity is through the
application of the WALROSto a specific lake to describethe lake setting and context. WALROS was
developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation(2011)andis used to classify
recreational opportunities systematically in order to determine appropriate management strategies.The
six WALROS classes range across a spectrum of urban, suburban, rural developed, rural natural, semi-
primitive, and primitive recreation opportunities. The combination of lake specific (or lake zone-specific)
recreation activities, settings, experiences, and benefits defineeach of these classes. Table 2provides an
overview of the physical, social, and managerial attributes used to differentiate the six WALROS classes.
Beaver Lake BoatingCarrying Capacity StudyPageA-15
Appendix A Literature Review
Table A-2. Attributes Used to Differentiate WALROS Classes
Physical AttributesSocial AttributesManagerial Attributes
Degree of major development Degree of visitor presence Degree of management structures
Distance from major development Degree of visitor concentration Distance to developed recreation
facilities and services
Degree of natural resource Degree of recreation diversity
modification Distance to developed public
Degree of solitude and remoteness
access facilities
Sense of closeness to a community
Degree of non-recreational activity
Frequency of seeing management
Degree that natural ambiance
personnel
dominates the area
The system is aimed at balancing recreational opportunities with the goals of the community while
providing planners and managers with a framework and procedures for making decisions that conserve
a spectrum of high quality recreational opportunities. Tables 3 and 4 are from the WALROS User’s
Handbookand illustrate theproposedrange of reasonable boating capacities based on classification of
an area according to the WALROS system (US Bureau of Reclamation 2011).
Table A-3. WALROS Range of Suggested Boating Capacity by Class
WALROS Class Range of Boating Coefficients
Low End of Range High End of Range
Urban 1 acre/boat 10 acres/boat
Suburban 10 acres/boat 20 acres/boat
Rural Developed 20 acres/boat 50 acres/boat
Rural Natural 50 acres/boat 110 acres/boat
Semi-Primitive 110 acres/boat 480 acres/boat
Primitive 480 acres/boat 3,200 acres/boat
WALROS is an extremely useful tool for conducting complex recreation studies. It provides a template
for establishing the physical, social, and managerial attributes of a study area; conducting recreation
area and facility inventories; quantifying and mapping the current supply of recreation opportunities;
establishing recreation-related carrying capacities; and analyzing potential impacts associated with
various alternatives (CDM Smith 2012).
The exercise of evaluating a lake or lake zones by the WALROS categories helps managers understand
the context in which users experience the lake. The classification system helps to explain differences in
user perceptions between lakes and may illuminate how lake zones on a large lakes vary from each
other.
Beaver Lake Boating Carrying Capacity Study Page A-16
Appendix ALiterature Review
Table A-4. WALROS Boating Capacity Range Decision Tool (from WALROS)
A.4Utilizing Results
The final step in evaluation of carryingcapacity involves comparingthe calculated boating carrying
capacity to the actual use or current boat density. Based on the difference between the existing
condition and the estimated range of desired conditions, management goals and proceduresmay be
adjusted.In addition, projected future conditions can be compared to the calculated optimal carrying
capacity as a way to evaluate alternative management plans.
Management actionscould be taken to adjust the existing, or projected future, conditions to bring user
densities closer to the estimated optimal carrying capacity condition. Such actionscould include
continued monitoring, expansionor reductionof recreational facilities such as marinas,parking lots,
private boat docks, orboat launches, restrictions on speed and horsepower, or increased water patrol
and law enforcement. Some studieshavealso analyzed theeffects of future growth, taking into account
population projections and expansion plans to estimate future lake use conditions (Bosley 2005).
Beaver Lake BoatingCarrying Capacity StudyPageA-17
Appendix A Literature Review
A study conducted in Michigan by Progressive AE (2001), suggests activities for curtailing use of lakes in
cases where capacity is limited or met. Management activities specific to boaters may include watercraft
control ordinances such as boating speed limits, establishment of wake controls, and curfew hours on
high-speed boating activities. Limitations on renewal and expansion of marina facilities, restrictions on
road-end use as public access facilities, and increased dissemination of information regarding boating
laws coupled with aggressive enforcement can all be utilized to curtail future increases in use.
