10/18/1982 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionMINUTES OF A SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS F RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1982
Chairman Martin called the Advisory Committee together at 6:30 P.M. Those
present were Martin, Thurston, McNeely, Fedde, Kubik, Schumaker, and Carroll.
Members absent Gustafson, Masin, and Tilley. Also present was the Director
of Park and Recreation and Systems Plan Consultant, Tim Erkkila. Parks
and Recreation Director, Vraa indicated that committee member Masin would
not be able to attend this evenings meeting and that member Tilley had indi-
cated to the director that she would be resigning from the Advisory Committee.
The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that in addition to review of
system plan material, he wished to place on the agenda for the Advisory
Committee two informational items. These items consisted of the Walden Heights
plat in section 33 and an item concerning Fish Lake Park. Chairman Martin
added these items to the agenda for discussion.
The Director of Parks and Recreation then introduced the Advisory Committee
to the evenings subject matter, indicating that the topic of tonights agenda
primarily would be those items discussed but not acted upon from the regular
meeting with additional information concerning the classification system,
demographic statistics, and an illustration of typical park.
Mr. Erkkila discussed the format of the classification system saying that he
had revised the materials and placed it in a format similar to that which was
done in the comprehensive guide plan. Mr. Erkkila then displayed a visual
representation of "basic park facilities" that is envisioned in the new
definition and concept of a neighborhood park. Displaying this he indicated
that approximately 5.5 acres would be the minimal neighborhood park to
accomplish that which had been identified for basic neighborhood park amenities.
He then displayed an overlay which expanded the neighborhood park facilities
providing optional facilities such as a ball field, tennis courts, hockey
rinks, and expanded trail system. He explained that to comfortably put these
elements into one park, approximately 11.5 acres would be required. He stated
that while the plan was conceptual in nature he felt that it would help to
visualize for the Advisory Committee the characteristics of both the basic
and expanded neighborhood park concept. Committee member Thurston questioned
the amount of open space shown in the two concept plans and the need to be
sensitive to topography and the slopes within Eagan which may require additional
acreage for parks to include all of the elements shown. Mr. Erkkila responded
that in the concept he had shown approximately one acre of land as passive
area. He stated that committee member Thurston's comments regarding topography
was accurate and would translate into the fact that more park acreage would be
required in some neighborhoods in order to accomplish the objective of providing
a neighborhood park with optional facilities. He continued saying the Advisory
Committee should anticipate, when it looks at potential park sites that it
would need 10 acres for a neighborhood park. With changes in topography
additional park land should be sought. After a brief discussion by the Advisory
Committee, Mr. Erkkila then began to discuss the aspects of the recreational
standards. He stated that at the previous meeting the Advisory Committee had
looked at 1980 census data, in conjunction with a recommended standard. He
indicated that he had updated the visual overlay to show 1982 census and current
needs versus current supply. He stated that this new standard, based on the
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 2
1982 an estimated population of 25,000, showed the present need of ten (10)
scheduable softball facilities or a deficiency of two. In the other categories
baseball would he short Z facility, tennis 2.5 facilities, soccer 2 facilities,
hockey approximately 2 facilities.
He went on to review the community athletic field test saying that the typical
standard of 3 to 3.5 acres for 1,000 residents applied to the population of
1982 yielded a current need of between 75 and 88 acres with the current supply
of 70 acres. Mr. Erkkila indicated that this would tend to further support
the need for the Rahn Athletic Complex. This would also begin to shed some
light on why the City was beginning to hear comments regarding the need for
development of recreational facilities. Mr. Erkkila then went on to say
that standards are critical, and that some additional research in comparing
other communities was made to assist the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Erkkila began to review standards as adopted in other communities along
with the old Eagan standards as adopted in 1980. He stated it is important
to recognize how those services are being delivered in the community to under-
stand whether that standard is appropriate. Mr. Erkkila stated that the old
Eagan standard is one softball field for 1,500 residents. Maple Grove was
using the standard of 2,000, Crystal was 1,250. He stated that Crystal had
extensive use of school facilities in order to deliver this level of service
and were having community and neighborhood parks fully developed to accomplish
this. Mr. Erkkila then went through various communities and facilities
standards for tennis, soccer, hockey and baseball facilities. He continued
saying that Eagan, with the standard just illustrated, is on the conservative
end of each.
