062796 Snowmobile Task Force Rpt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Shore wood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood. Minnc:sota 55331
Phone: 6124743236
Fax: 6124740128
Snowmobile Task Force
Report
. .,///',..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. -- - ...
.--------- ......
.__........ __d_.n
. . . . . . . .. . ...,......-
.....----...-.......--..----------_..
n.___..___...........
n. ."____n._._.."..............___________
..... _...............................-...-.
. . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - .
.......... .n.........__..................__.
........ ..................................-..-.
...._.__............._.._._................___._____d
.~~~~irtmendations regarding continued
.$1gowmobile use in the City of
~norewood
Report 1 of 2
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
I
I
I
I
I. Executive Summary .. ......... .............. ............... ............. .............. .......... ........ ................ 4
Summary of Findings............................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations.................................................................................................. ..............4
II. Introductions............................. ..................................... .................................... ......... 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
Background.... ..................... ............... ..................................... ..... ...... ..... .............................5
Purpose....................................................................................................................... .........5
Objectives............... ......................................................... ......... ............................................5
Task Force Members............................................................................................................ 6
Report and Recommendations............................................................................... ...............6
III. Task Force Process & Methodology........................................................................ 7
Guidelines and Objectives...................................................... ...............................................7
Identification of Policy Change Areas .....................................................................................8
Data Collection..................................................................................................................... . 8
Policy Formulation... ...... .............. .... ... ......... ...... ................ .... .............. ................... ...............9
Final Recommendations and Report........... ............................... .................... ......... ...............9
IV. Summary of Policy Area Recommendations ........................................................ 10
A. Review of Policy Area Discussions and Altematives..........................................10
I
I
PCA 1 .................................................. ............................... ........................................ .11
PCA 2 ............. ....................................... ............................. ............................ ........... ..11
PCA 3 ...... ...... ........ ..... ... ............ ... ................ ... ............. ... ............. ...... .................. .... ...11
PCA 4 .......... ................... ........................................................ .............. ...... ......... ....... .12
PCA 5 .................................................................................. ....................................... .13
PCA 6 ................................................................................. .................. .......... ............ .13
PCA 7 ......................................................................................... .......................... ...... .14
PCA 8 ........................................ ........ ....................................... ........ .......... ................ .15
PCA 9 . ....... .............. .... ....... .... .............. ... ... .......... ....... ....... ............. ..... ........ ....... ...... ..16
PCA 10.............................. ..................................................................... ......... ............ .17
PCA 11........................................................................................................................ .17
PCA 12............................................ ............................................................................ .18
PCA 13........................................................................................................................ .19
PCA 14................................................................................... ...................................... 19
PCA 15......................................................................................................................... 20
PCA 16......................................................................................................................... 21
I
I
I
1996 Sno\\,mobile Task Force Report
6/27%
2
I
I
I
I
PCA 17......................................................................................................................... 21
PCA 18............................................................ ............................................................ .21
PCA 19................... ...................................................................................................... 21
B. Proposed Implementation Plan............ ............................ ............................... ..23
I
I
I
I
Program 1: Safety Initiatives............................. .......... .......... ... ............... ... ..................23
Program 2: Enforcement Actions............................................................................... ..24
Program 3: Comprehensive Education Program...........................................................24
Program 4: Comprehensive Sign Program ...................................................................25
Program 5: Changes in Shorewood Ordinance.............................................................25
Program 6: Areas for Further Follow Up and Study .....................................................26
Program 7: Accountability and Oversight ....................................................................27
V. Summary of Research Findings
VI. Appendix
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1996 Soo\\mobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
3
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
I
I
The Shorewood Snowmobile Task Force was formed by City Council in June of 1995 and was
charged with reviewing issues relating to the use of snowmobiles in the City of Shorewood. The
Council asked the Task Force to gather and evaluate information to more clearly understand the
nature and severity of snowmobile violations and concerns and to make recommendations with
respect to a ban, or in the alternative, develop steps to allow snowmobiles to remain as a form of
recreation and transportation within the City of Shorewood.
I
I
The Task Force collected and reviewed data on key issues: specifically ordinance violations,
safety, resident perceptions and the need for limitations, restrictions and/or, if necessary a ban.
The Task Force identified several key areas of concern. These included:
I
. Safety: Concerns exist in the following areas: the mixed use of motorized vehicles and
pedestrian activities on the Regional Trail (LRT); the use of the Timber Lane access and
street boulevards by snowmobiles; and the need for more young riders to pass the required
safety training course.
I
I
. Education: Confusion and misinformation exist among residents, police, snowmobile owners
and riders with respect to property rights, speed limits, right of way issues, prohibited riding
areas, season dates, Shorewood laws and regulations and trespass laws.
I
. Ordinances: the current City snowmobile ordinance is confusing and open to interpretation.
It can be easily misunderstood and misapplied.
I
. Enforcement: Citations are given for curfew, speed, and public property violations.
Enforcement is difficult because of lack of manpower, proper equipment and the inability to
identify and pursue the rider, allowing many violators to avoid apprehension.
I
I
The Task Force recommends that a Comprehensive Snowmobile Program be put in place to
address these issues. This program would develop strategies under the following categories:
1. Safety Initiatives
2. Enforcement Actions
3. Comprehensive Education Program
4. Comprehensive Sign Program
5. Changes in Shorewood Ordinances
6. Areas for Further Follow Up and Study
7. Accountability and Oversight
I
I
I
If the recommendations as outlined in this program are adopted, it is the opinion of the Task
Force that snowmobile usage can remain in Shorewood as a viable form of recreation and
transportation for its residents.
I
1996 Snov.ntobile Task Force Report
6/27%
4
I
I
I
I
II. Introduction
I
I
In June of 1995 the Shorewood City Council passed a resolution (95-53) authorizing a Task
Force to review issues regarding the use of snowmobiles in the City of Shorewood and on that
portion of the Regional LRT that runs through it. (See Appendix G.)
I
I
The purpose of the Task Force as outlined by the Council resolution was to:
. Investigate reports of City code violations by snowmobilers,
. Make recommendations on ways to reduce violations,
I
. Implement an action plan to acquire accurate data on the number and
seriousness of violations and complaints during the 1995-96 winter season, and
I
I
. Analyze the data and prepare recommendations regarding either a ban of
snowmobiling or steps to improve the safety and perception of snowmobiling as
an acceptable form of recreation and transportation in Shorewood.
I
The objectives as outlined by the City Council resolution were to:
. Define the issues and determine the extent of the problem.
I
. Analyze and report on the issues and problems regarding snowmobiling on the
Regional LRT, City Right of Ways, City Streets and Private Property.
I
I
. Review possible strategies to reduce incidents of non-compliance with City
Code and to acquire reliable data on such incidents, including but not limited
to:
. additional or revised Snow Patrol activity:
. use of radar or videotape;
. additional signage,
. educational programs,
. physical barriers, and
. additional patrol by Hennepin County Water Patrol and Sheriff, and South
Lake Police (SLMPSD).
I
I
I
I
1996 Snowmobile TaskForce Report
6/27/96
5
I
I
I
Nine members were designated including one each from the Parks Commission and the Planning
Commission, four resident members and three advisory members including the City
Administrator, the Chief of Police and the head of the local Snow Patrol.
I
I
The Task Force members are as follows:
Co-Chairs: Bill Colopoulos (replaced Roxanne Martin as Co-Chair)
Virginia Kolstad
Voting Members:
John Arnst
Dana George
Warren Peterson (replaced Troy Stottler)
Troy Stottler (resigned January, 1996)
Ingrid Schaff (resigned May 21,1996)
Roxanne Martin (resigned as Co-Chair December 1996 but.remained as
an alternate)
Laura Turgeon (replaced Ingrid Schaff as a voting member)
I
I
Alternates:
I
I
Advisory Members: Rick Young, Chief of Police, SLMPSD
Jim Hurm, City Administrator
Dan Puzak, Shorewood Snow Patrol
The Parks Commission was represented by Bill Colopoulos and Roxanne Martin.
The Planning Commission was represented by Virginia Kolstad and Laura Turgeon.
I
>_riill__E<
~f~ ~~ ::;: ;:;: ::;:;:t::;:r;:;t :;:;:;:;: ::;:;:;:; ~;;;~ ;~;; ;:?:;:;:;:;;;: ;~;;;~ ;:;:; :{;:t::;:;;:::;:::: :::::;:::;:;::: ::: ::::::.:. :::.:.:.:...",;...".. . .
d..".H..............". ,.. ",. .......... . ......
............................... ......... ",' ..
.....................................--..... .
.................................. ........
................................ ..
............................ .
. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
The following report discusses the process used by the Task Force, the review of data,
alternatives proposed and recommendations made for each policy area, the proposed
implementation plan and a summary of the research findings from the major areas of
data collection. The report is divided into five sections.
I
Section I
Executive Summary
Overview of findings and
recommendations.
I
Section II
Introduction
Review of background, purpose and
Task Force structure.
I
Section III
Process & Methodology
Overview of process used to identify key
issues, collect data and develop
recommendations.
I
Section IV
Summary of Policy Area
Recommendations
A. Review of each Policy Area
discussion and conclusions.
I
B. Proposed implementation plan
developed from Policy Area
recommendations.
I
Section V
Summary of Research
Findings
A summary of each major research
area.
I
I
1996 SIl(mmobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ill. Task Force Process &
Methodology
The Task Force established a clear methodology for identifying issues and gathering data along
with a well defined process for resolving concerns and evaluating information. A description of
the process and methodology follows.
.'_.IiI.~_::::::j::H
The first meeting was held September 25, 1995. The group met 20 times as a full Task Force. In
addition, two Sub-Task Force groups were formed during this period to address two specific
topics: identifying data collection strategies and reviewing survey questions and methodology.
Judy Marshik, a consultant with Research Quik, Inc., assisted the Task Force with developing a
framework in which to organize information by identifying key policy issues for further study and
outlining a data collection methodology to assure all issues were addressed in an unbiased
fashion. She also provided technical ex-pertise and analytical support on the survey, established
meeting discussion guidelines to keep the group focused and facilitated the meetings to ensure all
participants were heard.
The Task Force, with Marshik's assistance, established the following:
1. Task Force Objectives: The Task Force reviewed City Council's direction (See Resolution
95-53 in Appendix G.) and identified four main purposes:
a. Take recommendations to the City Council to reduce the number of snowmobile
violations.
b. Count and comment on the seriousness of snowmobile violations during the 1995-96
winter season.
c. Make recommendations regarding banning snowmobiles in all or part of the City,
including public property, or provide other alternatives which would permit
snowmobiles, but with greater safety.
d. Comment on the safety and compatibility of snowmobiles with other users, such as
pedestrians or other types of vehicles, on the Regional Trail (LRT) and streets.
2. Discussion Guidelines: The Task Force established rules for Task Force discussions which
limited debate and adhered to the agenda with special rules as needed and agreed upon by
the members of the Task Force. Robert's Rules of Order were used to guide the meetings
during the final policy analysis.
3. Research Considerations: The Task Force agreed that the final report should include:
a. The study of some other recreational activity to serve as a "control group" to keep the
study of snowmobiles in perspective,
b. A majority and minority opinion and rationale on every separate decision, and
c. Objective data, when possible, to support any rationale for action.
1996 Sno\\11\Obile Task Force Report
6/27/96
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. .............~~~.ppPfg~j9y~~~~@i........<...........
The Task Force identified and agreed upon the key policy areas to be addressed and identified
questions for each area. A number of Task Force meetings were spent in a "brain storming"
format to formulate these issues. Nineteen policy areas were identified representing key issues
impacting or impacted by snowmobiles.
Over one hundred and thirty questions were identified within the nineteen areas. For each
question, the Task Force identified possible sources for obtaining accurate answers. The Task
Force and City staff then set out to obtain the answers. A list of the policy areas and the questions
for each one is included in Appendix E.
The Task Force developed a data collection plan to answer questions raised in each Policy Area,
determine the scope of the problem(s), and to address issues raised during the data collection
process. Several methods of data collection were utilized. These are listed below. A summary of
the findings is included in Section V, Summary of Research Findings.
. Citizen sUn'ey. The Task Force, through a subgroup of the Task Force, worked with Judy
Marshik to develop the citizen survey. A thirty-nine question survey was prepared and
mailed to 2,463 households in Shorewood. (See Section V, #1 Survey summary. A
companion binder to this report, the Citizen Survey Binder is also available.)
. Agency research. City staff contacted many individuals in other agencies outside the City
identified as potential sources of information. Those agency responses were reported back to
the Task Force by City staff. (See Section V, #4 Agency research report.)
. Internews with key individuals:. The Task Force held interviews with the City Attorney,
the City Planner, the Chief of Police, the head of the Shorewood Snow Patrol, the City
~ngineer and the City Administrator to obtain a better understanding of the issues and to
answer specific questions. (Responses are found in the Policy Area Binder under each Policy
Area. )
. SUn'ey of other cities. Sixteen other municipalities were contacted by Shorewood City staff
and asked a series of questions relating to snowmobile use within their jurisdictions. A copy
of relevant ordinances and rules were attained. Verbal and written reports were provided to
the Task Force. (See Section V, #3 City research report summary. The actual report is in the
Policy Area Binder.)
. Trail monitoring. Snowmobile Task Force members observed snowmobile activity on the
Regional Trail (LRT). At one meeting Task Force members rode in vehicles together along
the LRT. In addition, for ten weeks, a one hour period per weekend was randomly selected
for members of the Task Force to observe, at various hours of the day, activity on the LRT.
Reports were completed by those observing the LRT activity. (See Section V, #5 Trail
monitoring report. The actual report is in the Policy Area Binder.)
. Police officer internews. Questions were identified for the South Lake Minnetonka Public
Safety Department (SLMPSD) Police Officers responsible for enforcing snowmobile laws.
Consultant, Judy Marshik, conducted individual 30 interviews with the officers, 5 in person
and 6 written, and provided a report to the Task Force. (See Section V, #6 Police interviews.
Actual report is in Policy Area Binder.)
. Police complaint findings: Chief Young (SLMPSD) provided information on the number of
citations for the last two years for snowmobile ordinance violations Co-chair, Virginia
Kolstad. worked with police staff to review and analyze telephone complaints (911) and
property damage complaints made to the police department relating to snowmobiles during
the 1995/96 winter season. (See Section V, #2 Police complaint findings. Complete report
is in Policy Area Binder.)
1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report
6/21'%
8
I
I
I
The last five meetings of the Task Force consisted of reviewing all data collected for each of the
nineteen policy areas. The discussions for each Policy Area are summarized in Section IV. A..
Review of Policy Area Discussions and Alternatives. The Task Force considered the concerns
raised for each policy area, the data gathered and reviewed alternative methods for addressing the
issues.
I
I
Three Sub-Task Force committees were formed to develop recommendations for several Policy
Areas: Noise (Policy Area 6), Speed (Policy Area 3), and Snowmobile Identification and
Registration (policy Area 4). The reports of these committees are included in Appendix C.
I
In addition, the City formed a committee (the City Review Committee) which included Chief
Young from the SLMPSD, City Planner Brad Nielson, City Engineer Larry Brown, City
Administrator Jim Hurm, and Research Assistant Becky Tarvin, to review Task Force
recommendations and provide suggestions and comments.
I
.:....~::_.::II:.I.I::::.:
............... ...... -.
...................................'.................... .................... .................
.................. .....................................
..............................
........................
............... ..............................
.... ....................................
............................
..................
I
I
The Task Force developed a structured process to formulate the final recommendations. Brief
general discussions allowed for consensus building and included input from advisory members.
Recommendations from Task Force members followed in the form of motions. Discussion on the
motions was limited to Task Force voting members. All discussion was carefully recorded in the
minutes. The minutes for the April 25 through May 30 meetings are included in Appendix B.
Task Force discussions centered on the data. Recommendations were approved by a majority of
voting members voting affirmatively. (Minority opinions are presented with each policy area
with the exception of Policy Area 15, Access and Policy Area 19, Ban which are provided in
Appendix A.)
I
I
The last two meetings focused on the form and content of the report to City Council. The report
concisely summarizes the volumes of data acquired and categorizes the numerous
recommendations in a meaningful fonnat.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1996 Sno\\mobile TaskForce Report
&27/%
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N Summary of Policy
Area Recommendations
I
A. Review of Policy Area Discussions &
Alternatives
.._..______..____d.....
. . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .......................
..................
.I.'..j;......:,......
--.........-..-...................----.......... .
.................................... -.......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................ ... .
..............................
...............--....... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . - .. ..
.......... ....... ....... ....... ........ .....
. .................................................................
..........................................................
.........-.................................. .
................................ .
. ..................... .
I
I
Review of Data
Many violators are not apprehended because they cannot be identified or caught. In many
instances, the enforcement agency and/or the snowmobile operators are not familiar with the
regulations.
Current constraints to more effective enforcement include:
. Lack of available manpower
. Lack of adequate equipment i.e. radar, noise meters, snowmobiles,
. Knowledge of officers regarding ordinances and snowmobiles regulations.
I
I
I
I
There are a number of outside agencies that may be able to contribute to an enforcement effort
(upon request by the City). These include:
. Shorewood Snow Patrol, (Its members assist with Regional Trail issues. See Letter of
Understanding in Appendix D.)
. Hennepin Park Rangers
. Hennepin County Sheriff/Water Patrol
. South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD)
. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Conservation Officers.
I
I
I
Conclusions & Recommendations
It is the opinion of the Task Force that enforcement has to be tightened to ensure a reduction of
violations by snowmobiles. The City Review Committee made several recommendations which
were included with those of the Task Force. Concern was expressed about the effectiveness of the
Shorewood Snow Patrol in meeting the requirements of the current Letter of Understanding and
the need for a revised agreement clarifying their role and establishing clear accountability for
monitoring their activities in the future. The final recommendations follow:
I. Obtain agreement from outside agencies to assist, clarify roles, coordinate activities and
more effectively utilize the resources of all of the above agencies.
2. Assign the current designated Shorewood police officer to snowmobiles during the winter
and train a back-up officer to assist him or her.
3. Review, clarify and tighten the agreement with the Shorewood Snow Patrol and utilize them
to supplement the officer's efforts and improve education of snowmobile operators.
4. Institute a "zero tolerance policy" with respect to impounding vehicles for curfew and all
other ,iolations where appropriate.
I
I
19% Snowmobile Task Force Report
6/27%
10
I
I
I
I
5. Write a letter to the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to increase the fines for Snowmobile
violations in Shorewood.
6. Obtain a snowmobile for the Shorewood police to improve their ability to apprehend
violators and patrol the LRT.
A motion made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to accept the
recommendations was passed unanimously by the Task Force. (6-0)
I
I
I
I
See Appendix B, May 23, 1996 minutes.
Review of Data
Current curfew is from 11 PM to 7 AM. There were 10 citations given for curfew violations in
1995/96 (out ofa total 27 snowmobile citations) and 5 in 1994/95 (out of 5 total citations).
There were nine telephone (911) complaints out of a total 99 resident complaints. The current
fine is $70 up from $55 in 1995 with the potential for impounding the vehicle.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
This discussion focused on whether there should be changes in the current curfew and covered
the current construction pennit and policies (7 AM to 7 PM), concerns about a potential state law
violation where a new road will run parallel to the LRT, disturbance caused by the late weeknight
curfew time, and a comparison with the irritation level of barking dogs versus snowmobiles.
Two motions were made.
1. That the City Attorney review Minnesota Statute 84.87 Subdivision l(a): "Operations on
streets and highways,...." In conjunction with the fact that a portion of the Southwest LRT
will run parallel to a new street near Smithtown and Eureka Road, would be in conflict with
the sunrise to sunset provision which requires that snowmobile headlights not be directed
towards oncoming traffic. John Arnst moved, Ingrid Schaff seconded.
The motion was defeated 3-2 with I abstention. Co-Chair Colopoulos, Dana George and
Warren Peterson voted against the motion as they did not feel that this was a curfew issue.
Kolstad acting as chair did not vote on this issue. However, City stafIhas agreed to look into
the issue further.
2. A motion made by Ingrid Schaff and seconded by John Arnst requested that the Task Force
consider exploring curfew policy changes. This motion was defeated 4-2. Co-Chair
Colopoulos, Dana George, Warren Peterson, and Co-Chair Kolstad did not feel there was
enough evidence to support further discussion or changes in this policy area.
I
I
I
There was no further discussion of curfew as a topic. However, it was raised in conjunction with
Policy Area 6, Noise Abatement and a subsequent recommendation was made at that time.
See Appendix B, April 25, 1996 minutes.
Review of Data
. Two different speed limits apply to snowmobiles in Shorewood:
10 MPH on City streets
20 MPH on the LRT.
I
I
1996 Soo\\mobile Task Force Report
627/96
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
. There are many other applicable speed limits, i.e. DNR allows 50 MPH on public lands and
waters, Victoria allows 50 MPH on the LRT, and Lake Minnetonka has several speed limit
regulations depending on the distance from shore.
. Education regarding these limits is poor. Survey results show that of the 215 snowmobile
riders that responded only:
16% correctly identified the correct street speed limit,
43% correctly identified the correct LRT speed limit,
38% did not know or did not respond.
. Enforcement is difficult because police officers admit they often cannot apprehend a fleeing
snowmobile even when they have clocked them speeding with radar. There were two
speeding citations in 1995/96 out ofa total 27.
. Current fines range from $70 to $142.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force expressed concern about the speeding problem after reviewing the following
data. A list of recommendations was made and referred to both the City Review Committee and
the Speed Sub-Task Force for review. The Speed Sub-Task Force summarized the issues and
data and made several additional recommendations (See Appendix C) which are included below
and in the Education Policy Area 12.. The final recommendations as submitted by all groups are
as follows:
. SLMPSD should keep speeding records for Park Commission review on an annual basis.
Measurements would be included to evaluate compliance and continued LRT use.
. Leave current speed limit at 10 mph for streets and 20 mph for LRT.
. A letter to Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines.
. Improve signage on the LRT and put up warnings where there are changes in speed limits
i.e. from Victoria and in compliance the new Hennepin Count LRT permit rules.
. Post signs at lake accesses.
. Use a different color sign on streets to post snowmobile speed limit.
. Improve education for riders on speed limits.
. Tighten enforcement. Utilize radar and improve police officer education.
. Establish a lake shore buffer zone of 150 feet from shore with 15 mph speed limit on
designated lakes as required on Lake Minnetonka. (Request Chanhassen and Carver County
to adopt same regulations on lakes partially within their boundaries.)
. Encourage increased safety training for younger riders.
A motion by Laura Turgeon with a second by Dana George called for accepting the above
recommendations which included the Speed Sub-Task Force recommendations. The motion
passed unanimously 6-0.
See Appendix B, minutes of April 25, May 11 and May 30, 1996 meeting.
.R.y_I;'_~I!_i9_:;:
..............,....................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................. .....
.......................................
..................................... ..
........................................
......................................
..................................
..............................
... ................ .
I
I
I
Review of Data
A major problem for enforcement is the inability to identify snowmobiles and their riders.
Snowmobile registration numbers are 1 and 7/8 inches high and are located in a 3 inch by 7 inch
display area on the front of the machine. They can blend in with snowmobile markings. In
addition, Survey results indicate that of the 45 respondents with riders under 16 years old, only
35% had taken the safety training and obtained their safety certificate.
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
It was the opinion of the Task Force that there could be additional measures put in place to
improve both the identification of snowmobiles and their operators and improve compliance with
the laws. However, the City has no authority to make regulations regarding the identification
1996 Soo\\mobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and registration of snowmobiles and their operators within the City. Therefore, the Task Force
developed a list of recommendations and formed a Sub-Task Force to review and develop final
recommendations for City Council approval to forward to the Department of Natural Resources
for the State of Minnesota with a copy to the State of Minnesota Snowmobile Task Force for their
consideration and further action. It is believed that adopting these recommendations would
improve training and accountability for snowmobile operators and the ability of the police and
other agencies to enforce the law.
The recommendations were as follows:
. Require that the registration numbers be at least 3 inches in height.
. That a license plate be required for the back bumper of the snowmobile.
. That evidence of insurance is required when a snowmobile is registered.
. New snowmobiles have a designated area for the registration numbers that is free of decals
and colored to allow numbers to be clearly visible.
. Operators under 16 should not be allowed to drive a snowmobile of more than 300 ccs.
. Require operators under 16 and unlicensed operators to complete the safety training
program.
. Require that the safety training certificate contain a photo of the individual.
. Snowmobile violations should be charged against the individuals driving record with a
potential for revocation.
. Violations should be charged to both the registered owner and operator.
This is a unanimous recommendation of the Task Force. The Identification Sub Task Force
proposal is attached in Appendix C.
I
I
See Appendix B, April 25, May 1, 1996 minutes.
I
I
I
I
I
..I__.~;".._~:~_g....::::r:::;
...................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Data
The authority to permit and inspect snowmobiles belongs to the state. The City has no authority
in this area.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force addressed two issues with respect to this policy areas:
1. A motion was made by Co-Chair Kolstad and seconded by Ingrid Schaff to add to the
Registration recommendations that the State be asked to require insurance of snowmobiles
when registering the snowmobile. The motion passed 6-0. This was added to the
recommendations of the Identification Sub-Task Force in Policy Area 4.
2. A motion was made by Co-Chair Kolstad and seconded by John Arnst to recommend that the
City institute a permit procedure if snowmobile usage could be restricted to residents only.
The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There was no further discussion regarding this policy area.
I
I
I
I
See Appendix B, May 15, 1996 minutes.
r...{r.R9JiRIQII;~fit.gl{...;;..:..;:.:;......;.;.;;;;.;;....;;.;.;........ .....
Review of Data
The results of the research on this issue is as follows:
. The current City ordinance adopts state regulations regarding equipment standards. The
state requires that a snowmobile noise level be less than 78 decibels at a distance of 50 feet.
. OSHA hearing requirements for industrial safety state that for a hearing violation to occur
that decibel levels must be greater than 85 for 8 hours.
. There is a relationship between speed and the amount of noise generated.
1996 SnO\\lIlobile Task Force Report
6mi%
13
I
I
I
I
I
. City ordinance 502.03 established a standard of so many barks per minute as a violation for
dogs.
. 911 complaints averaged approximately 4 per month for dogs and I per month for
snowmobiles.
. Survey results indicate that only 39% of 762 respondents felt that snowmobile noise was
annoying in relation to other noises they were subjected to. Snowmobile noise ranked third
(it tied with motorboats andjetskis) behind dogs and musicrrV as bothersome noises.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force reviewed the noise issue in several meetings. A Noise Sub-Task Force was
established to review the initial Task Force suggestions and have the City Review Committee for
feasibility. A copy of the Sub Task Force Report is in Appendix C. The final recommendations
of the Task Force follow:
. Plant evergreens along LRT and designated streets to help reduce noise.
. Change evening curfew to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday; but leave at IIPM Friday
through Saturday. Do not change 7 AM.
. Request the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines for curfew and equipment
ordinance violations.
. Request the City of Shorewood rent or purchase a noise decibel meter to determine
compliance with required decibel level reading.
. Establish a 150 foot buffer zone on designated lakes.
A motion by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to adopt the above
recommendations passed unanimously 6-0,
I
I
I
I
See Appendix B, April 25, May 11 and May 30, 1996 minutes.
<,<..__'z;__',:<:::
....................................
......................... ......
.................................
..................................
.................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.............................. .
...........................
.................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
.................................~......................... .
.................................. ......................
................................................. .
.......................................... .
.................................... ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .................... .
Review of Data
The following data was collected and discussed with respect to property damage.
911 complaints: Of over 200 property damage complaints in 1995 and early 1996 only 2 were
for snowmobiles.
Survey: 18% of761 survey respondents indicated they sustained some property damage in the
last two years. Of this, approximately 13% was to yards and vegetation.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Due to the low frequency and severity of property damage incidents, and the fact that property
damage is specifically covered by ordinance regardless of cause, it was the opinion of the Task
Force that the issue was currently being adequately addressed.
A motion was made by Ingrid Schaff and seconded by John Arnst to address the Property
Damage issue. The motion was defeated 4-2. The two minority votes felt there was evidence of
property damage to streets and the LRT and that there should be additional discussion on this
issue Co-Chair Colopoulos, Co-Chair Kolstad, Warren Peterson and Dana George voted against
the motion as they felt the issue did not need further attention.
See Appendix B, May I, 1996 minutes.
1996 Sno\\mobile Task. Force Report
6/27/%
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Review of Data
The number of citations given in 1995/96 for safety related issues were:
. Speed 2
. OffLRT Operation 2
. No safety certificate 2
The number of 911 Complaints for safety related issues:
. Speeding 42
. Harassment 3
. Stop sign 4
. OffLRT Operation 2
. Park 1
Survey Results
. 54% of 766 respondents felt that Snowmobiles represented a safety hazard on the LRT
. 70% of 765 respondents felt that alcohol use was a major contributor to careless operation of
snowmobiles.
. 59% (595) of 765 respondents were not comfortable in the presence of a snowmobile.
. 54% of 762 respondents felt that underage operators did not have proper training.
There have been injuries as a result of snowmobile use in Shorewood. The majority are to the
riders themselves. The survey results compared injuries as follows:
. Snowmobiles 1 % 770 respondents
. Bicycles 4% 768 respondents
. Pets 5% 765 respondents
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force believes that safety is an issue. The primary area of concern is the mixed use of
snowmobiles and pedestrians on the LRT. It was noted that current Grant-in-Aide rules do not
allow funding when there is motorized and non-motorized mixed use on the LRT (See Policy
Area 9 and Appendix K). Further discussion regarding safety focused on improving educational
awareness on the issue and providing additional signage on the LRT.
The following recommendations in the form of motions were made to:
1. Consider the possibility of an alternate side trail along the LRT for walking and cross
country skiing following a feasibility study by the City Engineer. (Laura Turgeon moved,
Dana George seconded.) Passed Unanimously 6-0.
Discussion points: The 4 foot side trail would be for pedestrians and cross country skiers. It
would require the removal of small trees and brush, installation of culverts and some
grading. This could be done fairly easily beside about 50% of the LRT and in Freeman Park
without major landscaping or tree removal.
2. Offer broader recreational opportunities and because mixed-use (motorized and non-
motorized) of the LRT has contributed to safety concerns, the Task Force commits to
separating these uses by working toward a separate trail where feasible and creating a safer,
practical alternative for non-snowmobile users who should also be advised of the risk when
using the LRT. Motion by Dana George, Second by Warren Peterson. Motion passed 4-2.
The purpose of this motion was to make a clear statement regarding Task Force concerns
about the safety issues arising out of allowing motorized and pedestrian activities on the
LRT. Dissenting votes were Laura Turgeon and John Arnst who wanted even stronger
wording prohibiting any mixed use of the LRT because of concerns they had regarding the
potential for injury in both mixed-use and the proximity of the side trail and noise issues.
1996 Snomnobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
15
I
I
I
I
3. A recommendation was made to pass an ordinance requesting a reduced speed limit of 10
mph in a 30 foot buffer zone around a pedestrian on the LRT, however the pedestrian would
also be required to move to the right to allow the snowmobile to pass. Motion by John Arnst,
amended by Dana George, second by Laura Turgeon. The recommendation passed 5-1.
The dissenting vote was Co-Chair Kolstad who indicated that the ordinance was too complex
to be enforceable.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Further discussion regarding safety focused on improving safety awareness through education,
providing additional signage on the LRT, clarifying responsibility for enforcement in Cathcart
Park and improving enforcement by the City of Shorewood. The following recommendations
were made to address these issues:
. Implementation of a comprehensive sign program on the LRT (in compliance with Hennepin
County Permit rules) and in other areas where appropriate addressing safety issues and
regulations.
. Groom and patrol Freeman park to make it safe and viable for winter cross country skiers,
hikers, and whoever wants to use it.
. Clarify the responsibility of enforcement in Cathcart park, i.e. Chanhassen or SLMPSD.
. Educate riders on the dates of the legal snowmobile season.
. Educate the police force on LRT enforcement issues.
. Investigate the use of the Hennepin Parks accident/incident reporting cards.
. Educate all snowmobile owners and operators on pedestrian safety issues.
. Put additional signs and warnings on any sections of the LRT that will remain mixed use
and instructions to yield to pedestrians.
It was moved by Laura Turgeon and seconded by Dana George to adopt the above
recommendations. This motion was passed 6-0.
See Appendix B, May I, May II, May 23 and May 30, 1996 minutes.
--.._liliY_I;_._gg:.IBI-:.
..........................................
..........................................
.-........................................
..........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .
......................................... .
.........................................
.........................................
..........................................
. ..................................... .
. ..........................
............................~....
............................ ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
..........................
.................... .
Review of Data
There are two issues in this policy area.
Grading: The first is actually changing or "grading" the LRT surface or roadbed. It would be
costly to do this and would require the agreement of the Hennepin County Rail Authority and
Hennepin Parks.
Grooming: The LRT is currently groomed in the winter by the Southwest Trail Association. It is
left bumpy to discourage high speeds by snowmobiles. This makes it difficult for walking and
cross country skiing. It also creates more noise by snowmobiles. Grooming the LRT flat would
make it easier for more people to use the LRT for cross country skiing and walking.
There is a Grant -in-Aide rule against providing funds for the maintenance of LRTs where mixed
use, motorized and non-motorized, is allowed. (See Appendix K.) The impact is that the SWT A
could lose fundin~for LRT maintenance if mixed use continues to be allowed.
Conclusions and Recommendations
With respect to the issue of grading, a motion was made by John Arnst and seconded by Warren
Peterson to not pursue further discussion on grading the LRT surface. The motion passed 4-2.
Dissenting votes were Dana George and Warren Peterson. They felt it was premature to come to
that decision until all the areas had been reviewed.
1996 Sn'l\\mobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
16
I
I
I
I
Grooming: There are two concerns about grooming flat. The first is that it encourages mixed-use
of the LRT and second is the resulting potential loss of Grant-in-Aide Funds to the SWT A for
grooming.
I
I
I
I
The following recommendations were made in a motion by Warren Peterson and seconded by
Dana George which passed unanimously 5-0. (Co-Chair Colopoulos was not in attendance.)
I. Promote LRT for mixed use.
2. Groom the LRT flat to allow for other uses and groom after every snow.
3. Find ways to fund grooming if Grant-in Aide Program dollars are lost.
4. Groom at the standard 11-12 foot trail width with a defined edge.
5. Try to retain a controlled base and have consideration for snow storage and damage to trees.
6. Improve the maintenance by the City crews on the streets at LRT crossings to prevent snow
from encroaching on the street.
See Appendix B, May 23,1996 minutes.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........-...............
..........................
......................... ..
. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...........................
. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................... .
......................... .
...........................
...........................
.... ......................
...................-......
................... .......
_...11;.~_:.;
................................
...............................
...............-.................
......... .....................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
... ...........................
.............. .
....................
....................
....................
....................
...................................
............................... .
...........................
.........................
. ...............
.................. .............
................................. .
..............................
... ..............
This policy area was not considered by the Task Force as there are very few sidewalks in
Shorewood.
.;..:lllIlQIjl;lrl1.llllilllilPllmi
..........................................................
................................. .
........................... .
...................... ..
...................
.................
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Review of Data
The data related to this policy area which was reviewed and discussed by the Task Force is
summarized below.
. There is an ordinance in Hennepin County that defines trespass as entry onto private
property without the express consent of the individual. Posting is not required.
. The liability of an individual property owner if a trespasser were injured on their property
arises out of a duty to protect an uninvited guest from known harm i.e. to be able to pass
through the property safely. Thus a property owner could be responsible for injury to a
trespasser if they are harmed by a known condition on the property i.e. a hidden deep hole.
. 911 Complaints: 15 of 99 complaints were for trespass incidents. No citations were given in
the last two years for trespass violations.
. There is no consistency in the amount of right of way that the city has on an indi,iduals
property. It varies widely from zero to 16 feet or more.
. Survey data shows that 41% of 765 respondents reported that snowmobiles trespassed on
their property. However, 23% of these were at the street edge of the property and could have
been on the legal right of way.
. 90% of 765 respondents stated they knew where their property boundaries were.
. Over half or 55% of 750 respondents felt that snowmobiles should not be allowed to ride on
the street boulevard.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force discussed several recommendations to address this issue which were referred to
the City Review Committee. The final recommendations follow:
. Educate police and riders of right of way for private property & LRT, parking and access to
LRT from private property, the metro area trespass law, and wetlands ordinances.
. Put up signage prohibiting snowmobiling in public wetlands.
. Have trained individual from SLMPSD or the City respond to trespass calls.
. Establish a monitoring process of trespass violations and concerns. Develop a plan to assist
residents with recurring problems.
. Study parking and access alternatives to Lake Minnetonka.
1996 Sno....mobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The motion by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John Arnst to adopt the above recommendations to
be monitored by SLMPSD in conjunction with City staffwas passed unanimously 6-0.
See Appendix B, May 1, May 15 and May 30, 1996 minutes.
Reliew of Data
. Safety Training is currently required for snowmobile rider ages 12-17. The training is 8
hours long, has a written exam and a riding performance evaluation. It is offered for a brief
period of time in the fall.
. New members of the Snow Patrol are trained by the SLMPSD.
. The survey indicated confusion with respect to citizen and rider understanding of right of
way laws, speed limits, property boundaries etc.
. The survey questions showed that of 770 respondents, 40% encouraged more training for
young riders and 27% encouraged more education on alcohol usage.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Many of the Task Force recommendations arose out of concerns in other policy areas. The Task
Force felt that education was a very important component in addressing the concerns surrounding
snowmobiling especially since it was one of the preferred alternatives by the survey respondents.
A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to direct City staff to
develop a comprehensive education plan as a coordinated effort with the Park Commission and
outside agencies incorporating the listed recommendations. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
ENFORCEMENT:
CURFEW:
SPEED LIMITS
REGISTRA TION/ID:
PERMIT & INSPECTION:
NOISE:
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
SAFETY
PROPERTY RIGHTSI
TRESPASS:
1996 Sno\\mobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
Educate officers on new ordinances.
Educate riders on curfew times.
Educate residents, police, riders on speed limits on LRT,
streets, buffer zones, boulevard.
Improve availability of safety certificate training.
Improve requirements for safety training to all drivers without
drivers license.
Use list of snowmobile registrations to update owners
annually on new laws, and riding guidelines.
Educate citizens on acceptable noise levels.
Educate riders, police on noise requirements (decibels,
equipment. )
Educate residents/officers on right of way issues.
Educate residents on reporting procedures.
Educate riders on dates of the snowmobile season.
Educate officers on LRT snowmobile use issues.
Educate residents on available methods of protection i.e. hay
bales to deter trespass.
Educate police on LRT enforcement issues.
Educate owners, riders and residents on pedestrian safety
zones and right of way issues.
Educate riders on dangers of alcohol consumption
Educate young riders on safety training.
Educate police officers where right of ways end for
private property and LRT.
Educate citizens and riders on same.
Educate riders on wetlands.
Educate on metro area trespass law.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SEASON:
RIGHT OF WAY:
Educate police officers/riders on season.
Educate riders on rules Le. direction, who has right of way,
where they can ride.
Educate riders to ride only on surface of LRT.
Educate riders on legal lake accesses
ACCESS:
See Appendix B, May 23 and May 30, 1996 minutes.
<RP1!GY_1~~~~~~~~n/>
Review of Data
There is no single snowmobile season and therefore it is up to the City to determine when
snowmobile riding would be legal in Shorewood during the winter. Hennepin Parks has
approved snowmobile riding on the LRT from November 15 through March 31. The DNR and
State Grant-in-Aide Program is December I through March 31. Most of the cities ended their
season March 31. (See City research report summary.) There was some discussion supporting
the more restrictive dates to ensure that the ground was frozen thus avoiding possible property
damage.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson that the legal season for
snowmobiling in the City of Shorewood be designated as being from December I to March 31.
The motion passed 5-1. Ingrid Schaff was the dissenting vote as she felt that this issue should
not be decided until it was determined whether snowmobiles would continue to be allowed in
Shorewood.
See Appendix B, May 15, 1996 minutes.
..__~I;..~gl.l.i."III~ng:::..:::::<..u .
Review of Data
This policy area covered right of way from two perspectives: property rights and traffic rules.
There are different interpretations of the ordinance regarding the legality of riding on the street
boulevard on the public right of way.
Survey results showed that 55% of 750 respondents said that snowmobiles should not be allowed
on the street boulevard.
There was confusion regarding the knowledge of traffic right of way laws.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force prepared a preliminary list of recommendations which were provided to the City
Review Committee to review. There were differing views between the City Review Committee
and the Task Force on the appropriate recommendations with respect to use of the boulevard and
shoulders of the street.
A motion made by Laura Turgeon and seconded by Dana George was passed unanimously 6-0
and stated the following:
. Snowmobiles should ride on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going
into the street, not the boulevard. (Separate motion-passed unanimously.)
19% Sno....mobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Three additional recommendations were discussed:
· Snowmobiles should ride in the direction of traffic.
· If possible, provide a standard definition of street and LR T right of way for riders and
property owners.
· Educate riders/property owners on right of way issues.
The motion to accept these recommendations was made by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John
Arnst and adopted unanimously.
See Appendix B, May 1, May 15 and May 30,1996 minutes.
<<mipy_,~;_~...::>
Review of Data
. There are two access points in Shorewood to Lake Minnetonka. The first is Crescent Beach
where there is limited parking and where it is posted and legal to use as a snowmobile access
point. The second is Timber Lane which is not a posted access but is technically legal due to
overlapping right of ways.
. Survey data, 71% of 180 rider respondents, indicated that to close the LRT would limit their
access to either Carver Park and points west or Lake Minnetonka.
. There are safety issues at the Timber Lane access resulting from the steep embankments and
required road crossing. (See pictures, Appendix A.)
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Force discussion centered around the problems with the Timber Lane Access, the need
for another lake access further west and the responsibility for enforcement of snowmobile
regulations in Cathcart Park.
A motion was made by Laura Turgeon and seconded by John Arnst to close the Timber Lane
Access because of the safety concerns provided another access could be found. The motion failed
4-2. The dissenting votes, Kolstad, Colopoulos, George, and Peterson felt that the Timber Lane
safety concerns could be addressed without having to close it and seek another access. The
Minority Opinion on the Timber Lane Access and photographs of the access are contained in
Appendix A.
The following recommendations were made regarding snowmobile accesses. These were
accepted by a motion made by Laura Turgeon and Dana George which passed 6-0.
1. The City Council should conduct a snowmobile traffic study to determine where locations of
optimal access points may be based on actual traffic flow.
2. Shorewood needs to work with the DNR to get lake access to the west.
3. The Planning Commission needs to look at lake access for boats and snowmobiles.
4. The Timber Lane Access needs to be improved to allow for safer stopping before streets and
only allowing one path to be taken.
5. Signage needs to be placed at the Timber Lane access-stop signs, safety, etc.
6. Signage needs to be placed on the LRT at the Timber Lane access requiring a stop be made.
7. The Timber Lane Access needs to be posted.
8. Timber Lane and other accesses need to be reviewed every few years for viability.
9. There needs to be better signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobile riding in the parks.
See Appendix B, May 23, 1996 minutes.
1996 Snomnobile Task F<JrCe Report
6/2796
20
I
I
I
Review of Data
The following data was reviewed by the Task Force.
. Carbide studs are inserted into the snowmobile track to improve traction, turning and
stopping on the sleds. They are legal and come as standard equipment on some
snowmobiles. Banning studs would be difficult.
. The evidence regarding property damage was inconclusive and was limited to potential street
and driveway damage from the studs.
I
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
A motion was made by Ingrid Schaff, and seconded by Dana George to pass on this policy area as
there was not enough evidence to show there is a problem. The motion passed 5-1. John Arnst
was the dissenting vote and disagreed that the evidence of property damage from snowmobiles
was inconclusive.
I
See Appendix B, May 15,1996 minutes.
I
I
Review of Data
There is currently no revenue generated for the City from snowmobiles with the exception of
fines which are part of a pool and not easily separated. The City has no authority to charge
special permit fees or other revenue generating mechanisms.
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
There was no reason to continue discussions regarding this issues.
I
A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to end discussion on this
policy areas. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
See Appendix B, May I, 1996 minutes.
I
I
This policy area was not considered by the Task Force as there is already a nuisance ordinance in
effect which should cover this concern.
I
:._~:'I;::II:...IHI....:.:m
...............................................................
.:.;.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.;.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.
................................
................,..............................................
...............................
................................
.................",....................................-.......
.......................................................
.................
.................
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .
............ -.......................
........ - --..........-............
...........-_.......................
......... - - - -.......................
.......... -.........................
....................................
.................................. .
.........,........................
......... .--...................
.........--..................
...........................
. ................... ..
I
Review of Data
Survey Data: 51 % of 731 respondents stated that snowmobiles should be allowed on
the LRT whereas 49% opposed sno\\1llobiles on the LRT.
28% of 770 respondents felt snowmobiles should be banned from
Shorewood.
38% of 769 respondents opposed snowmobiles within the City limits.
34% of 770 respondents recommended restricting the areas where
snowmobiles could be ridden in Shorewood.
City Reports: Findings from the surveyed cities showed that of the sixteen cities surveyed only 2
had total usage restrictions. The other 14 had a variety of restrictions including designated
streets, speed limits, etc. (See Section V, # 3 City research report summary.)
I
I
I
1996 Sn()\\mobiIe Task Force Report
6/27/%
21
I
I
I
I
Conclusions and Recommendations
This was the final Policy Area to be reviewed by the Task Force. Points covered included the
survey data, the ability of the City to implement Task Force recommendations and the concern
about safety on the LRT.
I
I
I
I
I
A motion by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John Arnst recommended banning snowmobiles in
Shorewood. The motion failed 4-2. It was felt by Task Force members that the sentiment of
Shorewood residents as reflected in the survey did not support the ban and that, if the City
implemented the changes and programs recommended by the Task Force that snowmobile use in
Shorewood could continue. Turgeon and Arnst represented the dissenting votes. Their Minority
Opinion on the Ban is in Appendix A.
I
A motion by Dana George, seconded by Warren Peterson, recommended continued limited use of
snowmobiles in Shorewood emphasizing the following restrictions: banning snowmobiles from
parks and other public areas; clarifying the ordinance with respect to prohibiting riding on the
boulevard and limiting it to the shoulder of the road; and prohibiting the riding of snowmobiles
in the City from April I to November 30. The motion passed unanimously 6-0.
A motion made by John Arnst and seconded by Laura Turgeon, recommended amending the
nuisance ordinance to provide specific restrictions for snowmobiles. The motion was defeated 5-
1 as the group felt the current nuisance ordinance was broad enough to cover most snowmobile
situations. John Arnst was the minority vote.
See Appendix B, May 30, 1996 minutes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19% Sno\\mobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N Summary of Policy
Area Recommendations
I
B. Proposed Implementation Plan
I
The Task Force Recommendations can be categorized into seven program areas:
Program 1: Safety Initiatives
Program 2: Enforcement Actions
Program 3: Comprehensive Education Program
Program 4: Comprehensive Sign Program
Program 5: Ordinance Revisions
Program 6: Follow-up and Further Study
Program 7: Accountability and Oversight
I
I
I
I
I
The recommendations highlight key issues that the City must consider in weighing their
responsibilities: social impact, economic considerations, political opinion, and safety
considerations.
It is the opinion of the Task Force that the recommendations contained in this report must be
implemented if snowmobiles are to continue to be allowed in Shorewood. The recommendations
address the key issues of concern as expressed by the residents of Shorewood, other communities
and as determined by the members of the Task Force from a review of the data.
Clear responsibility for implementing these programs and accountability for ongoing monitoring
of snowmobile concerns and the effectiveness of the programs needs to be assigned. There
should be an annual City Council review of the effectiveness of the programs and the agencies
assigned with responsibility for them.
The programs are as follows:
11I111;..__.:::
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................. .
................-..
..................
...................
..................
rtt~~t~~??~/tt{tt~rt~))\~~)?~~~~~~~~~{}}{{){{}~{{:::::;::::;:::.:.:.....;....... "."... ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................-............... .
I
I
I
The primary safety concern arises out of the multiple forms of winter recreational use of the LRT:
snowmobiles, walking, cross-country skiing, and snow-shoeing. This mix of motorized and
pedestrian activities on the LRT raises a safety concern. Biking and walking are done during the
majority of the year. The winter sports, including snowmobiling, can only be done following
certain weather conditions.
I
I
The Task Force strongly feels that a safe recreational environment presupposes the separation of
snowmobiles from other winter recreational activities on the LRT and elsewhere and that this
should be a primary objective of any initiatives taken. To reduce safety issues arising from
mixed-use on the LRT, the Task Force recommends:
. Grooming the LRT in Freeman Park for cross-country skiing in the winter time.
1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report
6 27/96
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Approaching the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority to request pennission for
the City to maintain a four foot groomed side trail off of the main bed of the LRT, in the
areas where feasible, to allow cross-country skiers and snow-shoers an optional way to get to
Freeman Park.
. Consider an ordinance requiring snowmobiles to slow dO\m to ten miles per hour within
thirty feet of a pedestrian on the LRT. Pedestrian traffic should be required to move to the
right to allow the snowmobile to pass.
. The Police Department should begin patrol activities on the LRT and within Freeman Park
once the trails are groomed for winter use.
. Put up additional warning signs on those portions of the LRT that remain mixed use.
. Investigate the Incident Reporting Procedures with Hennepin Parks.
I
I
In addition, the Task Force discussed improving the access from Lake Minnestonka to the LRT at
Timber Lane with primary concerns being to improve the ability to stop prior to crossing the
street and entering the LRT and to funnel snowmobile traffic on one path to increase safety and
reduce damage to the area. Appropriate directional and stop signs needs to be implemented and
maintained at this access.
:::"::.::.IIiIOI1.:;;...Ii__._..::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................... .
....................
....................
.. .................... ......
................. .............
............................
...............-----. .
.........................
.........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .......
..................-....... .....................................
.......................... ......................................
.......................... .....................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ................................. ..
.......................... ..........................
... .............
If snowmobiles are expected to reasonably and safely coexist in Shorewood with pedestrians and
other modes of transportation, strict enforcement of the law is essential. A snowmobile rider
needs to know that when entering in the City of Shorewood, if the law is broken, the chance of
being ticketed, fined, and having the snowmobile impounded, is quite high.
I
I
I
I
I
Clearly, providing for transportation and various recreational opportunities for Shorewood
residents costs money. A program of strict enforcement, as described in Policy Area One, will
require a commitment on the part of the City and the Police Department to:
. Commit one police officer and a back up officer to monitor snowmobile activities during the
snowmobile season.
. Outfit the Shorewood police officer with a snowmobile and the appropriate equipment
including radar and a noise decibel meter.
. Additional training for the entire Police Department in snowmobile laws and regulations.
. Institute a zero tolerance policy with respect to impounding vehicles for curfew and other
appropriate violations.
. Involving the City Engineer and Public Works Department (or other trained City stafl) in
responding to trespass calls and in maintaining appropriate signage.