No single optimal carrying capacity standard will satisfy all lake users in all situations, as users will have
different perspectives on what constitutes crowding. In addition, each lake is unique and identification
of an overall optimum recreational boating capacity should take into account site-specific attributes. The
future projected conditions must also be evaluated to incorporate potential ecological, facility, and
spatial impacts, as well as user perspectives and opinions. The demand for various activities and the
condition of the lake must be considered to set realistic goals and standards. Each component can be
weighted based on overall project goals and objectives to determine an overall recreational boating
carrying capacity.
Beaver Lake Boating Carrying Capacity Study Page A-18
Table 7: Summary of Published Optimum Boating Densities
Source Boating Uses Suggested Density
27
Ashton (1971) All uses combined in Cass 5 to 9 acres/boat
Lake
All uses combined in Orchard 4 to 9 acres/boat
Lake
All uses combined in Union 6 to 11 acres/boat
Lake
28
Kusler (1972) Waterskiing combined with all 40 acres/boat
other uses
Waterskiing only 20 acres/boat
Coordinated waterskiing 15 acres/boat
29
Jaakson et al. (1989) Waterskiing and motorboat 20 acres/boat
cruising
Fishing 10 acres/boat
Canoeing, kayaking, sailing 8 acres/boat
All uses combined 10 acres/boat
30
Wagner (1991) All boating activities 25 acres/boat
31
Warbach et al. (1994) All motorized (>5 HP) uses 30 acres/boat
32
Source: Progressive Architecture Engineering, 2001
27
Ashton, P.G. 1971. Recreational boating carrying capacity: A preliminary study of three heavily used lakes
in southeastern Michigan. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University.
28
See Footnote #14 (pg. 7).
29
See Footnote #17 (pg. 9).
30
See Footnote #6 (pg. 4).
31
Warbach, J.D., M.A. Wyckoff, G.E. Fisher, P. Johnson and G. Gruenwald. 1994. Regulating keyhole
development: Carrying capacity analysis and ordinances providing lake access regulations. Planning and
Zoning Center, Inc.
32
See Footnote #24 (pg. 12).
30
High-volume day analyses
Launch counts
Extensions
Launches/day2019 Count2020 Count2019 Launches2020 Launches
20360
22122
23112323
24224848
25215025
26378
27127
35135
Total810199240
Weighted average2524
Notes:
2019 data reflects 8 specific days that were the highest of the season with between 23 and 26 launches/day.
All dates were on Saturdays and Sundays. These 8 days represent 21% of the total launches in 2019.
2020 data reflect 10 specific days that were the highest of the seson with between 20 and 35 launches/day.
All dates were on weekends plus one Friday. These 10 days represent 20% of the total launches in 2020.
Afternoon loading
44%Removal by noon
2019
Launches/day2019 CountAM LaunchesAM RemovalsPM LaunchesPM Load
20
22
2318-41519
2428-41620
2529-41621
2639-41722
27
35
Total8Weighted average21
37%
2020
Launches/day2020 CountAM LaunchesAM RemovalsPM LaunchesPM Load
2037-31320
2218-31422
2318-31523
2428-31624
2519-31625
26
2719-41827
35112-52335
Total10Weighted average24
Notes:
Boaters come and go at various times during the day, but they generally like to be on the lake at the bext times of the day.
This data shows afternoon and evening loading of 21 and 24 watercraft in 2019 and 2020, far outpacing the available parking.