He continued with the review of the community athletic field standards, which
range between 3 and 3.5 acres per thousand. The City of Plymouth has a 2.5
acres per thousand standard. He stated that the present Eagan standards of
3.5 is again conservative. In applying this standard to the current need it
would produce between 75 and 88 acres of demand with the current supply of
70 acres. He continued saying that by 1990 Eagan would have a projected need
of between 110 and 130 acres of required athletic field lands. In conclusion,
there would be a deficiency of nearly SO acres at that time. In comparison he
stated, Maple Grove was supplying these facilities at 3.3 acres per thousand,
Crystal was utilizing 4.8 acres per thousand which excluded the utlization of
school sites for their programming purposes. He stated that Crystal had a
joint powers agreement for utilization of these sites which allowed them to
be incorporated into the standards. He went on to state that Crystal was
having problems in delivering the number of facilities because of the lack
of land now available for such development. He indicated that he would suspect
that the community, if it could, would lower that standard in order to provide
the number of facilities that are now desired. He went on to relate that both
Apple Valley and Eden Prairie are 3 acres per thousand while that of Eden
Prairie is 2.5 acres per thousand. Committee member Kubik stated that again
this shows that Eagan's standards of 3 to 3.5 ratio would be on the conserva-
tive side and may short the community of needed facilities in the future if
that standard were adopted.
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 3
Mr. Erkkila stated that at the previous committee meeting there was a discussion
on the gross number of acres the park system currently has and its relationship
to population. He stated that in 1980 the ratio of park land per thousand
population was 22 acres. This was raw acreage and included both developed,
undeveloped, open space, and all those lands designated as park but which
could not be developed such as water bodies and steep slopes. Other communi-
ties, in comparison, Lakeville at 28.6, Maple Grove at 28, and Plymouth had a
goal of 20 acres per thousand population. He stated that the previous standard
was approximately 10 acres per thousand population. However, the standard
has been revised to 15 acres per thousand and as high as 15 to 20 acres in any
areas. He stated that the high number of gross acres per thousand population
is typically ahead of that which will ultimately be once a community becomes
fully developed because they are receiving park land dedication prior to or
in anticipation of growth. It is very typical for growing communities to
have an excess of park land per thousand, based on most standards, while the
community is developing. Mr. Erkkila continued that with this data on raw
park land he wished to discuss the relationship of its numbers based on the
six planning districts utilized in the planning process. He reviewed for the
committee the projected population growth in each of the planning districts
indicating that planning district 4 would probably be the fastest growing as
a percentage of existing population. He then stated that with these figures
and facts he ran them through to see how the park land distribution would be
in 1990 based on projected population growths, and the assumption that no
additional park land would be acquired between now and then. Currently, the
City has approximately 608 acres of gross park acreage which yields a 24.8
acres per thousand population at present. By 1990 this would drop down to
15.1 acres per thousand, the range the community would like to be at time of
full development. Park acreage, projected to a fully developed community
would mean that the City would have approximately 6 acres per thousand. This
would be well under acceptable standards for a developed community. This
would suggest the community is going to have to acquire additional park land
if you apply the standard of 10 to 15 acres per thousand population. It
would suggest, he continued, that by 1990 the community would want to add
between 350 and 500 acres of additional raw land. Mr. Erkkila continued
stating that this sounded preposterous and he wanted to check out these
projections against future neighborhood parks. Mr. Erkkila said he could
check this out by adding known land dedication plus assuming 10 acre neigh-
borhood parks in areas previously identified in the comprehensive guide plan
for acquisition. By combining all these numbers and putting them into the
formula, Mr. Erkkila said, there would be a total of 375 additional acres of
park land the community has committd or hopes to acquire as part of the entire
park system. Consequently, the community would then be at nearly 975 acres.