I
I
The Police Department will need to obtain the commitment of, and coordinate enforcement
efforts with other law enforcement agencies and the Snow Patrol. A significant presence on the
LRT including intennittent speed "traps" at the entrances to Shorewood, and "hit squads"
involving the various law enforcement agencies, should be important elements of the
enforcement program.
_Qip~;__g_qg_~.::::H
I
All snowmobile owners and riders, both resident and non-resident, need to be aware of the laws
and regulations within Shorewood and of the strong enforcement program. In addition
Shorewood residents need to be better informed of the law, their rights, assistance that may be
available to them and the property right of way issues. Training for younger snowmobile riders
needs to have a higher participation rate. Police officers need to be clearly versed on Shorewood
regulations, the right of way laws and the new "zero tolerance" policy.
I
1996 Snomnobile Task. Force Report
6/27/96
24
I
I
I
I
A summary of the education recommendations for each policy area is listed in Policy Area
Twelve: Education. City staff and the Park Commission will need to participate in this program.
They should consider designating an individual or committee to develop and implement a
coordinated education program encompassing some of the following suggestions:
I
I
I
I
I
A summary of the Shorewood snowmobile ordinance and "Zero Tolerance" Policy should
be:
. Sent to all registered owners,
. Included in the fall newsletter,
. Put on the Southwest snowmobile maps,
. Printed in the local paper,
· Put in flyers distributed by SWTA,
. Placed in weatherproof boxes on the LRT, and
. Reviewed annually with SLMPSD officers and the Snow Patrol.
Safety Training Certification Classes could
. Be offered at City Hall,
· Have additional classes requested from DNR and
. Train SLMPSD officers to teach classes.
Other Education activities could include:
. Snow Patrol Training Programs annually on right of way, resident concerns/remedies etc.
. Resident Rights awareness training programs covering trespass, right of way, LRT rules,
noise and hay bales.
. SLMPD officer training on property/trail right of way, trespass laws etc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
...RII.I:::._.I.~II::":..:.::i
...................-..........................."................
..................................................................
.................................................................
.......................................-.......................
............................................................
...................................................... .
................................................
...u............u......................... .
....................................... .
......................................
................................ .
. . .......... .............
To support the enforcement, safety and educational programs. a Comprehensive Sign Program
should be developed. Accountability could be kept with the Park Commission with a Signage
Implementation Group consisting of Public Works, Police staff, a representative of the Snow
Patrol and the Park Commission. This signage plan should be comprehensive, it should be in
compliance with the Hennepin Park permit rules for the LRT and it should include:
. Specific locations for speed and directional signage on the LRT.
. Warning signs and reduced speed zone signs at the entrances to the City.
. Lake access signage at Timber Lane including stop signs at both the road and the LRT.
. Signage on the mixed-use portion of the LRT with instructions to yield to pedestrians and for
pedestrians to step to the right.
. Signs prohibiting snowmobile riding in public wetlands.
. Improved signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobile use in City parks.
. Speed signs for snowmobiles on the street in a different color.
<_im.~;...~!n__.::::::::::
................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........ -.......................
......... -......................
..........- ....................
..........--....................
...........-....................
................................
....... ......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . ............
............................................ ..
.... -............................... .
.................................
...........u..................
............................
...........................
....................
............ ...
I
I
I
The City has a specific snowmobile ordinance (Section 802 of the City Code, See Appendix F.)
which has been amended a number of times over the years resulting in a number of
inconsistencies and ambiguities. The ordinance needs to be clarified and simplified. The
following areas should be specifically addressed.
I
1. Change the hours in which snowmobiles are allowed in the City to 7:00 AM through 10:00
PM, Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 AM through 11:00 PM, Friday and Saturday.
2. Establish a 150 foot buffer zone on other lakes in the City (yet to be determined by City
Council), as is done on Lake Minnetonka.
3. Designate a season of December 1 through March 31 for which snowmobile riding is
allowed on public property in the City of Shorewood.
19% Snowmobile Task Force Report 25
6i2T%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Designate that snowmobiles may drive on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid
obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard.
5. Snowmobiles should ride in the direction of traffic.
6. Provide a standard definition of street and LRT right of way.
7. Designate the Timber Lane area as a legal access to Lake Minnetonka.
8. Prohibit riding the "shoulder" of the LRT.
9. Clarify that snowmobiles are to stop upon entering the LRT.
10. The City should consider a separate ordinance for other winter uses of the LRT.
11. For snowmobile riding on the LRT and City street right-of-ways, there should be a definition
as to who has the right of way, who should yield, etc.
12. Specifically identify where snowmobiles can ride, Le. on LRT surface except to and from
their property, if the property is adjacent to the LRT.
13. Specify that snowmobiles cannot ride on the side trail or park trail specifically designated for
other uses. There should be a heavy fine for violations.
14. Add a new ordinance for pedestrian safety (See Program 2: Safety Initiatives.)
..................
.................. .
. . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
..................
..................
...................
..................
..................
..................
................ ..
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..:._!;::::_Q1'I._.iI;t:li.._.:!::'::.:::":!::!::'."::::'::.
The following is a list of individual initiatives and studies that have been recommended by the
Task Force to address a variety of issues.
I
. The City should approve and forward to the State of Minnesota a list of recommendations for
action to improve identification and accountability of snowmobile owners and operators.
(See Policy Area 4 and Appendix C, Report of Snowmobile Identification and Registration
Sub-Task Force.).
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Request the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines for snowmobile violations in the
City of Shorewood. In particular, curfew, speed and noise and equipment violators.
. Clarify which agency is responsible for snowmobile regulations in Cathcart Park (within the
City of Chanhassen in Carver County).
. Develop a monitoring process and plan to assist residents with reoccurring trespass violation
problems.
. Study parking and additional access alternatives to Lake Minnetonka. A snowmobile traffic
study should be undertaken to detennine where optimal access points may be based on actual
traffic flow.
. Work with the Department of Natural Resources to provide an additional Lake Minnetonka
access, from the LRT to the west of Shorewood.
. The Planning Commission should study lake access issues for boats and snowmobiles.
I
I
. The Timber Lane area access (if designated a legal access) and other accesses should be
reviewed every few years for continued viability.
. Provide better signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobiling in City parks.
. Consider working with LRT neighbors and the Regional Rail Authority to plant evergreen
buffers in high noise areas along the LRT.
I
I
1996 Snomnobile Task Force Report
6/27,96
26
I
I
. Rent, lease or purchase a noise meter for the City of Shorewood to respond to noise
complaints.
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Improve maintenance of streets and snow removal at LRT intersections.
. Review grooming with respect to winter use of the LRT. Consider grooming for multiple use
and after every snow. Groom the standard lito 12 foot width with a defined edge. Retain a
controlled base.
RrqgfiO'l';.._g_'~J!~if:_'gh~>.>
There are a great number of specific tasks that need to be accomplished for these programs to be
successful, involving a number of agencies and individuals. It is recommended that a designated
body, perhaps the Park Commission, be responsible and accountable for implementation and
oversight of the programs. The Commission, or a sub-group of the Commission, would work
directly with the City Administrator, Police Department, and other City staff.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For this purpose it is important that snowmobile records be kept by the Police Department
regarding speeding and all other types of violations and analyzed by City Staff regularly
(monthly) during the season. It is important that snowmobile riders be aware of Shorewood law
through educational efforts and signage, and that a strong enforcement program be in place.
Snowmobile riders need to be held responsible for the general compliance to the laws. The City
of Shorewood needs to have a means of holding the Police Department and those who implement
these programs accountable.
1996 Sno....mobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v. Summary of Research
Findings
1. Survey summary.
2. Police complaint findings.
3. City research report summary.
4. Agency research report.
5. Trail monitoring report
6. Police interviews.
1996 SllO\I<mobik Task Force R.:pon
6126,96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Final Report
Survey Summary
Please see the companion binder to this report "A Summary of and Selected Analyses for A Survey
Mailed to All Households Within Shorewood", prepareg. by Judy Marshik, Research Quik. The data
collected was extensive and numerous cross-tab reports were developed for evaluation of data.
Included in the companion report are the following items:
Section
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Contents
Project Proposal
Executive Summary Report of Survey, written by Judy Marshik
Copy of Survey and Cover Letter
Copy of City Map, noting 9 zones to identify Shorewood residents
Cross-tab A: Analysis by the Nine City Zones of Householders Answers
Cross-tab B 1: Households with Riders Compared to Households
without Riders
Cross-tab B2: Households Close to LakesfI'rail Compared to Others
Cross-tab C 1: Wintertime Trail Users on Trail with Snowmobiles
Compared to Users with No Snowmobiles
Cross-tab C2: Households Support Trail Usage by Snowmobiles
Compared to Households Which Oppose Snowmobiles
Cross-tab D: Comparison of Households by the Type of Policy Changes
They Recommended (6 areas)
Written Comments of Survey Respondents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!~l'_(!~~:II~_>~CJir.i&_.'\(~......n
Summary of 911 Complaints
Each phone call to 911 is assigned to a police officer who responds and logs the call into the
police computer data base. In addition to 911 complaints. the police also record their own
observations and the results of any monitoring acitivities i.e. radar traps etc. The police made a
conscientious effort this year to track snowmobile related complaints and to spend time
monitoring the LRT. A brief summary of the data follows.
~
A total of 167 records were logged from November 27, 1995 to March 26, 1996 from Shorewood.
Of these
. 99 were phone calls from residents
. 54 were monitoring activities by the police
. 14 were direct observations by the police.
A total of 126 records were related to the LRT.
. 61 were phone calls from residents
. 54 were police monitoring
. 11 were police observations.
A total of .0 of the 99 resident phone calls came from 4 households. (The actual 911 computer
report indicated that nearly 74% of the phone calls came from these households. Many were not
identified as to caller on the police logs.)
The type of complaint was broken do\\n as follows:
. Curfew complaints 13
. Speeding 45
. Trespass 15
The remainder of the complaints were either not identified as to type or were for a variety of
violations including failure to stop at stopsigns, noise, riding in park. rude behavior, registration,
property damage, and riding off trail.
Property Damage Complaints
There were over 200 property damage complaint logged during 1995 and 1996.
Of these only 2 were related to snowmobiling and one was damage caused to someone' s
snowmobile by other snowmobilers.
Police Violations
1995/96 Total of 27 \iolatioDs all cities.
1994/95 Total of 5 violatioDs
.
. 10 for curfew . 5 for curfew
. 5 for registrations
. 2 for speeding
. 2 for improper operations..off trail
. 1 for operating on a sidewalk
. 1 for operating without a safety certificate
. 6 for parking in a city park.
1996 Soo\\mobile Task Force Rqxlrt
&27/%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Final Report
City Research Findings
By direction from the Snowmobile Task Force, data was gathered from sixteen cities
known to have recently dealt with a new snowmobile ordinance, or because of their
proximity to the City of Shorewood. All cities contacted responded to the inquiry and
included:
Buffalo
Chanhassen
Chaska
Deephaven
Excelsior
Lino Lakes
Long Lake
Minnetonka
Mound
Orono
Plymouth
Shoreview
Tonka Bay
Victoria
Waconia
Wayzata
Recent Snowmobile Ordinance Activities
Nine communities were not considering changing their ordinance in the next year. Of the
seven remaining, Lino Lakes and Plymouth reviewed their ordinances by way of a task
force during the 94-95 winter and wrote new, more restrictive ordinances. Lino Lakes
desired a more enforceable ordinance. The result of Plymouth's process allowed for
limited riding on certain major roadways and implemented a petitioning process for
snowmobiles to have access on additional roadways by obtaining 85% approval of
residents on a street in question before snowmobiling would be allowed. As of March
1996, one street had been added to Plymouth's acceptable roadways for riding. The City
of Long Lake recently introduced and passed a snowmobile ban by Council action in March
of 1996.
Issues to be brought up by other cities within the next year included speed within City
Limits and on lakes (Chanhassen, Chaska), restricted riding on private property for a
community outside of the "metro" area (Buffalo - current statute does not make this an
offense), and clarification of the intent of a snowmobiling ordinance (Minnetonka).
A basic conclusion the researcher noted was cities tend to move from reliance solely on the
restrictions prescribed in MN State Statute, to more restrictions increasing as the
urbanization of a community grows until snowmobiling is not an acceptable recreational
activity nor considered to be safe because of the number of violations compared to the
number of snowmobile users within a given community.
Ticketing and Enforcement
The communities surveyed rely on their own public safety department, county sheriff, or
the DNR Water Patrol for enforcement of snowmobile ordinance provisions. The City of
Lino Lakes uses a saturation patrol, as well as neighborhood captains, to monitor their trail
and inform the authorities of activities on the trail. An "out to get 'em" approach by law
enforcement officials is believed to be successful for adherence to local rules and is
perceived to be well-respected by the snowmobiling community. Some actions for
enforcement include impounding any sled in violation of snowmobile regulations, issuance
of verbal warnings, or tag and release practices.
DATA:PWISTF FINAL DOCS. 6/26/96
Tarvin
Speed
Curfew
fines
Riding areas (restrictions)
lakes
Trails
Streets
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All cities agreed trying to identify the rider/offender for snowmobile enforcement is
difficult. Because of the nature of the activity, thick clothing, goggles, helmets and other
outerwear tend to conceal a rider's identity. In addition, the required registration sticker on
the snowmobile itself is seemingly small and difficult to read. The Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources regulates the registration decals and has oversight over their display
requirements, as well as snowmobile driver identification requirements (carrying a current
snowmobile registration card).
In Shorewood, when citations are issued by officers for violations the offender would
work with Hennepin County District Court to determine the exact amount of the imposed
fine. The fines, classified as a misdemeanor by City Ordinance, could be as high as $700,
but are generally between $50.00 and $75.00 per violation. Funds do return to the City
general fund after a small court fee of $1.00 to $15.00 is held out for processing. This
process is similar to other motor vehicle violations and all receipts are deposited into the
general fund account Fine Revenue.
None of the cities implement a licensing or permitting regulation. Minnesota State Statute
Chapter 84.87 subdivision 3 allows a city to impose a fee, nor is a city allowed to require a
snowmobile operator to possess a motor vehicle driver's license while operating a
snowmobile.
Snowmobile Identification
Most cities concur it is difficult to identify snowmobiles and their operators due to the size
of the license as well as the amount of outerwear worn by riders. No cities responding
have experimented with other ways to identify snowmobilers riding within city limits.
Damage from Snowmobiles
Generally no damage of significant value was determined to be reported within the cities
participating in this study. Residents concerns and complaints have been filed, but actual
damage did not seem apparent. Their is a concern regarding use of carbide studs on
snowmobile skis and tracks.
Options Considered regarding ~nowmobile Usage
Three options exist for cities to consider. A partial usage limitation would mean a city
would comply with the Minnesota State Statute Chapter 84 covering snowmobile
operation. A city could enforce statute only, or as most cities do, further restrict based on
their own communities needs. Restrictions range as follows:
DATA:PW/STF FINAL DOCS. 6/26/96
Tarvin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A total usage restriction does not allow snowmobile riding within a city's limits, however
may allow operation on private property and for ignition of the sled. Minnetonka and Lino
Lakes currently have a total usage restriction (other than lakes).
A "no key" ban would not allow any type of operation of a snowmobile within city limits,
including ignition to drive a sled up onto a trailer nor for any other reason. No
communities responding enforce this type of regulation.
Suggestions for Banning Snowmobiles
If a total ban of snowmobiles were to be considered by the City of Shorewood, it was
generally recommended by other cities that the Council take action as opposed to requesting
a citizen referendum to be the determining factor.
Alternatives to a Ban
Seven city respondents suggested better enforcement and education efforts as an alternative
to banning snowmobiles altogether.
One City representative suggested a snowmobile ban seems inevitable.
Eight city contacts had no response or comment.
Follow-up Areas to Original City Research
Trail Use
No other communities interviewed were identified that promote for multi-use of motorized
and non-motorized activities along the same trail.
Dog and Bicycling Enforcement
As related issues, each city was asked about enforcement of dog complaints and bicycling
as a recreational activity. All communities had dog ordinances similar to Shorewood's and
noted the difficulty of enforcement as well as numerous complaints.
Bicycling is regulated by Minnesota State Statute Chapter 168C, and Chapter 169 Traffic
Regulations. All communities reported no city ordinance pertaining to bicycles was
available.
Snowmobile Ordinance
Each city participating in the survey submitted a copy of their current ordinance which is on
file at City Hall.
A complete report on the city research conducted, including each city's responses, is found
in the Policy Area Binder used by the Snowmobile Task Force for policy development.
This Binder is on file at Shorewood City Hall.
DATA:PWISTF FINAL DOCS. 6/26/96
Tarvin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE
AGENCY RESEARCH
FINAL REPORT
The Snowmobile Task Force identified nineteen policy change areas. Of those areas, many
questions were directed to agencies for a response to the questions developed by the Task
Force within those nineteen areas.
This report contains the questions as determined by the Task Force and a summary of the
agency response, unless quotations note an exact response based on a written submission
to the researcher.
Policy Chanee Area One: Patroline
1- 2 What constraints, if any, are placed on use of the trail by
snowmobiles by your agency or group?
1- 3 What are the current enforcement practices of your agency or
group relative to these constraints?
-How do you patrol for violations?
-What do you do for any violation?
The agencies that have enforcement authority over the trail during the winter
snowmobiling season are:
South Lake Public Safety Department - the key enforcement agency that will
visually monitor snowmobile activity in Shorewood as well as respond to
complaints called in. The Department does not have snowmobiles available
to police the trail, but will respond by squad to investigate. (SIMPS)
Southwest Trails Association - (1-2) "We work within the DNR guidelines
found in the MINNESOTA TRAILS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
INSTRUCTION MANUAL (1989) regarding the seasonal opening and
closing dates of snowmobile trails in the Grant-In-Aide program. We
produce a detailed trail map of our area each year which lists specific
information regarding curfews, speed limits, dangerous areas and other city
restrictions. The City of Shorewood currently is marked on the map as
having a 20 MPH speed limit and a Curfew of 11:00 pm - 7:00 am. The
current SNO PATROL in Shorewood was organized by our organization.
Monthly meetings are held on the last Tuesday of the month to discuss
snowmobile issues in our area." (Southwest Trails Association)
Southwest Trails Association - (1-3) "The SNO PATROL in Shorewood
works with the City and local law enforcement. It acts independently of our
organization at this time. Weare not authorized to give out citations. In the
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
past we have contacted law enforcement via cellular phone when dealing
with snowmobile violations. Educational material has also been used on the
trail to alert snowmobilers to changing conditions." (Southwest Trails
Association)
Water Patrol - will enforce all local ordinances and state statutes pertaining
to Lake Minnetonka. City ordinance restricts on-land enforcement by the
Water Patrol. Snowmobiles are used by Patrol to pursue violators.
"Chase" situations will only be undettaken for major offenses. (Water
Patrol)
Hennepin County Sheriff - will respond to complaints on trail.
DNR Division of Enforcement will patrol upon request by the local unit of
government. They have authority to patrol Grant-in-Aide snowmobile
trails. (DNR, Division of Enforcement)
Hennepin County Park Rangers - they have authority to police the trail, and
upon request will do so. Otherwise they do not actively observe or patrol
the LRT in the winter (Nov. 15 - April 1). When monitoring the trail, Park
Rangers stop every sled, review registration information and will warn or
tag if violation has occurred. (Park Rangers)
Snow Patrol - The snow patrol has no regulatory authority to place
constraints. They do help inform. (Snow Patrol)
The DNR does not put any constraints on the use of the LRT by
snowmobilers. (DNR, Trails and Waterways Division)
No information was received from the Hennepin County Naturalists
regarding this question. (Hennepin County Naturalists)
Policy Chan~e Area Three: Speed Limits
3-7
Where is the signage for speed limits posted on the state trail?
(are there any decision rules followed to suggest placement)
There were three speed limit signs showing 20 mph posted on the trail.
Other signs posted include stop ahead warning, City of Shorewood
ordinance information signs, curfew signs, designated trail diamonds and
permanent Hennepin Parks signs that are Stop SignINo Motor Vehicle signs
at each major intersection. (City Staff)
''There are no specific guidelines found in the MINNESOTA TRAILS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION MANUAL. A copy of the
COMMON TRAIL SIGN ORDER FORM is attached. This order is placed
by our organization annually with the DNR when we submit our trail
proposal for the next season. The cost of these signs is funded from the
State Snowmobile Dedicated Account which is administered by the DNR.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 3
Special signage has been purchased by SWT A from private vendors for
signs that fall outside of the DNR's order form. Charitable gambling
proceeds is one source of funding our group has used in the past to
purchase signs.
Signage placed on the LRT by SWTA such as STOP, STOP AHEAD,
CAUTION & 20 MPH in the City of Shorewood has been vandalized by
anti-snowmobiling interests on a regular basis. Our losses have been
numerous. Vandalism in the past has. been most noticeable in the middle of
the 2.5 mile stretch of trail in Shorewood.
Hennepin Parks took over control of the LRT. At that time they contracted
to have new signs placed on the trail. Many of those signs were
duplications of our existing snowmobile signage. It is thought that the
contractor removed our signs and posts and placed the new signs in the
exact same location. To date we have not been able to retrieve our
materials.
An inventory of the Hennepin Parks signs at the end of the snowmobile
season may indicate that vandals are willing to leave those signs in place. If
that is the case, then signage such as 20 MPH and other pertinent
information signs might last longer on the trail if the City or Hennepin Parks
placed the signs." (Southwest Trails Association)
The DNR Law Enforcement Division issues the signs and requirements for
sign placement. (DNR, Law Enforcement)
There are no firm requirements for the posting of signs along trails. (DNR,
Trails and Waterways)
3-8
What is considered a safe speed limit for a snowmobile when:
-overtaking a pedestrian either on the trail or on a city street
-overtaking another snowmobile on the trail
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division
reported that a 50 mph is the speed limit set on public lands and waterways.
Some cities choose to enforce a "no overtaking" policy, single-file, or 10
mph policies.
A study done to review speed limits of snowmobilers was not discovered.
(DNR, Law Enforcement)
"There is no available information on this topic. A greater presence of the
20 MPH signs would be indicated. Most snowmobilers slow down when
meeting pedestrians or oncoming traffic in shared trail conditions. New
signs requesting traffic to slow down under those conditions may be
indicated. Education would be the preferred choice. In addition, non-
motorized users should be encouraged to wear reflective clothing and use
some kind of lighting when using the trail. Multi-use ideas are for
everyone." (Southwest Trails Association)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The State doesn't set speed limits on trails other than the blanket 50 mph
upper limit. The local unit of government limits it on this trail (LRT in
Shorewood), as well as others. (DNR, Trails and Waterways)
The Minnesota Safety Council does not work with snowmobiles and speed
limit policies. (MN Safety Council)
3-9
How did the state arrive at the speed limits posted on the trail
(why are they set the way they are)?
The City of Shorewood has set speed limits at a speed not exceeding 10
mph on a street or highway, and not exceeding 20 mph on the Hiking and
Biking Trail as a result of actions taken by the Park Commission and City
Council during the past decade. (City Staff)
The DNR Trails and Waterways Division responded to 3-8, above. (DNR,
Trails and Waterways)
"SWT A abides by speed limits set by the City and the DNR. In other areas
of our trail system we have utilized CAUTION, SLOW & YIELD signs to
alert snowmobilers to changing trail conditions." (Southwest Trails
Association)
Policy Chan~e Area Four: Snowmobile Identification
4-1
How are snowmobiles currently identified?
Snowmobiles are identified by their registration number. After registering a
snowmobile, a number decal is issued (approximately 3" x 7"). A
snowmobile manufacturer may provide a location to place the number decal
or, if no space is provided, the decal should be placed on each side of the
snowmobile on the upper half, forward of the handlebars in a visible
location.
If custom numbers and letters are used they must meet the following
specifications:
-1-7/8" high
-3/16" stroke width
-Contrasting color of the snowmobile
-In the English language
-Placed to read left to right
The DNR issue validation decal must be placed to immediately follow your
custom registration number. (DNR Manual "Minnesota Snowmobile, 95-
96 Season")
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 5
4-2
Are there other effective ways to identify snowmobiles?
There were no definitive responses from any individuals spoken to related
to other effective alternatives to identifying snowmobiles at this time.
(SIMPS, DNR Trails and Waterways, Water Patrol, DNR Law
Enforcement, Hennepin Parks - Del Miller, Park Rangers, Carver County
Sheriff, Southwest Trails Association)
4-5
How is the 14 - 18 age group certification currently enforced?
When patroling, the policing agency (Hennepin Parks, South Lake Public
Safety, Water Patrol, etc.) will enforce Minnesota State Statutes related to
youth drivers. No special enforcement practices occur related specifically to
youth drivers. (Snow Patrol, Water Patrol, SIMPS)
"Local clubs in our organization put on Safety training classes in
ChaskalChanhassen and greater Carver County. There is a big demand for
this service in the metro area between October and January each year.
Community Education at one of the local Minnetonka schools would be well
attended by interested families." (Southwest Trails Association)
Policy Chanae Area Five: Permittinaflnspection
5-4
How many snowmobiles are identified as being owned by
residents of Shorewood?
In zip code 55331, 984 snowmobiles were registered for the 95 - 96 season
(including all of zip code 55331- Excelsior). 319 were Shorewood only.
229 households in Shorewood have registered snowmobiles.
Ofthe 229 households, 30% (69 of 229) had more than one snowmobile
registered during the 95-96 season.
. Comparing west of Highway 7 and Excelsior to East of Highway 7 and
Excelsior:
. the West side has approximately 1,450 homes, or 56%
. the West side has 74% (235 of319) of the registered snowmobiles
. the West side has 77% of the households with more than one registered
snowmobile (53 of the 69 households)
. the East side has approximately 1,150 homes, or 44%
. the East side has 26% (84 of 319) of the registered snowmobiles
. the East side has 23% (16 of 69) of the households with more than one
registered snowmobile. (City Staff)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 - 5 Is the number of snowmobiles owned by Shorewood residents
increasing or decreasing?
The expense of obtaining this information was detennined to be excessive at
this time and will not be sought after. It may be detennined by the Task
Force to incur the expense after reviewing the available data for this
season.( City Staff)
The DNR Trails and Waterways Division does not know the actual number
of snowmobiles registered in Shorewood specifically. A search of
registrations would need to be done to get this data and they are not sure it
can be done for historical basis, Recommended contacting the DNR
License Bureau directly. (DNR, Trails and Waterways)
Policy Chana:e Area Six: Noise Abatement
6-1
For which activities other than snowmobiling is noise
monitoring done within the city limits of Shorewood?
Any complaints related to noise are followed, per City of Shorewood Code
502.03 Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety, subd. 6 "All
unnecessary noises and annoying vibrations." (City Staff)
Are noise violations recorded separately from curfew and
speed violations so that the Snowmobile Committee could get
an estimate or count of these violations?
6-2
Related to snowmobile noise, the reported violations are being tabulated as
part of the Snowmobile Violations database, and will be reported when
available. (SLMPS, City Staff conclusion)
6-4
Is there any documented environmental impact from the noise
made by snowmobiles?
Reference was made to the report done in March 1986 ordered by the
Shorewood Park & Recreation Committee, conducted by Southwest Trails
Association. A copy is available in the Task Force Binder. (Southwest
Trails Association)
There are not any recent documented environmental impacts, to DNR Trails
and Waterways knowledge. Apparently in the 1970's some research was
done, but machines are quieter now than back in those times. (DNR Trails
and Waterways)
There is no documented environmental impact from the noise made by
snowmobiles affecting an urban area. (DNR Trails and Waterways, Sierra
Club, PCA, Audobon Society, Voyageurs National Park, Nature
Conservancy, Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness)
The Sierra Club has joined Voyageurs National Park Association (a private,
non-profit group, not the Park itself) on lawsuits and studies regarding
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26,1996
page 7
noise, most conclusively in the Yellowstone National Park. (Sierra Club.
Voyageur's National Park Association)
A recent ruling in the Boundary Waters Wilderness says there is no known
impact from sound or pollution on wildlife, as well as a study relating to the
impact on the wolf population in Voyageurs National Park. (Friends of
Boundary Waters Wilderness)
6-5
How does snowmobile noise compare as a health hazard to
other loud noises which may cause hearing loss?
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Commissioners Rule
6100.5700 subd. 4c clarifies the maximum noise produced by a
snowmobile must be less than 78 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet.
Noise production is regulated by the manufacturers through the product
inspection and adherence review. In addition, manufacturers are required to
meet Minnesota State Statutes 84.841, Mufflers, as follows:
. . .every snowmobile shall be equipped at all times with a muffler in good
working order which blends the exhaust noise into the overall snowmobile
noise and is in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise.
The exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling
sound. This section does not apply to organized races or similar
competitive events held on (1) private lands. . . with permission. . . (2)
public lands. . . with permission; or (3) other public lands. . . with. . .
consent. (DNR Law Enforcement)
Refer to noise study done in March 1986, as noted in answer 6-4.
(Southwest Trails Association)
A study on hearing loss related to snowmobile noise was not found. (DNR
Law Enforcement, State Department of Health)
Other agencies were contacted regarding noise related issues and had no
response. (Hennepin County Park Rangers, Sierra Club, State Department
of Health, OSHA, Water Patrol)
Policy Chanee Area Seven: Property Damaee
7-1
What constitutes property damage from a snowmobile?
Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks, discussed wetland issues and stated that as
long as the crossed terrain by a snowmobiler is in a frozen, vegetative state,
Hennepin Parks does not consider wetlands or other damage to occur
because of snowmobiles riding off trails. She did clarify that A TV's pose a
big problem because the land is not in a frozen, vegetative state. (Hennepin
Parks)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policy Chan~e Area Ei~ht: Safety
8-8
Are the trails maintained in the winter time in such a way as to
keep them safe for use by snowmobiles and others? What are
the current maintenance and safety practices?
"Past maintenance practices such as grooming has been modified over the
past ten years to control traffic. In efforts to keep snowmobile speeds
down, grooming the trail corridor in Shorewood has been reduced. Rough
bumpy trails are less enjoyable and result in fewer snowmobilers using that
portion of the trail system for casual riding. This leaves the trail open for
individuals common to the area who are seeking the most direct access to
Lake Minnetonka and the snowmobile trail system to the west of the City.
Early season grooming of the 2.5 miles of trail in Shorewood has been
restricted because of poor ice conditions to the west of the City. The
connecting trail system is often segmented. Our heavy equipment travels
across areas of Lake Minnewashta and Lake Waconia." (Southwest Trails
Association)
Hennepin Parks does not do any winter maintenance. They allow each City
with a LRT trail passage the opportunity to apply for a winter use permit to
the Hennepin Park Board. (Hennepin Parks)
8-9
In your opinion, does the use of the trail by snowmobiles add
or take away value for others who use the trail in the
wintertime?
Ken Schilling, from the Water Patrol, responded by saying this is a double
edged issue. It is believed that snowmobiles have a right to use the trails
along with other forms of recreation. Everyone needs to use courtesy and
common sense so everyone can enjoy the trails. It is easier to walk on the
trails once snowmobiles have driven on them, but snowmobiles do create an
uneven surface for cross-country skiing. If the snowmobile operator is
responsible and within the law, this could be minimized. The trail does
provide direct access to the lake for snowmobiles and does make it a
pleasurable experience to go from the lake to the trail system. (Water
Patrol)
Hennepin Parks said the use of trails, especially in the metro area, is a fairly
volatile issue. There is a growing phenomenon that trail usage is on the
increase, therefore the demand for trails throughout the metro area has
increased. But, in areas that are "older" (suburbs similar to St. Louis Park,
Richfield) there is some resistance to implementing trail plans. (Hennepin
Parks, Del Miller)
Recreational use is very important to most citizens in the metro area. The
difficulty lies in determining what to do. (Hennepin Parks, Del Miller)
"Snowmobilers in general are willing to share trails with non-motorized
users. Often hikers, cross country skiers and dog sledders use the trails we
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 9
maintain because of the grooming, signage and trail connections we
provide. We do have difficulty with non-motorized individuals who are not
willing to share. They do not pay any appreciable user fees that go directly
to trail maintenance. Snowmobilers pay a $10 registration fee per year
along with dedicated unrefunded gas tax money to keep our trail systems
open. With the exception of a $5 cross country ski pass, hikers, bikers and
dog sledders are coming up short on their financial responsibility for the
trails they use. (Southwest Trails Association)
Policy Chanl:e Area Nine: Chanl:inl:lGradin2 the Trail
NOTE:
RELATED TO GRADING/GROOMING: The two words Grading
and Grooming are not interchangeable, although some answers to this
section may have been construed as such. GRADING generally refers to
the actual modification of trail design, digging into the trail bed itself.
GROOMING refers to the maintenance of the tread way, eliminating
obstacles or clearing the tread way for its intended use. GROOMING
activities would include brush removal, plowing, etc.
Are there other areas within City limits which provide for
walking and cross-country skiing in the winter time other than
the regional trail?
9-3
There are no areas specifically groomed for winter activities, although
residents may use the trails in Freeman Park and other park land for such
purposes. (Park Commission)
9-5
How would the regional trail need to be graded differently for
use in the winter time by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers,
pedestrians or bikers? If different grading is desirable, how
would you do it?
At this time, the regional trail is not graded differently in Shorewood for use
by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, pedestrians or bikers. Alternative
grading options can be considered by conducting a feasibility study that
would include a complete determination of feasible alternatives for trail
usage.
If the City Council determines that a feasibility study is necessary, the City
Engineer will be requested to produce a feasibility report, which could
include the following: scope of the proposed project, design related issues,
estimated costs, projected schedules, etc. (City Staff, based on input given
by City Engineer)
Any consideration of modifications to the trail would need to be discussed
between the City of Shorewood, Hennepin Parks and the Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). (City Staff, Larry Brown,
Hennepin Parks - Del Miller, HCRRA)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are four possible options that could be considered:
1. Leave a single tread way for multi-purpose trail use.
2. Add an entire new tread way, at the City of Shorewood's expense.
Hennepin Parks and the Hennepin County Rail Road Authority would not
be supportive of costs incurred for winter use modifications, at this time.
9-6
3. Modify the existing tread way by reducing the top of the trail, resulting
in a wider trail. The trail is a trapezoid so that as you remove the top layers
it will continue to widen. Two concerns would include soil and rock
removal as well as disturbing the internal ballast.
4. Accommodate a snowmobile trail alongside the existing tread way,
possibly requiring some tree removal and/or limb removal. (Hennepin
Parks, Del Miller)
What types of permits would be needed for grading the
regional trail in the winter?
"SWT A currently has the permit to groom snowmobile trails on the LRT
and in Carver Park. We bear the entire cost of grooming these trails used
for snowmobiling." (Southwest Trails Association)
A Winter Use permit is obtained from Hennepin County to clarify the City's
intent of trail use from Nov. 15 - April 1.
Specifically related to "grading" the trail, a joint agreement between the City
of Shore wood, Hennepin Parks and the Rail Authority would have to be
made. Both Hennepin Parks and the Rail Authority have noted that any
additional costs would probably not be supported because of their current
"hands-off' policy for winter activities.
9-7
Is there a need to grade the regional trails in the winter to
support the activities of running, walking, and cross-country
skiing?
It is the City's option to request use of the trail in the winter. Therefore,
how it may be groomed is determined by the City upon approval of the
winter use permit issued by Hennepin Parks. (Hennepin Parks)
To actually grade the trail differently to accommodate different uses, please
see the answer to 9-5 above.
9-8
What does it cost to grade for different uses and who would
bear the cost?
The City of Shorewood would bear the costs incurred for different grading
of the trail.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page II
9-9
"We request $210 per mile in our yearly request to the DNR. Historically,
all snowmobile trail requests are reduced because of inadequate funding
from the DNR." (Southwest Trails Association)
What funding is currently available to cover the costs of
grading the trail? What funding will be available next year for
the same thing?
If grading, resurfacing or designing a new trail or tread way on the LRT
were considered, the inclusion of Hennepin Parks, the Hennepin County
Rail Authority and the City of Shorewood in the decision-making process
would be imperative.
No funding is currently available, although the City of Shorewood may
choose to fund a project related to grading the trail.
The Southwest Trails Association estimated costs for grooming the trail
from an estimated $210 per mile, and receive Grant-in-Aide funding to
groom and maintain the trail. (This is not grading the trail, however.)
"Matching federal money from Nathion Recreation Trail Fund is available
for motorized/non-motorized projects. The program is authorized as part of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficacy Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
Contact Dan Collins of the DNR (612)296-6048 for information for next
year. (Southwest Trails Association)
9 -I 0 If snowmobile traffic were permitted in selected zones of the
City, would these planned zones conflict with the future
planned changes for sidewalks and water installation?
The City Engineer would have to evaluate each zone individually.
NOTE:
In response to grading of the LRT, DNR Trails and Waterways does not
have direct management authority of the LRT trail and is not familiar with
the current operations of it. It is unknown to this agency how things could
be changed, or not changed, with respect to the trail. Hennepin Parks is
understood to be the unit of government to discuss these options with.
The DNR does operate the Luce Line State Trail, which is an old converted
railroad grade. There are two tread ways, one for horseback riders and the
other one for bikes, hikers, cross country skiing and snowmobiling. Use is
not precluded from the main grade other than the Statute which created the
trail does not allow snowmobiling in the first seven miles. Otherwise all
uses are combined on one main trail throughout the year, with the exception
of horseback riding. (DNR Trails and Waterways)
Policy Chan~e Area Eleven: . Property Ri~hts and Trespassin~
11- 5 Is there currently a perceived problem with trespass violations
made by snowmobile riders on private property?
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Animal control has no knowledge of trespass problems such as "critter
chasers." (Animal Control)
The South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department has conveyed to the
Snowmobile Task Force that the incidents that occur are not a large
problem. (SLMPS)
Policy Chanl:e Area Twelve: Education (Related to licensure)
12 -I What classes are currently offered on snowmobiling? Are
there any other classes than those sponsored by the Water
Patrol?
Every year the Water Patrol teaches approximately 150 kids snowmobile
safety. The Water Patrol has certified safety instructors that do the
instruction and given the demand, this may increase. The Water Patrol also
teaches their own deputies snowmobile training and enforcement, along
with many police and sheriff s departments statewide on snowmobile
enforcement. (Water Patrol)
The Hennepin County Park Rangers train their public safety staff in the use
and operation and trailering of snowmobile patrol vehicles. Included in this
training is an annual review of pertinent statutes and local ordinances to
educate the department as they patrol in four counties (Hennepin, Carver,
Dakota. and Scott) and many local jurisdictions. This training is not offered
to outside agencies. (Park Rangers)
Youthful Operators Safety Training with local support is conducted by the
DNR Division of Enforcement. The DNR Division of Enforcement does
work with local communities to put on snowmobiling safety classes as well.
(DNR Trails and Waterways)
"Refer to item 4-5." (Southwest Trails Association)
12 - 4 What is currently being done by the City of Shorewood or
other to educate the general public on the rules and regulations
which govern snowmobile use within City limits?
The Snow Patrol will stop riders, distribute a trail map and request them to
comply with City and State laws. (Snow Patrol)
Other agencies conduct various "check points" to enforce as well as inform
riders of snowmobile regulations. At this time, this type of monitoring is
done on a random basis or in response to a request or complaint.
(Hennepin County Sheriff, DNR Conservation Officer)
"We produce the maps that the Shorewood Sno Patrol uses when they do
trail education." (Southwest Trails Association)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 13
12 - 5 How are these rules currently publicized? What use is made of
signage, pamphlets, education and so on? (during the past
year)
The Snow Patrol utilizes all of the above - signs, pamphlets, and education.
(Snow Patrol)
The Southwest Trails Association produces maps that include various local
regulation information. (Southwest Trails Association)
The DNR publishes a brochure entitled "Snowmobile Safety" that is
available for distribution. (DNR, Division of Enforcement)
Other cities have made the brochures available at their City Hall. (City
Staff)
Policy Chanee Area Thirteen: Definition of a Season with a start and end
date
13-1 Is there a formal snowmobile season with a start and end date?
Hennepin Parks delineates the summer season as April 1 - November 15.
Therefore the Snowmobile Season, on the LRT, is between November 15
and March 31, although snow conditions would dictate use. (Hennepin
Parks, Del Miller)
The Southwest Trails Association publicizes riding dates from December 1 -
March 31. (Southwest Trails Association)
Grant-in-aide trails (like the LRT) open December 1, or earlier if trail permit
allows. (DNR, Trails and Waterways)
13 - 2 When does the signage and/or any other indications of a
snowmobile season get posted?
Southwest Trails Association generally will try to have signs up before the
frost is in, around October. Some of the signs posted are ordered from the
DNR related to Grant-in-Aide trail, other signs are obtained locally (speed
limit signs, Shorewood restriction signs). (Southwest Trails Association)
Hennepin Parks has signs that are posted for year-round use, such as the
Stop SignlNo Motorized Vehicles sign at each intersection. (Hennepin
Parks, Del Miller)
Hennepin County also has posted street signs at each intersection with the
trail noting LRT Trail Crossing. (City Staff)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13 - 3 What might be the benefits to the City of Shorewood of
defining a season for snowmobiles within City limits?
No responses to this question were received. (Hennepin Parks, DNR Trails
and Waterways)
Policy Chan~e Area Fourteen: Public Ri~ht of Way and Yieldinl:
Guidelines
14 - 6 Is there any regulation which provides for a "right of way"
guidelines when a person is using a snowmobile on the
regional trail?
Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 84.81 - 84.911 clarify the right of way
guidelines. MN Stat. 84.87 subd. 2(b) states "It shall be unlawful for any
person to drive or operate any snowmobile in the following unsafe or
harassing ways: in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to
endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage
thereto; . . .", (City Staff, also referred by DNR Trails and Waterways)
14-7 Referring to the City Engineer, based on your experience in
installing City water, do you think the general public
understands the Right of Way laws? How do they currently
receive information on these laws when they have a question?
The City Engineer did not comment on this question.
The Right of Way laws pertaining to snowmobiles in the City of
Shorewood need to be reviewed, and if possible, rewritten for clearer
understanding, as discussed with the Snowmobile Task Force at the
February 22 Task Force Meeting. (City Planner)
14-9 What are the Right of Way laws for snowmobiles which use
roadways?
Refer to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84.
Policy Chan~e Area Fifteen: Viable Access to Lakes and Trails
15 - 2 Which of the viable access points to lakes and trails within the
City limits of Shorewood are the most frequently used?
No formal study has been done by the Snow Patrol to actually record usage
at any of these access points. There is one main access point near Timber
Lane from the trail to the lake that is used most. (Snow Patrol)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15-3
15-4
15-5
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 15
The Crescent Beach access point is the only fIre lane allowing snowmobile
traffic per City Code 1201.03, subd. 19, Fire Lanes, b.(2) Class II (fire
lanes) "may be used for. . . snowmobile access during the winter. . .".
(City Planner)
Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks responded by stating that the Winter Use
Permit clearly states that it is up to the community to "enforce, sign and
maintain the trail." Therefore, when asked about crossing at the Timber
Lane access point she stated it woulg be up to the City to evaluate. (Karen
Bowen, Hennepin Parks)
What is the correct way to move your snowmobile from your
home location to a viable access point for the regional trail or a
lake?
The Southwest Trails Association replied it is understood that within the
City of Shorewood a rider may use the most direct route, staying on the
right-of-way and avoiding any personal property lines. This is in
compliance with Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 84. (Southwest Trails
Association)
The Shorewood City Ordinance would also define snowmobile transport to
include staying on the right-of-way, off of personal property, and not riding
on the street (i.e. the asphalt surface). (City Staff)
How are the access points currently promoted to the general
public? Are they displayed on maps? How would the public
typically find out about this?
The DNR requires new maps every year detailing trails available. The City
of Shorewood is in the Southeast quadrant map available at the DNR.
(DNR Division of Enforcement)
In addition, the Southwest Trails Association has a map underwritten by
local advertisers that is handed out for free at their "pit stop" where people
stop and take a break. (Southwest Trails Association)
The Shorewood Snow Patrol may assist in informing others about access
points. (Snow Patrol)
Are the fire lanes being used as access lanes by any type of
vehicle, including snowmobiles? If so, how.
The Crescent Beach fire lane is the only Class II lane in Shorewood,
therefore allowing snowmobiles on the lane. (City Planner)
The Excelsior Fire Department does not regulate how the fIre lanes are being
used. They do review each location for accessibility. (Fire Marshall)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
ANAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Fire lanes in the City of Tonka Bay along Brentwood Ave. give direct
access to the LRT." (Southwest Trails Association)
15-6 Are viable access points currently signed?
Viable access points are not signed by the City of Shorewood. (City
Planner)
Hennepin Parks stated that according the Winter Use Pennit it is up to each
community to sign the trail as needed for snowmobiling (specifically).
(Hennepin Parks, Karen Bowen)
15 -7 Is there currently public parking by the viable access points?
There are a limited number of parking spaces at Crescent Beach. (City
Planner)
"Public parking also includes those individual who drive onto the lake and
park their car and trailer." (Southwest Trails Association)
Policy Chan~e Area Sixteen: Use of Carbide Studs on Snowmobiles
16 -1 How much damage is reported on public or private roads
which is caused by snowmobile studs?
No damage has been reported to the DNR, reasoning is because
snowmobile studs are generally used on fast racing machines. (DNR
Division of Enforcement)
The City of Shorewood and the Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department
has not seen damage reports related to carbide studs. ( Public Works,
SLMPS)
"Traction products such as carbide studs and wear bars on skis are
considered safety equipment by most snowmobilers who encounter icy trail
conditions." (Southwest Trails Association)
16-2 Are snowmobile studs legal throughout the state?
Yes, they are legal throughout the state. (DNR Division of Enforcement)
16 - 3 Are there any studies which show the difference in safety for
snowmobiles which use carbide studs and those that don't?
Are studs safer?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 17
No studies have been conducted. It has not been determined that carbide
studs are safer or not. (DNR Division of Enforcement, DNR Trails and
Waterways, City Staff)
16 - 5 What are the estimated costs incurred by the City for public
property damage created by the use of snowmobile studs?
There is no estimated cost. Street repairs are not accounted for individually
(per incident) in the budget. (Public Works)
Policy Chanae Area Seventeen: Source of Revenue for Snowmobile Related
Costs
17 - 3 IS State grant-in-aide a source of revenue for snowmobile
related costs?
Yes, State grant-in-aid is available as appropriated from the Snowmobile
Trail and Enforcement Account by the Minnesota State Legislature. (DNR
Trails and Waterways)
17- 6 What are the sources of revenue for trail administration and
service? The Snowmobile Task Force would like to see an
annual report of revenues broken out by source.
For Hennepin Parks, who is currently administering trail service, the
sources of revenue vary. They include general funds, Parks funds, park
fees and other grant programs.
To determine "trail only" fees by source of revenue would be labor-
intensive as Hennepin Parks does not keep record of LRT -only expenses.
If requested an estimated report could possibly be compiled. (Hennepin
Parks, Karen Bowen)
The State Grant-in-aide program is utilized by the Southwest Trails
Association to obtain funding for trail maintenance to allow for snowmobile
use. (DNR Trails and Watenvays)
"The DNR will not allow double grant appropriation for snowmobile trails.
Currently, Hennepin Parks submits trail time and costs to SWT A for
maintenance and repairs related to snowmobiling. Money availability is
dependent on communicating projects in advance for budgeting. Trail work
can not be performed prior to the State encumbering the funds for projects.
Dead lines for project proposals in May 31st of each year." (Southwest
Trails Association)
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26, 1996
page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policy Chan2e Area Nineteen: Limitin~ or Bannin~ Snowmobiles within
the City
19 - 6 If a snowmobile ban for the City of Shorewood is to be
seriously considered, what might be the best decision process?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of:
-having City Council make the decision
-have the decision made by citizen referendum?
A researcher from the League of MiIinesota Cities noted that Shorewood, as
a Statutory City Plan A, as opposed to a Home Rule Charter City, is not
allowed to use a citizen referendum to make a fmal decision on policy
implementation. The Task Force could request an advisory petition that the
City Council could then consider for its necessary action related to
snowmobiles.
A Home Rule Charter City does not always have citizen referendum, but it
may have a referendum provision if the Charter includes it. (League of MN
Cities)
"Future cooperation with SWT A and the insurability of the Sno Patrol under
the SWT A insurance policy would be a moot point if snowmobiling was
banned in the City." (Southwest Trails Association)
Other agencies were not queried on this question. (City Staff)
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Agency Research
FINAL REPORT
June 26. 1996
page 19
I
Al!encies Participatinl! in Research
I
Agency Contact Name Phone! Other
Survey
Animal Control Patrols Carrie and Dan Phone
Audobon Society Valerie Phone Environment and
education only
City of Shorewood, Engineer Larrv Brown In Person
City of Shore wood. Park Roxanne Martin, Chair - Phone
Commission
Citv of Shorewood, Planner Brad Nielsen In Person
City of Shorewood, Public Works Larrv Niccum In Person
DNR Division of Enforcement Col. Leo Haseman, Director Phone
DNR Division of Enforcement Lt. B. Ransfer. Area Phone
Enforcement Suoervisor
DNR, Grant-in-Aide Gordon Kimball Phone referred to Martha Reger
DNR, Grant-in-Aide Martha Reger. Trails and Both
Waterwavs Suoervisor
DNR, Marketing Sue Klecker Phone
Excelsior Fire Deoartment Carv Smith, Fire Marshall Phone
Friends of Boundary Waters Kevin Proescholdt Phone
Wilderness
Hennepin County Regional Larry O'Dell Phone
Railroad Authority
Hennepin County Sheriff - Water Sgt. Ken Schilling Both
Patrol
Hennepin Park Rangers Ed Rudenberg, Director of Public Both
Safety
Henneoin Parks Del Miller Phone
Hennepin Parks Karen Bowen, Director of Both
Ooerations
Hennepin Parks Mike Henry, Planning and Phone referred to Del Miller
Enl!ineerin!!
League of MN Cities Teresa Phone
MN Safety Council Carol Bufton Phone
MPCA Charlie Kennedv Phone referred to DNR
Nature Conservancy Mary Waterhouse Phone referred to DNR Trails and
Waterways
OSHA Phone No applicable oversight
Sierra Club Vicki Phone referred legal issues to
Voyageurs Natl Park
Association
Snow Patrol Dan Puzak Both
Southwest Trails Association Bill Kullberg Both Sent reply for acceptance
of reoort 4/I 8/96
Voyageurs National Park Jennifer Hunt Phone
Association
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task Force
Final Report
Trail Watch Reports Summary
The members of the Snowmobile Task Force scheduled random observation times to walk
the Southwest LRT trail. As agreed at the December 18 meeting, the trail was monitored
by two Task Force members walking the trail for an ~hour at ten randomly selected times,
between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., during this season (95-96). They took notes on trail usage
during these monitoring walks.
The observations varied from one walk to the next. However, it was consistently reported
that snowmobile tracks were observed off the trail, approximately two-thirds of the
snowmobilers were obeying the rules when observed by trail monitors, and the trail
conditions varied greatly from very good to very poor.