High-volume day analyses
Mix of watercraft launched by time of day
2019 Hi-Volume Launches2019 Hi-Volume Launch Percentages
AMPMTotalAMPMTotal
Canoe/Kayak17163324%12%17%
Fishing32467846%36%39%
PWC010100%8%5%
Pontoon0880%6%4%
V-hull w/o ballast18436126%33%31%
Ballast boat2463%3%3%
Other1231%2%2%
70129199100%100%100%
Mix35%65%
2020 Hi-Volume Launches2020 Hi-Volume Launch Percentages
AMPMTotalAMPMTotal
Canoe/Kayak24133734%10%19%
Fishing32548646%42%43%
PWC56117%5%6%
Pontoon64109%3%5%
V-hull w/o ballast31508144%39%41%
Ballast boat29113%7%6%
Other1341%2%2%
101139240144%108%121%
Mix42%58%
Notes:
The mix of watercraft launching on high-volume days is consistent from year to year
DNR inspection reporting doesn't differentiate between wakeboats and surf boats, they are lumped together as "ballast boats"
Morning launches are predominently Canoe/Kayak, Fishing Boats, and V-hull runabouts.
Afternoon launches are predominently Fishing Boats and V-hull runabouts
Canoe/kayak'ers are generally short duration users
Assuming 2019 is a typical year, 44% of morning launched watercraft are removed by noon.
Interesting COVID effects in 2020:
Morning fishing percentages went down due to an increase in PWC's, pontoons, and V-hulls
Ballast boat launches nearly doubled with biggest increase in the afternoon
Launches throughout 2020 were higher than previous years
24%OtherBallast boatV-hull w/o ballastPontoonFishingCanoe/KayakVolume Days-2020 High 2%5%34%4%4%36%15%OtherBallast boatV-hull w/o ballastPontoonFishingCanoe/KayakVolume Days-2019 High
1%3%31%4%5%39%17%OtherBallast boatV-hull w/o ballastPontoonFishingCanoe/KayakPM Launches-Volume Days -2019 High 2%3%33%6%8%36%12%OtherBallast boatV-hull w/o ballastPontoonFishingCanoe/KayakAM
Launches-Volume Days -2019 High 1%3%26%0%0%46%
RefNoLot11LNameFNameAddressPontoonWakeSurfSkiDeckOther motorJetskiSailCanoeKayakSUP
Total487835633138107477
1RyanSandy1009 Holly Ln12
2PinckneyDavid1085 Holly Ln
3GavinAnne & Patrick1035 Holly Ln14
4WareElise6275 Powers Blvd1
5HawkinsonChristine Haissig & 6370 Pleasant View 1
6GreenJim & Chris6380 Pleasant View
7OdomJohn & Barb6390 Pleasant View
8NovaczykTodd & Sherry6371 Pleasant View 11
9BeddorDavid & Robin1050 Pleasant View 1
10BeddorTony Kunda and 890 Pleasant View
11BeddorGail Dorn & Steve1010 Pleasant View 122
12BeddorMarilyn910 Pleasant View 1
13BeddorTony Kunda and 860 Pleasant View 11
14SzalapskiEd & Victoria850 Pleasant View 1122
15GullicksonMike & Kathy830 Pleasant View 11
17MasonRon & Janice800 Pleasant View 12
18SchultzPeter & Cindy790 Pleasant View 1112
19FeltlJohn & Jennifer6290 Ridge Rd111
20FessDeanne Sheeley & 6280 Ridge Rd1111
21SzalapskiVanessa6270 Ridge Rd1
22WetzelJoni6260 Ridge Rd1
23BeckChristophe & Nadine6250 Ridge Rd1
24SprengerGordon & Dee6244 Ridge Rd1112
25MidthunSteve & Mary6225 Ridge Rd112
26CunninghamWilliam6240 Ridge Rd111
27MeyerKaren6230 Ridge Rd1
28EdwardsMary6170 Ridge Rd1
29OfstehageAl & Gail6140 Ridge Rd11
30McGinnAndy & Ann6110 Ridge Rd
31SwirtzGreg & Molly6090 Ridge Rd1112
32LarsonAl & Carol6060 Ridge Rd
33MeiusiDan & Rhondi6050 Ridge Rd142
34EricksonTodd & Judy6030 Ridge Rd11
35StinchfieldDean & Lisa6010 Ridge Rd112
36LarsonGary5980 Ridge Rd1111
37LinkDavid & Susan5975 Ridge Rd2
38SchultzDave & Peg5950 Ridge Rd112
39Mason Martha5920 Ridge Rd1112
40UtzBill & Maureen5890 Ridge Rd1
41SmithRed & Carol5860 Ridge Rd11
42ZaettaChristopher & Deneen5840 Ridge Rd11