This number would be not too far off from that which was previously projected.
He continued saying that while the City was well on its way to acquiring its
park needs, he suggested that there still remains some deficiencies that the
City would need to be concerned about in 1990 and beyond.
Mr. Erkkila continued the presentation by then reviewing for the committee the
distribution of park land by 1990 in each service district. This was based on
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 4
current land holdings plus that which is anticipated through any development
agreements. He indicated that the assumption is this land would be received
by 1990, therefore the comparison may not be valid. He stated he wanted to
illustrate for the committee the ratio of raw park land per thousand population
and hoped this would illustrate the areas in which the community may be deficient.
Planning district #5 has the largest percentage of raw land per thousand
population projected by 1990, while service district #3 had the smallest ratio
of park land per thousand population at 7.3 acres, based on 1982 census, which
is well below the standard. By 1990 this will drop to 6.3 acres per thousand
population. He stated that he did not believe this was surprising for the
committee because it had previously indicated the high densities of section 9
and the lack of park and developed facilities within this park service section.
Mr. Erkkila continued to show relationships of land to population and relation-
ships between an east -west delineation and a north -south delineation. Mr.
Erkkila also illustrated for the Advisory Committee a graphic representation
showing what would happen if all land areas which were community parks were
subtracted from the calculations and then reapplied those to the planning districts.
This illustration showed that the newer sections of the community had sufficient
gross acreage, but that it was undeveloped. The older portions of the community,
such as section 1 and 2, was deficient in land but was developed. Again, he
emphasized that this did not tell the committee anything that it didn't know
previously but reconfirmed it and quantified the deficiency in terms of acres.
In response to a question from chairman Martin, Mr. Erkkila responded that
these numbers were based on land currently held and not on anticipated or
future acquisitions. For example, he stated, that in district 1 future park
dedication in the Meadowlands, the acreage would improve of park land per
thousand population in district to a more acceptable and desirable ratio.
Mr. Erkkila stated the old comprehensive guide plan stated there would be 3
acres per thousand population of land in neighborhood parks. To use this
standard at this time would escew the system. He suggested that this standard
not be utilized; or use a much higher acreage in this growth cycle. The Advisory
Committee discussed this comment and were in agreement with Mr. Erkkila, as this
would be in conflict with the City's desire to acquire neighborhood parks of
12 to 15 acres in size. The committee then discussed various items. Chairman
Martin stated that from the data that was presented, it reafirmed to him that
a community athletic facility in the northern portion of the community would be
necessary at some time in the near future. Mr. Erkkila expanded that comment
by saying not only is there a need for such a facility, but there should also
be a concern for general neighborhood parks in the northern section. In response
to a question from the Advisory Committee, Mr. Erkkila began to review those
areas in which he felt acquisition beyond the dedication process may be necessary.
Mr. Erkkila continued that at the previous meeting there was the question of
drawing a comparison between the City's comprehensive guide plan and that which
was being reviewed at this time. He then displayed the page from the City's
comprehensive guide plan referring to the necessity of acquisition. He re-
flected that the guide plan stated the City had approximately 70% to 80% of its
park system now within its holdings. He suggested that this figure may be high
and that the actual figure might be more in the 60% range based on what we know
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 5
now in terms of future neighborhood parks, the necessity of community develop-
ment of athletic fields and the desire to have neighborhood parks of 12 to
15 acres. Chairman Martin stated that if the City's development is to be
100,000 people that the 70% to 80% ratio seemed high. Recognizing that the
City has 600 acres of actual acquisition and that the community is to have
100,000 people the 60% factor would be the maximum. Mr. Martin continued that
if we are talking about an additional 300 acres as identified for basic neigh-
borhood parks as identified with the necessity of future acquisition of community
athletic field facilities, then this percentage seems to be inaccurate. There
was considerable discussion by the Advisory Committee in regards to this issue,
the consensus being that with existing and proposed dedications there would
be less than a thousand acres. This would be below the 12 to 15 acres per
thousand for neighborhood, community, and open space park land needed.