Specifically related to violations, 62 snowmobiles were observed either on the trail or in
close enough proximity to render a good viewing. Of those snowmobiles observed, there
were 26 occurences of probable violations by 22 different sleds.
Other notations included viewing 8 pedestrians during the ten hours of trail walks, limited
and outdated signs posted relating to snowmobiling, and numbers of perceived right-of-
way violations.
The Shorewood Snowmobile Task Force Policy Area binder contains a complete summary
of the Trail Watch Reports.
Attached is a summary report written containing information per trail walk occurence.
DATA:PW/STF FINAL DOCS. 6/26/96
Tarvin
SUMMARY SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE TRAIL WALK REPORTS
Date
1/13/96
02/17/96
::l:) - 6:10 p.m.
p.m.
p.m.
a.m.
a.m.
o
-
-
-
-
2
pee mg
4 Off trail use
1 Wrong side rd
1 Underage
10 Failure to Stop
3 No vield
-
-
-
-
6/26/96; R. Tarvin
Observer
Hurm
3 pedestrians
Arnst
Colopoulos
pe estnans
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Shorewood
Police Officer Interviews/Surveys
Executive Summary
Police Officer Interviews
Snowmobile Task Force
Executive Summary Report
I. Background
One of the research projects sponsored by the Snowmobile Task Force was an
interview of or survey of the police officers which work within Shorewood City
limits. The questions for the interview were generated by the Snowmobile Task
Force. The interviews were conducted in April. Five officers were interviewed
face-to-face in interviews lasting about 30 minutes. The other six officers were
given an interview guide and asked to write in the answers to the interview
questions. A detailed summary of all of the officers responses and answers was
prepared in a separate report.
II. Questions in the Interview
The police officers were asked questions pertaining to snowmobiling. The
questions can be divided into categories as follows:
· Trespass and property damage from snowmobiles
Snowmobile safety issues and accidents in which a snowmobile
was involved
Use of lake and trail access lanes, both legal and illegal, by
snowmobiles
Personal experience in enforcing the laws for snowmobiles
Cooperation with the Snow Patrol
Understanding of snowmobile season
Handling and verifying citizen complaints
Findings for each of these areas is briefly summarized in the remainder of this
report.
III. Trespass and Property Damage from Snowmobiles
Officers were asked to explain the trespass law which governs recreational
vehicles in the seven county area. They all knew that snowmobiles were
prohibited from riding on anyone's private property without the express
permission of the owner.
Almost all of the officers had been called to investigate a possible trespass
violation within the past five years. Some had been called as many as five-ten
times. They reported that they were likely to get repeat complaints from property
owners whose homes were close to the Regional Trail, from homes on Eureka
Road and Smithtown and Howard's Point Road.
A majority of the officers also had been called to investigate property damage
caused by snowmobiles. According to the officers, some reports of damage
could not be processed because the damage occurred on public rights of way.
Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, Inc.@
June 13, 1996
The City of Shorewood
Police Officer Interviews/Surveys
Executive Summary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other reports of damage were not substantiated. Although snowmobile tracks
were present, there was no apparent damage. Officers reported that many of
these complaints were more related to trespass violations than they were to
property damage. Others could not be prosecuted because the act of trespass
or damage had no witnesses.
IV. Snowmobile Safety Issues including Accidents
Only about 1/3 of the officers could recall an accident in which a snowmobile
had been involved occurring within Shorewood City limits within the past five
years. Several accidents involved a snowmobile running into a tree or some
standing object. In one accident, a car was involved. In yet another, an officer
remembered a skier being struck by a snowmobile.
When officers were asked if citizens ever expressed fear for their personal
safety as a result of close contact with a snowmobile, more than half said yes.
Each of these was able to tell stories about citizens expression of fear of
snowmobiles. Almost all of these stories involved joint usage of the Regional
Trail by skiers/walkers and snowmobiles.
V. Use of lake and Trail Access
Officers reported that the legal access points to the lakes and Regional Trail
which are used the most by snowmobilers are Timber Lane and Crescent
Beach. Snowmobilers are also likely to other access points located at Boulder
Bridge (close to the lake), Howard's Point Marina, Birch Bluff Road and
Excelsior Commons area. Some snowmobilers drive into Tonka Bay and enter
via the Bay Street Fire Lane.
The access lane used the most, in the opinion of the officers, is Timber Lane.
V I. Officer's Experiences in law Enforcement with Snowmobiles
When officers were asked if they had ever impounded a snowmobile because
of a law violation, almost all answered no. Four of the eleven had impounded
vehicles. Reasons for impounding a vehicle ranged from curfew violations to
driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Officers were also asked about their experiences with younger riders and their
compliance with laws requiring certification to ride a snowmobile. More than
213 of the officers had checked younger riders to see if they were bearing the
proper credentials for riding a snowmobile. They reported that it was very rare
when they found an infraction of this law. Officers stated that between 80-99%
of these riders were legal.
Each officer was asked to review a list of state laws governing snowmobiles.
They were asked for which infractions they had personally issued citations.
Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, Inc.@
June 13, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Shorewood
Police Officer Interviews/Surveys
Executive Summary
Officers reported issuing traffic citations to snowmobiles for the following
offenses:
absence of proper registration
failure to display a valid registration
operating while under the influence of drugs or alcohol
on the trail disobeying a posted traffic sign
operating vehicles on public roadways or shoulders
speeding
curfew violations
noise (muffler) violations
operating without a headlight or tail light
driving on DNR lands illegally
failure to stop when signaled
operating a snowmobile against traffic in the dark
uncertified juvenile operators
Although there were some state laws which apparently have not been violated
within Shorewood, one officer pointed out that some of these were written for
rural areas and simply did not apply. Other officers pointed out that some laws
were very difficult to enforce because the perpetrator would flee and the officer
would be unable to pursue them. Another enforcement problem is that the
snowmobile rider may be gone by the time the officer follows up on a citizen
complaint. One officer said that speeders were especially hard to ticket
because finding spots to monitor the Trail in a police vehicle were difficult.
VII. Working with the Snow Patrol
Officers reported a variety of experiences and perceptions about cooperation with
the Snow Patrol. Some had never called the Snow Patrol, some gave out the
number for citizens to call on their own and still others called the Snow Patrol and
even went out with the Patrol together to a citizen's home. There seemed to be some
ambiguity about the appropriate role of the Patrol in conjunction with the Police.
VIII. Understanding of the Snowmobile Season
None of the officers was aware that there was an official season with start and
end dates for the use of the Regional Trail.
IX. Verifying Citizen Complaints
Officers were asked if they had ever received complaints from citizens which did
not appear to agree with their observations of snowmobilers' actual behavior.
Almost all reported experiences in which they had been monitoring the Trail at
the same time a complaint had come in and had been unable to verify the
complaint. Some told detailed stories of how these complaints would have
been impossible for the police officer to have missed because of the timing and
their direct observation of the Trail. These unverifiable complaints might be
explained by the fact that some callers wait too long to call in their concerns.
Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, Inc.@
June 13, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix
A. Minority Opinions
. Timber Lane Access Opinion
. Timber Lane Access Pictures
. Ban or Limited Use
B. Minutes 4125/96 to 5/30/96
C. Subgroup Reports
. Snowmobile Identification & Registration
. Noise
. Speed
D. Shorewood Snow Patrol Letter of Understanding.
E. Policy Area Binder Table of Contents & Policy Area Questions
F. Shorewood Snowmobile Ordinance (Section 802 of the City Code)
G. Council Resolution 95..s3, June 1995
H. Blank Copy of Snowmobile Resident Survey and Map
I. Table of Contents-lngrid Schaafs Research Binder
J. Table of Contents-Main Survey Binder
K. Grant in Aide Program
1996 Soo'Mllobile Task Force Report
6/27/96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1..1!_~m~tI9lJGY_'~:Jl__!~~
Ordinance states that "no snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection ~ithout making a
complete stop and that the crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees to the
direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe
crossing" .
It is our opinion that while Timber Lane is not considered illegal it cannot be assuredly
maintained in such a manner that would make usage by snowmobiles legal.
Problems:
. The Timber Lane site consists of very steep topography which on approach from Lake
Minnetonka affords poor sight lines for the riders.
. It was stated during Task Force discussion that riders, unless very experienced, are unable to
come to a complete stop at the intersection. In order to correct this situation and bring the
access into compliance, Public Works mIl be required to pay special attention to this area
during their plomng efforts, by packing additional snow, to ensure there is sufficient space
for riders to comply mth this regulation. The problem mIl return to its current state of
noncompliance as the season progresses; the snow melts and additional snow is not available
to correct the problem at the intersection.
. Timber Lane, while being one of the more actively used Lake accesses is not signed or
denoted on the SWT A map of the area. In the past, the City has not called attention to nor
have they expressed the desire to identify specific locations mthin the community as
snowmobile access points. To deem Timber Lane as a legal access will in turn result in the
City becoming responsible for signing the area, which when done could result in it being
added to the map currently distributed to snowmobilers throughout area and in all likelihood
increase the traffic in this neighborhood.
. Even though the street right of way extends into the water which lends itself to public use, it
currently is not suitable for other uses such as boat launching. In our opinion it would not be
in the best interests of the community as a whole to have public land "advertised" for
selective uses. Crescent Beach is our only legal access for snowmobile use which was the
result of a fire lane study.
. In order to accommodate the potential increase in snowmobile traffic to and from the Lake
once it is signed and made public the City would have to ensure that the traffic would be
funneled properly through by the use of hay bales or fencing to help reduce the adverse
effects on the properties in the area. This should be done whether the access is publicly
annotated or not and if snowmobiling is continued mthin the City.
. If all the recommendations proposed by the Task Force are adopted, in an attempt to bring
the access into conformity, attention needs to be paid to the potential adverse effects to the
residents of this area (Zone 5 in the survey):
Zone 5 Sun-ey Responses:
. 54% of 110 respondents in this area feel snowmobiles should not be allowed to be on the
boulevards
. 43% of 114 respondents in this area find snowmobile noise very to somewhat annoying
. 58% of 112 respondents in this area are uncomfortable in the presence of snowmobiles
. 50% of III respondents in this area feel snowmobiles present a safety hazard on the trail
Based on these survey results the area is already quite sensitive to snowmobile use in their area.
1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report
6/27/%
I
I
Conclusion:
I
If you interpret "viable" as being able to provide practicable, permanent conditions so as to
permit continued existence of the Timber Lane access, we have no data that would support the
conclusion that these changes will accomplish this. While funneling, fencing, signing and
additional snow may be viewed as mitigative measures for this area. it should not be stated that
these measures will make the Timber Lane access "viable". Currently only one snowmobile can
come to a complete stop at a time before crossing, unless additional snow is packed near the
street. The inability to maintain safe conditions is the same as permitting violations and illegal
actions, which would be unenforceable because the City cannot maintain the conditions to make
the Timber Lane access safe and enforceable.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1996 Sno\\mobile Task Force Report
6127%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..I__;....g~[~_11;~;l.iim~..~>........
Snowmobile Ban: Nwnerous recommendations have been made that !!Y!Y mitigate the
concerns related with snowmobiling within the City of Shorewood. These recommendations did
not come about easily and will result in considerable financial burdens on the City in order for
the recommendations to not only be implemented but monitored for positive and/or negative
effects.
The three main areas of concern are safety, enforcement and education. With the changes being
implemented by Hennepin Parks for winter use on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail corridors
the City is obligated to:
1. Immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails, including access points.
2. Become responsible for signage for all authorized/unauthorized activities.
3. Enforce rules and regulations established by the City and the State.
4. Provide, along with the winter use permit, a certificate of insurance naming Hennepin Parks
5. as an additional named insured PLUS a docwnent reflecting proposed or enacted rules and
regulations.
Safety Issues:
While there has not been a death or serious injury in the last few years, it does not mean (based
on both survey results and conclusions drawn from those results) that there are not concerns.
Objective Survey Results:
. 59% of 765 respondents surveyed do not feel comfortable in the presence of snowmobiles
(31 % of 216 riders concur).
. 54% of 766 respondents surveyed feel snowmobiles present a real safety hazard on the trail
(29% of riders concur and 64% non-riders feel safety hazard)
. 70% of 765 respondents feel alcohol is a major contributor to snowmobile carelessness (64%
of the 215 riders concur)
. 54% of762 respondents do not feel children have the proper training (42% of the 215 riders
concur)
. only 36 of 225 rider respondents correctly listed 10 mph as city speed limit
. 43% or only 97 of the 225 rider respondents correctly listed 20 mph as LRT limit
. 39"10 or 82 of the 215 rider respondents did not know either city or LRT limits
Subjective Conclusions:
The City does not have the manpower or equipment to enforce the rules.
There are no measurements in place to reflect whether changes from prior task forces produced
quantifiable improvements, or in fact negative consequences.
The LRT is only 11-12 feet wide (2 snowmobiles passing in opposite directions require minimwn
of 8 feet) making motorized/non-motorized use mix unsafe.
The proposed 4 foot, unpaved separate walking path next to the trail can only be done to
approximately 50% of the corridor leaving 50% motorized/non-motorized use
Currently Grant-in-Aide states that the trails cannot be used for mixed motorized/non-motorized
usage.
While it is a given that the Ordinance needs re-writing specific verhage needs to be included to
address multi-use.
In order to remedy the safety related issues the City must commit to comprehensive education
processes and zero tolerance enforcement of all City and State rules and regulations. The
following tangibles/variables are involved in accomplishing this:
1996 Snomnobile Task FOI"Ce Report
6/27/%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There must be a commitment by outside agencies: DNR Park Rangers, Sheriffs Water Patrol
to have an officially documented "agreement" for enforcement man-hours and in addition, the
City must ensure the outside agencies have the authorization to enforce our Ordinance.
Additionally, an Agreement must be establisbed witb Carver County for rules enforcement in
Cathcart Park (even though our Ordinance states no snowmobiling in City Parks, SLMP state
they cannot enforce our Ordinance because the Park is in Cbanhassen). This enforcement issue
relates to year-round usage.
SLMPD will need to be provisioned with the equipment (snowmobiles) to adequately patrol,
pursue and apprehend violators. Two officers must then be trained and man-hours dedicated to
snowmobile enforcement.
Officers logs, ARS reports must then be obtained monthly by City Staff, analyzed and
determinations made as to whether this change has added value to the process. The continuation
of data gathering is an integral step for continuing analysis of potential problems if
snowmobiling is continued within the City. This input of data will however result in City Staff
assuming additional responsibilities and being held accountable to see that it is done. The Park
Commission and Council Members (or whomever is deemed the appropriate forum for review)
will need to insure that the data is reviewed on a regular basis.
Even with the implementation of these additional methods, visual snowmobile identification
remains difficult. There is little that can be done locally, with the exception of persuading the
State to change the size, color, and placement requirements for registration numbers that would
afford easier identification of offenders (Task Force recommendations).
Education would have to be a priority. The City has not produced materials since 1993 stating
the rules and regulations of snowmobiling in the City. IF snowmobiling is to be continued in the
City, a comprehensive education program (see Task Force recommendations) must be instituted
and followed. People and Departments (Council, Parks, Planning, Staff, SLMP) must be made
accountable to see that this is done.
Noise abatement processes and recommendations also require additional equipment being
secured for use by SLMP. While a decibel meter could probably be rented or borrowed on the
short ten:n. if complaints regarding noise continue, the City would have to give serious
consideration in purchasing this equipment. Zero tolerance on curfew (either current or
recommended hours) is deemed a partial solution to resolve some of the concerns but does not
eliminate other issues related to noise.
While there was a concerted effort to establish additional access to Lake Minnetonka for
snowmobile use, Crescent Beach remains the only legal access. Access via Timber Lane, while
not "illegal", if signed and changed per the recommendations made, will cause adverse effects
(see Minority Opinion on Timber Lane access).
If Grant-in-Aide funds are lost because of combined motorized/non-motorized use, the City
must be prepared to take responsibility (financial and manpower) to groom the trail for multi-use.
If Freeman Park is dedicated to cross-country skiing, hiking etc. trails will need to be groomed,
parking lots plowed. patrolled by officers to ensure safety (additional financial and man-hour
obligations).
While a slight majority of 51 % support continued use of snowmobiles on the trail, the margin of
error in this survey is 2-4%. With this in mind, and taking into consideration the high
1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report
6/2796
I
I
percentages of survey respondents expressing concerns related to safety issues, the residents are
basically telling us tbat the worst thing we can do is to let things remain status quo:
I
Of 770 respondents to questions 34 "Alternatives to a ban."
. 9% state do nothing different than is being done now
. 29% want separate paths
. 34% snowmobile riders should have restricted areas
. 40% feel we need more education for children
I
I
While the City is continually investigating areas to create off street trails, the designation of two
areas deemed suitable for trails has been met with resistance from residents. One can only
conclude that while there appears to be a need and desire for such trails, appropriate suitable
locations are not easily found.
I
I
Conclusion: Significant money and time has been invested in yet another task force and survey
that tries to substantiate the need to maintain a recreation for 229 households (319 registered
snowmobiles )1 within the City. This Task Force has produced data that reflects areas of major
concern and made recommendations to help mitigate them. While the recommendations are not
without merit, they are "perfect world" scenarios and require extreme amounts of commitment,
accountability and finances to improve the situation.
. Without the commitment and accountability from not only the City, but many outside
agencies, along with a considerable financial commitment from the City of Shorewood, and
all its residents, these recommendations cannot be effectively implemented.
. Without securing snowmobiles for enforcement, the City and SLMP will not be able to
commit to a "zero tolerance" statement.
. Without commitment by outside agencies and providing them the authorization to enforce
our Ordinance, however it reads, we will not be able to meet "zero tolerance".
. Without additional commitment by the City to continually collect, tabulate and analyze data
we will have no method of measuring whether the recommendations/changes implemented
have been effective.
The City has to be accountable for educating the public on the rules and regulations on a
continual basis and the City must be able to address all the safety concerns to the extent that the
perception of the residents (riders and non-riders inclusive) is changed and they no longer have
the perception that safety hazards exist on the trail.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 DNR SllO\VIllobile registration report
I
19% SIl<Mmobile Task Force Report
6/2796
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
THURSDA Y, APRIL 25, 1996 5:30 - 8:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Virginia Kolstad called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Voting Members Present: John Arnst, Co~chair Bill Colopoulos (arrived at 6:35), Dana
George, Co-chair Kolstad, Warren Peterson, and Ingrid
Schaff
Staff! Alternates Present: City Engineer Larry Brown, City Administrator Jim Hurm,
Snow Patrol Representative Dan Puzak, Staff Research
Assistant Becky Tarvin, Planning Commission Alternate Laura
Turgeon, and Police Chief Rick Young
Staff! Alternates Absent: Park Commission Alternate Roxanne Martin
Facilitator: Judy Marshik, Research Quik
2. GROUND RULES
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the ground rules including directing the Task Force to stay on
subject, especially important during policy change area discussion. No policy making
would occur during the first half of the meeting. Debate will be limited per Robert's Rules,
copies of those rules will be available at the next meeting. Question conflict of interest.
Any information discussed in the room shall remain in the room. The chairs will speak for
the Task Force to any outside group. A "parking lot" flip chart will be used for new
information sought by the Task Force.
3 . REVIEW OF MINUTES (3/6 & 3/14)
Co-chair Kolstad asked if there were any changes or corrections.
Schaff did not recall discussion of Task Force related to staying with Task Force for
duration of "several more months." Marshik clarified the March 6 minutes would have said
"several more months" refered to the next two months - April and May. Discussion ended.
Schaff noted data on page 9 was from Arnst and Schaff.
Schaff noted discussion on presentations did not seem to reflect Peterson's and George's
statements that were made. Peterson's statements were "worrisome" as well as George's
statements. Schaff noted George had referred to a statistic that 50% of the residents of
Shorewood did not support a ban, and George would not support any further restrictions.
Schaff questioned how discussion will be recorded.
Co-chair Kolstad said meeting process will be handled under a following agenda item.
Generally no decision will be made without a vote and key issues will be recorded,
including the motions relevant to policy change areas. A lot of discussion will take place,
but not all content will be included.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 . PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Schaff questioned why meeting tapes will be destroyed.
Schaff moved that we go back to the minutes and further get into the
discussion portion of George's and Peterson's statements.
Marshik suggested verbatim notations, Co-chair Kolstad suggested recording a summary
of the discussion. Schaff accepted the friendly amendment to the motion to summarize
discussion.
Schaff said statements Peterson had made regarding-citizens of Shorewood who had called
and made complaints are not accurate. Schaff indicated that she did not think anybody
would get on the phone to do that.
Marshik indicated the police address this issue in the Police Officer Interviews.
George moved to accept the minutes as noted for correction. After no
further discussion, motion passed 2 . 1, with 1 abstention.
4. MEETING DATES
Co-chair Kolstad noted that an updated calendar was mailed out. For upcoming meetings,
May 1 was agreed upon, May 23, 6:30 to 9:30, will replace May 25 meeting. George may
not be in attendance on May 23.
Co-chair Kolstad thanked Chief Young for a quick response to questions requested by the
Task Force last week. Tarvin was acknowledged for diligently compiling of policy change
area information submitted so far in the Policy Information Binder.
5 . PRESENT A TION BY LARRY BROWN ON MSA GUIDELINES
Schaff and Arnst had requested information regarding MSA routes. The question from
Schaff was to obtain Safety Guidelines for MSA trails discussed at the public hearing for
the Smithtown Road off-street trail.
Brown responded that the MSA trail has to meet certain width criteria if it is to be on-street.
The basic safety guidelines for MSA trails include five feet on street in one direction, but
they will consider a four foot minimum. At that point if you go with an off-street trail you
have to have a four foot minimum width for each lane of traffic with a two foot buffer area
between the curb and the trail. Essentially it is six feet in width. These guidelines are for
bicycling that will meet state-aide criteria. The discussion related to the Smithtown Road
Public Hearing mayor may not be relevant with this discussion as to whether or not we
would put the trail in as a state-aid trail and deviate from those factors. Smithtown Road
trail would be predominantly used by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Schaff asked if MSA paid for the trail, whether or not they prefer to combine pedestrian
traffic with any type of motorized traffic. Brown responded by saying on an off-street trail
there are not guidelines in the MSA standard which permit those two uses or recommend
design standards for those uses. Where there are combined use guidelines is when there is
in fact an on-street trail (a combined use area). MSA has design standards which cover the
use of a trail for combined use on-street.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 3
Arnst stated that an on-street trail would have many no-parking signs that would state that
motorized use would be off-limits. Brown agreed.
Schaff concluded the question had been answered.
6. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Schaff asked about discussion guidelines and Co-chair Kolstad noted guidelines will be
addressed later in the meeting.
Co-chair Kolstad and Co-chair Colopoulos attended'1he City Council meeting on Monday,
April 22, to get their input on the decision-making process. They reported the Council did
not think a public hearing would be held on the issue of snowmobile usage and policy in
Shorewood. Council has targeted early summer (June) to make a decision regarding
snowmobile policy. Council requested the Task Force provide recommendations for
decision-making, a summary of data obtained, and majority and minority opinions. If the
Task Force is not able to come to concensus, a good analysis of the facts is requested.
They will review the minutes of the meetings, and they will examine the data obtained by
the Task Force.
Council members were invited to attend the Task Force meetings as a better way to
understand the process.
Council requested that the Task Force be reminded they had been chartered to gather data
and determine key arguments and make recommendations to Council for decision-making.
The Council has not and will not discuss the issue of snowmobile usage in Shorewood
until the Task Force has presented their final fmdings and submitted a recommendation.
The Council wanted to remind the Task Force members that they were formally appointed
by the Council and each member is charged with the responsibility of effectively exploring
this issue. They are depending on the Task Force to provide a meaningful outcome for
policy making decision.
7 . REVIEW OF DISCUSSION RULES
Co-chair Kolstad referred to memorandum sent to all Task Force members dated April 22,
1996. Each point was reviewed and accepted. Points include:
Introduction of new data. issues and questions by Task Force members. It was
clarified by Marshik that when further research is needed in a policy area the Task
Force will be taking a vote. If accepted, the additional information will be included
in the Policy Information Binder for Task Force review. The "parking lot" will be
used for storing information for future use or not previously introduced data.
Schaff moved, and George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline
1 related to Introduction of New Data, Issues and Questions from
Task Force members. Motion passed unanimously.
Guidelines for policy area discussions. Co-chair Kolstad reviewed intent of
Discussion Guideline 2. Robert's rules were reviewed. Co-chair Kolstad will
summarize Robert's Rules and fOIWard to Task Force.
George moved, and Peterson seconded, to accept Discussion
Guideline 2 related to Policy Area Discussions. Motion passed
unanimously.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 . PAGE 4
Minutes. Will be taken by a professional service.
Co-chair Kolstad introduced discussion of the purpose of the tapes. Schaff
expressed concern of destroying tapes. It was agreed that tapes will be retained at
City Hall. The written minutes were discussed. Co-chair Kolstad summarized the
following:
· Tapes will be retained at City Hall for public review until a decision is made by
the City Council.
· Minutes will be taken on substantive issues in the same manner as Council and
Planning Commission minutes are currently.
· Majority and minority opinions may be. submitted on a worksheet, developed
by Marshik, and will be recorded in the minutes upon vote of acceptance by
Task Force. A written recommendation to change minutes may be submitted
by a Task Force member.
· Any changes to the minutes shall be substantive in nature to the discussion.
Schaff moved, George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline 3
related to Minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Advisory/Alternative members. Alternate replacement, placement and discussion
input was reviewed.
Arnst asked if alternates would be able to sit at the discussion table. Co-chair
Kolstad stated not unless they are acting as a voting member.
Schaff moved, and George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline
4 related to Advisory/Alternative Members. Motion passed
unanimously.
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed Final RecommendationslReport format. No vote was requested
at this time.
8. REVIEW OF TOPIC PRIORITIZA nON AND FUTURE MEETING
AGENDAS
Co-chair Kolstad addressed group and summarized policy change areas to be covered
based on rationale used and Task Force input from worksheets completed earlier. The fIrst
four areas cover violations, the second four areas cover impact on residents, the third
meeting covers alternatives for the Task Force to consider, the fourth covers a continuation
of alternatives.
9. IDENTIFICATION OF OUTSTANDING INFORMATION NEEDS
Not reviewed, this was meant for prior to the meeting.
10. FIRST DRAFT OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 5
Judy Marshik distributed the preliminary results of the survey findings for placement in the
Policy Information Binder.
Additional surveys have been received since the last pick up Monday, April 22. Based on
the cover letter included in the survey,
Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, all surveys received at City Hall by
5:00 p.m. Friday, April 26, would be included in the Survey Findings.
Motion passed 4-1.
Marshik reviewed report methodology with Task Fbrce, noting fmdings are reported as a
percentage of those responding, and an actual number of respondents. Other cross-tabs
compare those responding as RidersINon-riders and Support Ban of SnowmobileslDo not
Support Ban of Snowmobiles. The Task Force members were encouraged to review the
results and make a request if any additional cross-tabs would be desired to evaluate any
other issues. Upon completion of input, Research Quik will be able to report any requested
findings. Submit any requests for additional cross-tab reporting to Co<hair Kolstad or
Marshik.
Tarvin has been requested to obtain exact count of surveys mailed to get estimated percent
returned.
Marshik clarified a fmal report will be included and will summarize data results, and data
gathering techniques.
Co..chair Colopoulos asked why unidentified respondents zone districts would need to be
determined. Marshik responded and said all information that can be obtained assists in the
presentation and the Planning Department will be able to assist in the coding by location of
the thirty or so uncoded responses.
Marshik noted one-fourth to one-third of the approximately 800 surveys have written
comments. Hurm committed that the City will provide a photocopy of each written
comment in a binder displaying all written responses, available for public review at City
Hall.
11. POLICE INTERVIEWS
Marshik has completed five of the interviews. The interviews were expected to take ten
minutes, but discussion lasted as long as 25 minutes with each officer. Three written
officer responses were received at this meeting but not included in the summary. Three
more are expected to be received, totaling eleven responses.
Marshik distributed a preliminary report to be included in the Policy Information Binder
and verbally summarized the initial fmdings as reported. A final report will be submitted.
Marshik also noted that officers cooperation were very impressive as was their sincerity of
their efforts to do enforcement and concern about being able to appropriately enforce code.
Co-chair Colopoulos also affirmed the statement.
Advisory member Puzak requested point of order four times and questioned personal
opinion Co-chair Kolstad offered regarding trespassing results during discussion. Co<hair
Kolstad apologized and stated she has no personal opinion on this issue at this time.
· Data could be used as a guide for decision-making, but not a basis for decision-
making. Summary does not include factual oata, just opinion.
· 196 records received from South Lake Public Safety were used for input. 167 of
the 196 were located in Shorewood. 117 were requests by Shorewood residents,
or 51 % of the total complaints reported. 31 % of records were officers monitoring
the trail.
· 7% of complaints were verified complaints, an officer actually verified violation had
occurred. Of the remaining 93%, record was either information only, no contact,
gone on arrival, officer out of position to get to location, unable to locate violator,
or other.
· 75% of the 168 Shorewood complaint records were trail related.
· Highest incidence of complaint reported occurred between 5:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.
In this report, no one day had a significantly higher incidence of reporting than any
other.
· Summary of previous Initial Complaint Records for snowmobile seasons since
1990 was included.
· Summary of Dog Complaints was reviewed noting barking as a significant noise
issue was also included.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 6
12. COMPLAINT DATABASE
Co-chair Kolstad distributed an updated Complaint Database Analysis for inclusion in the
Policy Information Binder and reviewed findings with the Task Force. Co-chair Kolstad
highlighted the findings as follows:
Schaff requested information be gathered related to an arrest reported in the newspaper in
December 1995. Ms. Schaff indicated she would follow-up and find out where the
incidence occurred, what enforcing agency was responsible and the outcome.
Schaff moved to include a memorandum to Ingrid Schaff, from Chief
Young, dated October 10, 1995, in the Snowmobile Complaint Database
Appendix of the Policy Information Binder.
Turgeon requested information from other agencies be included. Co-chair Kolstad reported
that Park Ranger, DNR and other agencies reporting violations did not have enough
information to include in the database.
Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, to include any more citations or police
calls that were done from March 26 to April 15, 1996, into the Complaint
Database. Motion carried unanimously.
Co-chair Kolstad reported that other individual complaints whether it was curfew, noise or
speeding are also on the attachment with the April 22 Co-chair Kolstad memo sent to Task
Force members. Curfew seemed to be the easiest violation to verify. Trespass was the
most difficult to verify because of right-of-way issues, and lack of understanding of such.
Co-chair Kolstad called a five-minute break, after which the meeting reconvened.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 7
Co-chair Colopoulos reviewed guidelines for discussion of policy areas. Because of
limited time for the remainder of this meeting, two policy areas will be reviewed at this
meeting, and, if time permits, the other two areas will be reviewed.
Chief Young requested the fIrst page of the Police Officer Interview report be removed
because it includes the officers names. The request was accepted and will be replaced by a
number corresponding to each officer, without their name.
13. POLICY CHANGE AREA DISCUSSION
Co-chair Colopoulos reviewed the guidelines noting the Task Force will ask 1) Is there a
problem with curfew in our current policy and practice?; and 2) If change is needed what
are the alternatives?
Policy Change Areas related to Curfew, Speed Limits, Snowmobile IdentifIcation and
Noise Abatement will be discussed.
14. POLICY CHANGE AREA TWO - CURFEW
Arnst compared snowmobile curfew to the City construction ordinance. The time frame for
construction is 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. and suggested that he would like to study the snowmobile
curfew time, both the beginning and ending times.
Schaff pointed out that review of citations would show necessity to review curfews. Young
was inquired and replied that curfew is easy to enforce because of the time element. An
earlier curfew would cause more violations, a later curfew would cause less violations.
Schaff also posed potential question of conflict of regulations with the MN State Statute
related to the sunrise to sunset provision regarding snowmobile riding on state and county
roads. Young verifIed that MN State Statute has priority over City Ordinances. Schaff
noted concern of trail running parallel to Smithtown Road not being in compliance with
MN State Statute after sunset and before sunrise with headlights riding in opposing traffic
direction. George stated concern that issue was not related to issue of curfew.
Arnst moved, and Schaff seconded, to direct the City Attorney to review
Minnesota Statute 84.87 Subd. 1(a): Operation on streets and highways,
noting if that portion of the Southwest LRT that runs parallel to Smith town
Road, a County Road, would be in conflict with the sunrise to sunset
provision which requires headlights not be directed towards oncoming
traffic.
George pointed out that this issue did not seem to belong under Curfew. Co-chair
Colopoulos agreed with George, noting the question does not apply to Curfew in a
concrete fashion.
Arnst pointed out that "sunset" relates to time and the Curfew issue.
Motion was defeated 3-2 with 1 abstaining. Co-chair Colopoulos, George
and Peterson voted against, Arnst and Schaff voted in favor, Co-chair
Kolstad abstained.
Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, to explore curfew policy changes.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arnst expressed concern that an 11:00 curfew does not allow for a good night's sleep if
you live next to the trail. Co-chair Kolstad reminded Task Force to speak to issue of
whether or not there is a problem with the curfew.
Marshik reported survey findings of 21 % said increasing curfew times (lengthening time,
making it more restrictive) would be an option they would like to be explored.
Co-chair Kolstad noted curfew citation violations as entered in the Complaint Database are
generally between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
George noted tightening of curfew restrictions would cause more violations. He stated
only eight violations occurred after 11:00 p.m.
Arnst requested to add information to the parking lot pertaining to an early night's sleep.
Request was denied because of current motion on the floor.
Co-chair Kolstad added that the Task Force consider Chief Young's input that if the curfew
was made more restrictive it would increase the violations and enforcement time; if the
curfew was made less restrictive it would reduce the violations and enforcement time. In
addition, Co-chair Kolstad noted if changes will be made in the curfew time, the Task
Force should consider whether or not the impact will improve anything by said change.
Marshik clarified that by choosing to discuss a policy change area does not necessarily
mean the further discussion will result in future changes. It means the Task Force will look
at alternatives (per discussion guidelines accepted previously).
Schaff referred to the noise study conducted by the Southwest Trail Association which
talks about disturbance of sleep being one of biggest issues related to noise.
Discussion of curfew may be difficult without discussion of noise as well.
Schaff noted Mr. Puzak recommended 10:00 p.m. curfew. Mr. Puzak responded by
saying that 10:00 would be "entertained" if snowmobiling would be allowed for a long
time. It was a negotiated position.
Marshik reported survey findings showed snowmobiles are not as annoying as barking
dogs. 84 respondents said snowmobile noise compared to the most annoying noise they
were aware of was the most annoying, 195 said it was somewhat annoying, 335 said it
was not annoying at all, and 120 said it was not applicable because there were no
snowmobilers in the area.
Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, the Task Force consider exploring
curfew policy changes. Vote called: Schaff - yea, Arnst - yea, Peterson _
nay, George - nay, Co-chair Kolstad - nay, Co-chair Colopoulos - nay.
Motion defeated 4-2.
15. POLICY CHANGE AREA THREE - SPEED LIMITS
Co-chair Kolstad commented that the Alternate and Advisory members are not to discuss
when motions are on table. Members must rely on data in the Policy Information Binder,
or previously accepted data, for making policy change area recommendations. Advisory
personnel and alternates can utilize point of information to direct input to the Task Force.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 9
Marshik introduced survey findings, noting that huge amounts of misinformation existed,
people did not seem to know what the speed limits are.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, to address the current speed limit policy
area for change in the City of Shorewood.
Schaff stated she would like to see one citywide speed limit. One speed limit would allow
residents to have no question as to whether one was speeding on the street, on the trail,
wherever you are it would be one speed limit.
George suggested placing more signage on trail, and throughout the community, to assist
in educating residents about current speed limits for snowmobiles.
Vote called: Schaff, aye; Arnst aye; Peterson, aye; George, aye; Co-chair
Kolstad, aye. Motion approved unanimously.
Discussion of chair voting occurred. Determined that presiding Co-chair, Mr. Colopoulos,
would not be voting during policy change area discussion unless a tie-vote must be broken.
Robert's Rules would support the chair abstaining. George requested more information on
which Co-chair would be presiding over future meetings. The chairs will discuss and
respond.
The Task Force will vote by a show of hands, and the chair will abstain unless there is a
tie.
Due to time constraints, speed limit discussion will be tabled until the next meeting. The
remaining policy change areas will be briefly looked at to see if people want to entertain any
changes for those areas, if so, further discussion will be tabled until the next meeting as
well.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, George seconded, that further discussion 0 n
speed limits be tabled and the Task Force proceed with discussion about
Policy Change Area 6, Noise Abatement. Motion passed unanimously.
16. POLICY CHANGE AREA 4 - SNOWMOBILE IDENTIFICATION
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Peterson seconded, that there be no further
discussion on the issue of snowmobile identification.
Co-chair Kolstad noted that she was unsure how much of this is in local control. Many
identification issues are determined by the State and other agencies.
Arnst noted that it is difficult to identify snowmobiles and the snowmobile driver because
the registration number is small and hard to read. It is difficult to identify the driver
because of the outerwear usually including a full helmet, goggles, thick clothing, unmarked
from the outside, and inability to identify height, weight, etc.
Hurm noted that Task Force could recommend to Council that they approach the
appropriate bodies that there is concern regarding this area.
Schaff noted that Hurm had previously written to an agency noting that difficulty of
identifying and enforcing smaller snowmobile registration displays.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
George noted that there are a variety of ways to identify vehicles, but it could be a waste of
the Task Force's time to proceed with discussing snowmobile identification. The Council
may want to address it, but the Task Force should not continue to discuss snowmobile
identification.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Peterson seconded, there be no further discussion
on the issue of Snowmobile Identification. Motion defeated 3-2.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, that further discussion on the
issue of Snowmobile Identification Policy Area be done to formulate a
recommendation to City Council with respect to providing a position to the
State on this issue. Motion passed 4-1.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Arnst seconded, the Task Force table discussion
of Snowmobile Identification until the next meeting, and move onto
discussion of Noise Abatement Policy. Motion passed unanimously.
17. POLICY CHANGE AREA 6 - NOISE ABATEMENT
Schaff moved, Co-chair Kolstad seconded, that the Task Force further look
into noise abatement.
Schaff noted that the Southwest Trail Association conducted a decibel study many years
ago but the study was done 50 feet from the trail. Schaff feels that the study did not do a
good service to all the citizens of Shorewood because most homes are within 40 feet from
the roadway and many homes are five feet or less from the right-of-way so the concerns of
these citizens were not taken into account. Also not taken into account was the fact that
pedestrians and cross-country skiers are on the trail so the decibel reading that the
Southwest Trail Association conducted was strictly for homes or an area 50 feet from the
trail. Sometimes people are within two feet of a snowmobile. Schaff referred to the Policy
Information Binder, Item 6.5C, which stated that "even though legislation had been
designed to control noise output in order to protect both the operator and the passenger,
and to reduce the environmental impact, customer demand for high horsepower however
tends to work against noise abatements for snowmobiles." Another reference was to how
noise harms more than ears, unrelated to decibel readings.
Schaff also cited ratings of many home and yard equipment that were considered
exceedingly noisy, including snowmobiles. This is related to curfew, as well, because the
time of day you hear the noise seems relevant. The Southwest Trail Association study,
page 6 Human Reaction, identifies the disturbance of sleep as one of the most common
reasons given when complaining about noise, including facts listed.
Marshik noted a survey question related to noise, stating that results conclude noise is a
broad-based issue with a significant number of respondents noting many different kinds of
noise such as construction noise, traffic noise and others. Dogs, by far, were the greatest
source of annoying noise, neighbor noise rated second, and motor boat as well as
snowmobile noise rated third.
Schaff pointed out City Ordinance 245 regulates loud and unnecessary noise. Ms. Schaff
noted snowmobile noise, for some people, is an annoyance and disturbance and would like
to have further discussion on the subject.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 1996 - PAGE 11
Arnst noted people do not have the ability to do anything about noise. This Task Force,
however, has the chance to do something about noise regulation and should not pass on
this opportunity.
George noted the data supplied was from 1978, and that the information seemed to be more
of an opinion, and asked if there was documentation. Schaff stated there was
documentation.
Co-chair Colopoulos moved the question. Marshik suggested bringing written alternatives
to the Task Force for decision-making.
Vote called on the motion, motion carried 3-1 with one abstention.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, that discussion on the issue 0 f
noise be tabled until the next meeting. Motion carried 4-0.
18. NEXT MEETING DATE/REMINDERS
The Co-chairs requested members to be prepared for policy change area discussions for the
next meeting.
When consideration of a policy change area had been completed, Schaff asked if minority
opinions were to be added. It was confIrmed that minority opinions would be included if
written and submitted to the Task Force.
Arnst requested a copy of all individual trail walk reports. A copy of the reports will be
provided upon request.
19. ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35
pm. Motion carried unanimously.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Rebecca A. Tarvin, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
WEDNESDA Y, MAY 1, 1996 6:00 - 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Kolstad called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Voting Members Present: John Arnst, Co-chair Bi1l Colopoulos, Dana George, Co-chair
Virginia Kolstad, Warren Peterson, and Ingrid Schaff
Staff! Alternates Present: City Administrator Jim Hurm, Snow Patrol Representative
Dan Puzak, Staff Research Assistant Becky Tarvin, Planning
Commission Alternate Laura Turgeon, and Police Chief Rick
Young
Recording Secretaries: Rebecca Tarvin, Karen Bauerly
Staff! Alternates Absent: Park Commission Alternate Roxanne Martin
Facilitator: Judy Marshik, Research Quik (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
2. GROUND RULES
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the ground rules including directing the Task Force to
immediately acknowledge any conflict of interest; i.e. any member that may have a personal
gain as a result of any decision of this Task Force. Following this request, no members
noted a conflict of interest.
Co-chair Kolstad will be chairing the new policy area discussion. Co-chair Colopoulos
will chair the continued policy area discussion from the last meeting. The Co-chairs, as
active Task Force participants, will also be voting on all Task Force decisions.
3 . REVIEW OF MINUTES (4/25/96)
Schaff noted from the April 10 minutes that the content of the presentations was not
adequately reflected in the minutes.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, to attach a transcript, written by Ms.
Schaff, of the four presentations from the April 10 Task Force meeting to
the Minutes from April 10, subject to review of the Task Force. Motion
passed unanimously, 6-0.
Schaff noted in the April 25 meeting that point of order was conveyed by Advisory member
Puzak and should be included in the minutes. Point of order was called four times and will
be included as a correction in the minutes under Police Interviews.
Co-chair Colopoulos noted the Unknown second should be striken from the record under
Review of Minutes.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE J.\tIEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arnst noted on page 9 he had specifically noted that not only do you have to get the number
of the snowmobile but one must identify the rider and it is difficult to identify the rider
because of a full face helmet, goggles, clothing, etc.
George moved, and Peterson seconded, to accept the minutes with amended
changes. After no further discussion, motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
4. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Schaff said the emphasis on the ban/no ban as part of the survey should be reconsidered as
there are 17 policy change areas. She stated there are many other concerns not solely
related to the ban/no ban policy change area. Schaff encouraged that the survey, as well as
all other data, be used for policymaking decisions.
Turgeon noted the Task Force "customer" on an external level is the resident of
Shorewood. On an internal level the customer would be the City Council. The Task Force
should substantiate findings based on "customer" input and needs.
Co-chair Colopoulos noted the Task Force should remain dedicated to using the overall
results of the survey for assisting in policymaking.
George was concerned that the survey was being used as more than one piece of the
information gathered and cautioned other Task Force members to look at the survey results
as one piece of information as a part of a bigger picture. He also noted that while many
results in the survey reveal public perception, the actual facts (for example tresspassing)
mayor may not be accurate.
Co-chair Kolstad noted because of the high response to the survey the Council had
informed them that the survey will be a big factor in their decisions.
Schaff noted that she has contacted Hennepin Park Rangers regarding more information on
the trail accident involving snowmobiles on December 17. She had requested this
information two times from City staff and is now pursuing it on her own.
4. OPEN ISSUES
Final Survey Results
Marshik said requests for survey cross-tabbing (comparing responses of one answer with
some or all of the responses to other questions) are being accepted. Currently the survey
shows riders/no riders, those who support a ban/no ban, and all respondents by zone.
Schaff had requested each policy change area be cross-tabbed. Marshik noted the survey
could be divided up with the way responses were presented to include findings for each
policy change area.
Tarvin explained the City has requested the following cross-tabs: question number 2, those
living within one block of the trail related to location of respondent be cross-tabbed with all
answers; questions #8 and #9, past twelve months of riding with possible trail closure, be
cross-tabbed with each other to note trail users and access to those trails; and, question
# 11, use of the trail when snowmobiles have been present, be cross-tabbed with all
responses to note winter-user's responses to survey.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 3
George moved, Peterson seconded, to support the City's request for cross-
tabs requested by the City be obtained. Any further requests by Task Force
members for cross-tabs will be approved by the Task Force prior to
reporting. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Final Results Police Interviews
Marshik noted Police Interview Results will not be available until the end of the week.
5 . NEW POLICY ANALYSIS
5(a). POLICY CHANGE AREA EIGHT - SAFETY
The Task Force members reviewed each question in the Policy Infonnation Binder for
policy area 8.
George suggested violations related to safety would include speeding, no safety training for
younger operators, and improper operation. Registration violations and curfew are not
really a safety issue.
Schaff clarified that Webster's Dictionary defmes "safety" beyond actual violations and
includes a "safety zone" and also is related to ". . . location, health, no risk, no danger,
unable to cause trouble or damage. . .". Schaff also noted that safety is all inclusive and it
is hard to separate safety from any of the other policy change area issues. She also noted
that many survey responses relate to safety.
George reported in the Police Officer Interviews officers had mentioned injuries had
occured, but questioned how they were reported since the Complaint Database did not
reveal any injuries in Shorewood.
Co-chair Kolstad asked if the citizens are fearful for their safety when encountering
snowmobile riders. Schaff noted in response to survey question 22, 30% strongly
disagreed they were comfortable in the presence of snowmobiles and 21 % disagreed or felt
uncomfortable, therefore 51 % of the people felt uncomfortable in the presence of
snowmobiles and their riders.
Schaff noted survey question 21 showed that 75% of respondents did not understand right-
of-way.
Turgeon noted 54% of the survey respondents said they are concerned about their safety on
the trail.
Tarvin referred to a memo noting the capabilities of the Excelsior Fire Department, via their
snowmobile, to assist in safety and rescue operations.
George said the possible intrinsic value to others that use the trail even though it is groomed
for snowmobiling. If the trail is not groomed for snowmobiling, other grooming issues
would need to be addressed.
Schaff noted the citizens of Shorewood have not had the opportunity to be on a trail that is
groomed for walking or cross-country skiing in the City and the survey respondent's were
favorable towards feelings of safety.
Marshik noted the survey addressed this issue.
SNO\VMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, to further discuss the Policy Change Area
Eight Safety.
Schaff stated the safety policy area crosses over into many areas including tresspassing,
damage, right-of-way, noise, property boundaries (considered by owner to be a safe area).
Alcohol contributes to the discussion of safety as an issue, children not property trained,
speed limits, and the survey noted signage and curfew as concerns. Also the police
interviews noted safety concerns several times. Schaff noted this is the third task force on
this issue. The fIrst task force briefly discussed safety. Chief Young has also addressed
the issue of safety, as well as safety issues are inclucted in the Comp Plan for the City, and
Hennepin County has addressed it as far as enforcement. The Snow Patrol plays an issue
in the safety area through education. Included in the binder referred to as Appendix L,
Arnst and Schaff referred to an accident summary report, information from MADD
(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) as part of the State Snowmobile Task Force which
shows there is a great concern for the welfare of snowmobilers and their families.
Personally, Schaff stated she believes there is a great concern for safety.
George agreed that there are defInitely perceived safety problems, based on the studies
reviewed and the survey fIndings. George noted the Task Force must look further at the
data to determine what the issues are. He said it would be helpful to look at the data
pertaining to trail; the survey noted concern but 54% of respondents still supported keeping
snowmobiles on the trail. It may either be a safety issue or an enforcement issue.
Arnst stated even snowmobilers fear for their safety of other operating snowmobiles. 28%
of riders agreed or said snowmobilers presented a hazard on the trail. Arnst referred to a
newspaper article not submitted to the Task Force. He discussed as trails mature they
generally change how they are used.
Marshik noted 28% (61 of 215) of riders agreed or strongly agreed snowmobiles present a
real safety hazard on the trail.
Peterson agreed safety issues need to be addressed.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated his concern of the link between safety and education. He
would like to request Task Force advisors for information on formulating education
policies toward increasing the effort.
Marshik noted survey question #30 showed that 51 % support and 49% do not support
snowmobile use on the trail. Marshik did clarify margin of error would be +/- 2% to 4%.
Co-chair Kolstad said there are concerns by residents, riders and in general related to
safety .
Schaff will provide a cross-referenced report correlating safety with other policy change
area issues to be attached to the minutes. [Attachment 1]
Co-chair Colopoulos noted Shorewood's basic safety record is good, and we should look
at further prevention measures.
Motion was re-read: Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, further discussion
the Policy Change Area Eight Safety, be continued. Motion passed
unanimously, 6-0.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 5
5(b). POLICY CHANGE AREA FOURTEEN - RIGHT OF WAY
Schaff stated she feels Right of Way is a very important issue. She noted this item has
been addressed by all three Task Forces, and going back to some of the old Park and
Council meetings there was concern about the right of way issue. She pointed out that
back in 1991, the Park Commissioners felt that the right of way issue was not addressed.
Marshik pointed out they should probably distinguish between traffic right of way and
property right of way. Co-Chair Kolstad noted that because of the way the Policy Change
Area is constructed, they are both included.
Schaff referenced the survey for question one - Where is it legal to ride? She stated the
survey points out there are some people who consider people riding on the edges of their
yard a right of way issue. Schaff referenced question twelve and stated 23% strongly felt
that people were riding on the edges of their yard, and 18% stated that people were in the
center of their yard. She noted there are two ways to look at it, the f1rSt being property
rights and the second being a boulevard/right of way issue. Schaff referenced question
fifteen of the survey which stated that 55% of the people indicated that riding on the
boulevard should not be allowed. She further referenced questions 21 and 24 in the survey
which indicated 75% of the people stated they understood the traffic right of way. Marshik
suggested that it would be helpful for the discussion if they indicated if it is traffic right of
way or property right of way they are discussing.
Schaff referenced the Policy Information Binder regarding the Right of Way issues, noting
that it states, what is the legal definition of a boulevard, platted versus un-platted lots. She
stated that part of that defInition is the portion of the street which is not a traveled surface.
She again reiterated there have always been problems with this issue as documented in
previous Council minutes, and this is the third time this policy area is being addressed.