43ZinnCarl & Ali5820 Ridge Rd1122
44MauerHelmut & Jane5810 Ridge Rd
45MeyerChristopher and Sarah5770 Ridge Rd11
46UlvestadRolf & Nancy5730 Ridge Rd12
47HoytMr & Mrs Richard5710 Ridge Rd111
48VanceKaren5690 Ridge Rd12
49HauserKathleen Schillo & 5640 Covington Rd11
50FagerleeDavid & Dawn5630 Covington Rd122
51TiltonLouis & Linda5620 Covington Rd11
52WallaceRobert & Sally5610 Covington Rd12
RefNoLot11LNameFNameAddressPontoonWakeSurfSkiDeckOther motorJetskiSailCanoeKayakSUP
53SaundersJohn & Mary5600 Covington Rd111
54ViraghAmanda5570 Covington Rd2
55McClearyCarol5480 Carrie Ln1
5611McClearyCarol5480 Carrie Ln
5711BerchildSteve & Jessi20435 Radisson Inn
58NewhouseEric & Barbara20445 Radisson Inn
5911DownsPaula Callies & David20465 Radisson Inn
60FriendlyIan & Carol5590 Shore Rd11
61ShawTad and Mary5580 Shore Rd12
62CossettePaul and Suzanne5570 Shore Rd1121
63HayesJoe & Kris5560 Shore Rd1
64TietzResthaven LLC - Nancy5550 Shore Rd
6511JoyceAnne20505 Radisson Inn 23
6611DuranSally20485 Radisson Inn
6811MaxwellSherry20480 Radisson Inn
6911WatzWilliam Hittler and 20525 Radisson Inn 1LOT 111
7011KrebsNancy Wellner & Gary20555 Radisson Inn
7111WilleMichael & Leslie20545 Radisson Inn
7211CohenMike & Janet20640 Radisson Inn
73AubrechtPaul & Patrice20575 Radisson Inn
74PetersonAaron & Nicola20595 Radisson Inn 112
75RayJon & Becky20625 Radisson Inn 21
76SasmanTom & Pam20645 Radisson Inn 112
77JordanJeanna Witzig & Mary20665 Radisson Inn 1
78PunkeDoug & Sheila20695 Radisson Inn 1122
7911SeifertJ. Paul & Carol5515 Radisson
8011HastingsMs Elaine M5495 Radisson
8111NicholsTodd & Melissa20780 Radisson Inn
82HermannJo20765 Radisson Inn 2
83EggertCharlie & Katie20725 Radisson Inn 11
84KellyTom & Vivi-Anne5595 Christmas Lake 1
85LindholmSteve & Mary Jane5625 Christmas Lake 1111
86CamsariUlas5635 Christmas Lake 1
87StarkeyRobert & Tamara5655 Christmas Lake 1133
88JohnsonFred & Ellen5695 Christmas Lake 11
89PetersonGregg5745 Christmas Lake
90CroninMaureen Sullivan & 5790 Christmas Lake 112
91KowalskyMr & Mrs Richard5740 Christmas Lake
92HawkMartin & Kerri5680 Christmas Lake 11
93RaineyTim & Julie5660 Christmas Lake 11
94NewhouseSandy5640 Christmas Lake 1111
95FeeneyMike & Patty5630 Christmas Lake 12
96HeldtTodd and Dana5620 Christmas Lake 1
97McClellandCollin & Kathryn5590 Christmas Lake 12
98OcampoFrancisco & Alicia20845 Radisson Inn
99HungJohn20885 Radisson Inn
100UrdahlMark & Catherine20915 Radisson Inn 11
101RogersKelly20960 Radisson Inn
102PetersonAllen & Corrine20945 Radisson Inn 1111
103GerberichWilliam & Susan21035 Radisson Inn
104WegnerMr & Mrs Roy21055 Radisson Inn
105EilertsonCynthia Huntington & 21075 Radisson Inn 111
RefNoLot11LNameFNameAddressPontoonWakeSurfSkiDeckOther motorJetskiSailCanoeKayakSUP
106KesselGlenn21095 Radisson Inn 11
107NoonanDaniel & Lucinda21115 Radisson Inn 2
108LarsonAl & Jennifer21125 Radisson Inn 112
109MagneyMark & Tammy21195 Radisson Inn 1122
110OlsonScott21235 Radisson Inn
111LehmanPeter & Marie21265 Radisson Inn 11
112NorbergRoger & Susan5755 Merry Ln1222
113AndersonDavid & Whitney5725 Merry Ln11
114FrankenfieldGreg & Marissa5750 Merry Ln11
115DietzWilliam & Teena5720 Merry Ln
116PettitThomas and Annebet5695 Merry Ln12
117StarkeyKen & Brenda5690 Merry Ln132
118KoosmannTom5660 Merry Ln
119HansonJulie Mehr & Steven5710 Christmas Lake 1
120AretzJoseph & Kathleen5730 Christmas Lake
121MartinSteve & Roxanne5750 Christmas Lake 2