Mr. Erkkila stated that additional land acquisition may not be the news that
everyone wanted to hear. The general emphasis and concern through the tactics
study and interviewing process has been on development. Mr. Erkkila stated
that he did not mean to say that the City should focus its attention on the
acquisition issue. Development was still the primary issue before the community.
Rather, discussion of acquisition was to ensure that the Advisory Committee and
City continue to focus its long range objectives and realization of the necessity
for acquisition as an essential part of the growth of the community into the
year 1990 and beyond. His intent was to help the Advisory Committee and the
City understand why it may need to purchase and /or spend money on acquisition
for key or significant parcels if it is to provide facilities in areas other
than neighborhood parks. After additional discussion by the Advisory Committee,
Mr. Erkkila then moved on to the distribution and analysis of the various
facilities within the park system, which was a review of information that was
at the regular October 7th meeting. He reminded the Advisory Committee at the
conclusion that the distribution of facilities was based upon projected 1990
needs, the standards that were reviewed but not yet adopted, and the desire
to adequately distribute the facilities through the six planning districts.
After review and discussion, Mr. Erkkila identified the next task for the
Advisory Committee stating that they should come to an agreement on the classi-
fication standard issues so work on the systems plan can continue. He stated
that his intent, if agreement could be reached, was to hold the committee to
this standard during the following phases of the plan. This did not preclude
the Advisory Committee from going back, but should feel very confident about
these standards so work can proceed. Committee member Thurston questioned the
advisability of a potential removal of the hockey facility at Lexington Park
as had been indicated. She stated that this neighborhood has few facilities,
she has difficulty seeing the justification in its removal. Mr. Erkkila re-
sponded that he realized that this was a touchy and difficult issue for the
committee to deal with and for the community. He said he could understand an
Advisory Committee's decision not to do so, however, he reiterated, that the
facility was substandard and that it conflicted with the utilization of the
park for ball field purposes. He suggested before removing the rink, a replace-
ment within the planning district should be in place. The replacement of these
hockey boards would be inevitable and at such times that they became in a state
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 6
of disuse, the City not expend the additional funds to replace those hockey
boards. Mr. Erkkila continued saying the Advisory Committee has justification
for not installing or spending the dollars to install the hockey rink at this
location. There are other neighborhood areas with a higher density of popu-
lation which could also be justified for a hockey rink facility. He then re-
viewed density figures which would warrant a hockey facility in comparison
to the Lexington Park area. Chairman Martin indicated that if the City were
to proceed with the removal of that hockey rink, at such time as the hockey
boards were in poor state of being, it did not mean the City would not retain
the open skating area. In response to a question the Director of Parks and
Recreation indicated that the utilization of the Lexington Park area for
hockey and skating was marginal. Committee member Thurston indicated that the
department has continued to keep and monitor attendance records and that we
should continue to do so to ascertain whether the utilization of the hockey
rink and open skating areas in this park and other facilities is warranted.
The committee, in response to a question from Mr. Kubik, discussed the population
projections as indicated in the park service districts to try to determine its
potential for growth beyond that which was projected between 1982 and 1990 projectio
and the feasibility for multiple housing developments. Committee member Martin
suggested that while the planning horizon was 1990 the committee might also
look upon what the numbers could potentially be at saturation. Chairman Martin
indicated that the intent was not to develop a plan for saturation but to
estimate total park land the system should have at saturation level. He in-
dicated that this might help to justify the necessity of long range views of
additional acquisition for major parcels of park land. Mr. Erkkila responded
that while this could be done he hopes that the City and Council would recognize
the numerical standards, and the need to distribute these facilities in major
planning areas for the community. Committee member Kubik stated that as the
community grows and becomes further developed the relative ease of acquisition
for parcels become increasingly difficult and the City needs to be aware of this
and continue to provide a level of service and a level of park lands to satisfy
future generations. He then questioned whether there had been any studies done
which might show the increase in cost or difficulty of acquisition as develop-
ment occurs? Mr. Erkkila responded that he was not aware of any study of that
nature but appreciated his comment. It would seem that park land will become
increasingly more difficult and increasingly more expensive as time progresses.