She stated in 1993, an ordinance was rewritten to make it clear where the right of way was,
where people could/could not ride. Schaff indicated that if you go back into the minutes of
the present Task Force, this issue is very unclear.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated her concern regarding the discussion of data that the Task Force
does not have or has not yet introduced. Schaff stated the information being presented is in
the Policy Information Binder, and she was confused because the data book that she and
Arnst put together was accepted at the April 10, 1996 meeting. Marshik pointed out
information that is not listed behind the Policy Change Areas should be considered as not
accessible information.
Tarvin clarified that there were numerous discussions that took place as to what does/does
not get included in the Policy Information Binder. She stated the items that are in the
notebook answer the original policy area questions; however, being the information
submitted by Schaff and Arnst was accepted at the April 10, 1996 meeting, it was agreed
they would save Staff the efforts of photocopying and incorporating it into the Policy
Information Binder. She noted Appendix L was added which lists the Table of Contents
from the binder that was accepted. She indicated it was requested that Schaff note what
section it is in so people can refer to it on their own. Schaff stated that was acceptable.
Marshik clarified regarding information that has not been submitted prior to this meeting
and information that has been submitted previously (even if it is not in each notebook).
Co-Chair Kolstad stated her concern was that they must have the opportunity to review the
information. Tarvin clarified that all participants have had the opportunity to review the
April 10, 1996 binder, and other information.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Schaff stated that in her discussions she would refer to where the information came from,
and referenced a listing she has noting everything she has discussed, location of the source,
name of the document, and what tab it came out of. She indicated that copies could be
made available if the Task Force wanted to incorporate them.
George added there has been lengthy discussion on the right of way by the City, which is
on a case-by-case basis. He stated he didn't see any way, in the future, for the City to
change right of way laws. He stated that with the information given from South Lake and
the survey regarding property damage, the information does not coincide. George stated he
did not see any pertinent information that they could use to change the right of way laws
and said for the most part people should know these laws.
Arnst added that Brad Nielsen informed the Task Force that the boulevard portion of the
streets was never intended for vehicular use, it is a buffer zone. Co-Chair Kolstad asked if
Nielsen responded to her memo regarding riding on boulevards. Tarvin stated he did
respond. Tarvin distributed a copy of this memo to all Task Force members.
Arnst questioned right of way pertaining to traffic. He noted snowmobiles are restricted to
riding with traffic, not against traffic on the shoulder. He stated this is a 'gray' area which
needs to be addressed.
Peterson stated he would like snowmobiles as far off the street as possible and not on the
streets.
Co-Chair Kolstad added she feels there is a lot of confusion as to what the ordinance
says/does not say or what is legal/not legal with this issue. She stated she thought the Task
Force could clarify some of the issues so people could be properly educated.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated he agreed with Co-Chair Kolstad (with the exception that it
needs to be considered as one area) with the consensus of opinion regarding the possibility
of restriction. He noted of snowmobilers that were surveyed, the majority of them claim to
be riding outside of Shorewood.
Referencing question number 34 of the survey, Schaff pointed out it stated that 40% of
riders and 34% of the citizens are in favor of restricting riding areas. She further stated that
55% of the survey respondents did say that riding on the boulevard should not be allowed.
Schaff moved and Arnst seconded to further address Policy Area Fourteen
on Right of Way based on extensive data that shows many areas of
concern. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
5 (c). POLICY CHANGE AREA SEVEN - PROPERTY DAMAGE
Schaff stated her concern regarding why there is no information to substantiate the survey.
She noted that 98% of 107 people surveyed stated there was no property damage. Schaff
indicated her curiosity as to why people would not report property damage.
Marshik clarified that Schaff is curious as to why the City has not received as many
complaints on property damage as the survey indicates. She noted the police could be
requested to provide information as to why a complaint was not recorded or the perpetrator
not identified.
Schaff questioned if a report is needed to be filed to be recorded as property damage.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 7
George questioned if someone called in property damage, and the snowmobile had already
gone, would the police still fIle a report.
Young confIrmed that if the police were called, they would fIle a report even if the
snowmobile had left the property.
George reiterated the survey indicates 85% of people have not seen property damage occur.
He stated the information documented from South Lake indicates there is no signifIcant
amount of property damage and if there is, it is isolated cases.
Arnst stated that he has information from trail walks that were taken showing off-trail
riding that may have caused damage to the vegetation and the trees.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated that based on the data, there doesn't appear to a serious problem
with property damage and indicated that as an issue, it probably doesn't need a lot of
attention by the Task Force.
Schaff moved and Arnst seconded to further address Policy Area Seven 0 n
Property Damage. Vote called: Arnst - yea, Peterson - nay, George - nay,
Co-Chair Colopoulos - nay, Co-Chair Kolstad - nay, Schaff - yea. Motion
defeated 4-2.
Puzak stated that property damage is something the Snow Patrol spends a lot of time
looking at. He indicated property damage is illegal, is being addressed seriously, and there
are good laws that address the problem. Puzak added that the incidents of property damage
are very low and he felt it is not a big issue.
Schaff questioned if the Snow Patrol has documentation of the property damage they
observed, and if it had been provided to the Task Force. Puzak indicated that they do have
documentation, and that it has been provided to the Task Force.
5(d). POLICY CHANGE AREA ELEVEN
TRESP ASS
PROPERTY RIGHTSI
Schaff stated that based on the data in the survey, item number eight regarding city streets,
27% of the people surveyed indicated that they ride snowmobiles on city streets, and 24%
ride on street boulevards. She indicated that until the boulevard issue is clarifIed, she feels
it should be brought up as property rights even though it is public property. Schaff
referenced item twelve on the survey that shows 23% of people say there is riding on the
edge of their yards, and 18 % indicated riding in the center of their yards. Item fIfteen of
the survey indicates that 55% of the people are against snowmobilers riding on the
boulevards, and of 75% of the people questioned, 21 % said they were unclear what the
right of way was. She indicated that in her opinion, the information states there are people
who are very unclear of what the right of way is. Schaff also noted regarding speed limits,
that of 66% of the people surveyed, 32% stated they were unsure of the speed limits. She
also noted 34% of the people surveyed would like to restrict areas of riding. Schaff
indicated that she felt property rights and trespass also crosses over into right of way, and
should be an area that is looked into. Schaff referenced a Shorewood ordinance as to
where snowmobiles can/cannot ride, noted officers have also made reference to this issue,
and it was also referenced in the Task Force minutes of January 23, 1996. She stated there
is concern from the residents of Shorewood regarding property rights and trespassing.
George stated he thought the survey is contradictory to what South Lake has documented
for property rights and trespassing. He noted the City has indicated, on different
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
occasions, that the burden of proof is on the owner to prove trespassing. George stated
there are laws in place for violators that trespass, and the number of instances are relatively
low. He restated the survey and actual reports contradict one another.
Peterson stated he felt the trespassing issue was not that big of a problem.
Arnst gave an example regarding the Minnewashta Church and written permission to ride
snowmobiles across the property. He stated he felt this is a very 'gray' area and thought
the Snowmobile Association needed to have written permission to ride snowmobiles across
private property. He indicated he has not seen a lot of documentation regarding this issue
made available to the Task Force. -
George questioned if it would be a ticketed offense if the police stopped a snowmobiler
who had written permission. Young stated no, they could not ticket them.
Marshik clarified that Arnst and George are agreeing it is a r gray' area and there are very
clear laws but law enforcement is difficult due to the interpretation of people.
Schaff stated in the officer's interviews, they did not know what the right of way was for
the trail, and assumed it was sixty-feet wide; however, a document from Hennepin County
indicates it is forty feet ( ten-foot center and fifteen feet on each side). She indicated there
could be times when the officers thought someone was not in the right of way when they
actually were. She also agreed that it is a 'gray' area.
Turgeon indicated this is an area that the Snow Patrol gets involved with the Police
Department for enforcement, and there is no process as to how they become involved.
Marshik clarified that even though they may not work on rewriting the laws, they may want
to work on law enforcement education.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated with regard to trespassing, there is a law on the books, and only
41 % are actually crossing private property. She indicated she would be curious as to what
the cross-tabs would show and stated it is an education issue that will fall under clarifying
the usage and right of way issue.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated that there is some confusion regarding the law, how it reads,
and how they can expect reasonable people to understand it. He indicated he felt making a
suggestion as to how they can make the ordinance clearer and more understandable was
needed.
With respect to the 150 foot buffer zone on Lake Minnetonka, Arnst stated it is a noise
buffer, and used for skating, skiing, and playing on the ice, etc. He indicated that maybe
implementing this on some of the in-land lakes would be a reasonable solution.
Schaff moved and Arnst seconded to further address Policy Area Eleven on
Property Rights/Trespass. Vote called: Arnst - aye, George - nay, Peterson
- nay, Schaff - yea, Co-Chair Colopoulos - yea, Co-Chair Kolstad - yea.
Motion passed 4-2.
6. POLICY CHANGE AREA SEVENTEEN - REVENUE
George moved and Peterson seconded that there be no further discussion on
Policy Area Seventeen on Revenue. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 9
George explained he wrote a memo asking City Staff what costs were incurred. Staff
indicated that in their records there were no costs directly incurred by the City for
snowmobiling. He stated that the registration is set through the State, and the attorney
stated the City would not have the ability to charge special permit fees. George indicated
for this reason, he felt there was no need to further address it.
It was the general consensus of the Task Force that they agree with the motion as stated by
George.
7(4). POLICY CHANGE
IDENTIFICA TION
AREA
FOUR
SNOWMOBILE
Marshik commented on the importance of having alternatives listed on the notepad so the
group, as a whole, has a document to review. She also indicated it would be very helpful
for the minutes if the alternatives that are being recommended are submitted in writing.
1. Snowmobile Identification
A. City Council to adopt a position to present to the State, i.e. letters to be a certain height
(higher than current 1 7/8"),3" high, standardized block letters, similar to boat license law.
B. Placement should be on forward and side part of sled and contrasting color and
reflectorized.
C. Parallel to boat license law.
D. Shorewood residents having a specific method of identification, i.e. a flag.
E. Identification of rental vehicles similar to Wisconsin law.
Co-Chair Kolstad indicated with this issue, they were going to make a recommendation to
the City Council to adopt a position related to identification and forward it to the State.
Marshik clarified this information.
Co-Chair Colopoulos gave an example that the City Council may suggest the snowmobile
identification letters and numbers be larger than they are now.
Schaff referenced two letters under section Insurance Safety Certificates and Registration,
written to Jim Hurm from Gen Olson in the State Senate, in which they were thanking Mr.
Hurm for expressing his concern for the proposed changes in the snowmobile registration
number size. She noted the City of Shorewood was very concerned, and asked that they
not eliminate the three inch numbering system.
Co-Chair Kolstad questioned if there was a number size or placement of the snowmobile
identification letters/numbers that would make for easier identification.
George indicated they were more visible when contrasting the color. He indicated they
were more identifiable than with the new little white stickers that the State gives. He also
noted that they are smaller (2" high), and the State is not as restrictive as to where they are
placed. George stated he felt the identification placement should be on the forward part of
the sled and be three inches in height. Schaff clarified that the new stickers from the State
are 1 7/8" high.
Puzak stated the stickers are State issued, are black and white, and reflective. He indicated
they are standard but still too small. Puzak suggested everyone should request bigger
reflectorized block letters with a contrasting color scheme which would help in the
identification of snowmobiles.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Schaff questioned if a person has to file a formal complaint if they see a violation and can
identify the snowmobile registration number. She gave the example of four snowmobiles
by her house that were riding in the middle of the street. She proceeded to follow them,
was driving 30 mph, and could not keep up with them. Schaff stated she did go to their
residence and write down the registration numbers but was reluctant to fIle a fonnal
complaint. She stated that it's great to have a resource available to identify someone;
however, that person would have to file a formal complaint before anything is done.
Young stated this is correct, and the officer has to witness the violation. He Stated they
need to look beyond that at the law enforcement officer's ability to identify the snowmobile
when a violation does happen in their presence. Y oong stated it helps tremendously if they
can identify with the use of the registration numbers, and track the party down. He
indicated it is possible the snowmobiler could commit a more serious crime where the
offIcer does not have to be present, and a fonnal complaint would not have to be filed.
Co-Chair Kolstad asked if it is possible for the State to require manufacturers to have a
space on the snowmobiles for identifIcation. It was the general consensus of the Task
Force that the State could require a certain space for identifIcation on the snowmobiles.
Tarvin stated the Minnesota Snowmobile Handbook indicates the current identifIcation
space is to be three inches by seven inches. Peterson pointed out that snowmobilers do not
have to use the sticker that is supplied, they can have the identifIcation painted on if they
wish.
Arnst stated on the initial Task Force there is mention of an orange flag (Brooklyn Park),
where the people who are local to the community display this flag. He indicated this item
was addressed at the fIrst Task Force meeting; however, there is nothing on it in print.
Young stated that he did recall this item was discussed; however, they had decided not to
pursue it because it would be difficult to enforce with people coming in from out of the
area.
Arnst stated if the local residents were to display these flags, indicating they are going to
abide by the rules, they would be able to identify violators that have no flags.
Young indicated he did not know what that would do as far as real identifIcation, which is
what they are looking at. He stated he didn't know if they could require Shorewood
residents to have a flag.
n. Operator IdentifIcation
A. Snowmobile license similar to driver's license.
B. For children under driving age a special snowmobile license.
e. Education enforcement on the current snowmobile owner's accountability.
D. Must have valid driver's license to operate snowmobile on the street.
E. Must have picture LD.
F. Make minimum age 16 with driver's license.
-less than 300 cc for those under 16 years old
Co-Chair Colopoulos indicated he was thinking in relation to motorcycles/motor vehicles
where their auto license states they are licensed to operate that particular vehicle. Marshik
clarified that the auto license serves as the snowmobiler's license.
Peterson stated when you have completed the snowmobiling course, you also receive a
certifIcate.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 11
George stated the person who has registered the snowmobile and the person riding it are
supposed to carry the State card that states they are registered for that vehicle. He noted
that by law, the card is to be carried at all times and it is an offense that can be ticketed.
George questioned if there is any way to make the owner of the vehicle accountable for
violations even if the driver wasn't identified as driving the snowmobile. Schaff indicated
there is a law that whoever owns the vehicle is responsible.
Tarvin added that every snowmobile has a vehicle identification number (VIN), similar to a
car, and with many of Sheriff Departments they will impound the sled if they catch
someone that does not have the proper registration. ~
Schaff indicated that some cities are not allowing anyone who does not have a driver's
license to operate on the street. She stated these cities were limiting children as a way of
identifying people.
George stated that another issue to look at is requiring a snowmobiler to a minimum of a
Minnesota State Photo Identification card.
Arnst suggested that they determine some way to distinguish between owned and rented
vehicles.
George indicated he thought Wisconsin may have a law that is similar to this request. He
stated he thought the snowmobile was labeled with "rental". George noted that further
information on this should be gathered.
Schaff stated between 1990 and 1994 in Hennepin County, there were over 64,000 eight-
to twelve-year-olds driving snowmobiles, and only 2.4% of them had a safety certificate.
Puzak suggested that for the driver's license to be more successful, they limit the speed of
the snowmobile to less than 300 cc's for children under the age of sixteen. He indicated
this still leaves the opportunity for the children to learn the sport, but with more safety.
Co-Chair Kolstad suggested that they assign a Sub-Group to obtain more detail on the
alternatives, and submit written recommendations.
Marshik concurred and further suggested to separate the motion into vehicle identification
and operator identification so there is a separate motion on each one, and to remove the
safety issues.
George moved and Peterson seconded to assign a Sub-Group to address
Operator Identification and Snowmobile Identification Alternatives and
present written recommendations to the Task Force. The motion passed
unanimously, 6-0.
Co-Chair Colopoulos asked for volunteers for the Sub-Group. George and Kolstad
volunteered to serve on the Sub-Group and address both alternatives.
Co-Chair Colopoulos tabled the discussion on Policy Change Area Three - Speed Limits
and Six - Noise Abatement until the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING DATE REMINDER
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
May 1, 1996 - PAGE 12
Co-Chair Colopoulos reminded the Task Force of their next meeting scheduled for
Saturday, May 11, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
Schaff moved and Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The
motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Rebecca A. Tarvin, Recording Secretary
Karen K. Bauerly, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
9:00 A.M. . 12:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Kolstad called the meeting to order at 9:04 A.M.
Voting Members Present:
John Arnst, Co-Chair Bill Colopoulos, Co-Chair Virginia
Kolstad, Warren Eeterson, and Ingrid Schaff
City Administrator Hurm, Snow Patrol Representative Dan
Puzak, City Engineer Larry Brown
Cheryl Wallat
Staff! Alternates Present:
Recording Secretary:
Staff! Alternates Absent:
Dana George, Staff Research Assistant Rebecca Tarvin,
Planning Commission Alternate Laura Turgeon, and Police
Chief Rick Young
Judy Marshik, Research Quik
Facilitator:
2. GROUND RULES
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the ground rules including directing the Task Force to immediately
acknowledge any conflict of interest; i.e. any member that may have a personal gain as a result of
any decision of the Task Force. The co-chairs are the spokespersons for the Task Force.
3. REVIEW OF MINUTES (5/1/96)
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded to approve the May 1, 1996, Task Force meeting
minutes. Motion passed 5/0.
4. MEETING DATES
Co-chair Kolstad inquired if the Thursday meetings could begin at 5:30 p.m. at which time Dana
would be available to attend. The 5:30 p.m. time was not feasible for other Task Force members,
therefore, the following schedule was agreed upon: Wednesday, May 15,6:00 to 9:00; Thursday,
May 23, 6:00 to 9:00; and the meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 6:00 to 9:00 will remain
as scheduled pending future discussion.
5. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Co-Chair Kolstad asked Schaff to explain the information which was mailed to each of the Task
Force Members. Schaff explained one handout concerned speed. It describes a 900cc
snowmobile being produced by Arctic Cat and she stated the rest of the industry is following that
pattern. The second handout is a photocopy of Minnesota Statutes 1994, ~ 13.44, Property
Complaint Data which Schaff read to the group. Schaff explained this would be a consideration
when speaking of safety and enforcement. She explained when a citizen makes a complaint and
their name, address and telephone number is given to the snow patrol, she would like to ensure the
City of Shorewood has complied with that statute when giving this information to people who are
not police officers. The snow patrol has frequently stated they are an educational group.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated Police Chief Young had written a comment on this subject and it was read
to the Task Force members. Chief Young's memorandum explained the laws applicable to law
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
enforcement agencies take precedence over the statute referred to by Schaff which is relative to
public works, zoning, and health agencies which instruct confidentiality. The law enforcement
practices require certain reporting.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, to include the Memorandum from Police Chief
Young and Minnesota Statute ~13.44 Property Complaint Data in the Safety,
Right-of-Way, and Enforcement, and the Arctic Cat data to be included in Safety
and Enforcement. Motion passed 5/0.
Peterson stated he would not accept the transcript of the four presentations from the April 10,
1996, Task Force meeting because of the typing errors and his uncertainty as to its accuracy.
Schaff stated the tapes could be reviewed. She also apologized for the typographical errors.
Schaff stated she would have the transcripts corrected. Chair Kolstad suggested the matter be
tabled until the May 15, 1996 meeting.
Arnst submitted a photocopy of the dictionary definition of "abatement" for use in interpreting the
word "abatement" when referring to noise. Arnst also submitted a magazine article entitled,
"Snowmobiling: The Next Generation." He stated this would give the Task Force better direction.
He stated the dictionary definition should be added to the noise policy change area and the
magazine article should be added to the safety policy change areas.
Arnst move, Schaff seconded to include the dictionary definition of "abatement"
in the noise policy change area and the magazine article to be included in the
safety policy change area. Motion passed 4/1. Co-Chair Colopoulos abstained.
Co-Chair Kolstad asked from which publication the article had been extracted. Arnst stated he was
unsure of the publication.
6. OPEN ISSUES
Final Survey Results
Co-Chair Kolstad inquired if the fmal survey results were available. Marshik stated the survey
findings were completed with the exception of the updated zones. Of the surveys returned, 25 did
not reflect their zone numbers. Marshik obtained the zone numbers last Thursday and submitted
them to the data analyst. She stated she would not be handing out zoning cross tabs until the new
report is available, which she anticipates will be available by the May 15th meeting.
Marshik explained at the previous meeting, the books contained the cross tabs by zone for the 753
respondents. There were also two other cross tabs, Riders/Non-riders and BanlNo Ban. She
further stated there is a new zone report in the City notebook, however it does not include the
codes for the people who did not report which zone they live in. Marshik explained Becky Tarvin
has reviewed those questionnaires and assigned a zone to them based upon the cross streets the
resident had written in. There were two questionnaires which were unable to be coded. She
further stated she was unable to obtain that data prior to this meeting to allow her to make copies
for the Task Force which will replace the zone cross tab report. Those will be forthcoming. Thateparticular report has multiple sub reports contained in it.
Marshik stated there is an old report, Rider/Non-rider, which has been replaced with a new report,
Rider/Non-rider. The old report, Ban/No Ban, will not be replaced, at request. There is a new
report entitled Six Policy Areas.
Final Results Police Interviews
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 3
Marshik stated the police officer report is divided into two parts for each question, the officers who
were personally interviewed and the officers who sent in a written response. She stated there was
not much difference between the interview responses and the written responses.
Arnst inquired how many officers had been interviewed. Marshik stated five had been interviewed
and six sent in written reports. She stated wherever there is an indication of 1 or 3 or 4, that would
be due to an officer not writing in a comment.
Co-Chair Kolstad presented a hand out of a recommendation with regard to Policy Change Four
which she prepared along with Dana. She reviewed the various recommendations which will be
made to the City Council on snowmobile identificatiorr issues. Schaff suggested this memo be
forwarded to the State Task Force on behalf of the City of Shore wood.
Arnst inquired how many snowmobiles under the 300cc limit are made. Snow Patrol
Representative Puzak indicated every manufacturer makes one.
Schaff moved, Peterson seconded to accept the recommendations to the City
Council. Motion passed 5/0.
7. NEW POLICY ANALYSIS
7(a). SPEED LIMIT - POLICY CHANGE AREA THREE
Co-Chair Kolstad commented the Task Force had agreed at the meeting two weeks ago to discuss
this issue further. Schaff stated this issue needs to be addressed. She commented in referring to
the survey, the majority of people, riders and non-riders, do not know the legal street speed limit,
as well as 51 percent do not know the speed limit on the trail. Question 34 reflects people want
some changes. Schaff further stated her concern with speed limits, the need for safety certification
training and signage. She stated the speed limit in Victoria is 50 mph and when crossing the street,
the speed limit is 20 mph. She felt it would be appropriate to place a large, highly visible speed
limit sign reflecting the change in the speed limit. She stated the fact most residents did not know
the speed limit on the streets is 10 mph, indicates there has been a lack of effort on everyone's part
to ensure speed limits are known to riders and nonriders despite the number of years
snowmobiling has been occurring.
Schaff stated if the Task Force would get into any type of restriction, since many of the people
surveyed expressed interest in restricted riding areas, it would involve the issues of speeding,
safety and right-of-way. She stated it would be difficult to say at this point what speed limit would
be appropriate.
Schaff inquired why is there a high percentage of people who don't know the speed limit given the
education which has been happening with the snow patrol over the years. Puzak indicated this
could be due to non-snowmobilers being surveyed. Schaff stated she was not speaking of non-
snowmobilers.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated this identifies the crux of the debate which is one side stating there is a
speed problem and one side stating there is not a speed problem. He suggested photo radar to
settle the debate.
Co-Chair Kolstad inquired why there is a different speed on the trail than on the street, particularly
in light of pedestrians on the trail and there are usually not pedestrians on the street.
Puzak stated the speed limit on the streets is 10 mph, however State law prohibits riding in the
street and onto the shoulder. The question then would be are you subject to the 10 mph speed
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
limit. The only time it is permissible to ride a snowmobile in the street is in a severe weather
emergency.
Peterson stated he did not believe there were statistics indicating a major problem on the trail.
Co-Chair Kolstad asked what the public perception was regarding speed being an issue on the
trails. Schaff stated 51 percent did not know what the speed limit was. She stated a large
percentage of people indicated they were not comfortable with the speed on the trails.
Peterson indicated 490 stated they didn't know and there was a possibility those people do not ride
snowmobiles and therefore would not be aware of the speed limit. In addition, if the City does not
post the speed limit in the newspaper or on the trails, people would not know what the limit was.
Schaff commented the rules and regulations state a snowmobiler needs to be aware of the speed
limits and the locations where snowmobiling is and is not permitted.
Marshik noted three different issues had been raised.
1 . Education and Training. The public does not know the legal street speed limits; riders do
not know the trail or street speed limits; children do not have safety training.
2. Varying Speed Limits between Victoria and Shore wood and between the trails and streets.
3. Enforcement Measurement. How can the Task Force ascertain the violations are happening
and provide evidence.
Puzak inquired if the radar being referred to was the machine currently at the City Hall. Co-Chair
Colopoulos explained this is a machine which is activated by radar. As a vehicle travels in excess
of the speed limit, the radar activates, records the speed and photographs the license plate of the
vehicle. He did state it would be impractical to photograph a license plate on a snowmobile.
Puzak stated the Snow Patrol asked for the radar device, which is owned by the City, however, it
must be tripped by a tire rolling over a wire cord and the skis would cut the cord. The Snow
Patrol may use the device, however, the machine would need to be manned.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated after reading through the complaints, there is an issue on speeding which
needs to be addressed.
Co-Chair Colopoulos indicated he was restating the objective nature of his idea. He stated he does
not live on the trail and he doesn't snowmobile. This would be an objective way to fmd out what
is actually happening. He recommended gathering more data.
Arnst stated on the last snow storm he called both Chairs and mentioned the rampant speeding
which was happening out on the trail. He had also called the police hours before and no one had
responded.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded there is a problem with speed in the City 0 f
Shorewood, not limited to just the trail.
Arnst stated Peterson commented there is no control over the lakes, however, one of the lakes rules
there is a 150-foot buffer zone where there is a 10 mph speed limit. He stated that is a property
right of that lake owner. He stated the City does not have control, however it does fall within the
environment directly adjacent to that property. Co-chair Kolstad stated Shorewood does not have
any enforcement. Arnst agreed, but stated the law was being broken.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 5
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated he would like to amend the motion to include there is a need to take
more pro active steps to determine the extent and nature of possible speeding problems. He stated
his is not quite ready to state there is. He acknowledged there are members of the Task Force who
live adjacent to the trail and are in a better position to comment on that issue. He stated he very
well recognized there might be a speeding issue which needs investigation.
Marshik stated this amendment would change the nature of the motion, however, if the motion is
voted down, this could be substituted as a motion or added on to the pending motion.
Peterson stated it would be hard to determine speed simply by appearance and distinguish between
20 mph or 30 mph. ,.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated in order to vote for the motion, he would need to see hard, factual data
there is a speeding problem. Schaff referred him to the police report. She stated the officers'
interviews state there is a problem. They state there is very little they can do to enforce the speed
limit.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated the problem of enforceability runs rampant throughout the entire city.
Schaff acknowledged there are a number of variables included.
Motion passed 4/1, Warren abstained.
Recommending policy alternatives.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated the issues surrounding the problem have to do with education and signage
and that there is a difference between education for the public and education for the riders and that
another contributing factor could be the inconsistencies in the speed limit.
Co-Chair Colopoulos recommended the Task Force take pro active objective steps to determine the
exact nature of the problems. He said education and signage should also be included, since he
feels it is part of the goal and intent of the City and the snowmobile associations themselves to do
that. He further stated if the police have a problem with enforcement, then there is a need to make
some kind of recommendations to help.
Schaff stated she would like to see more outside enforcement to come in and address the problem.
She stated if the park rangers are brought in, they have radar mounted on their snowmobiles.
Schaff further stated she has asked for their assistance twice this year. She is unaware if they did
come on the trail as a result of those calls, however, they are equipped to handle this.
City Administrator Hurm stated the Task Force should discuss enforcement internally as well. The
Fire Department has a snowmobile. Shore wood also has its own officer who could perhaps be
trained. He stated there should be a very coordinated effort between what the City does internally
and externally and plan for the winter and have an enforcement program.
Schaff asked if the DNR would provide funding. Co-Chair Colopoulos stated there are a lot of
common sense recommendations which could be helpful.
Hurm stated to decrease the number of speeders, snowmobilers need to know there is an increased
risk of getting caught. Schaff stated this is a good recommendation, but where does funding come
from. Hurm stated that would not be for the Task Force to determine.
Arnst stated manpower is an issue. He stated he would like to see a duty roster for the community.
Hurm stated current manpower could be coordinated.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-Chair Kolstad stated there is a need to pull the recommendations together. She stated it may be
an appropriate time to use a sub group.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated if there are issues such as signage, enforcement and education, the Snow
Patrol, the City, and the Police Department could be asked to submit their recommendations to the
Task Force.
Puzak stated there are definitely areas where the speed limit signs could be improved. Education
has been a problem because the only people allowed to train the certificate class is a DNR officer.
In the months of October and November, there are not enough instructors to get everyone trained.
This is also the beginning of hunting season. There is (f small window of time for the testing and
class size is limited.
Schaff stated this is the third Task Force. The Snow Patrol has been in existence in the City of
Shorewood since 1988. She inquired why it has taken this many years to be so pro active with
education and all of the issues which have been continuous in the community year after year. She
stated the City needs something other than the Snow Patrol. Puzak stated the Snow Patrol has
been in existence since 1990.
Warren moved to obtain information from the Police Department, City Staff and
Snow Patrol with respect to recommendations on how the Task Force can address
the issues of better signage, training and education, and enforcement of the
speeding. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Marshik noted the issue is how to develop recommendations so this could better be looked at. She
asked if the group would like to assign a Task Force. She suggested the group may want to assign
this issue to a couple of Task Force members along with appropriate City Staff in a one to two
hour work session.
Warren moved, Colopoulos seconded to obtain information from the Police
Department, City Staff and Snow Patrol with respect to recommendations on how
the Task Force can address the issues of better signage, training and education,
and enforcement of the speeding.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated he shares Schaffs concern, however, there may be a problem with the
way in which the State has handled the problem as well, particularly in providing some obstacles to
organizations which would be willing to provide help and assistance with training if they could.
He stated the Task Force may find that is a bigger issue.
Schaff stated she has a problem with the motion because she knows this year has been a tough year
as far as speeding and death goes. AU of these things happen with snowmobiles; there has been a
lot of press on it and there is a State Task Force. She further stated that in viewing the news, she
has seen what other Snow Patrols have done in different cities and they were very pro active with
training. They did not give out certificates, however, they ascertained there was a problem and
decided to institute their own training programs for children. Schaff stated that has not been done
in Shorewood in the last 12 years. Schaff inquired if the Snow Patrol had sold or handed out any
ribbons. Puzak stated safety ribbons had been handed out. She inquired where this was done.
Puzak stated they were handed out at the club meetings.
Schaff stated her opinion the Snow Patrol has been doing nothing. She has no confidence, if this
is remanded to the Snow Patrol, she will get the kind of recommendations she would like to see.
She stated they have not been able to implement anything they have been talking about.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MA Y 11, 1996 - PAGE 7
Co-Chair Kolstad commented the Task Force makes the recommendations and the follow-up is the
province of the City Council. She stated the Task Force should make recommendations they are
comfortable with.
Marshik stated Schaff may want to suggest someone she believes will do a quality job. Schaff
stated this was something to research. She stated she is not willing to do it, but she is simply
stating her opinion at this time. She said these same issues have been coming up for years and she
is wondering how many more times these issues have to be addressed before someone acts upon
them.
City Engineer Brown stated that as part of a motion, he would like to know the objectives the Task
Force would like the enforcement agencies to address. Brown requested the agencies be given
clear objectives.
Arnst commented the speeding problem is not limited to the 12 to 15-year-old age group. Better
education and training classes will not clear up the speeding problems. Co-Chair Kolstad stated
the group was not suggesting that.
Schaff commented on a sub committee which was a part of the State Task Force. One of the
assignments was speed. She referred to the Arnst/Schaff policy binder under MADD, and stated
one of the comments from the judge was that he feels the crime rate is impacted by speed.
Co-Chair Colopoulos asked if the Task Force wants to assign this out completely to the other
groups, or have a sub task force which fonnulates the actual recommendations using those
agencies' inputs as part of the basis for making their recommendations. He stated members of this
Task Force should perhaps make additional recommendations or recommendations framed around
the information received from the other agencies.
Co-Chair Colopoulos moved, Warren seconded to amend the motion to state the
use of the agency data will be part of the information a sub task force will look at
in the areas identified relative to the speed limit issues.
Schaff stated she would like to see something come back that can be implemented. She indicated
she is speaking against the amendment since she would like to see something which indicates when
the different agencies make their recommendations that they come back with viable ways to
implement them.
Schaff stated with regard to a sub task force, she would like to see what infonnation they come
back with and then discuss it with the entire group as opposed to doing a sub task force on it. Co-
Chair Colopoulos stated by forming a sub task force, that would give the Task Force the ability to
take information back and modify the recommendation.
Vote on Amended Motion: Motion passed 411.
Co-Chair Kolstad restated the main motion and stated this information should be back by May 23,
1996.
Vote on Main Motion: Motion passed 5/0.
Volunteers for the sub task force are Co-Chair Colopoulos, Schaff and Peterson.
Co-Chair Kolstad recessed the meeting 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:46 a.m.
7(b). NOISE ABATEMENT - POLICY CHANGE AREA SIX
Marshik noted the list of alternatives to be as follows:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MA Y 11, 1996 . PAGE 8
Co-Chair Kolstad stated noise is an issue and that it may be somewhat related to speed. She stated
her question is if it can easily be enforced or measured. She further stated there were four
complaints recorded for noise in the months of November through March. In 1995, there were 50
complaints for dogs over a 12 month period, averaging four per month.
Peterson stated the Park Commission had completed a test in 1986 which concluded there was not
a problem on the trail. Co-Chair Colopoulos stated the biggest problem with the test was an older
machine which probably no longer exists.
Peterson stated there are state requirements on the decibel readings.
Schaff stated the test was done at 50 feet and the current decibel readings which the manufacturers
currently use utilizes a distance of 50 feet. City Ordinance requires the nearest a home may be built
to the street is 40 feet. A pedestrian can be two feet away from the snowmobiles, therefore those
decibel levels which were completed in 1986 do not apply to the right-of-way issue or a
motorized/non-motorized use on the trial. Peterson stated snowmobiles are made to comply with
state requirements.
Marshik noted the Task Force had listed noise is an issue; noise is related to speed; noise is hard to
measure and enforce; dog noise is more of an issue than snowmobile noise.
Schaff suggested a restricted riding area would be one solution. Peterson stated that would restrict
the use of the trail.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated there is evidence of a noise problem. He suggested dealing with a
practical approach to noise abatement.
Peterson stated he doesn't feel there is a problem. The snowmobiles are built to requirements. He
suggested a barrier wall could be constructed.
Arnst stated exhaust systems could be modified and would not meet requirements.
1. Area Restriction - Restrict riding area.
2. Barriers - Put up noise wall from high use areas.
3 . Machine - After market exhaust modification to reduce noise.
4. Barriers - Build noise buffer zones using planting of trees.
5. Area Restriction - Riding Standards - No riding within a certain distance of a residence.
6. NoiselNuisance - Nuisance clause with regard to riding close to a neighbor's house.
7. Noise metering.
Arnst suggested building noise buffers with plants. He also suggested setting standards in which a
trail could not be within a certain distance of a residence. Arnst also suggested a nuisance clause in
the ordinance.
Schaff commented Long Lake has an ordinance which states people can ride snowmobiles on their
property at any time, as long as they were not a nuisance to anyone else with respect to noise. Co-
Chair Kolstad stated the City already has a nuisance ordinance in effect. Schaff suggested
readdressing the snowmobile ordinance as it relates to nuisance. Co-Chair Colopoulos suggested
reviewing City ordinances to verify if a sufficient nuisance ordinance already exists.
Peterson stated he lives close to the trail and doesn't have a problem with it. If there were a
problem, possibly a buffer zone with trees would be appropriate. Puzak stated possibly the boy
scouts and/or snowmobile club could do a project with planting seedlings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MA Y 11, 1996 - PAGE 9
Hurm reminded the Task Force not to restrict themselves in terms of dollars. He also stated the
Police Chief would be concerned about an ordinance which is vague. In a noise situation, decibels
will be necessary.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded to present the alternatives to the City Council as
recommendations and allow City Council to determine whether they want a sub
task force to look into these issues.
Hurm stated his sense from the Council is they would like the recommendation of the Task Force
regarding restrictions.
Arnst stated another alternative would be to purchase a noise metering device.
V ote on the Motion: Motion failed 2/3.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded to accept the list of alternatives which are adequate
to be addressed with the potential for further clarification. Motion passed 5/0.
Schaff moved, Colopoulos seconded to have a further sub task force work study
session to address the issues.
Peterson stated he would be opposed to restricting the riding area. This would be cutting off the
trail. Co-Chair Kolstad suggested Peterson volunteer for the sub task force so his views could be
stated.
Vote on the Motion: Motion passed 5/0.
The sub task force will consist of Co-Chair Kolstad, Dana and Turgeon.
7(c). SAFETY - POLICY CHANGE AREA EIGHT
Co-Chair Kolstad mentioned this had been discussed at the previous meeting. There have been
safety violations, speeding tickets, operating without safety certificates, several speeding
complaints noted, issues on harassment, stop sign violations, off trail riding, and park violations.
There have been some injuries from the police officer reports. Citizens' perception on safety is that
many are not comfortable around snowmobiles. The majority stated they feel snowmobiles present
a safety hazard on the trail. Alcohol usage is also a concern.
Schaff suggested as long as there is a Snow Patrol and Southwest Trail Association and they
receive money from Grant & Aid, if a citizen feels they need a feeling of safety around their
property, that the Southwest Trail Association, as well as the local snowmobile clubs, provide hay
bales at the citizen's request to let them have a feeling of safety.
Puzak stated that is a standard practice and policy now. Schaff commented this is something all
citizens should be made aware of through an education awareness campaign. She stated those
things should be funded by the Southwest Trail Association and the local clubs to any resident who
feels they need it. Bales of hay would delineate the property line and would be safe in the event a
snowmobile were to collide with it.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated the Task Force needs to discuss the multi use on the trails. Schaff stated
the Grant & Aid Regulation 85.018 states there cannot be motorized and nonmotorized use on the
trail. Schaff read the regulation to the Task Force and suggested the Task Force may want to have
City Attorney Keane review and interpret this regulation.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated what the group is really talking about is the legal interpretation of
whether you can issue a multi use trail. Schaff stated it is a multi use trail and the key is motorized
and nonmotorized use.
Hurm stated from the City's perspective, the City is not concerned whether that trail is designated
Grant & Aid. Those particular rules have nothing to do with the City of Shorewood. The City has
asked Hennepin Parks to make it multi use. He stated if another group gets funding for some other
purpose in connection to a trail, to his knowledge, he is not aware any of the funding is expended
on the trail or signs. If in fact there were some conflict in that regard, the City would have to
option of not making this a Grant & Aid trail.
Schaff stated three parties are involved with the trail, the land owner, the designee and the City of
Shorewood. She stated Hennepin County, as the land owner, administers the trail all year with the
exception of the wintertime. The designee is the City of Mound because they are the sponsor for
the Grant & Aid program. The designee also designates the kind of trail it is going to be. The
third party is the City of Shorewood who has to go back to Hennepin County and request a permit
for anyone of the other parties involved to use the trail.
Co-Chair Colopoulos said the question needs to be addressed, is it safe to operate snowmobiles on
the trail while other uses are going on. Co-Chair Kolstad added, if it is not safe, what alternatives
are there. Co-Chair Colopoulos stated that would include dedicating the use of the trail to
unmotorized use or exclusively snowmobiling.
Schaff stated with regard to the safety issue, the trail should be designated either motorized or
nonmotorized. She also stated there could be a possibility to obtain funding for either usage.
Hurm suggest the City ask for the money and if Grant & Aid feels it can give it with those rules
and regulations, that is the granting agency's decision.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated the following alternatives applicable to the safety issue:
Marshik noted two alternatives.
1. Create a boundary barrier for property owners from snowmobiles.
2. Trail usage designation.
Co-Chair Kolstad inquired if there are safety issues off the trail on the streets. Arnst asked about a
safety zone around pedestrians such as a snowmobiles cannot approach within 150 feet of an ice
fisherman.
Schaff stated the width of the trail is a hazard. Arnst and Schaff suggested addressing the speed
on the trail. Schaff further stated the police force needs to be educated. As the report indicates, the
majority of the police force did not know when the snowmobiling season was.
Arnst distributed a sample Action - Incident Report which is used by Hennepin Parks Rangers.
These cards are available along the trail for people to fill out to place a report if need be. Arnst
stated a medium is needed to inform the City of these incidents and the City can then keep a record.
Schaff stated the subject needs more addressing. She further stated safety issues could be related to curfew. The majority deaths, accidents and injuries happen in the evening hours.
Schaff
suggests restricting hours of operation for safety reasons. .
Co-Chair Kolstad suggested this issue should be tabled until the final recommendation because it
impacts so many different policy areas.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 11
Co-Chair Colopoulos moved, Schaff seconded to research several of the issues
surrounding the concept of a multi use trail in greater detail specifically as it
relates to Shorewood's actual authority for use of that trail and Hennepin Park's
actual authority in determining use of that trail. More details are needed with
regard to the issuance of multi use permits and whether or not Shorewood will be
able to effectively obtain and maintain permission from them to allow motorized
vehicles as a part of the multi use trail plan.
Co-Chair Kolstad suggested the Park Commission be assigned to do the research.
Schaff moved, Peterson seconded to amend the- motion to request further research
on the multi use of the trail.
Hurm stated Hennepin County will need to advise Shorewood whether or not this trail may be
used for multi use in the wintertime. Co-Chair Kolstad stated the Task Force needs to have before
it what the issues are with respect to a multi use trail to make a recommendation.
Puzak asked that everyone think through this. He stated there is a lot of latitude as long as the
issues are not restricted. Schaff stated disagreement and feels the issues need to be well defmed.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated the information from the Park Commission is going to be an outline of
the parameters of the decision making process, rather than defmitive data as far as what is being
asked and what is known. A lot of alternatives will come up.
V ote on Amended Motion: Motion passed 5/0.
Schaff stated she would like to view any information which is put together as well as knowing the
source of the information.
Vote on Main Motion: Motion passed 5/0.
Schaff moved, Colopoulos seconded to table further discussion on the safety
issue until the May 23rd meeting at which time it will be readdressed. Motion
passed 5/0.
Co-Chair Kolstad handed out a memo from Becky Tarvin regarding some questions she feels are
still open.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Colopoulos moved, Schaff seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:04
p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES
MAY 11, 1996 - PAGE 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
WEDNESDA Y, MAY 15, 1996 6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Kolstad called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Voting Members Present:
John Arnst, Co-Chair Bill Colopoulos, Dana George, Co-
Chair Virginia Kolstad, Warren Peterson, and Ingrid Schaff
City Administrator Hurm
Cheryl Wallat
Staff Research Assistant Becky Tarvin, Planning
Commission Alternate Laura Turgeon, Police Chief Rick
Young; and Snow Patrol Rep. Dan Puzak
Judy Marshik, Research Quik, was unable to attend
Staff! Alternates Present:
Recording Secretary:
Staff! Alternates Absent:
Facilitator:
2. GROUND RULES
3. REVIEW OF MINUTES (5/11/96)
Schaff stated on Page 7, Puzak stated the Snow Patrol had been in existence since 1990. She
stated the Snow Patrol actually began in 1988. A letter to the City Council and Parks Commission
is included in the Arnst/Schaff binder which references the Snow Patrol.
Schaff submitted a corrected copy of the presentation transcript
Schaff moved, Peterson seconded to approve the Snowmobile Task Force Meeting
minutes of May 11, 1996. Motion passed 5/0.
4. MEETING DATES
Co-Chair Kolstad asked if members would be able to attend the next two meetings at 5:30 p.m.
rather than 6:00 p.m. Arnst and Schaff stated they would not be able to attend at 5:30 p.m.
George stated he has accommodated the schedule in taking off work early to attend. Co-chair
Kolstad stated the meetings could start at 5:30 and some members will be coming late and some
will be leaving early. Schaff stated her objection based on the number of times she has had to
change her schedule to be able to attend the meetings. George suggested extending the meetings
into June. Schaff objected and stated she did not want the meetings extended. George stated his
concern now that critical decisions need to be reached, the Task Force has come to a gridlock and
people will not accommodate their schedules to attend.
Kolstad moved, George seconded to change the meeting time to 5:30 p.m. on May
23rd and May 30th, 1996.
Schaff stated the meetings have been moved many times according to George's and Peterson's
schedules. She stated task forces set dates. The members can either make the meeting or cannot
make the meeting. If a member is unable to make a meeting, that member can listen to the tapes or
read the minutes. She stated it is a continual occurrence. George responded decisions have been
made without input from the Task Force with respect to meeting dates.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arnst stated he cannot leave work early. He further stated he has made every meeting so far and
there has never been any flexibility around his schedules. He requested the meetings start at 6:00
p.m. as scheduled.
V ote on the Motion: Motion passed 3/2; Colopoulos abstained; Schaff and Arnst
were the negative votes.
Co-Chair Colopoulos stated each side has equally valid points.
5. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Parking Lot Items
Schaff stated she will ask Becky Tarvin if the December 12, 1988, minutes are included in
Enforcement which has to do with Statements made by the Police Chief.
Co-Chair Kolstad suggested the Task Force make a commitment to work through the issues as
expeditiously as possible. Co-chair Colopolous requested a course of action for beyond May.
George stated his intention not to go past May, however he stated he is hopeful the Task Force
would carry it through until the issues are resolved. Schaff stated if the Task Force works hard
and starts sub-task forces, a lot of work can get done and unfinished business could be attended to
by Council.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated his understanding the City Council intends to reach a decision in June
on this issue.
6. OPEN ISSUES
Sub-task force reports
Co-Chair Kolstad reviewed a memo covering the sub-task force on noise abatement. The flip
charts from May 11 have also been typed and distributed as a hand-out.
Arnst, in referring to Ordinance 802.04, Subd. 1, which is attached to the memorandum, asked if
the reference is to the stock exhaust system provided on the machine at the time of sale. George
stated that is what the manufacturer goes by, however, if someone does something different than
that which is beyond the legal decibel level, they would be subject to a fine. Arnst inquired if there
is a tag on the machine stating it meets the 78 decibel requirement.
Peterson inquired if the police department could arbitrarily put a dollar amount on fines. City
Administrator Hurm stated if it were a municipal fine, City Council would need to take action on
that. George stated one way to increase the fine would be to fine and impound the snowmobile.
Peterson asked how a change in the evening curfew would be displayed on the signs so people are
aware of it. Schaff stated the signs would have to be changed. Peterson suggested leaving the
hours of operation as is. Co-Chair Kolstad stated the Task Force needs to make recommendations
which will minimize the impact of snowmobiles in Shorewood. George stated one way to alleviate
the nuisance factor would be to regulate the hours.
Schaff moved, Kolstad seconded to accept the recommendations as written,
assuming affirmative answers to the questions on Page 2, and provide the
recommendations to the city and South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for
their review, with full input from Chief Young.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 3
Arnst stated a concern with regard to the trail on the edge of the street with 2 to 4 inches of snow
left on the edge, and how much more narrow would that make the roadways. Co-Chair Kolstad
stated certain streets would be designated as access routes.
Schaff inquired if the city would speak with the residents on those streets. Co-Chair Kolstad
pointed out the recommendations must be presented to the city first. Arnst stated residents should
have a public hearing on designated routes to voice their opinions.
Vote on Motion: 6/0.
George moved, Kolstad seconded to table further action on this issue until the
Task Force has received a response to the questions on Page 2, a response from
the above agencies and there has been an opportunity to address Policy Areas
which focus on Enforcement and Access. Motion passed, 6/0.
Co-Chair Kolstad stated a suggestion had been received from Jim Hurm that the City have a sub-
task force to brainstorm with the police and other agencies for suggestions on signage and
enforcement to add input into the final recommendation. Schaff inquired which agencies would be
consulted. Hurm stated rather than a sub-task force, it would be staff brainstorming. Schaff
inquired if it would consist of city staff and, if so, who. Hurm suggested, Brad Nielsen, Larry
Brown, and the Police Chief and possibly others.
George moved, Peterson seconded to allow city staff to participate in a
brainstorming session and to include whoever they feel is appropriate to obtain
the information they need.
Hurm stated this would not be research, rather a brainstorming session to give the Task Force
possible ideas for their consideration.
Schaff stated she would like to know who will be on this committee. Co-Chair Kolstad inquired
when the recommendations would be back before the Task Force. Hurm stated it would depend
upon the issues being looked at, but would hope to have recommendations back by the next
meeting. Schaff indicated if anyone other than city staff were to be on the committee, then
members of the Task Force should be there as well. Hurm suggested withdrawing the suggestion
since, at this particular time, he was unable to detail who would be included on the committee.
Schaff stated she does not want anyone from the Snow Patrol on the committee.
George moved, Peterson seconded to amend the motion to include a list be
prepared stating the names of whoever will be involved in the brainstorming.
Arnst stated his agreement with Schaff in that the Snow Patrol has had 12 years to resolve what is
being looked at and the process has been slow. He stated it is time for the law enforcement
agencies to step in and take charge.
V ote on the Motion: 6/0.
7. NEW POLICY REVIEW
POLICY REVIEW AREA FIVE. PERMIT AND INSPECTION
Co-chair Colopoulos stated research has revealed there is not much the City can do to add or to
contradict any regulations that are currently in place. The question is, does the Task Force want to
make recommendations to City Council to make representations at the State level to somehow
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 4
change inspection procedures that are currently in place. Schaff stated this is being looked at on
the State level and one of the ideas considered was to make it mandatory to be 16 or have a drivers
license. She agrees with Co-chair Colopoulos there is not a lot to be done in this area because
enforcement is not available at this time. The officers' reports indicate they cannot stop the
snowmobiles. Co-chair Kolstad stated one alternative would be if snowmobiling were restricted to
Shorewood residents, the City could implement permitting.
Co-chair Colopoulos said perhaps snowmobilers should consider an operator's license to alleviate
the concerns of nonsnowmobilers. Co~chair Kolstad stated in the registration recommendations it
is suggested that anyone not having a driver's license should have a safety certificate. Co~hair
Colopoulos suggested a separate snowmobile license -as more appropriate. Peterson stated the
safety certificate requires a written test as well as a driving test. Schaff stated she would also like
to see proof of insurance included. George stated insurance would have to be added since it is not
a requirement at the present time. Co-chair Colopoulos clarified the Task Force would be asking
City Council to make recommendations to the State along these lines.
Regarding local ordinances, Peterson referred to the City of Plymouth who obtains a list of
snowmobilers and advises them of the current ordinances through a mailing. Schaff said
snowmobilers are supposed to know the areas in which they are riding as well as the rules and
regulations. Arnst suggested the snowmobile clubs handle the expense rather than the City.