122SwensonTodd & Jae5760 Christmas Lake 111
123JohnsonWhitney5780 Christmas Lake 1
124SquiresStuart & Carolyn5800 Christmas Lake 1
125BensonBruce & Susan5820 Christmas Lake 1
126BraggKurt and Molly5810 Christmas Lake 112
127BrownLeesa5830 Christmas Lake 12
128DanserJean Cary & George5840 Christmas Lake 11
129PierroRenee5880 Christmas Lake
130LambertBrian & Katherine5860 Christmas Lake 2
131CrawfordJohn & Melissa5885 Christmas Lake 1121
132GraczykKatie5915 Christmas Lake 1
133MacKayHarvey & Carol Ann5925 Christmas Lake 1
134RossbergCarol5935 Christmas Lake 12
135NewhouseJohn & Margrette5945 Christmas Lake 111
136FayfieldRobert & Mary5955 Christmas Lake 1
137FayfieldRobert & Mary6005 Christmas Lake
138FayfieldRobert & Mary21200 Christmas Ln
139NazarianRichard & Wendy21115 Christmas Ln1112
140ShneiderJoe21125 Christmas Ln11112
141HayesTom & Sheila21135 Christmas Ln1122
142ElliottGregg & Diane1050 Holly Ln11122
143FieldsDan and Joni1010 Holly Ln112
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 57_
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION 902.05, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE CHRISTMAS
LAKE BOAT LANDING AND ADJACENT PARKING LOT
The City Council of the City of Shorewood ordains as follows:
902.05, Subd. 4. Christmas Lake Boat Landing.
a. The Christmas Lake boat landing/public access and parking lot (the “Christmas Lake Landing” or
the “Landing”) shall be considered a city recreation area, and subject to the general rules and
regulations of city park and recreation areas.
b. Boats launched from City property, including the Christmas Lake Landing must meet all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
c. No person shall leave, store, abandon, or otherwise cause to remain any fish house, shelter,
dark house, boat, trailer overnight in the Christmas Lake landing area, except as permitted in
Section g, or by permission from the City of Shorewood.
d. Parking is prohibited except in designated parking spaces, except during launching and removal
of the watercraft from the water, and except while watercraft or trailers are being inspected or
decontaminated for aquatic invasive species.
e. Vehicles may only enter the Christmas Lake landing area if there is a designated parking spot
then available in the landing area for the vehicle, or the vehicle and its trailer if the vehicle is
towing a trailer. Vehicles without a trailer must first park in a spot intended for vehicles without
trailers, if one is available, though they may park in a parking spot intended for vehicles with
trailers, if none are available.
f. All vehicles and trailers must park at the landing in a manner that does not obstruct the
equipment used to inspect or decontaminate watercraft or trailers for aquatic invasive species
or disrupt or make unreasonably difficult the ability to inspect or decontaminate watercraft or
trailers, or the ability to launch or retrieve watercraft.
g. Nothing in this ordinance prevents or limits the ability to use, store or leave at the Christmas
Lake Landing trailers, mats or other equipment used to inspect or decontaminate boats or
trailers for aquatic invasive species at the landing.
h. All bait disposed of at the Christmas Lake landing shall be disposed of in a manner that complies
with all State of Minnesota laws and regulations.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Passed this ____ day of _____________, 2022.