Early acquisition in anticipation of future needs would undoubtedly save money,
but it would be hard to justify to existing residents not to proceed with de-
velopment because of acquisition needs. After discussion, the Advisory Committee
questioned the Director of Parks and Recreation as to the amount of money being
received annually for parks dedication purposes and the potentiality of seeing
these dollars channeled into an acquisition program? The director continued
saying that there are a number of instances which acquisition could take place
under various contractual arrangements which may spread out the cost for
necessary parcels over a longer length of time rather than a direct cash outlay.
Committee member Martin stated that it was his understanding that remaining
lands for neighborhood parks would come either through the dedication process
or through cash donations which would acquire the remaining neighborhood park
areas. If this was accurate, all major parcels for community and athletic
facilities would have to come through some other source.
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 7
After additional discussion concerning park land dedication, future neighbor-
hood parks, athletic areas, etc. the committee agreed that the total park
raw acreage number of parks could be large but the quality aspects and usage
patterns need to be kept uppermost in the community's minds as the parks system
develops. Committee member Martin stated that he agreed that some of the
early parks dedication, which was substandard in nature, are now coming back
to haunt the community because they show up in calculations of raw acreage
rather than in the classification of suitable lands. Tim Erkkila stated
that in his review and analysis it would appear that with 600 acres of land,
the City really only has approximately 100 acres mowable, maintainable parks
at this time. He stated that this was not a criticism of the department rather
a reflection of the types of park land and development at this point. Committee
member Thurston stated that an additional reason for this might be in the fact
that with the topography and vegetation as well as the nature of Eagan, that
parks would not have as high a percentage of development as other communities.
She continued saying that a higher acreage standard for park land should be
required because of this element. Other members indicated that this was an
important element to bring out and were in agreement with her comments. Mr.
Erkkila continued that a large number for parks land should not intimidate
the committee or council. It suggests that perhaps that this was one of the
reasons people have moved to Eagan with its large expanses and open spaces.
The park system is one way of maintaining that ratio of open space to develop-
ment and is seen as a desirable amenity for the community. Committee member
Martin agreed with that statement. Mr. Erkkila continued that the Advisory
Committee and Council become the "keeper of the land" as much as it was a
"deliverer of recreational services." Committee members agreed with this.
Mr. Kubik commented that large park numbers scare people, unless they did
a thorough examination of those acres that were identified as park land.
In response to a question, Mr. Erkkila stated that as the plan progressed he
would be coming back to the committee with what he felt would be the prioriti-
zation of needs and development of neighborhood parks and facilities as well
as any play fields. He stated that this perhaps would help clarify the timing
and acquisition of development of these facilities. There were numerous
questions and discussion by the Advisory Committee on other aspects, after which
they began a discussion on specific standards that would be applicable to Eagan.
Chairman Martin indicated that he preferred to take each one separately and
reach some agreement or consensus on it before proceeding to the next element.
Mr. Erkkila responded that the softball field standard range was 1,250 to 2,500
and that up to this time he had used a standard of 2,500 for the committee.
Committee member Kubik stated that he felt that this number was too high and
should be reduced. In response to a question from committee member Kubik, the
Director of Parks and Recreation outlined the use of existing fields. The
utilization of the school fields are extremely heavy and should the fields
at Cedar, for example, be closed youth programs of the community would be in
serious trouble. Similarly, adult programs would be in serious trouble without
Blue Cross /Blue Shield or. Univac. With a brief discussion, the committee agreed
that the standard for softball and athletic _fields should be set at 1 to 2,000
population. It was noted by the committee chairman that this number was still
in the conservative range and higher than that which was included in the
original comprehensive guide plan.