Peterson said it would be too costly for snowmobile clubs. In addition, the City is aware of the
ordinances and any changes which would be made. Arnst stated the ordinances should go to every
household in the community. Hurm informed the members this has been done in the past, but not
within the last three years.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arnst suggested with regard to permitting, snowmobiles be required to show proof of insurance.
He expressed a concern with uninsured motor vehicles driving on city streets. George stated
before there could be a requirement for proof of insurance, insurance would have to be made
mandatory. Currently insurance is not mandatory. Co~hair Kolstad added this could be included
with registration recommendations. Schaff commented the State Task Force is considering
mandatory training for all who wish to purchase or operate a snowmobile.
George stated these are two different areas. Co-chair Colopoulos stated his belief there is a
crossover area in this regard.
Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded to add to the Registration
recommendations that the State be asked to require insurance of snowmobiles
when registering the vehicle. Motion passed 6/0.
Co-Chair Kolstad moved, Arnst seconded, to recommend to the City a permit
procedure if the riding of snowmobiles were to be restricted to the residents 0 f
Shorewood.
Hurm stated Hennepin County regulations require the use of a trail not be restricted for residents
within the community. Schaff asked Hurm to summarize the Hennepin Parks meeting which he
attended.
Hurm explained a hand-out was distributed at the Hennepin Parks meeting consisting of a permit
which was being proposed to the Hennepin Parks Board. He stated the permitting process from
the county will be as he had understood it to be, however more strict in terms of the winter season
being defined as mid-November to the end of March and then the cities, by resolution of Council,
would need to determine what activities would be provided during the wintertime. Each city would
be responsible for any damage created by grooming the trail for a particular purpose.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 5
Peterson raised concerns regarding enforcement. Co-chair Colopoulos stated if some
recommendations are not practical to put in place, they may still be a recommendation. Schaff
stated some recommendations have been made with consideration as to what other agencies, such
as the Police Department, would have to say.
Vote on Motion: 6/0.
POLICY CHANGE AREA SIXTEEN - STUDS
Schaff stated there is a problem with studs damaging the roads. She stated if new roads do go in,
any damage from studs will be evident. Hurm stated Public W odes had investigate this and did not
find damage to roadways.
George stated when the surface is sealcoated, there would be no structural damage other than a few
marks being visible. Peterson informed members that studs are optional, however they improve
steering and traction, and give better control and braking.
In response to an inquiry if studs could be banned, Peterson responded noting carbide studs are
legal and come as standard equipment on a snowmobile. George stated his opinion if they are not
damaging the street, why ban something that is a safety feature for the snowmobile.
Schaff moved, George seconded to pass on this policy review area and move on
to the next one, due to the lack of evidence to show there is a problem.
Arnst stated there is a letter from Ray Van Straaten regarding damage done to the end of his
driveway. Arnst further stated in the Dennis Kirk catalog it describes carbide runners as the
runners which gauge driveways and snowmobile trailer beds, therefore, they do cause property
damage. Arnst stated a need to differentiate between carbide studs which are mounted into the
tracks and carbide runners which are under the skis. The studs are fashioned like a meat
tenderizer. If a pedestrian were to be run over by a studded snowmobile track, he would suffer
severe personal injury.
George stated carbide studs come in different lengths and for trail purposes would be shorter. His
opinion is that the skis make more of a mark on pavement than the studs. Peterson stated he would
like to see proof of Arnst's statement in the catalog.
V ote on Motion: Motion passes, 511; Arnst was the negative vote.
POLICY CHANGE AREA THIRTEEN - SEASON
Hurm stated Hennepin County refers to a "winter" season. He stated his understanding the City of
Shorewood can defme what they are going to do during the winter season. He stated Hennepin
Parks had discussed a season of November 15 through April 15. The general consensus among
other cities was they preferred the end of March.
Peterson disagreed stating the snowmobile season as set by the DNR and State Grant-in-Aid
program is December 1 through March 31.
Schaff referred to the police interviews and stated officers do not know when the snowmobile
season is. Hurm stated that makes a good point for making a season. Co-chair Colopou10s stated
city, county and state agencies regard the snowmobile season differently and that would account
for some confusion. George stated he does not believe the city can expand beyond the parameters
that are set on the trail by the county. He further stated once the ground is frozen, there is less
chance of damage.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
George moved, Peterson seconded to set a snowmobile season of December 1st
through March 31st on all public land and be certain signs are up indicating the
snowmobile season dates in the City of Shorewood.
George suggested his intention of the season to include the entire city.
Schaff stated this would be contingent upon snowmobiling being allowed in Shorewood. Co-chair
Colopoulos added no one would be presupposing any other possibility relative to Grant-in-Aid or
whether or not snowmobiling would be within the City or on the trail.
Vote on Motion: Motion passed 5/1; Schaff was the negative vote.
Schaff stated her belief this was a premature motion until the Task Force answers the question of
whether snowmobiling will be continued in the City of Shore wood, the streets, the boulevard or
on the trail.
Co-Chair Colopoulos recessed the meeting at 7:33 p.m. and reconvened at 7:36 p.m.
FINAL POLICY REVIEW - PRIOR MEETING
POLICY REVIEW AREA ELEVEN - PROPERTY RIGHTSITRESPASS
Co-chair Kolstad stated there were no violations in the police records given for trespass, however,
there were a number of complaints in the database.
Schaff stated restriction of riding areas would help with the trespass issues. The survey results
reflect many times it is indicated that people have had snowmobiles riding on the edge of the yard
and in the center of the yard. She stated there is a large percentage of people opposed to
snowmobiles riding on boulevards, riders and nonriders included. The survey reflects 75 percent
of people do not have an understanding of what snowmobile right-of-way is.
Co-chair Kolstad stated another issue would then be education on the snowmobile right-of-way.
Schaff stated she feels it is more restricting ridership because 55 percent of people are saying they
don't want snowmobiles riding on boulevards. Co-Chair Colopoulos stated 68 percent were
nonriders. He further stated there is still some question how many people are aware of the rules
regarding use of the boulevard.
Schaff further commented in the officers' interviews, they state there are trespass problems
through properties. The officer's also need to be informed of legal right-of-way on streets and
trails. Schaff suggested designated streets for riding, and having resident input. The streets
selected should have ample right-of-way.
Co-chair Colopoulos suggested a temporary snow fence to keep riders on the trail, especially for
later in the season when the trail was too rough to easily snowmobile on.
Schaff recommended if snowmobiling does remain in the City of Shorewood, a trained City
official or police officer should respond to a question of property rights or trespass.
Arnst stated the 7 -county metro area trespass clause pertaining to recreational vehicles should be
printed, posted, or issued in the newsletter. Co-chair Colopoulos stated parks present a
particularly a problem because of the open access. He stated there are signs, however there is a
need for physical barriers. Peterson suggested more orange barrier fences. Co-chair Colopoulos
stated there is a need for high visibility and the fences would be used only temporarily.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 7
Co-chair Kolstad suggested residents who have a problem could have an extra planting, such as
trees, or hay bale barriers. Schaff stated any resident of Shorewood who feels the need for
protection should be supplied with hay bales by the Snow Patrol. Resident education would need
to be done if this option is available.
Co-chair Kolstad stated there is a need for more education with respect to the fact snowmobiles are
not allowed on public wetlands. Better signage is needed on wetlands. Arnst suggested a shore
zone buffer on the lakes.
Co-chair Colopoulos suggested leaving this option open and felt the action to be taken on lakes
should be settled by public agreement. Arnst stated snowmobiles riding on lakes which are too
small for a buffer could fall into the nuisance category.
George stated Lake Minnetonka has a shore buffer all year round and that the issue of buffers
would need to be investigated. Schaff suggested using the buffers seasonally. Hurm stated
enforcement could be difficult. Arnst stated the Lake Minnetonka shore zone buffer applies to
motorized vehicles.
George stated the routes designated through town are good, however, he would not want to see it
designated as a trail where people are encouraged to ride on it. In getting away from the trail, the
grading of the road would have a significant impact on how many people are going to go over the
boulevard.
George stated he agreed with the survey that came back. There was a high percentage of concern
with the boulevard. He further stated there. were numerous different complaints of trespass,
however 13 incidents in the past is not a high number. He stated his belief if there is a severe or
blatant violation, people will call and report those things.
Schaff stated snowmobiling has been going on so much in the city, if the residents are consulted,
they will say they have called the police and the police say there is nothing they can do. She felt
after numerous calls, they stop calling.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded to include all of the recommendations discussed by
the Task Force in the final recommendation to City Council.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated there are a lot of safety issues. If the areas of access are restricted
resulting in an increased traffic flow, the proper authority would need to study this.
George stated he does not believe there is a high level of trespass, however, certain individuals
may have more because of where they live and possibly the way their property is positioned. It is
also possible there are some areas which need more monitoring than others.
Arnst stated there have been many photographs taken of the parks in current years, so why has the
city not taken a stand against trespass. He asked if they are condoning trespass. Hurm stated
perhaps the city should put out more signage or educate residents more in the newsletter.
Co-chair Kolstad stated she will vote against the motion because she would like the City and the
staff task force to review this.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated a "certified" trespass is not always the result of regular complaints. He
also said a small amount of complaints were actually received, while a larger number of people
seemed to feel their property had been trespassed on. In addition, he said there are trespass
situations where the property owner willingly chooses to not complain.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-chair Colopoulos stated the main problem is to have a recommendation to restrict areas, then
there needs to be more explanation of what those restrictions are and provide instruction of how the
Task Force's recommendation would apply to the city in terms of what they should pursue.
Vote on Motion: Motion failed 4/2; Kolstad, Colopoulos, Peterson and George
were the negative votes.
Schaff moved, George seconded to further research these recommendations and
have Jim Hurm work with city officials to determine the feasibility of these
recommendations.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated the Task Force needs guidance in the area of restrictions. He further
stated the city would need to be given latitude in looking at the issue of controlling trespass and
increasing access to recreational areas with a minimum disruption to private property.
Vote on the Motion: Motion passed 6/0.
POLICY REVIEW AREA FOURTEEN - RIGHT OF WAY
Co-chair Kolstad stated right-of-way is deeded to the city by the property owners. That portion of
the property can be used for utilities and transportation. Planning Director Nielsen had informed
Co-Chair Kolstad that snowmobiles would fall within the use of the right-of-way by the City.
Arnst stated when the Task Force started, the Snow Patrol said it was legal to ride on the boulevard
if a physical barrier was in the way. He further stated the City Attorney instructed Chief Young
not to have the officers ticket snowmobiles for boulevard use.
Co-chair Kolstad suggested incorrect information was being given out. Co-chair Colopoulos
added in looking at the founding of issuance of right-of-way, there are basic general principles of
public good which were used originally to legitimate government's claim to need deeded access to
that property. He stated the interpretation that motorized vehicles for recreational purposes would
be allowed to traverse that right-of-way, particularly on the boulevard, was a gross presumption on
the part of government.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated the survey results clearly indicate the general response, however, he
stated this is an individual question to be asked each property owner who has deeded access to the
city for the strip of land they are paying taxes on in front of their house (boulevard).
Co-chair Kolstad asked if the Task Force wants to change the boulevard ordinance that riders
should be allowed to ride on the boulevard. The members stated they agreed riders should not be
allowed on the boulevard. Schaff stated the Police Chief would need to agree also. She stated this
issue has been addressed by three different task forces and each time it has come up, each task
force stated the issue was clarified and resolved.
Co-chair Colopoulos suggested a recommendation be given to City Council that the ordinance
regarding the prohibition of snowmobiles on the boulevards be made very clear and end the debate
as to whether that is an ordinance.
Schaff read the definition of boulevard, "The portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by
pavement. "
Arnst stated everyone needs to be educated on this issue and it would best be done through
ordinance.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 9
Schaff stated the issue continues to come back to enforcement. Co-chair Colopoulos also stated
the Task Force keeps coming back to the enforcement question. He said it should be kept in mind
there is a multi-community law enforcement agency working for the city. It is incumbent upon the
City to give them ordinances which are easily understood and clear. Co-chair Kolstad added the
Task Force needs to be realistic about what is enforceable.
Schaff included reference to data contained in the Arnst/Schaff data resource book, under Injury
and Death, DNR reporting includes a location and time for snowmobile accidents which occurred
on right-of-ways. It gives ideas of what time of day these accidents happen. She further stated
there is a problem with right-of-way and this data would support a time restriction. Schaff stated
she would like to support the recommendation from the noise abatement to change the curfew to
10:00 p.m. for riding on the right-of-ways.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated with regard to right-of-way, when approaching another vehicle or
pedestrian, the survey showed some astonishing misconceptions which need to be addressed and
also indicate a need for education, particularly if there will be more snowmobile activity on the
street.
Schaff pointed out Hennepin Parks oversees the trail right-of-way as eight feet from the center on
both sides. As far as the trail issue, there are signs on the trail which direct riders to stay on the
trail, however, they are not observed. Co-chair Kolstad mentioned there is an ordinance regarding
use of the trail. Schaff responded that Hennepin County's ordinance overrides the Shorewood
ordinance. Co-chair Kolstad read Ordinance No. 802.02 subd. 7 to the Task Force. Schaff also
referred to trail walk observations.
Arnst stated right-of-way is different for city streets and county roads, like County Road 19. He
stated the Task Force should clarify the difference between the two.
Hurm stated if there is a state or county road which is a part of the designated route, the Task Force
would need to be clear on what they allow.
Hurm recapped right-of-way the issues:
1. Where should snowmobiles be allowed to ride.
2. Ride in the direction of traffic. This should be included in the ordinance and there
should be education on it.
3 . Ride on the outside edge of the street when the shoulder is not available.
Arnst questioned if a vehicle is on the edge of the road, what action would be required of a
snowmobile driver. He added direction of traffic is important because if a snowmobile is forced
onto the street they should be driving with traffic, rather than onto a resident's property.
Peterson stated the riders are then being forced back into traffic which is a safety issue.
Schaff moved, Arnst seconded to give the recommendations to the city group for
further study to determine their feasibility, returning the recommendations to the
Task Force for the Task Force's direction to City Council to make changes and
clarification in the snowmobile ordinance as stated.
Co-chair Colopoulos moved, Schaff seconded to amend the motion to segregate
into two parts (a) the parts which reflect education and clarification of existing
ordinances and (b) the parts which refer to changes in current ordinance policy so
the City Council is ultimately provided with a list of recommendations which
differentiate between the two.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 15, 1996 - PAGE 10
Vote on the Amendment: Amendment passed 6/0.
Vote on Main Motion: Motion passed 6/0.
ADJOURNMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Schaff moved, George seconded to adjourn the Task Force meeting at 9:01 p. m.
Motion passed 6/0.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Wall at, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
#~
WILLIAM COL OULOS,. O-CHAIR
~ ~
lJi' ~ ~4c1
Vi~IA KO( AD, CO-CHAIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
THURSDA Y, MAY 23, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
5:30 . 8:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Kolstad called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.1p-.
Voting Members Present:
John Arnst, Co-Chair Bill Colopoulos (left at 8:45 p.m.),
Dana George, Co-Chair Virginia Kolstad, Warren Peterson,
and Laura Turgeon (appointed at 5:35 p.m.)
City Administrator Hurm, Staff Research Assistant Rebecca
Tarvin and Police Chief Rick Young
Cheryl Wallat
Staff! Alternates Present:
Recording Secretary:
Staff! Alternates Absent:
Snow Patrol Representative Dan Puzak
Facilitator:
Judy Marshik, Research Quik
2. GROUND RULES AND MINUTES OF MAY 15, 1996
Arnst moved, George seconded to defer consideration of the minutes of May 15,
1996, to the next meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
Co-chair Kolstad distributed a letter received from Ingrid Schaff announcing her immediate
resignation from the Snowmobile Task Force. Kolstad expressed her regret of Schaffs
resignation and stated Laura Turgeon is the designated alternate to fill the vacancy created by
Schaff.
George moved, Peterson seconded to appoint Laura Turgeon to fill the vacancy 0 f
Ingrid Schaff on the Snowmobile Task Force. Motion passed 5/0. Turgeon filled
the vacancy left by Schaff at 5:35 p.m.
3. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Co-chair Colopoulos stated he would prefer to have the meeting minutes sooner to allow for
review prior to the meeting. Tarvin stated the city is vulnerable to the contractual situation as well
as the timing of the mail. She also pointed out the upcoming Memorial Day Weekend and stated
the minutes would not likely be available before Wednesday, May 29th.
Co-chair Colopoulos commented the last couple of meetings were coming up and expressed
concern that members stay with the Task Force to a conclusion.
4. OPEN ISSUES. Subtaskforce Reports
Permits Subtaskforce
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MA Y 23, 1996 . PAGE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-chair Colopoulos reported the May 14 Park Commission meeting was canceled due to
inclement weather, therefore a report on permits would not be available. Co-chair Colopoulos
stated Hennepin Parks has oversight in allowing multi-use on the trail, therefore precluding the
City's ability to recommend multi-use if Hennepin County disallows it. Hurm clarified Hennepin
County's winter use pennit does allow the City to request multi-use, and Hennepin Parks states
winter use from November 15 and March 31 when they are not maintaining trail usage.
Arnst provided a letter which reflects an attorney's interpretation of the Grant-in-Aide clause related
to how a trail may be utilized when Grant-in-Aide dollars are provided for grooming or other
maintenance.
Speeding Subtaskforce
Co-chair Colopoulos commented Turgeon will replace Schaff and noted this subtaskforce,
including Peterson and Colopoulos, has not had an opportunity to meet yet.
City Staff Subtaskforce
Becky Tarvin reported two staff brainstorming sessions were held as requested by the Task Force.
Present at the sessions were City Administrator Jim Hurm, Police Chief Rick Young, Planning
Director Brad Nielsen, Engineer Larry Brown, Co-chair Kolstad and Research Assistant Becky
Tarvin.
Tarvin stated the group discussed in a broad sense many of the issues directed to them by the Task
Force. These areas included: Enforcement, Safety, Considerations for Restricting Use, Access to
Lakes and Trails, Rewriting of Ordinance Related to Snowmobiling, and Education.
Tarvin also noted a request was made on April 25th for any additional citations or police calls for
March 26 to April 15 be included in the complaint database. Chief Young stated the data entry
would not be complete until the end of the quarter (June), but all citations he is aware of have been
transmitted to the Task Force.
George moved, Colopoulos seconded that all information received thus far
completes the complaint database. Motion passed 6/0.
5. NEW POLICY REVIEW
a) POLICY REVIEW AREA FIFTEEN - ACCESS
Co-chair Kolstad stated there are currently two access points, those being Crescent Beach and
Timber Lane. Timber Lane needs to be reviewed as a viable access, specifically with regard to
stopping on the street.
Marshik reported the police officers stated Timber Lane was the most popular access. Howard's
Point was mentioned, however, it is not a legal access. Chief Young stated the access is not
limited to snowmobiles, but also includes cars. Boulder Bridge is used because of its access to the
lake, however, it is private property.
Tarvin commented Crescent Beach is the only technical legal access point in the city as described in
the zoning ordinance. Timber Lane, at the point preceding the intersection, is technically legal but
has not been signed or noted as such in zoning ordinance. Staff recommends consideration to add
signage and enhance the ditch so it complies more reasonably with the code. Due to the
embankment at Timber Lane, it is not possible to stop before crossing the street. Chief Young
stated there is a wide portion along Timber Lane which could be used and the problem is people
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 3
coming off the lake need to be informed of Shorewood rules. He suggested there be a restriction
for people to come into a certain area and provide signage and sufficient area to stop before
crossing the road. This would allow for crossing the road legally.
Arnst questioned how a snowmobiler would come to a complete stop before coming onto the trail
due to the steep embankment. He further inquired if there is a problem with crossing the right-of-
way. Chief Young explained that would come under the ordinance problem and would need to be
addressed. Tarvin stated the Timber Lane access legality was clarified by the City Attorney. City
Administrator Hurm suggested perhaps a ramp could be built so it would be easier to stop.
Arnst related the police reports reflect Star Lane is also used as an access point. Chief Young
stated that particular access is located in Tonka Bay. Anlst pointed out the Task Force needs to be
aware they do not necessarily need to make Timber Lane viable because there is another access
close by. Peterson pointed out Star Lane is somewhat hidden and would need signage.
Tarvin stated one consideration for the Timber Lane access would be to sign the access point and to
address the height of the ditch to allow for proper stopping. Turgeon inquired who would be
responsible to ensure this area is plowed safely. Hurm stated it would be the City's responsibility.
Co-chair Colopoulos pointed out that of 192 snowmobilers surveyed, 101 stated they do almost all
of their riding outside of Shorewood and 55 claim they do more than half of their riding outside of
Shorewood. In weighing the question of access, it should be balanced against the value of
recreational activity. He further stated the type of riding activity within the city appears to be
access oriented rather than recreational. He expressed his opinion the Task Force should be
looking at ways to control how snowmobilers get from Point A to Point B and also provide them
with better means of travel. Turgeon agreed more access is needed to the lake, however, Timber
Lane has too many things which need to be done and the ordinance would also need to be
rewritten.
Co-chair Colopoulos recommended the City Council complete a snowmobile traffic study with the
idea of looking at optimal access points to reduce problems. The only DNR access is located
towards the end of Shorewood/Victoria. George stated that is a boat access, however, Southwest
Trails is working with the DNR to get lake access to the west. Peterson stated most snowmobilers
use Timber Lane. Turgeon suggested the Planning Commission look at lake access for boats and
snowmobilers. Peterson emphasized if Timber Lane were to be closed off, there would be a need
for a considerable amount of signage and barriers.
Turgeon moved, Arnst seconded to close Timber Lane provided an alternate
access could be established.
Arnst recalled the access in Tonka Bay is Bay Street. He advised Bay Street is a flat access and
there would be no snow required to be held in. Peterson expressed that Timber Lane is a much
used access and it would be difficult to prevent people from using it. George also stated Timber
Lane provides a good access from Shorewood and it is a catch for residents who may come from
the Excelsior direction. He clarified it is possible for a snowmobile to stop at the top of the road,
and access would be owned by the City, it is wide open and there is not any obstruction to come
up on the road.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated if access were to be improved, there would be a net gain which would
affect more than one policy area, including safety, noise abatement and concerns about speeding.
Turgeon inquired if the ordinance is rewritten, will Timber Lane be a viable access. Peterson
stated the only other access would be in Tonka Bay.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vote on Motion: Motion failed 2/4; Peterson, George, Colopoulos and Kolstad
were the negative votes.
Co-chair Kolstad stated if the ordinance is going to be rewritten to make Timber Lane a viable
access, there will need to be proper signage, snow will need to be plowed to allow for stopping
prior to crossing the road, and signs should reflect the Shorewood rules and curfews.
Tarvin related safety was one of staffs' main recommendations. Grading and plowing would need
to be done as well as funneling the snowmobiles through one path rather than using the 20 to 30
feet which is available, the idea being to have one direct path from the trail to the street. There
would be additional signage notifying riders from the l~e into Shorewood about current laws such
as curfew, speed limit and general trail information. This would also be a posted access point so
that people would be aware of how to get on and off the lake or the trail. A stop sign should also
be located at the top of the hill.
Peterson suggested the use of signage to funnel snowmobilers through a direct trail route. Hurm
also suggested the city could work with the county for barriers such as trees, bushes, or hay bales.
Arnst stated snowmobilers may veer off the trail to pick up snow in their tracks for crossing which
would be in violation of riding on the shoulder of the trail.
Turgeon suggested using a measurement and evaluating new enforcement methods annually. She
suggested if after two seasons this is not working out, the trail could be closed to snowmobiles.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated all areas could be contingent upon some proven measurement.
Arnst inquired about snowmobile usage in city parks. Co-chair Kolstad stated the ordinance, at
this time, was not being recommended to change. The issue of Freeman Park was raised and
Chief Young stated Cathcart Park is not in Shorewood's enforcement area. It is located in Carver
County and the Shorewood ordinance does not apply to that park. He further stated there is a
problem in Freeman Park, established in the trail walk reports, and additional barriers need to be
erected.
Arnst inquired if a controlled stop is required before entering the trail because of the steep bank
from Timber Lane to the LRT trail. Peterson suggested the Snow Patrol put up stop signs. Chief
Young stated it would be unenforceable without an ordinance, but a stop sign at that location
would be a good advisory.
Access Recommendations
1 . City Council snowmobile traffic study - optimal access points based on actual traffic.
2. Work with DNR to get lake access to the west.
3. Planning Commission to look at lake access for boats and snowmobiles.
4. Improve Timber Lane access, i.e., plow snow to lake side for safer "stopping" and funnel
snowmobiles.
5. Signage
6. Snow embankment - stop at trail.
7. Post it.
8 . Improve access to trail.
9. Review every few years to be sure it is viable.
10. Access to park from trail - signlblock.
Turgeon moved, George seconded to accept the Task Force recommendations with
regard to access. Motion passed 6/0.
b) POLICY REVIEW AREA ONE - PATROLLING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 5
TarviI;1 reported the. recommendations from the staff brainstorming session which suggested a
coordinated effort WIth the South Lake Police Department and other agencies be conducted which
would include a greater presence on the trail and in the city regarding snowmobiling, clarification
of each agency's role and how they would participate in a greater enforcement effort and utilization
of Shorewood's police officer through the Cops Fast Program. In addition, suggestions included
review of the Snow Patrol Agreement, clarifying their roles and how they have changed since the
January 1992 beginning of that group, and looking at severe consequences of infractions, such as
impounding snowmobiles. A greater enforcement effort would help monitor what is going on and
educate people.
...
Co-chair Colopoulos inquired if the Police Department could make practical use of a snowmobile.
Chief Young confIrmed they could and suggested designating only one officer on a snowmobile in
order to train and keep up-to-date on snowmobile enforcement.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated if a police officer is on the trail with a snowmobile, the Task Force
should make a recommendation with regard to pursuit or not. Hurm stated that would be an
enforcement issue for which Chief Young would take responsibility. A snowmobile used by the
Police Department would make apprehension easier. He further commented the pursuit policy
currently existing in the department for vehicles will cover snowmobiles. Turgeon suggested that
two officers be trained, although only one officer will actually be patrolling on a snowmobile.
Co-chair Kolstad indicated a letter could be sent to the Chief Judge of Hennepin County asking for
an increase in the local fme schedule for snowmobile offenses. Chief Young added the cost of
impoundment of a snowmobile is more expensive than the fine. He explained there are certain
violations on which a snowmobile can be impounded. At the current time, to impound a
snowmobile, it must be illegal to operate the snowmobile any further, such as a nonregistered
vehicle, no certification, or intoxication. Turgeon inquired if there would be a zero hour tolerance
instituted. Chief Young stated that would be up to the city. George and Turgeon recommend zero
hour tolerance.
Turgeon suggested a Letter of Agreement with other agencies prior to the snowmobile season
outlining each agency's responsibilities. George stated coordination will also be important when
the officer is out on the trail. He would need to be flexible during snowstorms. Turgeon also
noted this would be a good opportunity to get the Snow Patrol involved with the officer. Chief
Young pointed out the officer will be out there more often than the Snow Patrol, however, there is
a need to redefine the agreement with the Snow Patrol.
Chief Young also pointed out with regard to coordination, that a DNR officer cannot write a
violation of the Shorewood ordinance, however, he can contact the Shorewood Police and they
will write the citation.
Co-chair Kolstad inquired when verbal warnings would be issued. Chief Young stated at the
present time, there is no set criteria for that. Kolstad asked if the Task Force could state there
would be no verbal warnings. Chief Young did not feel that would be effective. The officers will
want the option of giving a verbal warning depending on the situation. He further stated the Task
Force can set what will be the standard and while he cannot force an officer to follow a particular
standard, he expressed his opinion they will be closely followed a high percentage of the time.
Arnst asked if the officer is going to be willing to work prime snowmobiling days and hours.
Chief Young stated he would work according to a schedule. Arnst commented having two
officers with the capability of patrolling the snowmobiling would be more suitable. Chief Young
stated that issue would be left to the city as a monetary issue.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 . PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-chair Colopoulos indicated the need for a recommendation to provide a snowmobile for the
officer. George commented it may be possible a local dealer would be willing to work something
out with the idea the city would keep the trail open. Chief Young also stated there are programs
through various manufacturers which could be investigated.
Hurm stated it would probably not be necessary to have a 40-hour police officer on the trail every
week, but to have a police presence on the trail. Turgeon included the need for police enforcement
during times of snowfall is key.
Turgeon inquired how the officer's duties would change if the city were unable to provide a
snowmobile. Chief Young stated the only change would be the officer would be patrolling from a
car rather than a snowmobile. He added the limitations of access would impact the outcome.
Arnst mentioned the Snow Patrol should be renamed the Trail Ambassadors since they are not
patrols. Chief Young commented he would agree with that, however, that would be dependent on
how the agreement is changed.
Patrolling Recommendations
1. Coordinated effort of agencies (strong commitment).
2. Utilize Shorewood police officer (trained and certifiedl2nd officer).
3. Review and clarify Snow Patrol agreement.
4. Severe consequences (impoundment).
5. Clarification of roles of various enforcement agencies.
6. Chief Judge letter to increase local fines (Hennepin County).
7. Tolerance on curfew violation - for multiple violations - impound.
8. Snow Patrol can supplement officer's effort.
9. Snowmobile needs to be provided - local dealers, civic groups, fire department.
George moved, Peterson seconded to accept the Task Force recommendations
with regard to patrolling.
Arnst asked who the Trail Ambassadors would be reporting to. Chief Young explained they are an
arm of the city rather than the police department, possibly being supervised by Public Works.
Hurm stated that would be with regard to making sure proper signage was up as opposed to
enforcement. Arnst noted a conflict with regard to who they would report to. He expressed his
opinion they need to work with the Police Department and Public Works.
Vote on Motion: Motion passed, 6/0.
Co-chair Kolstad recessed the meeting at 7: 10 p.m. and reconvened at 7: 14 p.m.
c) POLICY REVIEW AREA TWELVE. EDUCATION
George moved, Peterson seconded to table Policy Review Area Twelve
Education to the next meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
d) POLICY REVIEW AREA NINE. CHANGING/GRADING TRAIL
Co-chair Kolstad explained two issues have been addressed, grading and grooming. She further
explained grading is tampering with the actual surface of the trail and bedding. Grooming would
be changing the texture of the snow to smooth or bumpy.
Arnst stated with respect to grading, Hennepin County manages the property and stated his opinion
that Shorewood cannot alter the property on its own. Co-chair Colopoulos stated the only way to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 7
increase distance on the top surface would be to grade away a significant part of the base which
would be impractical.
Arnst moved, Peterson seconded not to pursue further discussion with regard to
grading the trail to change the structure of the trail bed.
Turgeon explained the grade of the trail could be changed, however, it would require the approval
of other authorities. George related his opinion this would not be impossible to do. It would
simply require going through the proper procedures and it is possible funds would be available
which might not include the City.
...
Vote on Motion: Motion passes 412; George and Peterson were the negative
votes.
George stated his feeling the motion with regard to grading is premature at this time.
Grooming
Peterson commented grooming would only relate to the snow. Turgeon asked what exactly a
groomer would do. Peterson stated the groomer pulls the snow in to make a flatter, smoother and
more level trail. George commented the groomer takes off the top where the snowmobiles have
traveled and fills in the low spots. The objective would be to keep as much snow on the trail as
possible. Co-chair Colopoulos inquired if the groomers put the trail in condition for snowmobilers
or if they can also put it in condition for other activities such as cross country skiing.
Tarvin commented the Task Force would not have to be limited to what grooming Southwest Trails
is able to do. In considering options, the Public Works Department had groomed the trail in the
past and that option may be available. There are also different methodologies for grooming in
consideration of walking or cross country skiing. During the staff brainstorming session,
consideration was given to the idea of physical separation of snowmobiles and pedestrians,
however, it did not appear to be practical given the treadway width of approximately 11 feet.
Turgeon reviewed the trail walk the Task Force members took and commented on her concerns
regarding the comments made in conjunction with the walks. Turgeon also reviewed the
worksheet submitted by Southwest Trails with regard to grooming the trail. She informed the
Task Force the trail was groomed eight times in the months of January and February and was
groomed twice in one particular day. Grooming had occurred on the same day when various Task
Force members had walked the trail and reported it to be in fair or poor condition.
Co-chair Kolstad stated the condition of the trail did not necessarily reflect it had not been
groomed. The City had instructed to Southwest Trails to leave bumps in for the purpose of
slowing down the traffic.
Hurm stated if there is going to be an enforcement program, maybe the trail should be groomed to
reduce noise and allow for cross country skiing and not concentrate on speed. Co-chair
Colopoulos stated if the winter use of trails will be promoted as multi-use, then it should be
groomed in a manner which is designed for multi-use. Turgeon inquired if Grant-in-Aide would
be lost if the trail were to be multi-use. Hurm explained the city would not be concerned with this.
Peterson mentioned there are many trails throughout the state which are multi-use and at the same
time Grant-in-Aide. It would be up to Grant-in-Aide's interpretation. Kolstad questioned if the
city would be willing to pay for the grooming if Grant-in-Aide is not available. Peterson stated the
city would also have to take responsibility for any signage.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co-chair Colopoulos suggested grooming the trail as wide as possible leaving a defined edge.
Arnst suggested plowing and leaving a sustained base which can be packed for multi-use. He also
commented crossing and intersection maintenance would need to be improved. Peterson asked the
Task Force to keep in mind the city will have to build a drag to pull behind the truck which should
be a consideration. Arnst remarked the trail has never been groomed for anything other than
snowmobiling during the winter months.
Grooming Recommendations
1. Promote as multi-use.
2. Groom flat - groom after every snow. ~
3. Find ways to fund grooming if Grant-in-Aide Program dollars are lost.
4. Groom at the standard II' to 12' width - with a defined edge.
5. Try to retain a controlled base, consider snow storage and damage to trees.
6. Improve maintenance of crossings by city.
Peterson moved, George seconded to accept the Task Force recommendations
with regard to grooming. Motion passed, 5/0. (Co-chair Colopoulos left the
meeting at 7:45 p.m.)
6. POLICY ANALYSIS FROM PRIOR MEETING
a) POLICY AREA EIGHT - SAFETY
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed what had been accomplished on this issue to date. She further stated
there are a number of safety issues having to do with speed and enforcement, however, one of the
biggest safety issues is the multi-use of the trail.
Tarvin reported on the staff brainstorming session and staff agreed there was a concern with
having snowmobilers and pedestrians on the trail and making it workable. One option would be
to utilize the trail, but grooming it to be conducive for walking, skiing and snowmobiling. There
should also be recommended ways of yielding right of way for pedestrians and help defme what
those are. Another way to accommodate multi-use would be to separate motorized and
nonmotorized use, one consideration would be to have one or the other on the trail. Another
consideration would include having alternate day usage. Southwest Trails has, in the past, offered
to groom walking and cross country skiing trails at Freeman Park without motorized vehicles
present. Another option would be to investigate other relationships with local businesses, such as
the Country Club, to groom a walking and/or cross country skiing trail on their property.
Turgeon stated with regard to the path in Freeman Park, it would be no different than having to
trailer a snowmobile. The walkers and skiers would have to drive to Freeman Park. Therefore,
the trail would still be designated as a snowmobile trail. She expressed her opinion the trail is not
wide enough to accommodate motorized and nonmotorized use. Turgeon also did not think the
Country Club would allow for a walking and skiing trail due to potential damage to the grass.
Co-chair Kolstad related a subtaskforce suggestion to clear trees and brush and allow the
snowmobilers to use the ditch area for their short season. Peterson stated he supports multi-use.
Turgeon commented both sides of the issue have a lot of merit. She further pointed out
snowmobiles would have the lakes on which to ride, and pedestrians, cross country skiers,
snowshoers, etcetera, would have access to the trail.
George stated in looking at the survey, there is a perception people do not feel safe on the trail,
generally with regard to the issue of speed. If a resident does not live on the trail, they would have
to drive to an access point. He further commented in looking at the history of the trail and his 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 9
years of experience in the area, he has no memory of ever having responded on the trail for
someone having been run over by a snowmobile. He does not personally perceive it as a safety
hazard. He stated that in looking at snowmobile deaths statewide, they are snowmobilers who
were involved in accidents with other vehicles rather than pedestrians. George further expressed
the fact snowmobiling is not allowed in the park, however, cross country skiing and snowshoeing
are allowed in the park. It was his opinion the trail would need to be better maintained via speed
and curfews, and people will then not be as concerned about safety.
Arnst read an officer's response as relates to safety. The officer stated he was nearly hit as he was
standing on the trail attempting to stop a curfew violator. Arnst further quoted driving under the
influence as an issue of safety. Size and width of the machine is a concern. He further pointed out
pedestrians are on the trails during the hours of darkness and the snowmobilers are unable to
identify pedestrians quickly enough to avoid them.
Arnst further stated pedestrians have not been given a safe place to walk for so long, they have
given up on using the trail. He suggested a 12-year trial period in which snowmobiles would not
be allowed on the trail and then review the matter at a later date. He further stated his opinion the
best riding for snowmobilers is up north and that is where they should ride. Arnst stated his
support for separate use.
Co-chair Kolstad stated she would not let this issue go to a divided vote. She suggested coming
up with a consensus or sending the issue to the City Council with the Task Force's views and a
viable alternative. George stated with respect to the survey, 54 percent stated safety was an issue,
however, 52 percent wanted snowmobiles on the trail. He related his opinion that residents
acknowledge there is a safety issue, however over half are expressing their desire for snowmobiles
to remain on the trail. He feels they are requesting the Task Force to produce an alternative to
make that work.
The Task Force considered three situations and their consequences for trail usage: single-use
walkers, single-use snowmobilers and multi-use of the trail.
To make the trail single use for walkers, the following issues would need to be addressed:
1 . Put snowmobiles on designated routes.
2. Residents only - to and from routes.
3. Not practical to ride on plowed streets.
4. There would be an increase in property damage.
5. Will affect more households than the 72 along the trail.
6. Longer routes to lake.
7. There are walkers on the streets also.
8. Emergency services may be difficult for walkers.
9. May see increased use of trail.
10. Easier to enforce pedestrian rules.
11. Reduce cost of enforcement.
Marshik inquired of the consequences if the trail were designated for snowmobile use only.
The following issues would need to be addressed:
1. Law against walking on the trail.
2. Ticket pedestrians
3. Need for alternative places to ski and walk
4. Freeman Park - safety concerns, adequate enforcement
5 . Probably not increased number of snowmobilers on trail
6. Speeding possibly an issue
WILLIAM COLOPOULOS, CO-CHAIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 23, 1996 - PAGE 10
Marshik asked the Task Force, if the trail were designated multi-use, what would be the
consequences? The following issues were discussed:
1. Grant-in-Aide funds may be lost
2. Potential for pedestrian/snowmobile accident higher
3 . Safety in general
4. Safety zones, with signage and increased patrolling
5. Widening trail for walking and riding
6. Grooming for multi-use, how? ~
7. Alternate day usage - enforcement issues, signage, reduction in noise, potential conflicts
with new snowfall
8 . Alternate hours usage - enforcement, signage
Marshik pointed out to the Task Force if they do not reach a compromise, the City Council will
make the decision.
Turgeon moved, George seconded, to table the issue of safety until the next
meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
NEXT MEETING DATE/REMINDERS
Co-chair Kolstad stated the issues for the final meeting on May 30, 1996, will be speeding, right-
of-way, education, city response to noise recommendations, ban, and safety.
ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:56 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously, 5/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary
Timesaver Off-Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
THURSDA Y, MAY 30, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
5:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING
Co-Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Voting Members Present:
John Arnst, Co-Chair Bill Colopoulos, Dana George, Co-
Chair Virginia Kolstad, Warren Peterson, and Laura
Turgeon
City Administrator Hurm, Staff Research Assistant Rebecca
Tarvin, Police Chief Rick Young, Engineer Larry Brown,
Snow Patrol Representative Dan Puzak
Staff! Alternates Present:
Recording Secretary:
Facilitator:
Cheryl Wallat
Judy Marshik, Research Quik
2. GROUND RULES AND MINUTES OF MAY 15, 1996
George moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the May 15, 1996, Task Force
meeting minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 2, change "service streets" to
read "certain streets." Motion passed 5/0. Turgeon abstained.
MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1996
George moved, Turgeon seconded, to table consideration of the May 23, 1996,
Task Force meeting minutes until the completion of the meeting. Motion passed
unanimously, 6/0.
3. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Turgeon and Arnst submitted a minority opinion on the Timber Lane access issue which was
discussed and voted on at the May 23rd meeting.
Co-chair Kolstad stated a goal to draft a final report by June 14 in preparation of submitting the
approved report to Council on June 24. It was agreed the final report review meeting will be held
on Monday, June 17 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded, to schedule a meeting of the Task Force for
Monday, June 17 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for review of the final report to be
submitted to City Council. Motion passed 5/0. George abstained.
George will be unable to attend, however, he will review the report and submit written comments
if necessary. Arnst submitted pictures of the Timber Lane area for clarification.
Speed Recommendations
1. Write letter to Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines on curfew and
speed.
2. Improve signage on trail changes, put warning signs in Victoria.
3. Education for riders on speed limits.
4. Improved enforcement - utilize radar, officer education.
5 . Lake shoreline buffer: 150 feet. All lakes have the same buffer and speed
regulations as Minnetonka.
6. Communicate with Chanhassen and Carver and ask them to adopt the same for
Christmas Lake and Cathcart Park.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 2
4. OPEN ISSUES - None
5. SUBTASK FORCE REPORTS & FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Co-chair Kolstad distributed a Summary of Prior Meeting Discussions which she reviewed.
5(a). POLICY REVIEW AREA THREE - SPEED LIMITS
Co-chair Colopoulos presented and reviewed a report from the subtask force regarding the issue of
speed. He stated the City Council will need to understand these recommendations would involve
additional dedicated resources such as a snowmobile and two trained officers.
Turgeon expressed her opinion the only way this would work is if the police department gets a
snowmobile and radar so that data could be compared in future years. Administrator Hurm stated
the key is accountability and that is built into the subtask force report. Co-chair Colopoulos
suggested the Park Commission track implementation during the first year due to the recreational
nature of snowmobiling.
Arnst commented he did not feel pedestrians were getting a safety zone in the recommendations for
speed limit. Co-chair Kolstad stated that was addressed as a safety issue. Hurm mentioned during
the staff brainstorming session, the general consensus was that a safety zone would be very
difficult to enforce. Co-chair Colopoulos suggested this may be an educational point to include
under safety guidelines.
Tarvin reported on the staff brainstorming session and with regard to enforcing speed limits, Chief
Young had stated while policy enforcement is made easier by uniformity, Shorewood's two speed
limits - 10 mph on streets and 20 mph on the trail, is acceptable. Restricting use was discussed
such as the 150-foot lake buffer zone which Minnetonka currently utilizes which has a 15 mph
speed limit.
Arnst spoke of the nuisance problem of snowmobilers riding in circles which becomes an
annoyance. George stated he would like the lakes designated by name since some of the lakes
listed on the survey are not within Shorewood. Chief Young advised Christmas Lake has a large
portion in Carver County and suggested conferring with Carver County or the City of Chanhassen
with regard to regulations on this lake so the cities can achieve uniformity in their regulations.
Chief Young mentioned the issue of lake access signage which would need to be addressed.
Turgeon mentioned Hennepin Parks will designate the placement of signs. Co-chair Colopoulos
stated signage could be posted citywide to reflect snowmobile speed limits. He suggested a
smaller sign to be placed under the current speed limit signs for automobiles which would depict a
snowmobile and reflect the speed limit for snowmobiles. City Engineer Brown stated the City
Attorney would need to be consulted for his recommendations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 3
7. Safety training for younger riders.
8. Alcohol issue.
9. After City Attorney's opinion, add snowmobile speed signs to certain auto
speed sign posts.
Turgeon moved, George seconded, to accept the Speed recommendations
considering the input by the City Staff Subtask Force and the Subtask Force on
Speed. Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
Arnst proposed a sign with a statement such as "Obey these rules or you will lose this trail."
5(b). POLICY REVIEW AREA FOURTEEN - RIGHT-OF-WAY
Co-chair Kolstad stated boulevard is the primary issue. The consensus of the City Staff subtask
force was a preference for snowmobiles to ride on the boulevard rather than on the street. Hurm
stated education would be a factor in that residents would need to know who to contact if a
problem arises.
Chief Young added, from a safety perspective, this would be placing pedestrians and
snowmobilers in danger if the snowmobilers are riding behind snow banks. It would be much
safer to have the snowmobilers off the paved portion of the street rather than on the paved portion.
Arnst reminded the ordinance states riding is not allowed on the boulevard. Co-chair Kolstad
stated there are other points of view on what the ordinance actually states. Turgeon pointed out
that 55 percent of the people on the survey do not want riding on the boulevard. This would also
push the snowmobilers further onto private property.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated there is a property right issue. City government has a deeded access to
the boulevard for specific purposes of snow removal, construction of sidewalks and trails. He
further commented the only way to morally allow motorized vehicles on a resident's deeded access
property would be on a volunteer basis, property owner by property owner based on their
preference.
George indicated his agreement with Turgeon and stated from a safety standpoint when a
snowmobiler is on the plow ridge, from the snowmobiler's viewpoint, they will go onto people's
property. Most of the people riding in Shorewood are looking for access to get to a trail and riding
on the 4 to 6 foot shoulder portion would be the best alternative.
George stated if right-of-way is an issue, the ordinance already allows snowmobilers to come into
the street to avoid an obstacle. Turgeon stated that would result in an ordinance which could not
attain 100 percent compliance. On streets with only a partial right-of-way, there would be a
violation. Puzak suggested the zero right-of-ways could be handled by blocking them off. Brown
suggested the Snow Patrol could place hay bales in those particular areas and the rider would be
out in the street at that distance. Puzak commented this issue would tend to be a neighborhood
awareness matter.
Arnst's interpretation of the ordinance was to say snowmobiles should traverse on the shoulder
portion of the roadway and may go into the street to avoid a physical barrier such as a parked car.
Turgeon added that 41 percent of the people responding on the survey stated snowmobilers
trespass on their property. George commented if the City plows the snow back where they
normally do and allows snowmobiles on the shoulder portion of the road, most people will not
have a problem trespassing. It is easier for snowmobiles to stay on the road rather than move over
the top of the plow ridge. If complaints are made regarding property violations, then the issue
should be addressed.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Turgeon moved, George seconded, to permit snowmobilers to ride on the street
side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street with the
exception of private property or zero right-of-way. Motion passed unanimously,
6/0.
Kolstad reviewed the remaining recommendations of direction of traffic, the inside of the plow
ridge, provide a standard definition of street and trail right-of-way and education on acceptable
right-of-way for private property.
Turgeon commented with regard to traffic, snowmobilers should be in compliance with state law
which currently dictates they must ride with traffic.
Right-of-way Recommendations
1. Boulevard vs. no boulevard, which direction to avoid obstacles.
2. Shoulder of road or outside edge of street where there is no shoulder.
3 . Direction of traffic.
4. Ride on street side of plow ridge.
5. A void obstacles by going into the street except when a street is on private
property.
6. Provide a standard definition of street and trail right-of-way.
7. Education on acceptable right-of-way for private property.
Turgeon moved, Arnst seconded, to adopt the recommendations for right-of-way.
Arnst clarified there should be no riding on the shoulder of the hikelbike trail and that riding be
confined to the 11 to 12 foot surface.
V ote on Motion: Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
Co-chair Colopoulos recessed the meeting at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
5 (c). POLICY REVIEW AREA ELEVEN - PROPERTY RIGHTSITRESPASSING
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the recommendations and stated the issue of designated streets was not
looked upon favorably at the City brainstorming session. Co-chair Kolstad stated the addition of
signage on public wetlands would help identify them for trespassing. Tarvin mentioned a
comprehensive sign placement program could be considered to monitor sign posting.
Co-chair Kolstad asked what the Task Force means by restricted areas. Turgeon stated
snowmobiles could be restricted to lake use only. Co-chair Colopoulos commented one area
where property rights, trespass and violations are an issue is the portion of the LRT by Eureka
Road where there is a rough section of trail and adjacent smooth property and the snowmobilers
choose the smooth property, leaving the trail. He stated there needs to be some follow through of
accountability and trespass should be monitored to the extent it can be monitored. George
remarked if there is a monitoring system, it would need to be clarified as well as what would
constitute trespass. Co-chair Kolstad commented with regard to monitoring that the database does
not reflect many complaints regarding trespass due to the fact it is very difficult for violators to be
apprehended. It would be difficult to monitor something that cannot be monitored to begin with.
Co-chair Colopoulos suggested the Task Force could make a recommendation to City Council to
revise or develop an ordinance regarding snowmobile access.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 5
Co-chair Colopoulos stated a means of clearly identifying for both snowmobilers and property
owners where snowmobilers can travel is necessary. Turgeon suggested restricting use to the trail
and, since there is no clear process, Southwest Trails and the Snow Patrol should be eliminated
from the process. She felt the police department should be trained to handle this situation.
Turgeon further commented that an accountability point needs to be clarified.
Co-chair Kolstad stated there were no violations for trespass because violators could not be
apprehended. If trespass occurs, the police will do what it takes to deal with it.
Property Ri~htsrrrespass Recommendations
1. Have trained person respond to trespass calls.
2. Educate on metro area trespass law.
3. Identify residents with recurring problems and develop a plan to assist.
4. Educate snowmobilers about wetlands and sign no snowmobiling.
5. Study parking and access to Lake Minnetonka.
6. Educate on right-of-way and property boundaries. Riders stay on 11 to 12 foot
trail. Parking and access from private property.
7. Educate officers on right-of-way laws.
8 . Monitoring process of trespass.
Turgeon moved, Arnst seconded, to adopt the recommendations to be
implemented or monitored by the Southwest Lake Police in conjunction with City
Staff.
George commented in reviewing past reports to the Park Commission, there have been very
favorable comments made regarding the Snow Patrol. He acknowledged there had been an
unfortunate incident, but not all situations can be resolved and as a whole, the Snow Patrol works
very well. George stated they are valid and they do a lot of good in the community. He expressed
his opinion the police and City staff will not have the time to go out and solve aU of the problems
which arise. Administrator Hurm pointed out this motion would not eliminate the Snow Patrol,
however, it would eliminate their involvement in trespass complaints.
V ote on Motion: Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
5(d). POLICY REVIEW AREA SIX - NOISE
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the recommendations. Chief Young had not been in favor of two
different curfews for week nights and weekends. Co-chair Colopoulos inquired about zero
tolerance on curfew in place of changing the curfew or lowering it. George asked why there was a
problem with different times for curfew. He expressed his opinion it would be more of an
education issue. Turgeon stated if the proper signage was utilized, there should not be a problem.
Puzak commented the ordinance and signage will say "weekends and holidays" and this creates an
enforcement issue. Fire lanes have a clear message that they close at 11:00 p.m. Other cities use
11:00 p.m. as well and it is easier to understand when it is consistent.