_____________________________
ATTEST Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
______________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
#4B
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Review and Discuss Donation for a Bench at Freeman Park
Attachments: Map
Bench 118
Victory Bench
Park Chair Hirner met with Charles Babcock, resident of Shorewood, who would like to donate a
bench at Freeman Park. Chair Hirner will go over the information that he received from Mr.
Babcock.
Mr. Babcock would like to have a bench placed at one of the two areas shown on the map that is
attached. The two circles on the map are the two areas. Also, attached is a photo of Bench 118
that Mr. Babcock would like to donate, and the other photo is the bench that the city orders and
places within the parks when someone wants to donate a bench.
Public Works Director approved the site but mentioned that it should be a concrete slab to place
the bench on. For a six-foot bench and concrete slab in 2019 the donor paid $1500.
The Park Commission will need to determine if they would like to have the bench that Mr.
Babcock would like to donate or if the bench will have to be like the ones that are placed within
the parks. Also, the Park Commission will need to decide which location they would like the
bench placed.
Staff would have to contact contractors for quotes on the concrete slab and notify the donor of
the cost of the concrete slab.
As the Commission is aware, the City is currently working with Three Rivers Park District to
construct a Trail head at Freeman Park which will affect the trail alignment and the area in
question. Should the Commission recommend accepting the donation, staff recommends that the
concrete slab and bench be installed after the trailhead project is completed with that project to
avoid any situation where the bench and slab would need to be moved again later.
If approved by the Park Commission, the request will go to City Council for approval at their
February 28 meeting.
4C
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
______
To: Parks Commission
From: Marie Darling - Planning Director
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Future of South Shore Park
Attachment: 2022 CIP
At a previous meeting, the Commission asked staff to bring this discussion back to a future
meeting to begin talking about the redevelopment.
The CIP includes master planning the park in 2024 and constructing the park in 2028.
Additionally, the following were recreational facilities found lacking in the community by residents
during the Comprehensive Plan survey conducted in October of 2017. The facilities that could
likely be accommodated based on the size and shape of the property are highlighted. The cost of
the facilities has not been estimated. In addition to the items on the list, the Commission has also
previously discussed the sale of the park for private development.
More bike and walking trails Outdoor pickleball courts Curling club
Community recreation center Sports complex More community gardens
More attention to natural areas Public indoor swimming pool Boat slips, public boat launch
Playground Off-leash dog park More lake access for
Shorewood residents
Picnic areas
A workout facility Covered ice rink Artificial turf soccer fields
Cross-country ski trails Splash pad Skateboard park
Indoor walking/running facilities Mountain bike trail Sand volleyball courts
More hockey rinks Disc golf Outdoor rental equipment, like
bikes, showshoes, cross
country skis, etc.
Indoor playground Snowmobiling trails Paddle tennis
Beach access Horse shoe pits Archery Range
Location Map
#4D
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Memo Date: February 8, 2022
Re: 2022 Work Schedule/Park Commission Meeting Schedule
Attachments: 2022 Work Program
2022 Park Commission Meeting Schedule
The items listed below, are items that are on the work program for 2022:
Options for Southshore Community Park
Review Ordinance for Christmas Lake Access
Appoint Chair and Vice Chair
Park Tours
Review CIP
Please review the attached work program and determine if there are other items that you would
like to see added for discussion at future meetings.