Co-chair Colopoulos indicated an accountability program with regard to the use of the noise meter
would be appropriate.
Arnst stated he is in favor of the 10:00 p.m. curfew. He felt 11:00 p.m. was too late because
many people are sleeping at that hour and are wakened by snowmobilers. A one hour tolerance
would take the curfew to midnight.
Noise Recommendations
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Plant evergreens along trail and designated streets to reduce noise.
2. Change evening curfew to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday; Friday
through Saturday 11 :00 p.m.
3. Raise fines for violation of curfew and equipment ordinances.
4. City of Shorewood to rent a noise meter.
5 . 150 foot buffer zone on designated lakes.
George moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt the recommendations with respect to
noise. Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
6. POLICY ANALYSIS FROM PRIOR MEETING
6(a). POLICY REVIEW AREA EIGHT. SAFETY
Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the recommendations. Co-chair Kolstad and Administrator Hurm met
with Del Miller of Hennepin Parks and drove around the trail looking at it from the standpoint of
putting in a side trail. Co-chair Kolstad indicated on a photograph where a potential trail could be
developed. Some areas would be difficult, however, a side trail could be easily done in about 50
percent of the trail and would be very feasible by Freeman Park.
Co-chair Colopoulos inquired how long it would take to have a feasible and operational side trail.
Hurm stated it would involve clearing and the addition of some culverts, but basically just clearing
and signing it. Co-chair Colopoulos noted a need to differentiate between the feasibility in the long
term and what the Task Force will recommend to the City Council in the short term. Hurrn felt this
side trail could be completed in a couple of months.
Arnst stated this option would take away from the buffer zone of the people by taking down trees,
shrubs and things of that nature. Co-chair Kolstad clarified where the trail would be located and
that no one is looking at taking down trees. Co-chair Colopoulos stated it would be more
restrictive since snowmobiles would not be allowed on the side trail.
Turgeon asked how the trail would be groomed, given it would be four feet wide. Co-chair
Kolstad stated all of the recommendations being made by the Task Force would have to be looked
at and analyzed from a feasibility standpoint. Puzak suggested obtaining a commercial
snowmobile for police enforcement and to monitor radar. In addition, this machine could pull a
drag and groom the trail.
Arnst commented there should be a provision for horses on the trail in the summer. Co-chair
Colopoulos stated Hennepin Parks has taken a firm stand and does not allow horses on the trail
and the matter would be out of the control of the City of Shorewood.
Arnst raised the question of a snowmobiler leaving the trail and riding on the side trail. Peterson
stated the police would monitor this and impose substantial fines for people snowmobiling on the
hike/bike trail.
Tarvin added during the staff brainstorming it was agreed the less multi-use on a trail, the safer the
situation will be.
Hurm suggested considering Freeman Park as an option. Arnst stated Freeman Park presents a
safety issue. Turgeon stated she views Cathcart Park as a safety issue. Enforcement is also an
issue with Cathcart Park. Hurm suggested the City coordinate enforcement with Chanhassen with
regard to Cathcart Park due to the different police jurisdictions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 7
Turgeon moved, George seconded, to recommend an alternate side trail along the
LRT based on a feasibility study by the city engineer. Motion passed
unanimously, 6/0.
Hurm informed the Task Force he had asked Del Miller about the possibility of widening the trail
in certain areas, however, Mr. Miller did not feel that would be feasible.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated with regard to multi-use and safety, the City Council will want to
know how the Task Force feels about the issue of safety on the trail. In reviewing the survey, he
related 63 percent of the nonriders indicated they do not feel safe with snowmobiles on the trail.
Of the riders surveyed, 28 percent stated they didn't feeLsafe having pedestrians and snowmobiles
on the trail at the same time. In comparison, the database shows no accidents on the trail. He
posed the question, can the Task Force assume because there have been no accidents on the trail
that it is safe for multi-use. He stated his opinion these issues need to be addressed.
Co-chair Kolstad commented with regard to a separate trail, it gives an alternative to using the trail.
If the side trail turns out to be successful, it may justify the cost of putting the trail in the entire
distance.
George stated the survey indicates 46 percent of the people stated they have not used the trail in
two years and 35 percent stated they had not been in the presence of a snowmobile on the trail.
With regard to the injury report, the injuries reported did not involve pedestrians.
Co-chair Colopoulos expressed his opinion the safety issue could be dealt with very easily.
Anyone who is uncomfortable using a multi-use trail can avoid the trail. Turgeon added that
snowmobilers could also trailer their snowmobiles to the lake and strictly utilize the lake.
Co-chair Kolstad commented it does not matter how many people use the trail or how many people
snowmobile. The issue is to minimize the problem. It takes only one snowmobile and one
pedestrian for an accident to happen. Arnst stated many people have not used the trail in the past
two years because of the poor condition of the trail. He expressed his opinion some pedestrians
are intimidated by snowmobilers into not using the trail.
Hurm added in areas where the side trail cannot be constructed, signs could be utilized indicating
that section of the trail to be a multi-use section.
George moved, Turgeon seconded, every attempt will be made to minimize the
safety issues on those portions of the trail where there is no alternative trail.
Co-chair Kolstad and Turgeon suggested, while the Task Force does not advocate a multi-use trail,
however, in areas where a separate trail cannot be placed, extra precautions are recommended to
minimize potential safety problems.
Puzak offered, in order to maximize both the use and safety of the LRT, we recommend that a side
trail be installed where feasible. If this trail is well used and well liked, future expansion should be
considered.
George withdrew his motion. Co-chair Colopoulos recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:06 p.m.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated he advocates a snowmobile only trail and pedestrians need to use
common sense. He further stated zero risk is the only acceptable risk factor. George commented
under that scenario, playground equipment would need to be removed from parks due to risk
factors. Co-chair Colopoulos indicated he preferred to err on the side of safety.
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
George moved, Peterson seconded, because multi-use has contributed to safety
concerns, we are committing to separating uses by working toward a separate trail
where feasible and creating safer practical alternatives for non-snowmobile users
who should be advised they are at risk when using the trail.
George moved to amend, Peterson seconded, to offer broader recreational
opportunities and because multi-use of the LRT trail has contributed to safety
concerns, we are committing to separating uses by working toward a separate trail
where feasible and creating safer practical alternatives for non-snowmobile users
who should be advised of risk when using the trail. Motion passed 412. Arnst
and Turgeon were the dissenting votes.
Turgeon stated she could not advocate multi-use on the trail in any part and she believes the Task
Force is still looking at the same safety concerns. Arnst stated his belief this would result in the
creation of a two level system. Safety is an issue and he does not condone the aspect of putting
pedestrians and motorized vehicles on the same surfaces. The pedestrians would be put in a noise
environment. He also mentioned the possibility of a snowmobile running off the trail and hitting a
skier on the pedestrian trail because the pedestrian would be at a lower level.
Arnst moved, Turgeon seconded, to include a reduced speed limit of 10 mph
within 30 feet of a pedestrian on the trail and allow a three foot margin of safety.
Co-chair Kolstad stated enforcement would be a problem. George stated in utilizing a zero
tolerance, there could be enforcement problems, however if people are aware of it, they may
respect it. With regard to the three foot margin, George commented a pedestrian would also need
to move over to the right hand side of the trail to allow the snowmobile to pass.
George moved to amend, Turgeon seconded, to include a pedestrian must move to
the right of the trail to allow a snowmobile pass.
Co-chair Kolstad expressed her concern this recommendation would not be enforceable. Co-chair
Colopoulos stated the zero tolerance coupled with an educational effort would make people respect
the ordinance even if it were difficult to monitor the enforcement.
Puzak suggested rather than utilizing an ordinance, signs could be posted on the trail indicating,
"When overtaking pedestrians, please pass at reduced speed and to the right."
Vote on Motion: Motion passed 5/1. Co-chair Kolstad was the dissenting vote.
Co-chair Kolstad stated the recommendation is too complex and would be very difficult to enforce.
Tarvin suggested City staff could be directed to put together a comprehensive sign program
regarding the use of the trail including signs for speed limits, city ordinance rules and areas where
snowmobiling would not be allowed as well as signage of the access and walking path.
Safety Recommendations
1 . Implementation of a comprehensive sign program by City staff.
2. City to investigate grooming and patrolling of Freeman Park to make it a safe and viable
area for cross country skiers, hikers and whoever would want to use it.
3 . Determine who has jurisdiction of Cathcart Park and who will be responsible for
enforcement.
4. Season - educate riders on dates.
5. Signage on the trail needs to be in conjunction with the comprehensive sign program.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 . PAGE 9
6. Educate police force on trail issues.
7. Investigate with Hennepin Parks the use of cards for accident/incident reporting.
Turgeon moved, George seconded to adopt the recommendations with respect to
safety. Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
6(b). POLICY REVIEW AREA TWELVE. EDUCATION
Education Recommendations
-Educate officers on new ordinances.
-Educate riders on curfew times.
-Educate residents, police, riders on speed limits on
trail, streets, buffer zones and boulevard.
-Improve availability of safety certificate training.
-Improve requirements for safety training to all
drivers without drivers license.
-Use list of snowmobile registrations to update
owners annually on new laws and riding guidelines.
-Educate citizens on acceptable noise levels.
-Educate riders, police on noise requirements
(decibels, equipment).
-Educate residents/officers on right-of-way issues.
-Educate residents on reporting procedures.
-Educate riders on dates of season and right-of-way
Issues.
-Educate officers on trail use issues.
-Educate residents on available methods of
protection, i.e., hay bales.
-Educate police officers, citizens and riders on where
right-of-ways end for residents and trail.
-Educate riders on wetlands.
-Educate on metro area trespass law.
-Educate police officers on season.
-Educate riders on rules, i.e., direction, who has
right-of-way, where they can ride.
-Educate riders on acceptable lake accesses.
George moved, Peterson seconded, to direct City staff to develop a
comprehensive plan with respect to education as a coordinated effort with the
Park Commission and outside agencies incorporating the listed recommendations.
Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
1. Enforcement
2. Curfew
3 . Speed Limits
4. RegistrationIID
5 . Permit & Inspection
6. Noise
7. Property Damage
8 . Safety
9. Property Rights/
Trespass
10. Season
11. Right-of-way
7. NEW POLICY ANALYSIS
7(a). POLICY ANALYSIS AREA NINETEEN . BAN OR LIMITED USE
Co-chair Colopoulos stated discussion would be limited to making a motion after which each
member would be restricted to three minutes of commentary.
Turgeon moved, Arnst seconded, to ban snowmobiling from the trail based on the
survey data that 51 percent support usage of the LRT; 34 percent feel
snowmobiles should have restricted areas for use; alternative access points cannot
be identified other than Timber Lane which has not been determined to be viable;
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
50 percent of the riders do almost all of their riding outside of Shore wood; the
additional recommendations made by the Task Force are creative but require
additional manpower, equipment, substantial financial commitments, and are
based on perfect world platforms that all involved parties are equally willing to
observe 150 percent of the time; and substantial changes are not going to be made
to improve the current situation.
Marshik stated as a point of information, 28 percent suggested a ban as an alternative. Turgeon
stated she misworded the statement and it was use of the trail or at another area.
Co-chair Kolstad indicated she originally felt the use_ was incompatible. However, in going
through the process and reviewing the data and the survey, she is not sure it would be so
incompatible. The Task Force work will create an awareness as well as educational programs
which need to be created. She stated snowmobiling is a sport which could stay in Shorewood for
a while, probably not forever, and the Task Force should consider setting a review date three to
five years in the future to review this issue given the growing population.
George commented the statistics show that citywide the residents do not support a ban. In
reviewing the data, in areas where the city does become too populated, the problem takes care of
itself in that many people do not ride snowmobiles in those areas. He further commented the data
does not show a strong support for or against snowmobiling. The data reflects a good majority of
nonriders are in favor of allowing the recreation to continue. In addition, 84 percent of the people
generally do not have anything negative to say about the sport in the city. George stated at this
time, snowmobiling is compatible in the City of Shorewood and he would oppose the ban.
Co-chair Colopoulos stated initially he did not agree with banning a sport before careful
consideration could be given to what would be given up and responsibility needs to be taken into
account as well as being open to looking at all of the practical alternatives. Co-chair Colopoulos
feels a thorough analysis has been done.
Arnst expressed his support of the ban due to his feeling that safety on the trail has been
jeopardized for years and that the Grant-in-Aide ruling was not brought to light with respect to
multi-use. He stated the silent majority has never been heard due to the fact when a meeting is held
and the issue of snowmobiles is on the agenda, a vocal minority fills the room and the silent
majority is never heard.
Arnst further commented when the Citizen Informer was sent out there was an opportunity to
educate people and provide them with articles and that never matured. During the last snowstorm,
Arnst stated he called both chairpersons and informed them of the speeding and noncompliance
with the city speed limit. He expressed his concern but did not see any results.
With regard to the trail walks, Arnst commented he pointed out many examples of noncompliance
as well as rule breaking, however, he has not seen any enforcement. He felt the input of the few
people who called in complaints should not be diminished. Arnst stated snowmobilers do not like
to be told what to do and there are conflicts on the trail.
Turgeon explained she reviewed all of the data in the book, read the verbatims and went through
each policy change area and reviewed recommendations and policy change areas. She noted the
recommendations from the Task Force are not much different than what already exists. The
recommendations are based on too many "ifs". If none of the recommendations come to light,
everything stays status quo. Turgeon related her belief residents will not want to see everything
stay status quo given the expense of the Task Force. She stated the Police Chief does not have the
manpower or equipment necessary and this has been this way since 1988. The City has taken no
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 11
proactive stand on trying to educate its constituents. All of the same resources and tools have been
available for many, many years and they have never been utilized.
Peterson stated he would refrain from making a speech.
Co-chair Kolstad commented her opinion that Turgeon makes a valid point. If snowmobiles are
kept in the city, it should be made contingent upon the Task Force's recommendations being taken
and there is a monitoring process to ensure the changes are made.
George commented with regard to a vocal minority and a vocal majority, a vocal majority stated
overwhelmingly through the survey they do not want a 1:}.an. When the Task Force asked residents
to call in violations, there were some complaints, however, they came from a handful of residents.
Vote on the Motion: Motion passed 412. Arnst and Turgeon were the dissenting
votes.
George moved, Peterson seconded, to continue limited use, banning snowmobiles
from parks and other public areas, and clarifying the ordinance that riding on the
boulevard is not allowed, however, the riders should use the shoulder portion 0 f
the road. Snowmobiling is prohibited from April 1 to November 30. Motion
passed unanimously, 6/0.
Arnst moved, Turgeon seconded a snowmobile will be considered a nuisance if
used in an annoying manner more than 20 minutes in a three hour period of time.
Co-chair Kolstad felt the current nuisance ordinance is sufficient to cover this area. George
pointed out there were other examples given in the survey which were more annoying and
expressed his opinion the present nuisance ordinance covers situations such as this. Arnst
informed the Task Force that watercraft have a nuisance clause by which they must abide.
Vote on Motion: Motion failed, 511. Kolstad, Colopoulos, George, Peterson
and Turgeon were the dissenting votes.
Arnst inquired if County Road 19 is a viable access for snowmobilers according to state law.
Tarvin suggested City staff could be requested to research this issue. George commented if
County Road 19 is not a legal access, then that would be an enforcement issue with the police
department. Co-chair Colopoulos stated there were no recommendations made to suggest illegal
use be continued anywhere.
George moved, Turgeon seconded, to accept the ordinance issues as discussed by
the Task Force as well as the recommendations for signage. In addition, no
snowmobiles would be allowed on the side trail or they would be subject to heavy
fine, and Chanhassen should enforce the ordinance in Cathcart Park. Motion
passed unanimously, 6/0.
George moved, Turgeon seconded, to accept the minority opinions unless they are
substantially different from the meeting minutes.
Co-chair Colopoulos pointed out that everyone would have access to the information at the same
time so there would be no "last word" approach to anything in the final report.
Vote on Motion: Motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
8. SUMMARY OF ISSUES - None.
~. .~~
VIR ~~ AD, CO-CHAIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 30, 1996 - PAGE 12
9. NEXT MEETING DATEIREMINDERS
The fmal meeting of the Snowmobile Task Force will be held on Monday, June 17, 1996, from
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to review the final report.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Kolstad commended the Task Force on all of their hard work. Co-chair Colopoulos also
extended his appreciation to the Task Force for their time and commitment. He encouraged the
members to attend the City Council meetings where the snowmobile issue is a part of the agenda in
an effort to answer any questions the City Council might have.
George moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Motion
passed unanimously, 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wall at, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
WILLIAM COLOPOULOS, CO-CHAIR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task
Force
Memo
To: Members of the Snowmobile Task Force
Fram: Virginia Kolstad & Dana George
CC: City Staff
Date: June 16,1996
Re: Recommendations to City Council on Snowmobile Identification Issues-Revised
The following are the proposed recommendation that the Snowmobile Task Force would like to make
to City Council regarding the registration, identification and licensing of snowmobiles and their
operators. The Task Force has detennined that that the City has no authority to make changes in
these areas to improve enforcement of snowmobile regulations. Therefore, we are requesting that
City Council make the following recommendations to the Department of Natural Resources for the
State of Minnesota.
POUCY AREA FOUR: SNOWMOBILE IDENTIFICATION
The Shorewood Snowmobile Task Force requests the Shorewood City Council consider the following
recommendations to improve the identification and licensing of snowmobiles and their operators in the
City of Shorewood.for. The purpose of these recommendations is to establish clear accountabilily for
compliance with regulations, improve utilization of safety training programs and provide for more
effective enforcement of ordinances and laws goveming the operation of snowmobiles within the city.
It is recommended that to the extent the City of Shorewood is not authorized to make these changes
that these recommendations be forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources of the State of
Minnesota for their consideration and implementation.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Snowmobile Registration
a. Require the registration numbers of each snowmobile to be in a contrasting color, reflectorized,
and at least 3 inches in height so that they can be more easily seen from a distance.
b. Require that each snowmobile manufactured after 1996 have a designated area for the
placement of the registration numbers which would not contain any other decals or coloring so that
the numbers are clearly visible.
. Page 1
c. Require that snowmobiles in Minnesota purchase and display a license plate on the back bumper
containing the registration number. This would allow for improved identification of snowmobiles
from the rear.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d. Require that snowmobile owners show evidence of insurance when registering their snowmobiles.
(Added to recommendations 6/14/96 per task force request.)
2. Operator Identification
a. Require that operators under age 16 or older operators without a drivers license be required to
complete the necessary safety training program and Obtain the safety certificate which would be
required to be on their person when operating the snowmobile.
b. Redesign the safety certificates 50 that they contain the photo identification of the individual to
improve identification and compliance with the law.
3. Equipment Restrictions
a. In addition to requirements currently in place and the above requirements, require that underage
operators (under age 16) not be allowed to drive snowmobiles which are more than 300 cc.
4. Accountability
a. Establish procedures that would require that snowmobiles violations be charged against the
individual's drivers license or safety certificate. Revocation of the safety certificate could occur
after a certain number of violations.
b. Require that violations be charged to both the registered owner of the snowmobile and the
operator of the snowmobile to discourage reckless entrustment of the machine to any individual.
We believe that these changes would promote the continued safe enjoyment of the sport by making it
easier to identify, apprehend and penalize violators of the laws and regulations applicable to the sport.
. Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Snowmobile Task .
Force
Memo
To: Task Force Members
From: Dana George, Virginia Kolstad, & Laura Turgeon
CC: City Staff
Date: May 15, 1996
Re: Subtaskforce Report on Noise
The following is the report from the Subtaskforce assigned to review the alternatives and
recommendations regarding noise from snowmobiles. Several of the recommendations are
dependent on other policy areas and on input from agencies impaded.
We have reviewed the data and infonnation provided to the taskforce on snowmobile noise. We do
not feel that snowmobile noise represents a health issue. We do concur that snowmobile noise may
be a concern and is more of a problem depending on the proximity of the snowmobile and on the time
of day. We recommend the following to address these concerns and submit them to the taskforce for
further review and action.
To reduce the impact of noise on residents near trails and key access routes".
1. Require the planting of evergreen trees which are at least eight feet tall along these routes at key
points where due to the proximity of homes or specific terrain features, noise may be a problem.
Require the same of new construction along the trail or designated routes.
2. Change the evening curfew to 1 0 pm during the weeknights (Sunday through Thursday).
3. Raise the fines for violations of the curfew and for violations of Ordinance #802.04, Subdivision 1,
regarding equipment requirements.
4. Require South Lake Minnetonka Police Department to get a noise meter or similar device to
measure and thus ensure compliance with the above ordinance.
*T 0 disperse traffic and reduce use of the trail.
1. Identify alternative access routes along key streets. These should be clearly noted on maps, signs
and should be graded to allow use by snowmobiles during the winter months.
· Grading should leave snow to a depth of 2 to 4 inches on each side of the designated street to
allow snowmobiles to travel without have to be on the boulevards.
. =-age 1
1. Can we plant trees on the right of way for the regional trail and street boulevards. If not can
we require private property owners to allow the city to plant them.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We will need the following questions answered before accepting these recommendations.
2. Can we plow streets in such a manner to allow continued use of snowmobiles on the edge of
the street throughout the winter, Le. with 2 to 4 inches of snow left on the edge of the street.
3. Will mixed use by both motorized and non motorized vehides continue to be allowed on the
trail.
We recommend the task force take the following actions.
1. Provide these recommendations to the city, snow patrol, and South Lake Minnetonka Policy
Department for their review, input and further suggestions.
2. Table further action on this issue until we have received a response to our questions, the
response of the above agencies and we have had a chance to address Policy Areas which
focus on Enforcement and Access.
. Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BRIEF SUMMARY OF DATA REGARDING SNOWMOBILE NOISE ISSUES.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS:
802.04, Subd. 1
EQUIPMENT: It is unlawful for any peson to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly pennit the
operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the CitY unless it is equipped with the
following:
Subd: 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce
the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply
with Minnesota Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new snowmobile complies with the
noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on
measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J193 (a) as set forth in the
Report of the Vehide Sound Levef Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers,
September 1970 and revised November 1973.
502.03: PUBUCE NUISANCES AFFECTING PEACE AND SAFETY: The following are declared to
be nuisances affecting public peace and safety:
Subd. 6. All unnecessary noise and annoying vibrations.
Subd. 11: AD other conditions or things which are liable to cause injury by the person or property of
anyone. (Ord. 6, 7/17156).
SUlVey Results:
Neighborhood noises most annoying in the past 2 years.
Neither By Lake By Trail
Motor Boat 5% 30% 5%
8aJ1dng of dogs 38% 28% 30%
Loud MusiciTV 16% 13% 22%
Lawn Mowers etc. 14% SO~ 5%
Snowmobile Engines 10% 10% 23%
Motorcydes 12% 6% 10%
Other
Total Respondents 245 249 186
. Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Memo
To: Task Force Members
From: Warren Petersen, Laura Turgeon and Bill Cofopoulos
cc: City Staff
Re: Policy Area Three: Speed Umits . Observations and Recommendations
This is a report by the sub-cask force assigned to develop recommendations in Policy Area
Three regarding speed limitS. As we will see, there is significant cross-over into Safety and
- Enforcement.
In the May ))111 meeting, the cask force listed specific items relative to speed limitS that the
sub-cask force were co use as the basis of itS recommendations. These are itemized along
with our recommendations:
Speeding Problem Identification
There has been and continues co be considerable debate as to the extent of the snowmobile
speeding problem in Shorewood. While there have been relatively few speed-related
fonnal violations (arrestS), there has been considerable innuendo and accusations by various
citizens that snowmobiles do speed and that there is a speeding problem in Shorewood.
The survey results show concern regarding speeding in Shorewood and presentS evidence
that a problem does exist.
The survey revealed the following facts regarding rider speed awareness:
· Only 35 of 21 5 rider respondents (16%) correctly listed 10 mph as the city speed
limit
· Only 92 out of 215 of rider respondentS (43%) correctly listed 20 mph as the LRT
speed limit
· Of the 215 rider respondents, an additional 83 (39%) admitted they didnJt know
what speed limits applied to either dty or LRT riding and didn't hazard a guess. Five
other riders listed some other speed limitS as applying to the crail and/or cicy.
Rider lack of awareness of the speed limits pertaining co snowmobiles raises the likelihood
of a serious speeding problem in Shorewood. To believe otherwise is to assume that people
are operating snowmobiles within the speed limits (which are rather low) even while not
knowing what they are. The complaintS of citizens, particularly among those that live along
the crail suggest otherwise. Moreover, SLPD's officer testimony regarding the difficulty of
enforcing speed limitS and of suspected violators fleeing, even after they have been signaled
co scop by unifonned officers, suggeSts that the number of recorded violations is not a
reliable measurement of the speeding problem issue. It is logical co conclude that a
speeding problem does exist in Shorewood even though, so far, it has not been accurately
measured.
Snowmobile Speeding Data Collection
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We further recommend that specific snowmobilng speeding records be kept by SLPD and
presented to the Park Commission each year at the concfusion of the snowmobile season.
These data are to incfude the dates and times of surveillance and the number of
snowmobiles observed and the number of speeding violations noced as wen as citations
issued. Speeding violations as a percentage of snowmobiles observed will be used to
determine the compliance leve!.
Yearly Review of Snowmobile Speeding Law Compliance "..
We recommend that the Park Commission determine the extent of the speeding violations
each snowmobile season and may recommend dosing the trail or prohibit use throughout
the City if the level of violations remains unacceptable as determined by Standards to be set
by the Park Commission and Oty Council. The intent here is to establish the means to
review the continued use of snowmobiles in Shorewood on an ongoing basis; holding all
snowmobilers responsible for general compliance with the speed laws. This is an important
safety issue that we feel should not be compromised.
B) Education
The sub-cask force offers the following recommendations regarding increasing the education
of snowmobilers:
· Increase signage on the LRT, particularly at the trailhead entrance to the Viaoria
border.
· Oty should send OUt snowmobile ordinance summaries in its newsletter
· Oty should request additional educational training and certification support from the
DNR
· SLPD Officers should be trained as trainers of snowmobile safety and ordinances
· SWT A and local snowmobile dubs should distribute flyers to their members regarding
the Shorewood snowmobile ordinances and our new "zero tolerance" policy towards
snowmobile violations.
We further recommend that measurable increases in certifications must be achieved in
order for this educational policy to be considered effective.
C) Speed Limits
It was suggested in the May 11 d1 meeting that having one speed limit applicable to both the
City and the LRT would make speed ordinance compliance easier. In examining the speed
issue relative to the current lack of awareness and signage, etc., the sub-cask force
determined that educating snowmobilers as to what the current speed laws are makes more
sense that crying to either raise or lower the speed limit on either the LRT or in the Oty.
Our recommendation, therefore, is that we leave the current speed limits where they are:
20 mph on the LRT; 10 mph everywhere else in Shorewood. The other recommendations
will increase awareness of the different speed limits.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LETT~~ OF UNDERSTANDING
SHOREWOOD SNOW PATROL
The following are understandings and rules agreed to by the City of
Shorewood, South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD)
and the Southwest Trail Association.
The city of Shorewood:
. Acknowledges the Southwest Trail Association as the
administrator of a Snow Patrol program within the Shorewood
city limits, as described in this Letter of Understanding
. Will publicize the Snow Patrol thru its City newsletter.
. City council shall act as the final arbitrator on any
conflicts between recommendations of S~~SD and the
Southwest Trail Association in their role as administrator
of the Snow Patrol program.
. City Council may, upon the recommendation of SLMPSD, require
Southwest Trail Association to remove any volunteer from the
Snow Patrol roster.
South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSDl:
. Shall conduct a background check on all recommended Snow
Patrol volunteers and make a recommendation on approval or
denial to the Southwest Trail Association, which appoints
the members to the Snow Patrol.
. Shall conduct training meetings with all Snow Patrol
members.
. Shall determine which complaints are to be investigated by
the Snow Patrol and make all referrals.
. Shall provide specifications for all warning tickets and
equipment by the Snow Patrol.
. Shall determine if repeat violations by individual will
require the attention of a duty officer of SLMPSD.
Southwest Trail Association, Snow Patrol:
. The Southwest Trail Association shall organize, sponsor and
administer the Shorewood Snow Patrol.
. All members shall be volunteers and serve without
compensation from the City of Shorewood or the SLMPSD.
Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· It the intent of the Southwest Trail Association to maintain
an active list of ten to twelve members of this association
on the active roster of the Snow Patrol.
· Members of the Snow Patrol will be from the city of
Shorewood, if possible. If not, members will be from the
area served by SL~SD. If enough members still can not be
found, membership will be open to all members of the
Southwest Trail Association.
· The Association will provide an updated list of active Snow
Patrol members to SLMPSD and. the City at all times.
· Members of the patrol shall be identified by blaze orange
reflective safety vest indicating Snow Patrol.
· Automobiles, when used for Snow Patrol, shall be identified
with a magnetic door sign indicating Snow Patrol.
Automobiles may also be equipted with amber warning lights.
· Trail patrols may be done by snowmobile. Motor vehicles may
be used only at trails/street intersections.
· Shorewood Snow Patrol/southwest Trail Association photo ID
cards are to be worn when on duty (provided by association) .
· The Snow Patrol must receive approval of SLMPSD and the City
for the use of any equipment other than that equipment
specifically authorized within this Letter of Understanding.
· The patrol may only issue warnings, and only for snowmobile
violations.
. When on duty, members of the patrol shall communicate thru
cellular telephone if contact is necessary with SLMSPSD.
· A duty schedule shall be provided to SLMPSD.
· No member of the patrol shall identify themselves as a Snow
Patrol member and attempt any Snow Patrol related duty
unless regularly scheduled and on duty.
· All Snow Patrol communications with SLMPSD will be thru duly
authorized leaders of the Snow Patrol.
· The Southwest Trail Association shall maintain liability
insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000, which list
the City of Shorewood and SLMPSD named as additional
insured.
· Snow Patrol shall patrol and respond to complaints
throughout the entire City of Shorewood.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Snow Patrol shall concentrate on safety education and public
relations, with enforcement as a last resor~.
. Members of patrol shall refrain from contacting SLMPSD
except to issue citations, when warranted, or in case of a
disturbance or other emergency. Members shall cooperate
with officers of SL."1PSD or any other duly authorized law
enforcement agency.
. All volunteer patrols shall ~be done in pairs, and must
include only Snow Patrol members.
. All complaints must follow the normal Police Department
Policy for proper identification.
. All patrol responses to the door of homeowners/landowners is
to be done during day light hours if possible.
. Snow Patrol onsite inspections and responses must be
preceded by telephone contact with the resident.
. A written report to S!.MPSD shall follow every onsite
inspection.
. A written warning ticket, as specified by SLMPSD, may be
issued by the Snow Patrol to any snowmobiler violating a
City Snowmobile Ordinance.
. All attempts should be made by the patrol to stay out of
City parks, maintain proper speed limits on the trail or
rights-of-way, and observe the City's trail curfew while on
a snowmobile.
. .Before becoming active Snow Patrol members, volunteers must
attend a training meeting with S!.MPSD.
. No Snow Patrol volunteer shall serve in any capacity while
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
. Snow Patrol. volunteers shall not utilize weapons of any kind
while on duty.
Page 3 of 4
of Shorewood
Administrator
Page 4 of 4
1/13/92
Date
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be amended from time to time by
to Southwest Trail Association
1/13/92
Date
1/13/92
Date
1/13/92
Date
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SNO~IOBILE TASK FORCE
CHARTERED SEPTE~IBER 25, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICY CHANGE AREA
NUMBER
Patro ling ......................... ........ ............ .......................................... .......................... 1
Curlew ................................. ..... ....................................................................... .......2
Speed Limits.................. ........... ........ .............................. ........ ....... ................... ......3
S no wmobile Iden tificati on... ..................................................... ....... ....................4
P ermi ttin g/Inspecti 0 n........................... ......... .......................................... ............. .5
Noise Abatement.............. ...... .......... ................................. .......................... ..........6
Property Damage........... ........ ..................................................... ...........................7
Safe ty ............... ............. ....................... ............................ ................ .......................8
Changing/Grading the Trail........ .............................................. ...........................9
Sidewalks (note: eliminated from change areas 11/21/95).............................10
Property Rights and Trespassing ...................................................................... 11
Education (Related to Licensure ).....................................................................12
Definition of a Season With a Start and End Date .........................................13
Public Right of Way and Yielding Guidelines ................................................14
Viable Access to Lakes and Trails..................................................................... 15
Use of Carbide Studs on Snowmobiles............................................................ 16
Sources of Revenue for Snowmobile Related Costs.....................................l7
Nuisance (eliminated from consideration 12/18/95) .......................................18
Limiting or Banning Snowmobiles Within the Citv .......................................19
'- - -
Appendixes
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Shorewood City Ordinance, Chapter 802, Snowmobiles ..............................A
C omp lain t Database Analysis.... ............ ............................ ......... .... ......... ....... .... B
Ci ty Snowmobile Survey Results ...................................................................... C
Minnesota Snowmobile Brochure, DNR .......................................................... D
Lake Minnetonka Winter Rules .........................::............................................. E
Trail S ignage Report.. ............................ .......... ................... .............. ........ ......... ...F
Agency Research Report.. .......... ..... ......... ... ...... .... ....... .... ... ." ....... ....... .............. G
Ci ty Research Report... ......... ............... ............... ....... ....... ..... ................... ..... ..... H
Trail Walk Observations Report....... ...... ......... ...................................... .......... .....!
Po lice Officer Interviews Report....................... .................. ....... ........... ........ ...... J
Keane Memo... ............. ....... ............. ........... .............................................. ....... ..... K
Tab Ie of Contents, Resource Binder ................................................................. L
Ci ty of Shorewood Map ....................................................... ............................. M
H urm Memo ......... ...... ........ ............. .... .................................. .......................... ...... N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA ONE: PATROLING
1.
Patroling and enforcement of existing laws
. Snow patrol
· Department of N aturaI Resources
· Police
. Hennepin County Park Rangers
. Hennepin County Sheriff/W ater Patrol
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. What agencies would have resources l-1A STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 3
available to support enforcement? I-1B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G), page 1-2
2. What current constraints does each 1-2A STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 3
agency put on trail usage? 1-2B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G), page 1-2
3. What are current enforcement practices? 1-3A STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 3
1-3B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G), page 1-2
4. Where does the money which is 1-4A STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 3
generated by violation ticket go? Does it 1-4B Agency Research Report, (See
come back into us? Appendix G), page 1-2
1-4C City Research Report, (See Appendix
H), page 5
5. What would be the implications of a ban 1-5A STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 4
or restricted use for future patroling?
The City of Shorewood
Snowmobile Task Force
Policy Recommendations Notebook
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA TWO: CURFEW
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Why do we have curfews? 2.1-A City Council minutes of past meetings.
2. What are the current curfew hours? 2.2-A Snowmobile City Ordinances 802.03,
subd. 10 (See Appendix A)
3. To whom or to what does the curfew apply? 2.3-A Snowmobile City Ordinances 802..03.
. snowmobile subd. 10 (See Appendix A)
. cross country
2.3-8 Other pertinent ordinances
4. What is the current number of violations 2.4-A Complaint Database Analyses
after the curfew time? (See Appendix B)
2.4-8 Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
1995-6 season
2.4-C Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
1994-5 season
5. What would be the impact of changing the 2.5-A Mailed Survey Reports
curfew on: (See Appendix C)
. enforcement
. penalties 2.5-8 Memo from Chief Young: response to
. citations question.
6. What is the current fine or penalty for 2.6-A Snowmobile City Ordinances 802.10
breaking the curfew? (See Appendix A)
2.6-8 Shorewood City Definition of a
Misdemeanor (103.02)
2.S-G Memo from Chief Young: typic2.1 penalty
---..- ....----.
Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, lnc.@
April 18. 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Shorewood
Snowmobile Task Force
Policy Recommendations Notebook
POLICY CHANGE AREA THREE:
SPEED LIMITS
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Why do we have speed limits? 3.1-A City Council minutes of past meetings
2. What are the current speed limits? 3.2-A Snowmobile City Ordinances 802.03.
subd. 5; 802.02. subd. 4.
(See Appendix A)
3.2-8 MN Snowmobile Safety Laws. Rules and
Regulations (See Appendix D) Page 15
3.2-C Lake Minnetonka Winter Rules
(See Appendix E)
3. To whom or to what dO the speed limits 3.3-A Snowmobile City Ordinances a02.03,
apply? subd. 5; 802.02. subd. 4.
. snowmobile (See Appendix A)
. cross country
3.3-8 MN Snowmobile Safety Laws. Rules and
Regulations (See Appendix D) Page 15
4. What is the current number of speed limit 3.4-A Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
violations? 1995-6 season
3.4-8 Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
1994-5 season
5. What would be the impact at changing the 3.5-A Memo from Chief Young: response to
speed limits on: question.
. enforcement
. penalties
. citations
6. What is the current fine or penalty for 3.6-A Snowmobile City Ordinances 802.10
breaking the speed limit? (See Appendix A)
3.6-8 Shorewood City Deflnitiort of a
Misdemeanor (103.02)
7. Where is the signage for speed limits 3.7-A Trail Signage Report (See Appendix F)
posted?
8. What is considered a sate speed limit for 3.8-A Agency Research Report
. overtaking a pedestrian (See Appendix G) See response in
. overtaking another snowmobile. Section P3-Qa.
9. How did the State arrive at the speed limits 3.9-A Memo from 8ecky Tarvin re: question.
costed on the trails?
Prepared by:
Judith Marshik. Research Quik. Inc.@
April 18. 1996
The City of Shorewood
Snowmobile Task Force
Policy Recommendations Notebook
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLlCY CHANGE AREA FOUR:
SNOWMOBILE JDENT1FICA TION
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. How are snowmobiles currently identified? 4.1-A MN Snowmobile Safety Laws. Rules and
Regulations (See Appendix D)
2. Are there other ways to identify 4.2-A Agency Research Report
snowmobiles? (See Appendix G)
4.2-8 City Research Report (See Appendix H)
3. How are operators currently identified? 4.3-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96. 09. 4
4.3-8 City Research Report (See Appendix H)
4. How are operators over 14 and under 18 4.4-A MN Snowmobile Saiety Laws. Rules and
certified and identified? Regulations (See Appendix D)
4.4-8 Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96. pg. 4
5. How is the 14-18 age group certification 4.5-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96.09.4
currently enforced?
4.5-8 Correspondence with the Game Warden
4.5-C Agency Research Report
(See Appendix G)
6. What are the number of violations? 4.6-A Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
1995-6 season
4.6-8 Memo from Chief Young re: citations for
1994-5 season
Prepared by: Judith Marshik. Research Quik. Inc.@
April 18. 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA FIVE: PERMITTINGIINSPECTION
5 . Permitting or Inspection or Licensure by the City
. development of a list of critical factors to monitor on a scheduled, periodic basis
which might be indicators of unreported violations
Questions to Answer Data- Sources
1. Does the City have the authority to 5-1A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 4
permit or license or inspect 5-1B City Research Report, (see Appendix
snowmobiles? H), page 7
5-1C MN State Statute 84.87, subd. 3
2. Where does the authority for permitting 5-2A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 4
or inspection or licensure for 5-2B City Research Report, (see Appendix
snowmobiles currently lie? What H), page 7
enforcement support is currently
provided and by whom?
3. If the City were to assume these 5-3A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 4
responsibilities, who would do it, how 5-3B City Research Report, (see Appendix
often would it be done and what would H), page 7
be the cost?
4. Are there enough snowmobiles either 5-4A Agency Research Report (see
owned or ridden within the City to justify Appendix G), page 5
City permitting of these vehicles?
5. Is the number of vehicles increasing? 5-5A Agency Research Report (see
Appendix G), page 5-6
6. Does the City have the authority to 5-6A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 4
regulate usage of snowmobiles? For 5-6B MN Statute 84.87 subd. 3
example, could the City require a speed
governor?
7. As a part of monitoring for snowmobile 5-7A Trail Walk Report (see Appendix I)
violations, could the City photograph
trespass instances?
8. Is any other city licensing, inspecting or 5-8A City Research Report, (see Appendix
permitting snowmobiles? H), page 7
9. What are we currently doing and what 5-9A Memo from Jim Hurm, responding to
have we done in the past regarding these question
issues?
The City of Shorewood
Snowmobile Task Force
Policy Recommendations Notebook
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA SIX: NOISE ABATEMENT
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Is noise monitoring done for any other 6.1-A Agency Research Report
activity within City limits? (See Appendix G)
.,..
6.1-8 Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96. pg. 5
6.1-G City Ordinance 701.06 (Dog Nuisances)
6.1-0 Memo from Chief Young re: question.
2. Can you separate noise. as an issue. from 6.2-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96. pg. 5
other causes of violations such as curfew
and speed?
3. Does snowmobile noise bother people. and 6.3-A Complaint Database Analysis
if it does. to what extent? (See Appendix B)
6.3-B Mailed Survey Reports
(See Appendix C)
4. Is there environmental impact from the 6.4-A Agency Research Report
noise? (See Appendix G)
5. How does the snowmobile noise compare, 6.5-A Southwest Trails Association Noise
in decibels. to "background" noise such as Study
that from automobile traffic. barking dogs.
trains. etc.? Does the noise level change 6.5-8 Star Tribune article on noise
from summer to winter with the same
activity? Is the noise noticed indoors or C.5'-(,
outdoors?
6. What is the decibel level permitted by 6.6-A Agency Research Report
OSHA? When does it become a health (See Appendix G)
hazard?
6.6-8 Memo from Becky Tarvin re: OSHA
response to question.
6.6-C OSHA regulations
7. Is excessive noise currently a violation of 6.7 -A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-2:)-96, pg. 4
existing laws within the City?
6.7-8 Snowmobile City Ordinances. 802.03.
subd.8 (See Appendix A)
Prepared by: Judith Marshik. Research Quik. Inc.@
April 18. 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA SEVEN: PROPERTY DAMAGE
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. What constitutes property damage from a 7.1-A Memorandum from City Attorney
snowmobile? Obtain a legal definition. Keane (See Appendix K)
Note where the legal definition may
differ from a property owner's 7.1-B MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
definition. _ Rules and Regulations (See
Appendix D, Page 14)
2. Currently, how is property damage 7.2-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96, Pg.
reported and evaluated? How do the 6
victims tend to report their complaints
and how do they verify it?
3. Is there a record of property damage 7.3-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96, Pg.
reported from snowmobiles anywhere? 6
7.3-B Complaint Database Analysis (See
Appendix B)
7.3-C Trail Walk Report, (See Appendix l)
4. Are there differences in any of these 7.4-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
issues for property damage to public
land, private property or trail property? 7.4-B Police Officer's Questions, (See
Appendix J)
7.4-C Complaint Data Base (See Appendix
B)
5. How often are property damage 7.5-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
complaints dismissed because they do not
meet the letter of the law? For example, 7.5-B Police Officer's Questions, (See
are some complaints dismissed because Appendix J)
the damage is not on the property of the 7.5-C Complaint Data Base, (See Appendix
person who is reporting it?
B)
6. What has been the trend over the past 7.6-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96, Pg.
five yeas in property damage reported 6
from snowmobiles?
7.6-B Complaint Data Base, (See Appendix
N)
7. What proportion of all property damage 7.7-A Rick Young's handout on property
reported is caused by snowmobiles? damage, TF Meeting 2/1/96
8. Are property damage reports uniform 7.8-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96, Pg.
throughout the year or are they seasonal 6
or cyclical?
7.8-B Rick Young's handout on property
damage, TF Meeting 2/1196
POLICY CHANGE AREA EIGHT: SAFETY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.
Safety
· trail safety issues with pedestrians and skiers
· signage on the trail and on the street
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. How many reported violatIons are safety 8.1-A Chief Young's memo re: violations
related? Define a safety violation.
8.1-B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G)
8.1-C Complaint Data Base, (See Appendix
G)
2. How many emergency injuries are 8.2-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
related to snowmobile accidents? For
example, hitting a pedestrian on the trail, 8.2-B Police Officer's Interview (See
snowmobile collisions, near collisions, Appendix 1)
etc.
8.2-C Agency Research Report (See
Appendix G)
3. Are the citizens fearful for their safety 8.3-A Agency Research Report, (See
when encountering a snowmobile rider? Appendix G)
8.3-B Survey, (See Appendix C)
4. Is there a concern about traffiC right of 8.4-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
way issues? (Which vehicles have the
right of way at an intersection?) 8.4-B MN Snowmobile Safety Laws, Rules
and Regulations (See Appendix D,
Pa,ges 12-14)
5. Have citizens ever been injured when 8.5-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
ridin,g and/or by a snowmobile?
6. Do citizens think there is safety issue? 8.6-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
8.6-B Police Officer's Questions, (See
Appendix 1)
7. Do they think that the current rescue 8.7-A Tarvin Memo, Summary of
staffmg is adequate to respond to conversation with Cary Smith, Fire
emergency calls related to snowmobile Marshal
accidents?
8. Does the snowmobilers usage of the trail 8.8-A Agency Research Report, (See
add value for others who may use the Appendix G)
trail in the winter?
9. Does the snowmobilers usage of the trail 8.9-A Agency Research Report, (See
add value for others who may use the Appendix G)
trail in the winter?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA NINE:
CHANGING/GRADING THE TRAIL
9.
Changing or "grading" the trail
.
winter use of the trail for both snowmobiles and pedestrians
* change the nature of this use
possible designated areas for snowmobiles tfiroughout the city
.
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. What is the City's authority to do this? 9-1A STP Minutes, 1/23/96, page 5
9-1B Agency Research Report, (see
Appendix G), page 9-11
2. Would pedestrians like a separate path 9-2A Survey, (See Appendix C)
for walking;?
3. Are there other areas within the City 9-3A Agency Research Report, (see
limits which provide for walking and Appendix G), page 9-11
cross country skiing activities other than
the regional trail?
4. Does the City have the authority to 9-4A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 5
designate routes to for snowmobiles to
take to the lakes or to the regional trail?
5. How would the regional trail need to be 9-5A Agency Research Report, (see
graded differently for use by Appendix G), page 9-11
snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, or 9-5B Tarvin memo, re: Del Miller
pedestrians and bikers? Is different
grading necessary and, if so, who would
do it?
6. What permits would currently be needed 9-6A Agency Research Report, (see
to grade the trail? Appendix G), page 10
7. Is there a need to grade the trails for 9-7 A Agency Research Report, (see
running, walking and cross-country Appendix G), page 10
skiing? 9-7B Tarvin memo, re: Del Miller
8. What does it cost to grade for different 9-8A Agency Research Report, (see
uses and who would bear the cost? (Ask Appendix G), page 10
if there are different grading standards for 9-8B Tarvin memo, re: Del Miller
the different uses.)
9. What funding is currently available to 9-9A Agency Research Report, (see
cover the costs of grading the trail? What Appendix G), page 10-11
funding is available next year? 9-9B Tarvin memo, re: Reger Response
9-9C Tarvin memo to Schaff, re:
Grooming; Trail
10. If snowmobile traffic were permitted in 9-10A City Map designating streets (See
selected zones of the City, would these Appendix M)
planned zones conflict with future 9-lOB Comprehensive Plan
planned changes for sidewalks and water
installation?
POLICY CHANGE AREA ELEVEN:
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TRESPASSING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11. Property rights and trespassing
· private property issues
· public property issues
· wetland issues
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Define "trespass" for private property, 11.1-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
public property, wetlands. pg. 6
11.1-B Keane Memos, (See Appendix K)
11.1-C MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Rules and Regulations (See
Appendix D, Page 14)
2. What is the current number of trespass 11.2-A Snowmobile Task Force Minutes 2-
violations? 1-96, pg. 7
11.2-B Chief Young's memos re:
violations
3. How are trespass violations currently 11.3-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96,
documented? pg. 7
11.3-B Chief Young's Memos
4. what have been the trends in the numbers 11.4-A Complaint Data Base, (See
of trespass violations over the years? Appendix B)
5. Is there currently a perceived problem 11.5-A Survey, (See Appendix C)
with trespass violations made by
snowmobile riders? 11.5-B Police Officer's Interview, (See
Appendix J)
11.5-C Agency Research Report, pg 1,
(See Appendix G)
6. What is the public's perception of Not included in survey
trespass?
7. What are the laws regarding posting a 11.7-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96
legal notice of "no trespass" for private 11.7-B Keane memo, (See Appendix K)
property, public property, the regional
trail, and the wetlands?
8. What additional liability does a 11.8-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
landowner bear because their property is pg. 7
located close to public lands and/or the
regional trail and they have a higher
probability of trespassing? For example,
do they have higher insurance costs?
9. What are the current fines and/or 11.9-A Snowmobile TF Mmutes 1-23-96,
penalties for trespass on the various types pg. 6
of property?
11.9-B Fines Schedule, (see Fines)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA TWELVE:
EDUCATION (RELATED TO LICENSURE)
Questions to Answer Data Sources
I. What classes are currently offered on 12-IA Agency Research Report, (See
snowmobiling? Are there any other than Appendix G), pages 12-13
the Sheriffs Water Patrol? 12-IB MN Snowmobile (See Appendix D)
2. How does the City inform interested 12-2A Hurm Memo
parties regarding the classes which are
available and correct current
snowmobiling practice?
3. Does the City have the authority to 12-3A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 7
require education related to permitting a
snowmobile?
4. What is currently done by the City and/or 12-4A STF Minutes, 4110/96, page 7, re:
others to educate the public on rules and Puzak Memo
regulations related to snowmobiling?
5. How are these rules and regulations 12-5A STF Minutes, 4110/96, page 7
publicized to the public? What use is 12-5B MN Snowmobile (See Appendix D)
made of signage, pamphlets, education 12-5C Lake Mtka Rules (See Appendix E)
and so on to get the word out? 12-5D SW Trails Map
6. What education is currently required for 12-6A MN Snowmobile (See Appendix D)
the operation of a snowmobile?
7. Do you feel the violations you observe or 12-7 A Survey (See Appendix C)
concerns you have relate to a lack of
education on the part of snowmobilers -
or are they related to some other cause
such as drunken driving, etc.?
8. For Snowmobilers: Have they ever 12-8A Survey (See Appendix C)
taken a course?
POLICY CHANGE AREA THIRTEEN:
DEFINITION OF A SEASON WITH A START AND END
DATE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Is there a formal snowmobile "season" 13-1A Agency Research Report, (See
now with start dates and end dates? ~ Appendix G), page 13
13-1B Wimer Permit
2. When does the signage and any other 13-2A Agency Research Report, (See
indication of a season go up? Appendix G), page 13
13-2B Puzak Report, 3/14 Meeting
3. What would be the benefits to the City of 13-3A Police Officer's Interview, (See
defining a season for snowmobiles? Appendix J)
13-3B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G), page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA FOURTEEN:
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND YIELDING GUIDELINES
14. Public right of way and yielding guidelines
. where is it legal to ride?
. on the streets including the roadway, the boulevard, the sidewalk
. on the trails
. differences between being "driven" or "riding"
Questions to Answer
1. Where is it legal to ride?
2. Where is it legal to cross from one right
of way to another right of way?
3. Are there any conflicts built into these
regulations i.e. could a snowmobiler of
good will know what to do clearly and
under which circumstances?
4. What is the legal definition of "right of
way"?
Data Sources
14.I-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96,
pg. 2
14.-1B Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96,
pg. 7
14.1-C City Ordinance, (See Appendix A)
14.1-D MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Rules and Regulations (See
A ndix D)
14.2-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96
14.2-B MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Rules and Regulations (See
A ndix D)
14.3-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
pg. 8
14.3-B MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Ru1es and Regulations (See
Appendix D)
14.3-C Ci Ordinance 802.02
14.4-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-20-96,
pg. 3
14.4-B Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
pg. 8
14.4-C Attorney Keane's memo (See
A ndix K)
14.5-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
13. 8
14.6-A SnowmobileTF Minutes 1-23-96,
pg. 8
understand the ROW laws? How are
they currently informed of these laws? 14.7-B Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G)
8. Does the City staff understand ROW parking lot - not completed Secret Shopper
laws?
9. What are the ROW laws for 14.9-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
snowmobiles using roadways? pg. 8
14.9-B City Ordinance (See Appendix A)
14.9-C MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Rules and Regulations (See
Appendix D)
10. Can the City or does the City have 14.1O-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-22-96,
consistent ROW laws governing use of pg. 4
City streets or do these laws vary
depending on the roadway and/or
location?
11. If a car and snowmobile use the same 14.11-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
street, who has ROW? pg. 8
l4.11-B MN Snowmobile Safety Laws,
Rules and Regulations (See
Appendix D, pg. 5-6)
14.11-C City Ordinance 8-2.02, (See
Appendix A)
12. What is a "boulevard" and how does it 14.12-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-22-96,
fit into determining ROW for pg.4
snowmobiles? (platted versus un-platted
lots) 14.12-B Nielsen Handout at meeting 2-22-
96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA FIFTEEN:
VIABLE ACCESS TO LAKES AND TRAILS
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Where are the current, viable access 15-1A STF Minutes, 2/22/96, page 4
points located within the City of 15-1B Nielsen memo, 4/25/96
Shorewood? -
2. Which ones are most frequently used? 15-2A Agency Research Report, (see
Appendix G), page 14
3. How do you move from where you are 15-3A Agency Research Report, (see
to a viable access point? Appendix G), page 14-15
15-3B City Ordinance (see Appendix A)
15-3C Street Map (See Appendix M)
4. How are the access points currently 15-4A Agency Research Report, (see
promoted to the general public? Are they Appendix G), page 15
shown on maps? How could the public
find out about this?
5. Are the fire lanes being used as access 15-5A Agency Research Report, (See
lanes by any type of vehicle, including Appendix G), page 15
snowmobiles?
6. Are the viable access points currently 15-6A Trail Signage Memo (see Appendix
signed? F)
15-6B Agency Research Report, (see
Appendix G), page 15
7. Is there currently public parking by the 15- 7 A Agency Research Report, (see
viable access points? Appendix G), page 15-16
POLICY CHANGE AREA SIXTEEN:
USE OF CARBIDE STUDS ON SNOWMOBILES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16.
Use of carbide studs on snowmobiles
· damage to asphalt driveways
· legal/not legal on the streets
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. How much damage is reported due to 16-1A Agency Research Report, (See
use of snowmobile studs? Appendix G), page 16
16-1B City Research Report, (See
Appendix H), page 8
16-1 C Complaint Database (See Appendix
B)
2. Are studs legal? 16-2A Agency Research Report, (See
Appendix G), page 16
3. Are the snowmobiles using studs safer 16-3A Agency Research Report, (See
than those which do not? Appendix G), page 16
4. Does the City have the legal authority to 16-4A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 9
enforce a stud ban, if it would choose to
act on this?
5. What are the estimated costs incurred by 16-5A Agency Research Report, (See
the City for public property damage Appendix G), page 16
created by the use of snowmobile studs?
6. If a stud ban were enacted by the City, 16-6A STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 9
how could it be enforced? Is it
enforceable?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA SEVENTEEN:
SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR SNOWMOBILE RELATED
COSTS (FOR EXAMPLE, CITY ISSUES PERMITS)
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. What are the current charges to 17.1-A Agency Research Report, pg. 17,
snowmobilers for permits. (See Appendix G)
2. Does the City have the legal authority to 17.2-~ MN State Statute 84.87, Subd. 3
charge a fee for snowmobile permits and
then use the income to fund snowmobile
related costs?
3. Is State Grant-in-Aid a source of revenue 17.3-A Agency Research Report, pg. 17,
for snowmobiles? (See Appendix G)
4. Does the City currently collect any fees 17.4-A Snowmobile TF Minutes 1-23-96,
related to the operation of snowmobiles pg.9
within the City?
17.4-B Snowmobile TF Minutes 2-1-96,
pg. 8
5. Does the money collected from Not applicable
snowmobile fines and violations benefit
other sports and/or activities in addition
to benefiting snowmobilers?
6. What are the sources of revenue to trail 17.6-A Agency Research Report, pg. 17,
administration and services? the Task (See Appendix G)
Force would like to see an annual report
of all revenues broken out by source 17.6- BReger's response (outstanding)
7. About how much revenue is collected 17.7-A Tarvin memo, re: Fine Collection
annually from fines and/or other charges
to snowmobiles within the City? Where
are these dollars currently spent?
POLICY CHANGE AREA EIGHTEEN:
NUISANCE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This area was deleted by the Task Force. It duplicates other areas which have already been
discussed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POLICY CHANGE AREA NINETEEN:
LIMITING OR BANNING SNOWMOBILES WITHIN THE CITY
Questions to Answer Data Sources
1. Does the City have the legal authority to 19-1A Keane Memo (See Appendix K)
ban or limit snowmobile usage within 19-1B~ STF Minutes, 1/23/96, page 9
the City?
2. What are the various options available 19-2A City Research Report, (See
for limiting or controlling snowmobile Appendix H), page 9
usage within the City by use of City 19-2B Agency Research Report, (See
authority? Appendix G), page 17-18
. partial usage limitation 19-2C Survey Results (See Appendix C)
. total usage limitation
. "no key" or total ban
3. How could any type of limited or 19-3A City Research Report, (See
controlled usage be enforced? Appendix H), page 10
19-3B STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 4
4. Could the City enforce a snowmobile 19-4A City Research Report, (See
transportation ban? Appendix H), page 10
19-4B STF Minutes, 2/1/96, page 4
5. What criteria should be used to determine 19-5A Survey Results (See Appendix C)
the need for a City ban on snowmobiles? 19-5B City Research Report, (See
Appendix H), page 11
6. How should a ban decision be made? 19-6A Keane Memo (See Appendix K)
Should this be an act of the City Council
or should it be determined by citizen
referendum?
7. What are the alternatives to banning 19-7 A City Research Report, (See
snowmobiles? Appendix H), page 12
19-7B Survey Results (See Appendix C)
8. Has any City which has enacted a 19-8A City Research Report, (See
snowmobile ban ever reversed or reduced Appendix H), page 10, 2, 3
its action at a later date?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
802.01
SECTION:
802.01:
802.02:
802.03:
802.04:
802.05:
802.06:
802.07 :
802.08:
802.09:
802.10:
802.01:
802.01
CHAPTER 802
SNOWMOBILES
DefInitions
Operation on Streets and Highway~
Operation Generally
Equipment
Application of Other Laws
Persons Under Certain Age
Leaving Snowmobile Unattended
Chasing Animals Forbidden
Littering and Obstructions
Violations
DEFINITIONS:
Subd. 1. BOULEVARD: That portion of the street right-of-way between the curb
line and the street boundary line in platted areas.
Subd. 2. OPERATE: To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile.
Subd. 3. OPERATOR: Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of
a snowmobile.
Subd. 4. ORGANIZED EVENT: An event sponsored and conducted by the Park
and Recreation Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American
Legion or similar Council-recognized civic groups or associations.
Subd. 5. OWNER: A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title
to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof.
Subd. 6. PERSON: Includes an individual, partnership, corporation, and any body
of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its
agencies and political subdivisions, except this defInition does not include
police offIcers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in the
performance of their duties.
1191
City of Shorewood
802.01
802.02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S ubd. 7. RIGHT -OF- WAY: The entire strip of land traversed by a highway in
which the public owns the fee or an easement for roadway purposes.
Subd. 8. ROADWAY: That portion of a street or highway improved, designed, or
ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoulder.
Subd. 9. SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE: A device which, when pressure is
removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be
disengaged from the driving track.
Subd. 10. SNOWMOBILE: A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or
ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners.
....
Subd. 11. STREET or HIGHWAY: The entire width between boundary lines of
any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a
matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular traffic.
Subd. 12. HIKING AND BIKING TRAIL: The old railroad corridor, a multiuse
trail corridor, which runs NE-SW through Shorewood and other western
suburbs, and is owned by Hennepin County.
802.02:
OPERATION ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS:
Subd. 1. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, shoulder or
inside bank or slope of any trunk, County-State aid, City or County highway
in the City and, in the case of a divided trunk or County highway, on the
right-of-way between the opposing lanes of traffic, except as provided in this
Chapter, nor shall operation on any such highway be permitted, where the
roadway directly abuts a public sidewalk or property used for private
purposes. No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right-of-way of
any trunk, County-State aid, City or County highway, at times other than
those times authorized in this Chapter, except on the right-hand side of such
right-of-way and in the same direction as the highway traffic on the nearest
lane of the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be operated at any
time within the right-of-way of any interstate highway or freeway within the
City. (Ord.296, 1-23-95)
Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or
highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the
closest snowmobile area by the shortest possible route and then only if travel
on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of
developed yards or physical barriers.
Subd. 3. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway except an
interstate highway or freeway, provided:
a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (900) to
the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction
prevents a quick and safe crossing.
1195
City of Shorewood
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
802.02
802.03
b. The snowmobile is brought up to a complete stop before crossing the
shoulder or main travelled way of the highway.
c. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all
oncoming traffic.
d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an
intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway.
e. The crossing is made during the times authorized in this Chapter, and both
front and rear lights are illuminated. (Ord.~ 296, 1-23-95)
Subd. 4. No snowmobile shall be operated on a street or highway within the City at
a speed exceeding ten (10) miles per hour, nor on the Hiking and Biking Trail
at a speed exceeding twenty (20) miles per hour.
Subd. 5. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a
complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles
or pedestrians.
Subd. 6. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be
operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time
when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical.
Subd. 7. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the shoulder of the Hiking and
Biking Trail or in the ditch or embankment, except for the purpose of entering
or leaving the trail, or for the purpose of turning around.
Subd. 8. An operator shall bring his snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine
when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol
member.
OPERATION GENERALLY: Except as otherwise specifically
permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a
snowmobile within the limits of the City in the following manner:
Subd. 1. On a public sidewalk or walkway provided or used for pedestrian travel,
or on boulevards within any public right-of-way.
802.03:
Subd. 2. On private property of another without lawful authority or express consent
of the owner or lessee.
Subd. 3. On any other publicly-owned lands and frozen water, including but not
limited to park property, public or private school grounds, playgrounds,
recreation areas and golf courses, except areas previously listed or authorized
for such use by the proper public authority. In such
1195
City of Shorewood
802.03
802.04
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
areas, such use shall be lawful and snowmobiles may be driven in and out of
such areas by the shortest route. Authorized areas in the City owned by the
City shall be designated by Council resolution. Notwithstanding anything in
this Section contained to the contrary, snowmobile operation shall be
permitted on all public bodies of water within the City, provided that said
operation shall comply in all respects with provisions of this Chapter and all
other City ordinances.
Subd. 4. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or
habit forming drugs.
Subd. 5. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the
surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically
authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by
permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from
time to time by Council resolution.
Subd. 6. At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger
the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto.
Subd. 7. So as to tow any person or thing on a public street or highway except
through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile.
Subd. 8. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds seventy eight (78)
decibels on the A Scale at fifty feet (50').
Subd. 9. Within the right-of-way of any public street or highway within the City,
unless the operator shall have a valid motor vehicle driver's license issued by
the State of Minnesota or a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources, or unless accompanied by a licensed
driver who is actually occupying a seat in the vehicle.
Subd. 10. At anytime within the City between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00)
P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. (Ord. 280, 10-11-93)
Subd. 11. Abreast of another snowmobile on the Hiking and Biking Trail except
when overtaking and passing another snowmobile.
802.04: EQUIPMENT: It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the
owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile
any place within the limits of the City unless it is equipped with the following:
Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation
and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum
necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minnesota
195
City of Shorewood
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
802.04
802.06
Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new snowmobile
complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer
shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance
with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the
Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive
Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973.
Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the
snowmobile under any conditions of operation.
Subd. 3. A "safety or deadman" throttle in opera~ng condition.
Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to
reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet (100')
ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions.
Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the
eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least
one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to
exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to
the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions.
The equipment shall be in operating condition when the vehicle is operated
between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour
before sunrise or at times of reduced visibility.
Subd. 5. Reflective material at least sixteen (16) square inches on each side,
forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a ninety degree
(900) angle.
802:05: APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS: City traffic ordinances
shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and
highways, and Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.81 to 84.88 and Minnesota Statutes,
chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required
equipment, are hereby adopted by reference.
802.06: PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE:
Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under fourteen (14) years of age to operate
on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing
of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by
a parent or guardian. A person fourteen (14) years of age or older, but less
than eighteen (18) years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets,
highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this Section and
make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he has in his immediate
possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner
of Natural Resources.
1191
City of Shore wood
802.06
802.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to
be operated contrary to the provisions of this Section.
802.07:
LEA VING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED: Every person
leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition, remove
the key, and take the same with him.
802.08:
CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN: It is unlawful to
intentionally drive, chase, run over, or kill any animal, wild or
,.
domestic, with a snowmobile.
802.09:
LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS:
Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish, or debris on public or
private property, or throw paper, litter, rubbish, or debris from snowmobiles.
Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on
publicly-owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use
thereof by the public.
Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from
private and public property shall be located on the same private or public
property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be
removed on or before April 15.
802.10: VIOLATIONS: Any person violating the provisions of this Chapter
is guilty of a misdemeanor. COrd. 245, 10-28-91)
1191
City of Shorewood
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 95 .53
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan makes the following
recommendation: "Snowmobiles have been a continued source of controversy in recent
years, despite increased efforts to enforce City codes regulating their use. Private property
trespass and damage have been raised as issues relative to snowmobiling. More
importantly the safety and compatibility of snowmobiles with pedestrian uses and motor
vehicles make the use of snowmobiles questionable on the trail system and streets,
respectively. Consideration should be given to prohibiting their use on public property
within the community" and;
WHEREAS, snowmobile usage on the regional trail was a major point of
discussion during the Comprehensive Plan Public hearing held February 21, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Park Commissions have made differing
recommendations to the City Council regarding snowmobile usage in the City of
Shorewood; and
WHEREAS, there are differing opinions on the number and seriousness of
reported violations of rules by snowmobilers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes a comprehensive analysis of problems
relating to snowmobile usage on the Regional Trail and on City right of way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood that a Special Temporary Snowmobile Task Force is hereby created to operate
within the following parameters:
PURPOSE:
The Task Force is created to investigate reports of snowmobilers violating City code, make
recommendations regarding steps to reduce snowmobile violations, draft and 1lllplement an
action~plan to acquire accurate data on the number and seriousness of violations during the
1995/96 snowmooile season, analyze said data and p~pare recommendations regarding the
potential of banning snowmobiling in all or part ot the Ci!y, and as an alternative, a
continuum of steps which could be taken to make snowmobilmg a safer more acceptable
means of winter recreation and transport in Shorewood.
OBJECTIVES:
The Task Force shall address a full range of issues in their report to the City Council
regarding snowmobiling in Shorewood:
. Defme the issues and identify and determine the extent of problems to be addressed.
. Analyze and report on issues and problems regarding snowmobiling on the Regional
Trail City rights-of-way, City streets and private property.
. Review possible strategies to reduce incidents of noncompliance with City code and to
acquire reliable data on such incidents including but not liihited to: additional or revised
snow patrol activity; use of radar or videotape; additional signage, educational
programs..physical barriers, and additional patrol by Hennepin County Water Patrol
and-Sherift~ and South Lake Police.
) "
, ./ .' ;;) ')
0-t.'~L\::{t)7~;(..t C '--"
Robert B. Bean, Mayor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resolution No. 95~53
Page 2 of 2
TASK FORCE MAKE UP:
The Task Force shall be made up of a member of the Planning Commission (with an
alternate), a member of the Park Commission (with an alternate), and four Shorewood
residents (with a balance of opinions on snowmobiling). The Chief of the South Lake
Minnetonka Public Safety Department, a representative of the Shorewood Snow Patrol,
and the City Administrator shall be nonvoting members, and provide staff suppon. The
City ~ouncil shall appoint the members and designate the chairperson oy separate
resolunon. '"'
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS:
Expenditure of funds in the form of staff support or equipment shall be authorized in
advance by the City Council. Normal City poliCIes and procedures shall be followed.
PROCEDURE:
Meetings shall be called by the Chair by requesting the City Administrator to send a notice
of the tune and place of the meeting and an agenda to the task force members. Notice will
be p<?sted at regular locations and mailed to the press at least 72 hours in advance of the
meetmg.
SUNSET:
The mission of the Task Force shall be completed and the Task Force shall cease to exist
following [mal report to the City Council (includine majority and minority opinions),
within one year of its fIrst meeting;, unless the City Council, oy: resolution, expands the
mission of the Task Force and its auration. The City Council Will take appropnate action
on recommendations within 60 days of the [mal report.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 12th
day of June, 1995.
ATIEST:
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 50 EXCELSIOR MN
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY THE ADDRESSEE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
SHOREWOOD MN 55331-9897
1.1.1..1.1...11...11....111.1..1..1.1.1..1...111...1
To return this survey:
1) Fold survey in half. The Business Reply Mail return address portion should be on
the outside. Do not return the map or cover letter.
2) Seal the top edge with tape at both comers. DO NOT STAPLE.
3) Drop in the mail.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Watch for the results in the upcoming newsletter.
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
(612) 474-3236
BULK RATE
U. S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT #128
EXCELSIOR, MN
55331
OPEN IMMEDIATELY
DELIVER TO:
City of Shorewood
Council Members
Robert Bean, Mayor
Bruce Benson
Jennifer McCarty
Kristi Stover
Tad Shaw
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
FOR COMMENTS ON SURVEY QUESTIONS
QUESTION
NUMBER YOUR REMARKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
FINDINGS RELATED TO THE
HISTORY AND
USE OF SNOWMOBILES
IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
April 10, 1996
Note: A portion of the information solicited for inclusion in this report has nor been received.
This report will be updated and completed when all of the data is gathered.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
1. Statutes Regulations I
2. Shorewood Hike & Bike Trail I
3. Snowmobile Manufacturer's Specs I
4. Insurance/Safety Certi fication/Registrations
5. SnoPatrol I
6. Injuries/Deaths/Snowmobile Related I
7. MADD I
8. Grant-in-Aid/Southwest Trails Assn I
9. Noise Impact
10. Recreational Value I
11. Safe Snowmobiling Partners I
12. State Task Force I
13. Environmental Impact I
14 Letters
15. Newsclippings I
I
I
I
I
I
I Table of Contents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Project Proposal
!:\!
iT,
I:'
~
.....
.,..
..~
Executive Summary Report
Copy"of Survey and Cover Letter
Copy of City Map - 9 Zones
Cross-tab A: Analysis by the
Nine City Zones of Householders
Answers
Cross-tab Bl: Households with
Riders Compared to Households
without Riders
Cross-tab B2: Households Close
to Lakes/Trail Compared to Other
Cross-tab Cl: Wintertime Trail
Users on Trail with Snwmbls
Compared to Users/No Snwmbls
Cross-tab C2: Households Suppor
Trail Usage by Snwmbls Compared,
use 0 s ~c ppose
Cross-tab 0: Comparison of
Households by the Type of Policy
Changes They Recommended (6 area
~AVE.~
:~=;.-:../ -~;::=
:~~';:";.:::3 _~."
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
; ":. -~. -(~~, \c', \\.';,
\.i-\;i'- - .\ \'\i.. \.
W,-Jl. .. t., . '...;
tl,~\ . \'1, ,
I'; '\ ,e . ",
\i~ \.. __,;-;".0#
\ ~.-
\ \"'t~
[MU~[M~~~(Q)Ir~ IrfRi~~[L~
L~~~~~Ir~[M(C~ [P>fRi~@fRi~[MU
~ [M ~lrfRilUJ(clr~ (Q) [M ~[M lUJ~[L
.
[K\Jj]Ol1ilIJ'j}~~@1l:slIQ)~fP.lt1lU'fiM~lJ'j}fi @~ fNJciJfi!!,(J[r~O 1Rl@~@ll1IU'@~~
~~$~
-_ AOSI...
ICOCC_
'iI
~!:.
':;.
'=:;r
:::
Ji
H
!i
lltt mrmamm=:;!lunnFm::unmm
;:,
Ji
ii.
'u
H
I!
"
ii
:EO
,
,
':,
CMl.TOro diPi
2b
ocuc
00QII0IW0
1a
2a
MUMNlD
CUAII.
......NOUIN WAfllI
Ct.,A'f'
ITAlCa
-"
~INC
~ 'ION
-Pl!.
1"'0HI ...."......
lOOC.
_\.IS
.lAC_SON
l
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
DNR REGIONS
I
Reciolll- Ardon Belchcr (218) 7".2265 .....IV- Dave '\bllt' (507) 3'9.6068
Regional Trolils and Waterways Regional Trails and Watcrways
Supervisor Supervisor
2115 Birchmont Beach Road Box 7'6 - Hi.hway I' South
Northcast New Ulm. MiDDllSOCa 56073
Bemidji. Minnesota 56601
-Arca 4A: Gregg Soupir (612) 796-6281
-Area I A: Dick Kimball (218) 755.3972 Area Trails and Warcrways
Area Trails and WlIlCrways Supervisor
Supervisor P.O. Box 457
2115 Birchmont Beach Road Spiccr. Mi_ 56288
NorlheaSl
Bemidji. Minnesota 56601 -Area 48: Bob Chance (507) 831.4016
Area Trails and WlICrways
-Area I B: Bruce Winccrfelda (218) 739.7576 Supervisor
Area Trails and WlICrways Rural Route 2 . Boll 245
Supervisor Windom, MillllClSOta 5610 I
1221 Fir Avenue East
Fergus Falls. MillllClSOta 56537 -Area 4C: Bob Kaul (S07) 359.6067
Area Trails and _\erways
..... Il- Les Ollila (218) 327-4409 Supervisor
Regional Trails and Waterways Boll 756 - Hipway IS Souch
Supervisor New Ulm. MilUlelOla 56073
120 I EaSl Hiahway 2
Grand Rapids. Minnesota ..... V- Craia Miachell (507) 28S.7176
"744 Regional Trails and WlICrways
Supervisor
-Area 2A: Bob Moore (218) 327.4408 P.O. Boll 6247
Arca Trails and WlIlCrways Rochester. Minnesota 55903
Supervisor
1201 Easc Highway 2 -Area 5A: Joel Waaar (507) 285-7176
Grand Rapids. Minnesota Area Trails and Waterways
55744 Supervisor
P.o. Boll 6247
-Arca 28: Ron POller (218) 753.6256 RochesIcr. Minnesoca SS903
Area Trails and Warcrways
Supervisor -Area 58: Crai. BIommer (S07) 285.7176
Boll 388 Area Trails and Waterways
Tower. Minnesoca SS790 Supc,.,isor
P.o. Boll 6247
-Area 2C: Brucc Highland (218) 834-5238 Rochester. Minnesota SS903
Area Trails and WlIlCrways
Supervisor ...... VI- 0eI0I a.rtler (612) 712.7935
1300 Highway 61 Ease RepouJ '!bill and waterways
Two Harbors. Minnesota Supervisor
55616 1200 .,.,., Ro.d
Saint Paul, Miaoesoca SS 106
... 11I- Tim Brownina (218) 828.2693
Reaional Trails and Waterways -Area 6A: Marcba ... (612) 771.7935
Supervisor Area 1biIs and _1enIIayI
1601 Minnesota Drive Supervisor
Brainerd. Minnesota 5640 I 1200 ........ Ro.d
Saint Paul, Miaoesoca SS 106
-Area 3A: Forre5I Boe (218) 828-2690
Area Trails and Wllerways -Area 68: Larry KiUica (612) 772.7935
Supervisor Area 1biIs and _1enIIayI
1601 Minnesota Drive Supervisor
Brainerd. MillllClSOta 5640 I 1200 w.u.r Ro.d
Saint Paul, Miaoesoca 55 106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-Area 38: Scott Schroeder (612) 255-4276
Area Trails and Waterways
Supervisor
3715 . 121b Street Norah
Box 370
Saint Cloud. MinlleStlla 56302
I
-Area 3C: Kevin Arends (218) 4".8647
Area 1i'aiIs and _terWll)'l
Supervisor
Route 2 . 70 I Kcnwood
Moose Lake, Minnesoca 55767
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
I
I
Page
DN R Regionl Area Map ............................................................................................................ I
Trails and Walerways Unil Regionl Area Personnel........................................................................... ii
Program Background... ........... ........... ............... .... ......... .... ...................... ................~......... ...... 2
Program Summary ...................................................................... ............................................ 3
Trail Mainlenance Applicalion Procedures .................... ................................................................ -l
Applicalion Form .................................................................................................................. 5
New Trail Projecl Procedures...................................................................... .............:.................. 6
Projecl Proposal Form ................................................................... ......... ................................ 7
Requesl for ReimbursemeOl Form..................................... ................... ........... ............................. 8
Worksheet Form ..................................................................................................................... 9
Grooming Log Sheel ....... ........................................... ....................................... ...................... 10
Allowable Charges.................................................................... ............. ................... .............. II
Allowable Costs ..................................................................................................................... 12
Agreemenl .............................................. ~............................................................................ 13
Trail Design and Conslruction Suggestions.................................................................................... 15
Trail Grooming Tips ............................................................... ................................................ 16
Signing Suggestions ..................................................................................................... .......... 17
Minnesola Liabilily Law ..................................................... .................................................... 18
Stale Funded Trails - Regulation of Use ....................................................................................... 19
Sample Trail Permit .... .......................... ...... ................................... ................. ....................... 20
Sample Easement ............................................................................................. ;.................... 2 I
Common Trail Sign Order Form ...... ................................. ........................................ ................. 22
Trail User Maps and Public Information ................................ .......... ......................... .................... 23
Tort Claims. State ............................................................................... ................................... 24
.
Tort Liability. Political Subdivisions...................................................... ....................................... 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
- I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
In 1973 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was delegated the
responsibility by the Minnesota Legislature to administer a cost-sharing
program for the development and maintenance of snowmobile and cross-
country ski trails. The goal of this program was the creation and maintenance
of local trails. at the initiative of local trail organizations and local units
of government. The state's intent was to offer financial assistance so that
locally controlled trails could exist where none had before. This program
was named the "Minnesota Trails Assistance Program: and has become
popularly known as grants-in-aid or G1A.
In the initial years of the snowmobile program. development cost accounted
for most. of the program's fUnding. The program has been. and continues
to be. involved in providing trail systems where there have not been any
in the past. However. as in most programs of this nature. the majority of
the funding is now being allocated to maintenance and grooming of existing
trail systems. These trails provide connections between slate trails. state parle
trails. state forest trails. other OIA trails and local communities.
The cross-country slei program provides limited funding to trails owned
and operated by both private trail organizations and local units of governmenr.
Since the funding base for the slei program is limited. grants are allocated
with the intenr to assist as many trails as possible. This is inrended to keep
the maximum possible number of slei trails operational slatewide.
Trail administration. development and maintenance costs are divided with
the OIA program paying 6S percent of these costs and the local club or
sponsor providing the remaining 3S percent. Winter trail grooming costs
are divided with the OIA program paying 90 percent and the local club
or Sponsor paying 10 percent. Record keeping by the local club is required
in a manner sufficient to allow full auditing at all times.
The DNR has been delegated the responsibility of administering the funds
appropriated by the legislature for the OIA program. The Department of
Natural Resources' (oNR) central office in Saint Paul sets program policy
and guidelines. budgets for program fUnding and provides for auditing of
grants. Department of Natural Resources Regional Trails and Waterways
Supervisors and Area Trails and Waterways Supervisors are responsible for
reviewing and processing necessary program forms. providing technical
assistance when requested. monitoring trails for actual performance of
reimbursed activities. and conducting informational meetings with local
organizations. The Area Trails and Waterways Supervisors are the main contact
for local organizations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.....
~/
PROGRAM SUMMARY
Local Units of Government Responsibilities:
A local unit of government will be identified as
.sponsor" and could be a county. township or city. The
sponsor is accountable to the Stale for expenditures
charged to the program.
Trail user organizations generally enter into
contracts with the sponsor to physically perform the
work necessary in developing and maintaining the local
trail system. The following steps are the most common
procedure in trail system development through the
Snowmobile Trails Assistance Program:
I. A trail user club or organization identifies a
demand for trails in their area.
2. The club or organization submits the necessary
program forms (refer to page 4 and 6) to the
sponsor. Sponsorship must be in the form of a
resolution from the sponsor.
3. The club and sponsor should enter into an
agreement that outlines the duties and
responsibilities of both the sponsor and the club
if the grant is approved. The sponsor then signs
the necessary forms and submits the project to the
DNR for approval
4. Upon ONR approval of the project. an agreement
is sent to the sponsor for authorized original
signatures. The agreement is then returned to the
ONR. The sponsor will be notified in writing that
the agreement has been consummated. Only after
notification in writing by the DNR can work on
the project begin.
Project Funding Priorities: Due to the response to
the program and cost of maintaining the present trail
systems, it is now impossible to approve. all of the
projects now being submitted. The following list
identifies the order in whir.h projects will be approved
by the DNR:
I. The first priority for funding will be existing trails
that are receiving acceptable use and do not require
rerouting.
2. The second priority will be trails which will
connect population centers. recreation and service
facilities. and which will connect and/or expand
other trail systems.
3. The third priority will be new trail systems or
significant additions to currently funded mileage.
To ensure a fair. statewide distribution of grants.
regional factors will be considered in funding new
trails. These factors include existing use per mile of
trail. existing trail mileage. ability to hold snow. and
tourism considerations. Program Forms:
The following five forms are listed to identify the
basic: paperwork necessary for the Snowmobile Trails
Assistaace Program:
I. Application Form: This form is used to expalin
and provide maintenance funding for trail systems
already in the Assistance Program.
2. New Trail Project Proposal Form: This form is
the instrument for proposing a new trail project
that has not been funded by this program.
3. Agreement Form: This form is the legal document
between the State and sponsor. This document sets
aside funding and identified conditions agreed to
by both parties. Only after notification in writing
by the DNR can work on the project begin.
4. Request for Reimbursement Form: This form is
submitted as a summation of expenses incurred
and as the request for payment of allowable
charges.
5. Worksheet and Groomer Log Sheet: These sheets
are submitted with the Request for Reimbursement
and are the actual time sheets for labor. materials.
contract services. etc.
TRAIL MAINTENANCE APPLICATION
PROCEDURES
/'
The following procedures must be adhered to if you
are applying for maintenance funding for an existing
GIA trail system. An existing GlA trail system is
defined as a trail system which has previously received
funding from the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program.
The following projects are considered maintenance
trail projects: .
I. Relocating a section of trail currently in the GIA
Program.
2. Maintaining a trail currently in the GIA Program.
3. Winter grooming of a trail system currently in the
GlA Program.
A maintenance project will comply with the
following procedures:
I. Trail user organizations/clubs must submit
application forms to the sponsor.
a. Two (2) copies with original signatures.
b. Trail map of the existing trail system.
i. One ( I ) copy.
ii. County highway maps. scale ~. to I mile.
for snowmobile trails. Maps will be
provided by the DNR.
iii. The map must identify where bridges, rest
areas and parking lots are located.
iv. The map must identify relationship or
connection to other trails. if any.
v. The map must identify relocation areas
showing old and new alignments.
vi. The map must identify any major
maintenance work. dozing, brushing, etc.
2. The sponsor will submit the above items. along
with a supporting resolution. to the DNR Area Trail
sand Waterways Supervisor for review. Upon
approval of the application. the Area Trails and
Waterways Supervisor will submit an agreement
form to the sponsor. The sponsor will then process
four (4) copies of the form with original signatues
on each copy and return all copies to the Area
Trails and Waterways Supervisor.
3. The DNR will notify the sponsor. in writing:
a. That the agreement has been executed; and.
b. The date from which charges are reimbursable.
NOTE: UNDER NO CONDITION CAN
CONSTRUCTION TAKE PLACE ON ANY
PARCEL OF LAND. PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.
UNLESS A SIGNED PERMIT HAS BEEN
SECURED IN. THE NAME OF THE
SPONSOR.
4. Timetable:
The schedule set below is designed to help all
parties involved in the Trails Assistance Program
in planning trail work and setting up funds so work
can proceed.
a. Application:
These forms must be received by the DNR
regional office by May 30.
b. Requests for Reimbursement:
i. Requests for Reimbursement for summer
and fall construction or maintenance are
due no later than December 3 I.
ii. Requests for Reimbursement for winter
grooming must be submitted monthly by
the calendar months.
iii. ALL REQUESTS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT MUST BE
RECEIVED BY THE DNR NO LATER
THAN MAY 30 FOR THAT YEAR'S
WORK. THE DNR MUST BE NOTIFIED
IF ANY WORK IS PLANNED FOR THE
SUMMER MONTHS SINCE
REMAINING BALANCES AFFECT
NEXT YEAR'S GRANT.
c. Payment of Requests for Reimbursement:
If Requests for Reimbursement are executed
properly and all necessary signatures and invotces
are included in the request. the DNR will pay the
requests. Requests which are submitted improperly
will be returned for proper execution.
d. For purposes of more accurately documenting
reimbursable activities. the following
information shall be included on all worksheets
and/or groomer logs: .
i. The name of equipment operators (all types
of equipment).
ii. The make and model of all heavy
equipment and groomers.
iii. The type of work done.
iv. The location.
v. Any labor. equipment time/miles or
donated supplies and materials shall be
noted as a donation.
Additional lines of the worksheet and groomer
log may be used for each entry, if needed. until
a revised version is available.
Invoices for purchased or donated services such
as equipment rental. supplies and materials
submitted with Request for Reimbursement Forms
shall include the following information:
i. Name of individual or company.
ii. Date the work was done or materials
delivered.
iii. Type of equipment and number of hours/
miles. or type of supplies and materials
purchased.
iv. Original signature of vendor.
S. Landowner list with land descriptions (see exam"le
below) are required by May 30.
TOWNSHIP (NAME)
NAME DESCRIPTION
I. John Doe part of NW /SW Section 12
2. John Smith part of NW ISW Section 12
3. Lori Anderson part ofSW/SW Section 12
4. Joyce Johnson part of NW INW Section 13
(list all landowners by Township)
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NA-OJ600-04 (Rev. 6/89)
"rf DIPAITMINT 0'
Nil SO VA _
NATURAL ..SOURCIS
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTMCf PR06RM
APPLI CATION
I
Trail Nare (PRINT or TYPE)
Backwoods
Tral J Adminatrator
Trai I Milealle
90
Date
Jul 6, 1989
I
Bob Sim ~on
Address (No. & Street, RFD, 80x No.. City,
127 North Alder Hill Minnesota 53355
A. AlMIIlISTRATlOIl
Explanation: This funding will be used for office supplies, telephone
calls, post~ge, materials, and other costs necessary to comply with
the Trails Assistance Program.
Work Telephone Number HollIe Te lell/lone NUIIlller
1.218) 828-2182
I (218) 218-2181
I
Tota J S
300.00
I
8. ACQUISITIOIl
Explanation:
Total S
300.00
I
I
C. TRAIL Ra.OCATlOIl
Explanation:
Total S 5.OQO.00
I
I
D. TRAIL FACILITIES
Explanation:
Three shelters
Total S 3.600.00
I
E. TRAIL MAIIlTEIlAIlCE Materials
Explanation: Total S 4.450.00
Brushing will be accomplished as indicated on the enclosed map. Sub-Total A _ E S 13 650 00
Also, new signs are needed in many areas. Trail leveling with a . .
dozer is necessary on the Hillview/Valley section. New location signs (651 State Cost
are being designed for use this season. IS 8,900.00
F. !!lli. ~ (~)
I
I
Explanation: Grooming wi 11 be accomp Ii shed ut il izing a Tucker Sno-Cat
and Sno-Plane drag. The trails will be groomed twice weekly.
Total S 20.000.00
I
6. !!lli. LIABILITY ~
Explanation: Standard trail liability insurance policy from
Acme Insurance at $600.00 per year (maximum state allOWed:
per year).
Total S 1.000.00
Sub-Total F & G S 21.000.00
$500.00 (9OS'SUte Cost
S
I 18,900.00
I
I
8AlAIICE REMAIIlI.FRIII PREVIOUS APPlICATlOll(S) S 2. 900.00
SPOIlSOR ~
UnIt ot Government
&IlMO TOTAl. STATE COST S 16.000. 00
Title
Chair Count. Board
I
Bi H'
Authorized Signature of Sponsor
. Jut. 20. 1989
I
aRTtFICATlOIl 8Y DEPAIlllEllT ~ ~ RESOUICES
REClJIOOEO 6IWIT S 15,000.00
I
Authorized Signature For Natural Resources Title Date I
Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor
AuthorIzed Signature For Natural Resources Title Date I
jRegional Trails am Watenays ~isor ,
,/
/'
I
I
NEW TRAIL PROJECT PROCEDURES
The following procedures must be adhered to if you
are proposing a new trail. A new trail is defined herein
as:
I. A proposal to add a section of trail onto an existing
GlA system. This does not include relocating a
short section of an existing trail.
2. An existing trail which is not currently in the GlA
system.
3. A propo~alto develop and maintain a totally new
trail system.
A new project will fulnll the following items and
procedures:
I. Trail user organizations/clubs must submit project
proposal forms to the sponsor.
a. Two (2) copies.
b. Original signatures on all copies.
c. Trail map of the proposed route.
i. One ( I ) copy.
ii. County highway maps. scale 1/2" to I mile.
for snowmobile trails. Maps will be
provided upon request by the DNR.
iii. For cross-country ski trails. U.S. Geological
Survey topographic sheets or similar scale
map should be submitted. Contact Area
Trails and Waterways Supervisor for
assistance.
iv. The map must identify where development
of bridges, rest areas and parking lots are
located.
v. The map must identify relationship or
connection to other trails. if any.
d. Cover letter describing project and benefits to
the public.
2. The sponsor will submit the above items along with
a supporting resolution to the DNR Area Trails
and Waterways Supervisor for review. Upon
approval of the project proposal, the Area Trails
and Waterways Supervisor will submit an
agreement form to the sponsor for appropriate
original signatures. The agreement is returned to
the Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor.
3. The Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor will
notify the sponsor, in writing:
a. That the agreement has been executed; and,
b. The date from which charges are reimbursable.
NOTE: UNDER NO CONDITION CAN
CONSTRUCTION TAKE PLACE ON ANY
PARCEL OF LAND, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC,
UNLESS A SIGNED PERMIT HAS BEEN
SECURED IN THE NAME OF THE
SPONSC~.
4. Timetable:
The schedule set below is designed to help all parties
involved in the Trails Assistance Program in planning
trail work and setting up funds so work can proceed.
a. Project Proposal:
These forms must be received by the DNR
regional office by May 30.
I
b. Requests for Reimbursement:
i. Requests for Reimbursement for summer
and fall construction or maintenance are
due no later than December 31.
ii. Requests for Reimbursement for winter
grooming must be submitted monthly by
the calendar months.
iii. ALL REQUESTS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT MUST BE
RECEIVED BY THE DNR NO LATER
THAN MAY 30 FOR THAT YEAR'S
WORK. THE DNR MUST BE NOTIFIED
IF ANY WORK IS PLANNED FOR THE
SUMMER MONTHS SINCE
REMAINING BALANCES AFFECT
NEXT YEAR'S GRANT.
c. Payment of Requests for Reimbursement:
If Requests for Reimbursement are executed properly
and all necessary signatures and invoices are included
in the request. the DNR will pay the requests. Requests
which are submitted improperly will be returned for
proper execution.
d. For PUI1'05e5 of more accurately documenting
reimbursable activities. the following
information shall be included on all worksheets
and/or groomer logs:
i. The name of equipment operators (all types
of equipment).
ii. The make and model of all heavy
equipment and groomers.
iii The type of work done.
iv. The location.
v. Any labor, equipment time/miles or
donated supplies and materials shall be
noted as a donation.
Addicionallines of the worksheet and groomer log
may be used for each entry, if needed. until a revised
version is available.
Invoices for purchased or donated services such as
equipment rental, supplies and materials submitted with
Request for Reimbursement Forms shall include the
following information:
i. Name of individual or company.
ii. Date the work was done or materials
clelhered.
iii. Type of equipment and number of hoursl
miles, or type of supplies and materials
purchased.
iv. Original signature of vendor.
5. The landowner list with land descriptions (see
exam~e below) is reqlli.red by May ~~.
TOWNSHIP (NAME)
NAME DESCRIPTION
I. John Doe part of NW /SW Section 12
2. John Smith part of NW /SW Section 12
3. Lori Anderson part of SW /SW Section 12
4. Joyce Johnson part of NW INW Section 13
(list all landowners by Township)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"..,.-
HA-0161Z-01 (Rev. 6/891
. R-:IPAIfMINT 0'
S01'A _
MATUtAl IISOUICIS
NI_SOTA lIAlL ASSISTANCE PR06RNI
NEW TRAIL PROJECT PROPOSAL
T,.III H_ (PAINT 0,. TYPE)
No Tra i1
r,.111 A_inist,.ltor-
Dlt.
July 6, 1989
T,.III Mllu9'
Alan J. Smith
Add,..ss (No. .. St"Ht, RFD, 80. 110., City, Stlt., Zip Codel
Rural Route 2 - Box 1234 Po 0 Minnesota 57777
A. AIIIIIISlUTlGI
Totll S
EllP I Iftlt Ion: This funding will be used for office supplies necessary to
comply with the Trails Assistance Program; stamPs, telephone bills, paper,
pencils, computer time, and secretaries time.
Wo,., T.I.phone MuIO.,. ~ T.I.Phon. Hu.oe,.
(612) 621-6121 (612) 216-1621
,
250.00
.. ACQUISITIGI Llbor MII"ge
Ellpl.n.tlon: $400.00 $350.00 Totll S
This funding will be used to contact landowners and secure permits from
each of them. There are approximately 31 landowners on the proposed
tra i 1.
750.00
c. lUlL ClIISTRUCTIGI Il&te,.I.ls
E'iiiiAn.tlon: 00 00 600.00 2 600.00 $300.00 Toul S 6.300.09
This proposal is for construction of ten miles of new trail. .All labor
work will be done by our club, heavy equipment will be rented and two
culverts are necessary. The trail covers approximately six miles of forest
which will require dozing, two miles of swamp, and two miles of field which
will reouire diskino.
D. lUlL FACILITIES . L.llor Mtl'lge ""terl.1s
Expllnltlon: 950.00 $SO~OO SI,200.00 Totll S 1.550.90
The trail shelters will be constructed in the areas indicated on project
map. They will be 12' x 20' metal shells with fire rings, tables,
benches and outhouses. Parking lot will be constructed near Boxer's
Corners.
Sub-Totll A - 0 S 8.850.00
(&51 Stue Cost
S 5,750.00
E. .!!!!!:. !!!!!!!!!! (1IIma)
Totll S
Expl.nltion: Grooming of the new ten miles of trail will be accomplished
with an ASV Track Truck and drag.
900.00
F. .!!!!!:. L1A1IL1lY IIISlIWICE
1,000.00
1.900.00
,
Total S
Exp I Iftatlon: Two years standard trail lfability insurance policy from
Acme at S600.00 per year (maximum state allowed: $500.00 Sub-Totll E" F S
per year).
(90S Stlt. Cost
S 1 710.00
ULAIICE REMIII. FIClIt PllOIOUS IlEII lUlL PROJECT !!!!!!!!:.(!l S
~ waaw,."
&RAMt TOTAL STATE COST S 7 ,460.00
Unit of Gov.,.ftlent
IT.lephone MuIO.r (Include An. Codel
(612) 261-2161
IOlte
. July 20, 1989
RfCllllElllED fillMT S
Johnson County
Authorized Slgnatur. of Sponsor-
I Title
Chair,
CEllTlFlCATlGI If 1lEPM11DT (IF 1A1lIlM. RfSOlllaS
County Board
AuthO,.il.d Slgnatur. For Naturel R.sources Title DUe
Area Trails and Waterways Superv i SOl July 25, 1989
Autho";led Slgnltu,.e Fo,. Hltu"ll R.sources Titl. DUe
Regiooal Trails and Wilten.ays ~isor July 26, 1989
Enclosllres: ' Resolution; 2. Map; 3. Landowner list; 4. Cover letter
NA-03603-01 (Rev. 6/89)
If.:IPAITMIHT 0'
1180TA
HATUIAL "~OUICIL
Sponsor
"I_SOlA TRAIL ASSISTAIICE PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSENENT
I
Bi Hi 11 Countr
Trill "-
Backwoods
TO:
I
A. Acbfnlstrltlon ...............
s
210.00
S 210.00
S
S
S
S 3 640 00
December 31 1989
CHEat !:ill
1. Any lids Requfredl
2. Orlgin.l SI9ft.tures on All COfllesl
3. S I,"*, Work SIleets And 6..-i"9 Lotsl
I. InYOlces for Purch.ses Ind Services
oyer 1SO.00l
**NOTE THAT ITEMS ON THE WORKSHEET
ARE TO SE CATEGORIZED IN THE
EXPENDITURES INDICATED ON THIS
FORM.
I
DJIOIJlTURfS
B. Acquisition .................
I
C. Tn II Construct I on ..........
D. Trill Relocltlon ............
I
E. Trill F.cllltles ............
F. Trill Mllntenlnee ...........
,
Sub-Totil A thru F ...1 s 4.060.00 I
, Is
Shte Cost 651 ... 2.639.00
I
",
Is I
G. Tr.1l Lllblllty Insurlnee ... 500.00
H. GrOOllI"9 .................... S
Sub.Totil 6 And H .._I s
I
500.00 I
. Shte Cost 901 ...1 s 450.00
. Grind Totll (Shte Cost) ... , S 3,089.00
Orlginll AaIount .nd Veer of Grent .......:'......-.~........I s 15.000.00 (89) I
ExpendItures to DUe (Ineludi"9 tll.is. R~st) ...~...~.....I s 3,089.00 I
Sa lance Left In Account ...... .............. ...:.:.... ~.. ../ S 11.911.00 I
I
I
I
NUIIIbe.. of Irfdte. ...................................
I
llEYUOPIEIT (AccOlllp I Is'-nts)
Number of .Iles Constructed to D.te .................
NUlIIber of Parklng ~ .............................
I
&IlOlJUIl& (Accomplls'-nts)
- NUlllber of Miles MAlnUlned (Tltls Rel.rs_nt Only) ...
'.
Trail WIdth ............................................
I
Miles Trlveled by GrOOllI"9 Equlllllll!nt ...................
APPROVAl.
- [ hereby certify thlt the .Iterhls andlor servfces s"- on attached InvoIces have ...... delivered. that this
Is .y only origInal InvoIce and Is correct Ind ust. and that no art of s... h.s been ald.
Signature - Trail AcIIIInlstretor Oat.
I
County
Sign.ture - Tltl. Audltor/Clerk
Oate
I
nllS [IlYOICE AfIPllOVED Flit PAMRT BY:
RegIonal SuperYisor
Olte
AS
I
Area Trails' Waterways SuperYlsor Dlt.
**THIS EXAMPLE ISSUSTRATES A REQUEST FOR FALL WORK
AND DOES NOT INCLUDE GROOMING COSTS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE TABULATED FROM THE GROOMER LOG
BOOKS.
I
............ ... --.--..................................
........... ........................ .....-...........-"-
..... ........-.......... .............................. --- .......
_.
I
'\'11',."",-0"'_ NO
un ...._.ZlO__.
8
I
I
~.....
I
11Io_03604-03 (Rev. 6/891
~"AITMINr 0'
caS01'A __
NArUIAL ..soulen
MINIIESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PR06IWI
WORKSHEET
I
Trai I "_
Backwoods
Date
ember 31 1989
I
/WE AIIO/OR EQUIPMENT
DATE MAKE - MODEL - OPERA TOR HOURS MILES COST/UNIT TOTAl COST TYPE OF WORK ON LOCATION
8/29 Jane May 2 It 9.no t IA.nn . . .;^^ ~^p-~
8130 Jane Mav 5 9.nn 41\ nn I c:.-t . 16++_
9/10 Jane May 5 '" CI nn 4'" nn I rt'\rnn i 1..
10/10 Jane May 4 'Lnn 11\ no Ill""
12/20 Jane May 5 CI nn 41\M - . .
10120 Oon Haaa 8 CI nn " _...~+-
10/23 AI Boser/PickuD 4 ,n 9.00
,'" 41 _...~..-
5 11 9.~g
11/18 Bob Franks 1:., -- -_..._~-
11/19 Don Haaa 7 Q nn I:'t -..-... .
~
Two Count v Hinhway Mans I
Al Boser/PickuD_ B ,n 9.00
11/21 'c; " _. D..ll_;^ c:...-+._
11123 Bob Franks 7 Clnn I:'t "'-'-_I. "'._
12101 Bob Frants/D-6 ~p-~
Invoice 1124 , 'oc; 1:., "ft _'ft
12/02 Jane Mav I Invni,... '7114 I:nn t'\t'\ I:nn nn ..... H+v
12103 Pete ~ame4O 6 .,., 9.00 Boxer
.,1: 1:0 I:n ............ "" -....- =
12/03 Al RDS.... Q nn 1:.4 nn u,,_a.'ft_ L_' ~.._
Invok" ''''1 .,1:7 I- L._' '- BOxer
:;.
9.00 ~
2/04 Bob Franks 8 14' ,C; 117 .1"_ -...-.
12/04 Pete Sames R Q nn 7,.nn I~ "'~__
Invoice 1624 ,.,., nn_ , 4"4 nn r.:"+"4o (''''
2/06 A 1 Boser In o nn on nn ^"p+"
2/07 Peter Sames 6 QA 9.~~ '7 1:/\ ,_....
,
~ 98 329 <4 496.37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I certify that the .aterials and/or services shown on this worksheet Is correct and just, and that no part of same has
been previously subllitted for pa}lllelft.