Also attached is the 2022 Park Commission meeting schedule. The August 9 meeting will be
moved to August 23, due to the Primary Election. The October 11 Park meeting will be moved
to October 25, as the City Council will be holding their meeting on October 11 due to October 10
being a holiday. The November 8 Park meeting will be moved to November 22 due to elections
being on November 8.
2022 Work Program
January
Southshore Community Park
Concession Agreement
Senior Programming
February
Review Ordinance for Christmas Lake Access
March
Appoint Chair/Vice Chair
April
May
Park Tours - Round I
June
Park Tours - Round II
July
Recap of Park Tours
August
September – December
Review CIP
2022 PARK COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE
PARK COMMISSION MEETING REPORT AT CITY COUNCIL MTG
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11 MONDAY, JANUARY 24
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28
TUESDAY, MARCH 8 MONDAY, MARCH 14 (MARCH 28
MTG. CANCELLED)
TUESDAY, APRIL 12 MONDAY, APRIL 25
TUESDAY, MAY 10 MONDAY, MAY 23
TUESDAY, JUNE 14 MONDAY, JUNE 27
TUESDAY, JULY 12 MONDAY, JULY 25
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26
(PRIMARY ELECTION ON AUG. 9)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14
(CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCT. 11 DUE TO HOLIDAY ON OCT. 10)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28
(ELECTIONS TAKE PLACE ON NOV. 8)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13 MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2023
#4E
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Memo Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Determine Liaison To City Council Meetings
__________________________________________
Listed below is a schedule for the Park Commissioners to determine who will be the liaison to
the City Council meetings.
Park Commission Meeting Report at City Council Liaison
Meeting
February 8, 2022 February 28, 2022
March 8, 2022 March 14, 2022
April 12, 2022 April 25, 2022
#4F
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Accept 2022 Concession Operation Agreement
Attachment: 2022 Concession Agreement
__________________________________________
Derek Withum now works the concessions and has agreed to provide concession services for
Eddy Station again for the 2022 season.
Mr. Withum has agreed to pay the city $394 for the 2022 season. Payment will be due
September 30, 2022.
Staff is recommending formalizing the agreement with Mr.Withum for the 2022 season.
Independent Contractor
2022 Concession Operation Agreement
By and Between City of Shorewood and Contractor
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ___ day of __________, by and between the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its offices located at 5755 Country Club Road,
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (the "City") and Derek Withum, 1563 Sandbar Circle, MN 55387 (the
“Contractor”)
REClTALS
WHEREAS, the City is engaged in the business of providing municipal services including park
and recreation opportunities within the corporate limits of the City. The City has constructed a
concession/restroom/picnic facility in Freeman Park within the City known as Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide concession services to the patrons of Freeman Park
through the facility of Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City further desires to enter into an agreement with the Contractor for the
operation and provision of concession services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.) Schedule of Operation. Contractor agrees to provide concession services Monday
through Sunday, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., commencing on or about May 1 or whenever the first organized
sports events begin. Concession operations will continue through August 1, or whenever Freeman Park
ceases its summer use by MGSA, Adult Softball and Tonka United Soccer. Contractor agrees to
coordinate operations with the Park Scheduling Coordinator.
2.) Contractor Responsibilities.
a.) Contractor agrees to be present each day for opening, training of sales
volunteers, and all duties involved with closing the operation at the end of the day. Contractor
agrees that if for any reason he is not able to be present for any period of time, while the
concession operation is open, he will be available by pager or cell phone for immediate
assistance at the site.
b.) Contractor agrees to be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the
concession area.
3.) Contractor Payment. The Contractor agrees to pay the City $394 for the year 2022.
Payment due to the City by September 30, 2022.
4.) Purchasing. The Contractor agrees to purchase the necessary products and supplies
associated with concession sales at Eddy Station.
5.) Equipment. The City agrees to provide the hot dog machine, popcorn machine, cash
register, pop cooler, refrigerator and coffee machine.
6.) Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason, upon
thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement without notice
for cause. "Cause" includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, failure to meet deadlines, criminal conduct,
or breach of this Agreement.