I
Authorized Si9nature
Date
December 31, 1989
o
-
-
-
NA.03814.01
l'DI'AITMINT O'
l/l!JlI.OV~
NATURAL IUOUICIS
Trail Name TetteQouche Tra i1
Type of Groomer SV200
MINNESOTA DB'AIlTMENT OF NATUIlAL IlESOURCES
Trail Assisrann Program
OPERATOR'S GROOMING lOG SHEET
Counly Lake
Year: 19~
DATE TIMl """PM TOTAL ALLOW""'E TOTAL REMAIIlI: N_ or "ail 0< .aclion or
Mo.IOay OPEIlA TQIlIIGNA TUllE lcarli", GllOOIIING COITI MILES TOTAL COlT I,a.' .oomect Mdilion.' co.nen..
Indi", HOUIlI EQUIPMENT OIlOOllEO
. . Groomed Clubhouse to 7 Corners and
02107 Ken Smi th 8:00 a.lA. 9 35.00 33 315.00 return. One hour lunch break.
6:00 D.IA.
. . Groomed Clubhouse to palmer Hoad ana
02108 Al Jones 7:00 a.lI. 10 35.00 41 350.00 return. One hour lunch break.
Replaced ten stop signs.
6:00 D...
. $ Groomed C1U6house to -Moose Wa lk
02109 Ken Smith 12:30 D.m. 1 35.00 24 245.00 Trail and return. Two hour breakdown
Replaced track cleats. One hour
10: 30 D.m. lunch break.
s . Groomed Clubhouse to Eagle Beach
02110 Al Jones R~no A.m. 9 35.00 36 315.00 Road and return. Some signing
needed, several windfalls.
5:00 D.m.
$ $ Groomed Clubhouse to Moose Walk Trail
02111 Al Jones I ~oo 11.18. 6 35.00 24 210.00 and return. One hour suppel' break.
Defroster not working well.
R'no n 1ft
$ $ Groomed Clubhouse to 7 Corners and
02114 Ken Smi th R~nn A.m. 9 35.00 33 315.00 return. One hour lunch break.
6:00 D.m. IGroOmed C li.ibfiouse to Pa lmer Road and
$ I
02115 41 Jones 7:00 a m. 10 35.00 41 350.00 return. One hour lunch break.
6:00 D.m.
$ $
--
$ $
TOTALS: 60 Ihr. Ihr. 232 2,100.00 TOTAL COST THIS SHEET $ 2,100.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
ALLOWABLE CHARGES
I
INTRODUCTION: All the charl!es listed below must
be direclly related to the acquisition. development.
maimcnan,t' :and grooming (If your trail system. No
olhcr \.'har~c, will be accepted without prinr approval
frulll ~uur Area Traih and Watcn\:I~' Supcn'''.r
'\OMINISTR.-\TIO.\ CHAR(;I::S: Inu lIlure lhan 15
pen:ent uf tUlal grant)
I. \fika:!c and Labor - These charges Olav be
l'II:II'~'i'.:d ,,'r prcparing thc papcrwu~k and I~lrms
tilr the program. bookkeeping. paying invoices.
allending necessary county board or DNR
meelings. and obtaining bids for equipment rentals.
, Stamps- The cost of mailing necessary DNR.
forms. billings. bid requests. or maps. It is suggested
that a list of mailings and materials mailed be kept
on tile.
3. Telephone Calls - Long distance calls directly
related to trail administration to vendors. the
sponsoring agency. landowners. and the DNR will
be accepted. It is suggested that a list of calls be
kept on file.
4. Office Supplies - The purchase of materials
needed to fulfill the programs administration such
as writing. typing and copying materials are
acceptable. Oflice space rental is not an acceptable
charge.
5. Maps-
a. The cost of county maps that are to be
submiued to the DNR as required by the
program are reimbursable.
b. For maps that are printed for trail users
identifying the trail route, etc.. costs are
reimbursable. The State will pay 65 percent
of the actual printing cost if the map is made
available to the public free of charge. THESE
MAPS WILL IDENTIFY THAT THE TRAIL
SYSTEM IS A GIA TRAIL AND FUNDED
BY THE DNR AND THAT DNR DOES NOT
ENDORSE ANY OF THE ADVERTISERS
ON THE MAP.
6. Meeting - The DNR allows charges for essential
personnel to attend meetings directly related to the
program. The general rule will be not more than
four (4) people for a trail committee meeting and
not more than two (2) people for a governmental
meeting. Club meetings are not acceptable as
chargeable meetings. Rental of meeting rooms is
not an acceptable charge.
7. Computer Time - The cost of using computers
shall be reimbursed as part of the administrative.
portion of the grant. The origin of cost such as
number of hours. or equipment rental. or materials
such as tloppy disks should be described on the
worksheet. The Allowable Cost for tiguring
reimbursement shall be $6.00 per hour (65%
reimbursable ).
ACQUISITION CHARG~S: (65% reimbursable)
I. Mileage and Labor - These charges are
acceptable for alignment work. checking
ownership records. and landowner contacts.
2. Maps - The cost of securing maps necessary for
aligning trail routes is reimbursable. County
highway maps and topographic maps are
acceptable - aerial photography maps should
receive DNR approval since costs can be extremely
high.
3. Permits and Easements - The program has done
extremely well to date with landowner cooperation
and low permit or easement costs. Costs incurred
:lre reimbursable.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEVELOPMENT AND ~IAI~TE:\A~CE
CHARGES: (65% reimbursablel
I. Mileage and Lahur - These charges are
reimbursable for ~onstruction and m"intenan.:t: \If
the trail system. A worksheet musl he lill.": III
for reimbursement identifying hour:. alld uates
work was performed.
, Equipment Rentals -
a. Heavy e,,!uipment work is reimbursable as
needed for construction. The operator or
vendor of the heavy equipment mU~t be
identified and an invoice submined to the DNR
. .Jor payment.
b. Bids - When equipment can not be rented
at the allowable costs. bids must be let to secure
the necessary equipment. Three (3) hourly bids
must be secured from vendors in your area.
If three (3) bids can not be secured. list the
vendors contacted. date contacted. and vendor's
response. When the bids have been secured.
the Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor
must be contacted and approve the bids. After
approval. the equipment can be hired. The bids
are then submiued with the request for
reimbursement.
c. Hand power equipment rental is reimbursable.
The operator or owner of the equipment must
be identified on the worksheet tor payment.
NOTE: Before any equipment rental or work is done.
the rental costs must be. within the allowable
limits. If these limits can not be met, bid
procedures must be strictly adhered to or the
billing will not be processed.
3. Material - Charges may be submiued for materials
used directly on the trail system. Materials may
include. but are not limited 10: lumber. paint. signs.
gales, posts, fencing, culvertS. fill. grass seed. bolls
or other hardware. etc. If you have a question on
any materials. it is best to contact your Area Trails
and Waterways Supervisor.
4. Snow Plowing - Reimbursement for plowing
parking lots will be acceptable when the parking
lot is used solely for trail user parking. Parking
areas at business establishments do nO( qualify tor
grants assistance. The maximum allotment per
parking area per year will be $200.00.
5. Insurance - Maximum a(lowable charge for trail
liability and groomer liability is $500.00 per club
per year (90% reimbursable). Comprehensive and
collision coverage for groomers is not an allowable
charge.
6. Grooming - Includes packing runs by gmoll1ch
and snowmobiles (when snow condition~ re4uirel.
and passes by groomers with drags that result in
a smooth. rideable or skiing surface (!Joe ~
reimbursable). Grooming equipmcnt used tilr
transportatiun may charge for op.:rating time \lnly
at the 65'i, reimbursable rate.
7. Radios - The cost of renting or lea1\ing and
installing radios in groomers and groomer support
vehicles shall be 65% reimbursable. if appru\cd
on a case.by-case basis by the Area Trails and
Waterways Supervisor. They shall be appro\ed IInly
in cases where the safety of groomer operators
in highly remote areas is improved. or where the
efficiency of grooming long distance and ,jiflkull
trail systems will be substantially increased. Full
documentation of bids and lease rales shall be
provided It) the Area Trails :lIld Walef\\ a~ s
Supcrvi1\or.
~
?
ALLOWABLE COSTS
L ACQV~ DEVELOPMENT, IL GlOOMING
MAINTENANCE COSTS State Celt ,... Total Cost
State C.. ~ Toeal Cost Includes gas. oil. operafOf'. repair. parts and service.
Labor $ 9.00/hour insurance and drag.
Computer $ 6.00/hour Snowmobile $ 13.oo/hour
Mileage Double Track Snowmobile 5 16.oo/hour
Snowmobile $ .2.S/mile Trackstel' $ 18.00/hour
Car $ .2.S/mile Ranger or Otter 5 18.00/hour
,/' AII- Temin Vehicle $ .251mile J-5 $ 24.oo/hour
Pickup $ .30/mile QuadTrac S 24.00/hour
4x4 $ .351mile Muskeg 5 27.oo/OOur
1-2_ $ .35lmile Snow Track $ 30.oo/OOur
2'h toft and up $ .45/mile Bombi S 30.oo/hour
Truck With Trailer $ ."/mile ASV -Track Truck S 30.oo/hour
(for heavy equipment/groomen) IMP $ 30.00/hour
Power Tools ASV- Track Truck Diesel $ 32.oo/hour
Chainsaw $ 3.80/hour Weasel $ 33.oo/hour
Brushsaw $ 4.001hour SV-200 $ 3S.oo/hour
Post Hole Diner s 3.s0/hour Quadtrac n s 36.oo/OOur
Other Equipment (Includes Gas. Oil and :r) Quadtrac III $ 38.00/OOur
Bobcat S 26. /hour Thioic:oI (2100; SPRITE) S 38.oo/OOur
Small Tractor S 13.s0/hour SV-2.S2 S 40.oo/OOur
(less than 25 hp) SV-JOI S 4O.00/OOur
Tractor (25 hp to 70 hp) S 27.s0/hour 1Ucker Sno C. S 40.oo/OOur
Tractor (70+ hp) $3S.00/hour NOn:: COPIES OF ALL INVOICES OVER 550.00
Attachments (Additional Per Hour) MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH EACH
Disc S 2.00/hour REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
Flail Mower S 3.20/hour
Backhoe S 10.00/hour
Other Power Take Off EquipmentS 10.00/hour
Brush Cutter (selr-propelled) S 30.00/hour
Skidder S 35.00lhour
JD-3S0 S 35.00/hour
JD-450 S 45.00/hour
0-4 S 50.001hour
0-6 S 70.00/hour
0-7 S 85.00/hour
Groomer. 65'*' reimbunable when used fOr non-
grooming purposes. and only when machine is in
operation.
12
-:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
I
NA.OJ60Z .OJ
R' DI,"lrMINr 0'
NII.OVA
NArUIAL IUOVICU
MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
AGREEMENT
I
LOC41 Unit of Government
7rai J Name
State Cost
S
Effect ive OHe
I
I
THIS AGREEMENT, effective date shown, is made between the STATE OF MINNESOTA, acting
through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the "State," and
the Local Unit of Government specified above, and relates to the establishment of proposed
trails specified above.
I
~
WHEREAS, the local unit of government desires to establish, construct and maintain pub-
lic trails; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program provides grants to local units of gov-
ernment for the construction and maintenance of recreational trails pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 84.83 (1988); and
WHEREAS, the local unit of government has applied to the State for a grant for said
trails and has submitted the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program's application form, maps,
ownership list, and resolution of the local unit of government authorizing the proposed
trail s as out 1 i ned in said documents; and said app 1 icat ion form and/or new trail prOject
proposal and map are attached hereto as Exhibit A, hereinafter referred to as the "Plan."
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties as follows:
A. TRAIL 08LIGATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT. The local unit of government
agrees to construct, operate and maintain the proposed trails in accordance with the
Minnesota Trails Assistance Program Manual, hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"
and with the application or new trail prOject proposal form, as accepted Or amended
by the State.
The local unit of government shall:
1. Forthwith proceed to acquire necessary interests in lands and open trails to the
public. The local unit of government must acquire the interests in land in fee,
or by easement, lease or permit for said trails. The term of said interest
shall be no less than four (4) months between November 15 of any year and April
1 of the succeeding year. For each parcel 'Of land crossed by proposed trails,
the local unit of government shall obtain from the owner of said parcel and sub-
mit to the State a permit, lease, easement or deed for said crossing.
(a) A person having personal knowledge of ownership shall sign an affidavit that
the person whose name appears on the document of conveyance, lease or permit
is the owner or possessor.
(b) Any instrument of conveyance or permit with a consideration exceeding
$500.00 shall be accompanied by an Attorney's Certificate Of Title.
2. Construct the trails and provide adequate maintenance which shall include keep-
ing the trails reasonably safe for public use; provide sanitation and sanitary
facilities when needed; and provide other maintenance as may be required. The
local unit of government and not the State is responsible for maintaining signs
and grooming all trails.
If the local unit of government fails to expedite establishment and construction
of trails or fails to provide for adequate maintenance, the State may withhold
future payments to the local unit of government and/or terminate this agreement.
B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. The State shall give technical assistance to thetlocal unit
of government in establishing trails, upon request.
C. FUNDING. The State's sole responsibility under this Agreement is to provide funds
to the local unit of government. In the event that state funds become unavailable
because of legislative or executive action or restraints, the grant amount may be
reduced by the State.
D. REIMBURSEMENT. The state agrees to reimburse the local unit of government 65 per-
cent of the cost of trail acquisition; develC/pment and RIClintenance, except grooming
and liability insurance which shall be reimbursed at the rate of 90 percent. All
costs shall be in accordance with the allowable charges and costs I Isted in the
manual. This grant shall not exceed the state cost as specified above.
E. PAYMENT. The local unit of government must submit a request for reimbursement and
.attach worksheets furnished by the State for all costs incurred in acquiring,
developing, maintaining and grooming the trail, all in accordance with the manual.
Additionally, the local unit of government must submit original receipts of actual
purchases exceeding S50.00. Further, the first request for reimbursement for costs
incurred by grooming must be made by January 31, and the last day of every month
thereafter while costs are incurred during the grooming season.
The books, records, documents, accounting procedures and practices of the local unit
of government relevant to this grant shall be subject to examination by the State
and legislative auditor. Records shall be sufficient to reflect all costs lncurred
in performance of this grant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. First Payment: Upon receipt of the request for reimbursement evidencing accept-
able trail costs of S500.00 or more for acquisition, development or mainterance,
the State agrees to reimburse the local unit of government for approved costs in
'accordance with the manual. The State shall not be required to pay for any ser-
vices provided by the local unit of government which the State determines to be
unsatisfactory, as determined by the State's authorized representative.
2. Subsequent Payments: Each thirty (30) successive days after the first payment,
the local unit of government may submit invoices evidencing trail costs. P~y_
ments shall be made to the extent of authorized reimbursement, or until this
Agreement is terminated.
3. Trail Segments: It is understood that if the trail system is developed in seg-
ments, the I oca I unit of government may submit requests for reimbursement as
soon as continuous and workable segments are completed. ,
F. LIABILITY. The 1 iabi Iity of the State shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 3.736. The liability of the local unit of government is governed by Minne-
sota Statutes, Chapter 466.
G. TERM. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed as to encum-
brance by the C.onrnissioner of Finance, and shall remain in effect unti I two (2)
years from said date. ,.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
I
I
I
I
I
,
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
I
(County) (City) (Village) (Town)
Authorized Signature Title Date
Authorized Signature Title Date
I
I
DEPARMNT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Authorized Signature Title Date
SPECIAL ASSIST'" TO THE aJltlSSIOllER
Authorized Signature Tftl, Date
Authorized Signature Title Date
I
I
CCM4ISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
I Authorized Signature
I
I Title
I Date
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM AHO EXECUTION
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III
ATTORNEY GENERAl
I
Authorized Signature
TI t Ie Date
SPECIAL ASSISTAlIT ATTabIEY IlEIIEIlAL
I
CCM4ISSIONER OF FINANCE
ENCUMBERED
DEPARMNT OF FINANCE
I ,ouchorizeci ~ '\I".ture
I Title
I 0..."
I
I
I
I
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRAIL DESIGN ANI) CONSTRUCTION
SUGGESTIONS
I
I. Design
a. Snowmobile Trails
i. Minimum surface for one-way trail should
be eight (S) feet or a reasonable width based
on the conditions.
ii. Minimum surface for two-way trail should
be ten (I O) feet or a reasonable width based
on the conditions.
iii. An additional two (2) feet should be cleared
outside the trail surface.
iv. Minimum turning radius is 100 feet, unless
marked.
v. Branches and obstacles above the trail
should be cleared to a height of ten (I O)
feet.
vi. Reflectorized signs should be placed on the
right side of the trail on posts at reasonable
intervals (see signing suggestions below).
b. Ski Trails
i. One- Way - Intensive Use: eight (S) feet
to twelve (12) feet; one or two tracks set.
- Moderate Use: six (6) to ten (10) feet;
one or two tracks set. -Low Use: six
(6) feet; one or no tracks set.
Two Way - Ten (to) feet to twelve (l2)
feet.
Downhill sections should widen at the
bottom as the degree of slope increases.
Uphill slopes where herringbone or side
step is necessary must be eight (S) feet to
ten (10) feet.
ii. Horizontal Clearance - Two (2) feet either
side of trail treadway.
iii. Vertical Clearance - Ten (10) feet above
expected snow depth. Allowance of snow
build-up on limbs should also be taken into
consideration.
iv. Turning Radius - Fifty (50) foot mini-
mum, 100 feet preferred.
Curves should be avoided on downhill
slopes and at the bottom of hills.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If a curve is necessary. provide a runout
andlor widen the trail or increase turn
radius.
As degree of slope increases. lengthen
runout. if needeu. width of Irail andl
or lurn radius should also increase.
2. Vertical and horizontal sight distance from trail
should be a minimum of 50 feet. Snowbanks at
road crossings should be cut back to provide
adequate visibility in both directions on both loiues.
Snowbanks should be kept low at trail crossing
points to permit easy exit from and entnlDce back
onoo the trail. Warning signs should be installed
on trails at both trail and road crossings at sufficient
distance to properly warn users.
3. Trails should cross contours at right angles where
possible. Routing trails .along side slopes should
be avoided. Approaches 00 slopes should be straight
and at least as long as the slope.
4. Both ski and snowmobile trails shall not be routed
over lakes, streams or other bodies of water. When
stream crossings are necessary, bridges at least six
(6) feet wide must be provided (also. keep in mind
groomer width). Bridge designs must have approval
of the Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor.
Railings are required. Permits to work in public
waters may be required for bridges. Permit
applications are available from the DNR's Division
of Waters.
5. Trails must be routed away from game preserves,
deer yarding areas, wilderness areas, experimental
stations, nurseries, airports, scientific and natural
areas, and other areas of anticipated conflict.
6. A sign developed by the State which designates
the trail as a GlA trail should be placed at parking
lots, starting points, and at other areas of high
visibility on the trail. '
7. If at all possible, the trail should be located in such
a manner as to avoid potentially hazardous areas
such as cliff edges, rock falls. steep hills. congested
areas, sharp ditches, sharp curves.
15
TRAIL GROOMING TIPS
General Information
One of the most important winter trail function is
grooming. Providing a good, smooth trail will depend
on ground surfaces. which are free of stumps, rocks,
roots or other debns. Because the snow surface will
reflect the ground surface conditions, a well groomed.
smooth trail depends upon several things: I) a relatively
smooth and even ground surface, 2) a good snow base,
and 3) good grooming. Snow compaction compresses
loose. nu.ffy ~now so that a firm base is provided. Snow
compact.lOn IS the process. of loosening or breaking
up heavily compacted or ICY snow and placing the
snow back down in an equally compacted. smooth
condition.
Trail Grooming Suggestions
Under optimum conditions, grooming should begin
when. snow dept~ has reached approximately twelve
(12) mches. Begin by compacting the snow with a
large rolle~ or drag w~th a packer pan. If this option
IS not available, packmg can be accomplished with
just the groomer, using the tracks to compact the loose,
fluffy snow. If the snow is too deep, a snowmobile
could be used. A very important point is that the snow
base should be built from the bottom, up. Snow
compacting should be considered after any substantial
snowfa~1. The following are items that you may want
to consIder.
I. Groom shordy after a snowfall.
2. Grooming, when possible, should be done when
traffic is light such as at night or on weekdays.
3. Ideal grooming temperatures usually lie between
minus five desrees fahrenheit (_SOF) and fifteen
degrees fahrenheit (IS0F).
4. The kind of snow is a major factor in determining
at what temperature the trail should be groomed.
Dry snow usually grooms best during the day when
the temperatures are warmer. Wet snow grooms
best at night when temperatures are usually cooler.
5. Cut all moguls off at or near the bottom of the
dips and place the snow into a uniform layer. Try
not to cut moguls halfway down or an uneven base
density will result, and the moguls will reappear.
6. In limited snow conditions, try to set the drag so
that snow can be pulled from the edges toward
the center of the trail.
7. A good general rule for grooming speed is four
(4) to ten (l0) miles per hour. It should be noted
that each groomer/drag combination is different.
but grooming too slow or too fast will result in
poor trail conditions (washboarding, uneven snow
compaction, etc.).
16
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""""""
SIGNING SUGGESTIONS
""
Signing on trai!s should be design~d to provi.de
direction, informalJon and s~fety for t~al~ use~. Major
signing areas are at the trailhead, trail JunclJons and
in areas where safety of the user is involved. Trailhead
and trail junction signs will provide maps showing route
designation. distance, traffic flow direction and location
of support facilities. Safety signs will caution users
of steep slopes. bridges. or highway crossings and other
hazardous trail conditions.
Signs on all trails should be kept at a minimum
and be well placed.
Signs placed out on the trail should include
reassuring blazers. caution signs. do not enter signs.
stop signs. etc. Placement of most signs should be
on the right-hand side of the trail just off the main
lreadway but within clearing limits. Signs should be
attached 10 posts placed two (2) to three (3) feet off
the treadway and three (3) to four (4) feet above
expected snow depth. Attach them securely with lag
screws or carriage bolts. Wood or metal posts may
be used depending on location and availability.
The only directional sign used on the trail should
be trail junction blazers. directional blazers and
reassuring blazers. These metal signs will be five (5)
inches by seven (7) inches and diamond shaped. Signs
should be placed in open areas or where a trail user
may become confused.
If uncertain about the effectiveness of signing. invite
a local trail user to identify where deficiencies may
exist.
SUGGESTED SIGNING PROGRAM:
I. Trailhead - The following signs should be located
near the parking lot at the start of the trail.
a. Major Information Board map of trails distance
of various routes rules and regulations trail uses
permitted and prohibited address of person in
charge of trail operation and maintenance (unit
manager) emergency telephone numbers
where to go and whom to see in case of
emergency registration interpretive informa-
tion trail conditions
b. You Are Here - ted at the trailhead and at
intersections with other trails.
i. if necessary, direction of trail (one-way.
two-way)
ii. trail distances (miles or kilometers)
iii. location of facilities
iv. you are here location marker
2. Information -
a. Use Designation - Should be located at all
intersections where incompatible users may
enter the trail.
b. Interpretive - Located at points of interest
along trail. Consult regional naturalist for
recommendations concerning interpretive
signs.
c. General Information - Located and designed
to provide information to trail users to assist
or improve their ability to safely and enjoyably
use the trail.
3. Traffic -
a. Stop-
i. Location: every traveled public road or
railroad crossing.
b. Stop Ahead -
i. Location: should appear before traveled
public road or railroad crossing.
c. Do Not Enter -
i. Location: ski or other trail intersections.
one-way trails. prohibited areas.
d. Yield-
i. Location: intersections with other trails in
open areas. May also be used at private
trail crossing found on railroad grades.
e. Caution-
i. Location: should be placed prior to all
potentially hazardous areas such as cliff
edges. rock falls. steep hills. congested
areas. bridges. sharp ditches. sharp curves.
f. Reassuring Blazer -
i. Location: where required to reassure trail
user is on the right trail. more in open areas,
less in thick woods. May also be needed
at unused road or trail intersections.
g. Directional and Trail Junctions -
i. Location: based on trail junction. Direc-
tional arrows should be placed prior to
sharp curves and turns. distance will
depend on anticipated speed of user. On
snowmobile trails. these signs should
appear at least 50 feet prior to the turn.
curve. or junction.
h. Snowmobile Trail -
i. Location: start of trail and at trail inter-
sections with other use trails.
i. No Snowmobiling -
i. Location: where needed to restrict snow-
mobile use.
j. No Motorized Vehicle -
i. Location: where necessary to prohibit use,
by motorized vehicles except snowmobiles.
4. Temporary and Special Signs -
a. Trail Closed -
i. Location: at points where users could enter
the trail.
b. Handicapped Accessible and Decals -
i. Location: trailhead and facilities.
c. Grant-In-Aid-
i. Location: at intersections of DNR and GlA
trails, also at OIA trailheads.
d. Mileage Markers (optional) -
i. Location: at intervals of miles or kilometers.
ii. Mileage markers can be very helpful to
the trail user and manager. They let trail
users know the distance they have traveled
or must travel to return to the trailhead.
They can help the manager easily identify
maintenance problem areas and can also
be useful to help locate injured or stranded
trail use~.
e. Caution Truck Hauling-
i. Placed to provide warnings where logging
or othertrucks cross or share trail treadway.
F. Stay on Trail - .
i. Placed in areas where trespass from tratl
or environmental impacts are of concern.
g. Ski Pass Required -
i. Place at all entry points to ski trails
supported by state funds.
./
MINNESOTA LIABILITY LAW
tTivate Lands and Waters, Public Use
,,'
87.0 I POLICY.
II is the policy of the state. in furtherance of the
public health and wellare. to encourage and promote
the use of privately owned lands and waters for
beneficial recreational purposes. and the provisions of
this chapter are enacted to that end.
History: 1961 c 638 s I; 1971 c 946 s I 87.02
(Repealed. 1971 c 946 s 91
87.021 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision I. For the purposes of this chapter the
terms defined in this section have the meanings given
them. except where the context clearly indicates
otherwise.
Subd. 2. "Land" means privately owned or leased
land. roads. wattr, watercourses, private ways and
buildings. structures. and machinery or equipment
when attached to the land
Subd. 3. "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest
or a life estate, a tenant. lessee, occupant or person
in control of the land.
Subd. 4. "Recreational purpose" includes. but is not
limited to. any of the following, or any combination
thereof: hunting. trapping, fishing, swimming, boating,
camping, picnicking, hiking, bicycling, horseback
riding, firewood gathering, pleasure driving including
snowmobiling and the operation of any motorized
vehicle or conveyance upon a road or upon or across
any land in any manner whatsoever, nature study, water
skiing, winter sports. and viewing or enjoying historical.
archaeological. scenic, or scientific sites.
Subd. 5. "Charge" means any admission price asked
or charged for services, entertainment, recreational use
or other activity or the offering of products for sale
to the recreational user by a commercial for profit
enterprise directly related to the use of the land
. History: 1971 c 946 s 2; 1982 c 373 s 1-4
87.022 (Repealed. 1982 c 373 s 91
87.0221 OWNER'S DUTY OF CARE OR DUTY TO
GIVE WARNINGS.
Except as specifically recognized by or provided in
section 87.025. an owner (a) owes no duty of care
to render or maintain the land safe for entry or use
by other persons for recreational purposes, (b) owes
no duty to warn those persons of any dangerous
condition on the land, whether patent or latent, (c)
owes no duty of care toward those persons except to
refrain from willfully taking action to cause injury,
and (d) owes no duty to curtail use of the land during
its use for recreational purposes.
History: 1973 c 703 s I; 1982 c 373 s 5; 1986
c 444
87.023 OWNER'S LIABILITY.
Except as provided in section 87.025, an owner who
either directly or indirectly invites or permits without
charge any person to use the land for recreational
purposes does not thereby: .
(a) Extend any assurance that the land is safe for
any purpose;
(b) Confer upon such person the legal status of an
invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;
(c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for
any injury to person or property caused by an act
or omission of such persons.
History: 1971 c 946 s 4; 1982 c 373 s 6, 1986
c 444
87.024 LIABILITY; LEASED LAND. WATER
FILLED MINE PITS. Unless otherwise agreed in
wAling, the provisions of sections 87.022 and 87.023
shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability
of an owner of the following described land: (I) land
leased to the state or any subdivision thereof for
recreational purposes; or (2) idled or abandoned, water
filled. mine pits whose pit walls may slump or cave,
and to which water the public has access from a water
access sited operated by a public entity.
History: 1971 c 946 s 5; 1987 c 384 art 2 s I;
1988 c 530 s 3
87.025 OWNER'S LIABILITY; NOT LIMITED.
Except as provided in this chapter nothing herein
limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
(a) For conduct which, at law, entitles a trespasser
to maintain an action and obtain relief for the conduct
complained of;
(b) For injury suffered in any case where the owner
charges the person or persons who enter or go on the
land for the recreational use thereof, except that in
the case of land leased to the state or a subdivision
thereof, any consideration received from the state or
subdivision thereof by the owner for such lease shall
not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this
section.
History: Ex 1971 c 3 s 88 subd I; 1982 c 373 s
7
87.026 LAND USER'S LIABILITY.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:
(a) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for
injury to persons or property;
(b) Relieve any person using the land of another
for recreational purposes from any obligation which
he may have in the absence of this chapter to exercise
care in use of such land in the person's activities
thereon. or from the legal consequences of failure to
employ such care.
History: 1971 c 946 s 7; 1986 c 444
87.03 DEDICATION.
No dedication of any land in connection with any
use by any person for a recreational purpose shall take
effect in consequence of the exercise of such use for
any length of time hereafter except as expressly
permilled or provided by the owner.
History: 1961 c 638, s 3; 1963 c 207 s 2; 1971
c946s8; 1982c373s8
87.04 [Repealed. 1971 c 946 s 91
[8
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
STATE FUNDED TRAILS
REGULATIQN OF USE
84.90 LIMITATIONS ON THE OPERATION OF
RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES.
Subd. 4. It is unlawful for a person to post. mutilate.
or remove any notice or sign provided in this section
upon any lands or walers over which he has no right.
title. interest. or license. It is unlawful for a person
other than a duly constituted legal authority to so post
any public lands. including but not Iimiled 10 tax
forfeited lands. as above described. It is unlawful for
a person to mutilate. destroy. damage, or remove any
shelter. comfort station or other trail facility on any
trail established on state owned land or on any
recreational trail which is funded in whole or in part
by state grant-in-aid funds.
85.018 TRAIL USE; VEHICLES REGULATED,
RESTRICTED.
Subdivision I. Definitions. ,For the purposes of this
section:
(a) "Trail" means a recreational trail, which is funded
in whole or in part by state grants-in-aid to a local
unit of government.
(b) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the
state agency from which the grants-in-aid are received.
Subd. 2. Authority of local government. (a) A local
government unit that receives state grants-in-aid for
any trail. with the concurrence of the commissioner,
and the landowner or land lessee, may:
( I) designate the trail for use by snowmobiles or
for non motorized use from December I 10 April .1
of any year, and
(2) issue any permit required under subdivisions 3
to 5.
(b) A local government unit that receives state grants-
in-aid under section 84.927, subdivision 2, for any trail,
with the concurrence of the commissioner, and
landowner or land lessee, may:
( I ) designate the trail specifically for use at various
times of the year by all-terrain vehicles. for non-
motorized use such as ski lOuring, snowshoeing, and
hiking, and for multiple use, but not for mOlOrized
and nonmolOrized use at the same time; and
(2) issue any permit required under subdivisions 3
to 5.
(c) A local unit of goVernment that receives state
grants-in-aid for any trail. with the concurrence of
the mmmissioner and landowner or land lessee. may
designate certain trails for joint use by snowmobiles
and all-terrain vehicles.
Subd. 3. Motorized use; permits, restrictions. Permits
may be issued for mOlOrized vehicles. other than those
designated, 10 use a trail designated for use by
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles. Notice of the
permit must be conspicuously posted. at the expense
of the permit holder. at no less than one-half mile
inlervals along the trail. for the duration of the permit.
Permits shall require that permit holders return the
trail and any associated facility 10 their original
condition if any damage is done by the permittee.
Limited permits for special events such as races may
be issued and shall require the removal of any trail
markers. baMers and other material use in connection
with the special event.
Subd. 4. NonmolOrized use trails. No motorized
vehicle shall be operated on a trail designated for
nonmotorized use.
Subd. 5. Snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle trails
restricted. (a) From December I to April I in any
year no use of a motorized vehicle other than a
snowmobile, unless authorized by permit. lease or
easement. shall be permitted on a trail designated for
use by snowmobiles.
(b) From December I to April I in any year no
use of a motorized vehicle other than an all-terrain
vehicle. unless authorized by permit, shall be permiued
on a trail designated for use by all-lerrain vehicles.
Subd. 6. Exceptions. The following motor vehicles
are exempt from the provisions of subdivisions 3 to
5:
(a) military. fire, emergency or law enforcement
vehicles used for official or emergency purposes;
(b) vehicles registered to the county, Slate or federal
government;
(c) vehicles authorized by permit. lease or contract;
(d) vehicles owned by pOValC persons engaged in
the upkeep and maintenance of the trail systems under
the direction of the local unit of government that
manages the trail; and
(e) vehicles registered to or operated with the
permission of a land owner on whoSC\ lands the trail
system has been constructed. but. only with respect
10 operation on the land of that owner.
Subd. 7. Streets and highways. This section does
not apply 10 any portion of a trail located on any street
or highway as defined in sec:tion 169.01.
Subd. 8. Enforcement. The provisions of this section
may be enforced by officers of the department of
natural resources as provided in sections 97 A.20 I to
97 A.235.
HislOry: 1981 c 215 s 2; 1984 c 609 s 5; 1986
c386 art 4 s 17; 1986 c 452 s 16
TRAIL PERMIT
THIS PERMIT is granted this day of 19 . by
Permitters. to the Permittee to establish and maintain on the hereinafter described land a trail route.
That . the (record owners. contract for deed purchasers. lessees) in
consideration of . grants this permit over and upon the following described
premises situated in the County of , State of Minnesota, 10 wit:
SUBJECT TO:
I. This permit shall terminate upon sale of the land. or upon notification in writing to the Permittee six (6)
monlhs prior 10 termination by the Permitters.
2. The right-of-way shall be open to the general public for (snowmobile/cross-country ski) use.
3. The Permittee shall at all times have the right to enter upon said right-of-way for any purpose necessary
to the performance of lawful powers and duties.
4. The Permitters shall have the right to close said right-of-way during any emergency, with the approval
of the Permittee.
5. The permit is for a foot width over the route to be used.
DATE:
(Landowner Signature)
(Club Representative)
N(]fE: All Trail PermilS are to be made out 10 Ihe club Sponsor as the Permittee, not Ihe club. Permits can
be made oul 10 club only if the Sponsor has specifically given written permission and authority to
the club. and the club has been incorporated.
20
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Vi'-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE. made this -4th_ day of
_September _. 19_. between _Mr. and
Mrs. Peter Sames_. of the County of --Lake_
and State of Minnesota, part-ies_ of the first
part. and --Lake Countll_ party of the second
part.
WITNESSETH. that the said part-ies_ of
the first part. in consideration of the sum of
-Il.00/Year_ to -Mr. & Mrs. Sames_ in
hand paid by the said party of the second part,
the receipt whereof Is hereby acknowledged,
do(es) hereby Grant and Convey an easement
and right in perpetuity; easement and right dur-
Ing the winter season; easement and right during
the months of -.November thru FebruaT'l/_ for
the coming _5_ year(s) unto the said party of
the second part. Its successors and assigns, sub-
ject to the terms hereof. over and upon the follow-
Ing described premises situated In the County of
_Lake_. State of Minnesota, to-wit:
A strip of land --11_ feet in width over and
across the following described lands:
Legal Description
The location of said strip of land Is s
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
hereof, for the following described purposes.
The purpose and intent of thi easeme
to establish, construct, and mow-
mobile trail to be used by the p
easement is conveyed subject to the fo
terms and conditions:
1. The party of the second part acknow _
edges that the part......! the first part
shall incur no ex~ associa the
construction and mai'a~ of th trail.
2. Prior to this eas~'i..)ltJta affect.
the party of the second pa~ iLl submit for
approval to the parl-ies_ a,1il'e first part
a plan descJtf)!aJ the placemeriLAnd construc-
tion of al11 itemi thaUhe party of the second
part intends to~ place or'.construct on the de.
scribed Janda:" Any auch lltems to be placed
or constructed pursuapV to this agreement
wll\ be limited to items which may be rea-
sonably construed as furthering the express
purpose of this Ib,t.use. No deviations from
this p!~n wll\ be allowed except with the ap-
proval of the part-ie,,_ of the first part.
3. All stumps. slash and other debris reo
suiting from the clearing of the right-of.way
wll\ be disposed of by the party of the second
part by burning or otherwise. according to
law.
4. All trees baving a commercial value
will be cut in standard Iengtbs and piled con-
veniently by the party of tbe second part,
for disposal by IaJe or otherwise by the
part-iB8_ of tlie first ~ '
I ......../. .
5. In orde".ta. preaenoe ,the ,cenlc beauty
of the demised"'lan'd..the pa~s__ of tbe
first part agree(s) to'l'efrailyfrom cutting
any trees or removing a", ~getation from
said land without the exPress written con-
sent fihe party Of!.: second part.
6.{ A~gns. POS1~ and other markers
s~l~ apJtloltved b ~e part-ies_ of the
first ~ "" 'I
7. This ~t'I1t is terminated if the
ted Ian . not used by. the party of
and part or the purpose of construct-
_mo'Wmobile_ trail for a period of
ear. or if the party of the second part
to comply with any of the conditions
ement.
e party of the second part shall
ma 'n the area under easement in a safe
condition at all times.
T. HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME. to
the arty of the second part, its successors and
gns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF. the said Parties
ave hereunto subscribed their names the day and
year first above written.
Signature:
Date:
Sig1l4ture:
Date:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF _Lake_ )-lIS
On this _6tJr._ day of --Septl1ltber_
19_18_. before me, a Notary Public in and for
the State of Minnesota, appeared -Mr. IS: Mrs.
Peter Sames_ to me known to be the persons
described in and who executed the foregoing
easement, and acknowledged that they executed
the same as their free act and deed.
Signature:
Notary Public
-Note: If only one person is granting an ease-
ment the clauses should read the part_II_.
COl\1MON TRAIL SIGN ORDER FORM
DATE:
FOR:
PER: DATE PICKED UP:
ORDERED RECEIVED POSTED
,01;
NR8-310 Decal- Snowmobiling
NR8-310 Decal. Cross-Country Ski
NR8-311A Recreational Use Blank liS" x 12"
NR8-311 B Recreational Use Blank Ilr x Ir
NR8-329 Stay on Trail
NR8-403 No Motorized Vehicles Except Snowmobiles
NR8-405 Stop
NR8-406 Stop Ahead
NR8-407 Do Not Enter
Decal for NRS-407 - One Way
Decal for NR8-407 - Road Closed
Decal For NR8-407 - Trail Closed
Decal For NR8-407 - Bridge Out
NR8-408 Yield
NR8-409 Caution
NR8-410 Ski Trail - Easy
NR8-411 Ski Trail - Intermediate
NR8-412 Ski Trail - Most Difficult
PLEASE SPECIFY FOR TIlE FOlLOWING SIGNS BWE (Ski) OR ORANGE (Snowmobile):
BWE ORANGE
NR8-413 Reassuring Blazer
NR8-414 Information with Intersection
NR8-414 Information with or Junction
NR8-414 Information with Arrow
NR8-414 Information with "Y" Right
NR8-414 Infonnation with "Y" Left
NR8-415 Information with Snowmobile
NR8-416 No Snowmobiling
NR8-417 No Motorized Vehicles Permitted
NR8-421 Caution Trucks Hauling
NR8-511 Snowmobile Trail Closed
NR8-608 Grants-In-Aid Trail
NR8-616 Ski Pass Required
NR8-617 Notice to Skiers
Fence Retlector
NOTE: These signs are available on a limited basis through DNR Area Offices. Quantities are limited.
If signs are not available. the Trail Administrator is responsible for obtaining signs from other sources.
22
o ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRAIL USER MAPS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
I
Accurate maps of the trail system should be prepared
for free distribution to users. They should be available
at the trailhead, DNR offices. and other localions
convenient to the public and should include the
following data:
I. Trail Name or Names.
2. Trail Localion - Give direction how to get 10 the
trail system parking lot from the nearest town and
major highway. A small state map showing the
general localion in the stale could also be useful.
3. Trail Length - Show the number of miles/km for
each segment or loop.
4. Trail Use - Identify loops or segments designated
for snowmobiling use. as well as trails closed to
snowmobiling if the potential for conflict with other
users exist, e.g.. cross-country skiing.
5. Trail Connections - Identify other trails the trail
connects to such as:
a. State Parks and State Forests;
b. State Trails: or.
c. Other Grants-In-Aid Trails.
6. Trail Informalion - Give name. address and phone
number of an individual who may be contacted
for informalion. contact the local chamber of
commerce .10 identify them as the local contact.
The phone number of the local conservation offICer
may also be helpful.
7. Bridges - Show all bridge crossings.
8. Roads - Identify maintained state forest roads and
portions used as trails; also identify roads not
maintained. but suitable for snowmobiling.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9. Mark on map and/or list localions where the
following services would be available:
Gas
Food
Lodging
Nearest DNR office
Other helpful infonnalion
Repair services
Medical facilities
Law enforcement officers
91 I or Zenith
10. Develop a grid system for safety pUll'Oses or
localing facilities. etc.
II. Basic Safety Tips - Speed limit. driving on lakesl
thin ice. frostbite. trail signs. etc. Statements
concerning speed and alcohol should be included
on the map.
12. It is helpful to put a date somewhere (bottom right-
hand corner for consistency) on the map so the
proper maps are in circulalion.
County highway maps available through the
State Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
serve as ideal basemaps for showing snowmobile
trail alignments. These base maps are available
for most counties from the Trails and Waterways
Unit. Check with the Area Trails and Waterways
Supervisor for your county.
23
TORT CLAIMS, STATE
Section 3.736. Subdivision 3. Minnesota Statutes ( 1989
Supplement)
Subd 3. [EXCLUSIONS. I Without intent to preclude
the courts from linding additional cases where the state
and its employees should not, in equity and good
conscience. pay compensation for personal injuries or
property losses. the legislature declares that the state
and its employees are not liable for the following losses:
(a) a loss caused by an act or omission of a state
employee exercising due care in the execution of a
valid or invalid statute or rule:
(b I a loss caused by the performance or failure to
perform a discretionary duty. whether or not the
discretion is abused:
(c l a loss in connection with the assessment and
collection of taxes:
(d) a loss caused by snow or ice conditions on a
highway or public sidewalk that does not abut a publicly
owned building or a publicly owned parking lot. except
when the condition is affirmatively caused by the
negligent acts of a state emplayee:
(e) a loss caused by wild animals in their natural
state. except as provided in section 3.7371;
(f) a loss other than injury to or loss of property
or personal injury or death;
(g) a loss caused by the condition of inimproved
real property owned by the state. which means land
that the state has not improved. state land that contains
idled or abandoned mine pits or shafts. and appur-
lenances.lixlur.:s. and attachments to land that the state
has neither affixed or improved;
(hl a loss incurred by a user and arising from the
construction. operation. or maintenance of the outdoor
recreation system. as de lined in section 86A.04. or
for a loss arising from the construction. operation.
maintenance. or administration of grants-in-aid trails
as delined in section 85.018, or for a loss arising from
the construction. operation, or maintenance of a water
access site created by the iron range resources and
rehabilitation board. except that the state is liable for
conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages
against a private person. For the purposes of this clause.
a water access site. as defined in section 86A.04 or
created by the iron range resources and rehabilitation
board. that provides access to an idled. water IiIled
mine pit, also includes the entire water lilled area of
the pit and. further. includes losses caused by the caving
or slumping of the mine pit walls;
(i) a loss of benefits or compensation due under a
program of public assistance or public welfare. except
if state compensation for loss is expre.o;sly required by
federal law in order for the state to receive federal
grants-in-aid:
(j) a loss based on the failure of a person to meet
the standards needed for a license. permit. or other
authorization issued by the Slate or its agentS:
(k) a loss based on the usual care and treatment.
or lack of care and treatment. of a person at a state
hospital or state corrections facility where reasonable
use of available appropriations has been made to
provide care:
(I) loss. damage. or destruction of property of a
patient or inmate of a state institution:
(m) a loss for which recovery is prohibited by section
169.121. subdivision 9:
(n) a loss caused by an aeration. bubbler, water
circulation. or similar system used to increase dissolved
oxygen or maintain open water on the ice of public
waters. that is operated under a permit issued by the
commissioner of natural resources: and
(0) a loss incurred by a visitor to the Minnesota
zoological garden. except that the state is liable for
conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages
against a private person.
The state will not pay punitive damages.
24
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,.
~.
TORT LIABILITY, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
~66.0 I DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision I. Municipality. For Ihe purposes of
,,:clions 466.0 1 10466.15. 'municipalilY' means any city.
\\ hC:lhc:r organized under home rule charter or otherwise.
any county. lown public authority. public corporation
spc:cial district. school district. however organized.
county agricultural socielY organized pursuanlto chapter
311. joint powers board or organization created under
sc:ction -+71.59 or other statute. public library. regional
public library system. multicounty multitype library
syslem. or olher political subdivision.
Subd. 2. For the purposes of sections 466.01 to 466.15.
(he 'governing body of a lOWn' means the board of
supervisors thereof: 'school district' includes an
unorganized terrilOry as defined in MillJ1eSOOl Statutes
1961. section 120.02. subdivision 17.
Subd. 3. For Ihe purposes of sections 466.0 I lo 466.15.
'rdease' and 'hazardous substance' have the meanings
given in section 1158.02.
Subd. 4. For the purposes of sections 466.0 IlO 466.15.
'day care facility' has the meaning given it in section
245.782. subdivision 5.
Subd. 5. For the purposes of sections 466.0 I to 466.15.
'provider' has the meaning given it in section 245.882.
subdivision 12.
Subd. 6. Employee. officer. or agent. For the purposes
of sections 466.01 to 466.15. 'employee: officer: or
'agent' means a present or former employee. officer. or
agent of a municipality. or other person acting on behalf
of the municipality in an official capacity. lemporarily
or permanently. with or without compensation. but does
nOI include an independent contractor.
. History: 1963 c 798 s I: 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7: 1978
c 659 s 3: 1983 c 121 s 27: 1983 c 280 s 2; 1986
c 395 s 12.13: 1986 c 455 s 64; 1988 c 708 s 7
466.02 TORT LlABILlTY.
SubjecI to the limitations of sections 466.0 I to 466.15.
every municipality is subject lo liability for its torts and
those of its officers. employees and agents acting within
the scope of their employment or duties whether arising
OUI of a governmental or proprietary function.
History: 1963 c 798 s 2; 1976 c 2 s 142 -
466.03 EXCEPTIONS.
Subdivision I. Scope. Section 466.02 does not apply
10 any claim enumerated in this section. As to any such
claim every municipality shall be liable only in
accordance with the applicable statute and where there
is no such statute. every municipality shall be immune
from liability.
Subd. 2. (Repealed. 1987 c 346 s 181
Subd. 3. Tax claims. Any claim in connection with
Ihe assessment and collection of taxes.
Subd. 4. Accumulations of snow and ice. Any claim
based on snow or ice conditions on any highway or public
sidewalk that does not abut a publicly-owned building
or publicly-owned parking lot. except when the condition
is affirmatively caused by the negligent aCts of the
municipality.
~ubd. 5. Exe::ution of statute. Any claim b~ upon
an act or omission of an officer or employee. exercising
due care. in the execution of a valid or invalid statute.
charter. ordinance. resolution. or rule.
Subd. 6. Discretionary acts. Any claim based upon
[he performance or the failure to exercise or perform
a discretionary function or duty. whether or not the
discretion is abused.
Subd. 6a. Driving under the influence: custody of mOlOr
vehicle. Any claim for which recovery is prohibited by
section 169.121. subdivision 9.
Subd. 6b. Unimproved property. Any claim based upon
the condition of unimproved real property owned by the
municipality.
Subd. 6c. Water access sites. Any claim based upon
the construction. operation. or maintenance by a
municipality of a water access site created by the iron
range resources and rehabilitation board. A water access
site under this subdivision that provides access to an idled.
water tilled mine pit also includes the entire water tilled
area of the pit. and. further. claims related to a mine
pit water access site under this subdivision include those
based upon the caving or slumping of mine pit walls.
Subd. lid. Licensing of providers. A claim against a
f1\JJnicipality based on the failure of a provider to meet
the standards needed for a license to operate a day care
facililY. as detined in section 245.782. subdivision 5. for
children. unless the municipality had actual knowledge
of a failure to meet licensing standards that resulted in
a dangerous condition that foreseeably threatened the
plaintiff.
Subd. 6e. Parks and recreation areas. Any claim based
upon the construction. operation. or maintenance of any
property owned or leased by the municipality that is
intended or permitted to be used as a park. as an open
area for recreational purposes. or for the provision of
recreational services.. or from any claim based on the
clearing of land. removal of refuse. and certain of trails
or paths without artifICial surfaces. if the claim arises
from a loss incurred by a user of park and recreation
property or services. Nothing in this subdivision limits
the liability of a municipality for conduct that would
entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person.
Subd. 7. Other immunity. ARY claim against a
municipality as to which the municipality is immune
from liability by the provisions of any other statute.
Subd. 8. Any claim for a loss other Ihan injury to
or loss of property or persoaaJ injury or death.
Subd. 9. Any claim (or a loss of benefits or
compensation due under a program of public assistance
or public welfare. except where municipal compensation
for loss is expressly required by federal law in order
for the municipality lo receive federal grants-in-aid.
Subd. 10. Any claim for a loss based on the failure
of any person to meet the standards needed for a license.
permit. or other authorization issued by the municipality
or its agents.
Subd. II. Any claim for a loss based on the usual
care and treatment. or lack of care and treatment. of
any person at a municipal hospital or corrections facility
where reasonable use of available funds has been made
10 provide care.
Subd. 12. Any claim for a loss. damage. or destruction
of property of a patient or inmate of a municipal
institution.
Subd. 13. Any claim for a loss caused by the condition
of unimproved real property owned by a municipality.
which means land that the municipality has not improved.
land that is owned or administered by the municipality
that contains idled or abandoned mine pits or shafts.
and appurtenances. fllllures.. and attachments lo land that
the municipality has neither affixed or improved.
Subd. !..,. .fl.oy claim for a loss for which recovery
is prohibited by section 169.121. subdivision 9.
Subd. 15. Any claim against a municipality. if the
same claim would be excluded under section 3.736. if
brought against the state.
Subd. 16. Any claim against a county arising from
the operation of an all-terrain vehicle on land admin-
istered by a county under chapter 280.281 or 282 except
that the county is liable for conduct that would enmle
a trespasser to damages against a private person.
History: 1963 c 798 s 3; 1975 c 359 s 23: 1982
c 423 s 13; 1983 c 362 s I: 1985 c 248 s 70: ISpl985
c 13 s 346.1986 c 395 s 14; 1986 c 455 s 65-74;
1988 c 530 s 9.10: 1989 c 331 x 24
~/