7.) Status of Contractor. As intended by both parties, this Agreement calls for the
performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be
considered an employee of the City for any purpose.
a.) The manner and means of performance of Contractor shall be entirely at
Contractor's discretion. Contractor is free to employ personnel to assist Contractor in providing
services to the City, but such employees shall be Contractor's responsibility and not that of the
City. The City shall not provide Contractor or Contractor's employees or agents with any benefits
from the City such as workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, health
insurance, income tax withholding, or social security contributions. The City does not control the
performance of Contractor and Contractor accepts all risk of profit and loss flowing from the
services provided under this Agreement. All expenses must be borne by Contractor and shall not
be reimbursed by the City. Those expenses include furnishing Contractor's place of work, payroll
expenses, taxes, and insurance.
b.) Contractor shall conspicuously identify himself to all persons and organizations
as an independent contractor and shall not represent or imply that this Agreement authorizes
Contractor to act as an agent for, or on behalf of, the City. Neither the City nor Contractor shall
be responsible for any agreement, representation, or warranty made by the other, nor shall the
City be obligated for damages to any person or organization for personal injuries or property
damage arising directly or indirectly out of the conduct of Contractor's business or caused by
Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct or negligence.
8.) Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and
against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from Contractor's actions, failure to act,
conduct, or negligence while performing services pursuant to this Agreement unless such damage or
liability arises from or in connection with faulty or defective materials or facilities provided by the City.
Contractor agrees to carry Commercial liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.
9.) Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
and no amendment hereto shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. There is
merged herewith all prior and collateral representations, promises, and conditions concerning Contractor
and the City. This Agreement supersedes and nullifies any preexisting agreements between the parties
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All agreements as to payments to be made to Contractor
for particular projects must be in writing.
10.) Severable. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid the
remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
11.) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be
sufficient if it is in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to Contractor's residence or to the
principal office of the City, which ever shall be applicable.
12.) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONTRACTOR
By:_______________________________ By:___________________________________
Its:_______________________________ Its:____________________________
#5A
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Meeting Date: February 8, 2022
Re: Senior Programs
Attachment: October 26 Memo on Senior Programs
__________________________________________
The Park Commission asked staff to reach out to surrounding cities to see if they offer park
programs for seniors. Staff presented their findings at the October 26 Park meeting (memo from
the October 26 Park meeting is attached).
Staff explained that the city has offered classes in the past at Badger Park and Freeman Park.
These classes were a painting class, nature program and poker walk. However, these classes did
not take place due to low participation. It was mentioned that car bingo was one program that
did take place.
At the October meeting the Park Commission suggested that the Commissioners think of some
ideas for programs and bring them back for discussion at the next park meeting. This item will
be discussed at this meeting.
#5A
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Twila Grout – Park & Rec Director
Meeting Date: October 26, 2021
Re: Senior Programming
At the August Park Commission meeting, the Park Commissioners discussed senior programming and
asked staff to reach out to other communities to see if they do senior programming in the parks.
Staffed reached out to the following Cities:
Mound – The Park department does not do senior programming. Programming is through the senior center.
They do not have outside programs at their parks.
Chaska – Staff has not heard back from them.
Eden Prairie – Their senior center does the programming. They have a biking club, walking group and this
fall they are offering a fall colors hike and a program on the history of paper.
Victoria – Have not heard back from them.
Minnetonka - Their senior center also does the programming. They have a biking club and Adopt-A-
Highway. This fall they are offering a Night Sky Observation Program, and a Fall Hiking Program.
This past summer the following park programs were offered for seniors: a painting class at Badger Park
picnic shelter, a Nature Journaling class at Freeman Park, Poker Walk around the trail at Badger Park. All
three of these programs were cancelled due to not having enough registrations. The one program that was a
success was car bingo. This program was held last fall at Shorewood Community & Event Center parking
lot. Classes were promoted through the city newsletter, Southshore Senior newsletter, flyers, and website.
Staff does not know if the COVID pandemic discouraged residents from signing up for the outside
programs.
Please provide direction for other senior programs or if the same programs should be offered again next
year.