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 8
The committee then moved on to baseball facilities, which the range of
facilities was between 1 per six and ten thousand people. In response to
a question by Mr. Kubik, Mr. Erkkila quickly reviewed again the standards
for the communities, the general standard being 1 facility for 6,000. It
was recommended to the committee that the standard be revised to 1 for 8,000
by Mr. Kubik. After a brief discussion with all members in agreement the
standard was revised to 1 per 8,000 for baseball facilities.
Tennis courts were next discussed. Committee member Fedde stated that he
felt that the standard for tennis facilities should be reduced from 1 to
2,000 to a lesser level of 1 to 1,000. Fedde questioned if it was the intent
of the committee to improve the park system or to be continually at the conserva-
tive end of the scale as they have already been with both baseball and softball?
He felt that it was necessary to improve the standard in which we are delivering
these services and should adopt a better level of service! The committee then
discussed and adopted a ratio of 1 tennis court per 1,750 people. The
committee next moved on to soccer fields and after a brief discussion a standard
was maintained at 1 soccer field per 5,000. In reviewing of hockey rink facili-
ties a standard of 1 per 3,000 was maintained. Committee member Martin also
indicated that he wished to see the standard for open skating facilities in-
cluded and it was the consensus of the Advisory Committee that this be a ratio
of 1 skating area per 3,000. Mr. Erkkila then asked for direction from the
Advisory Committee in regards to the classification system. Members indicated
that the standards adopted were conservative and they must keep this in mind
as the years pass by so the system doesn't become deficient in need. Committee
member Thurston questioned, from the previous discussion by the Advisory Committee,
the desirability of maintaining the statement of 3 acres per thousand for neigh-
borhood parks. She stated that she preferred to see this deleted and the phrase-
ology changed to reflect a minimum classification. Members of the Advisory
Committee were in agreement and the consultant was directed to change the
phraseology to reflect the standard of neighborhood parks as being accepted
at a minimum ratio of 12 to 15 acres per neighborhood park site. Mr. Erkkila
then thanked the Advisory Committee for their patience and excellent comments
in reviewing this material at this time. He stated at the next opportunity the
committee would be introduced to the other subject matter including ponds and
trails, and the designation of parks for concept design.
WALDEN HEIGHTS
The Director of Parks and Recreation briefly reviewed for the Advisory Committee
the history of the Walden Heights plat. As this was an informational item, he
wished to inform the committee that the plat has been picked up by Mr. Rod
Hardy of Sienna Corporation and that the final plat for this addition appeared
to be forthcoming. He reviewed for the Advisory Committee the park area within
the plat and stated that Mr. Hardy had requested revision of the grading that
was to take place on the site. He stated that the previous grading plan was to
remove a major portion of a hillside which eventually would be designated as a
flat open space. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that he felt that
this was not desirable and a location further to the south end of the park would
be the most desirable. He stated that this had been reviewed with the City
engineer and consulting engineer for Mr. Hardy. He stated that the proposed
grading plans had yet to be reviewed by the developer. Members of the Advisory
Minutes of a Special Meeting
October 18, 1982
Page 9
Committee expressed agreement and concern for the restoration of the top soil
and seeding.
The Director of Parks and Recreation moved on to the informational item titled
"Fish Lake Park" stating that it was previously indicated to the Advisory
Committee that an area adjacent to Denmark Avenue and Fish Lake, approximated
11/2 acres in size, was not owned by the City. In the past years, in identifi-
cation of park land both on zoning maps and City map as well as the concept
plan for the P.U.D., it had erroneously been shown as park land. He continued
saying this land was owned by a private individual which was now seeking to
develop this into town house units. He brought this to the Advisory Committee
members attention at this time because the committee had previously directed
the planning consultant to prepare concept plans as part of the system plan
for this park. However, now that this acreage is not owned by the City, should
the consultant proceed with plans for the park? In response to a question the
director indicated that there still remains a 45' wide access from Denmark
Avenue to the park. This could still provide for pedestrian and vehicular
access for park usage. Various members of the committee questioned the previous
P.D.'s agreement and background behind an apparent confusion of ownership of
this park land which the Director of Parks and Recreation responded to. After
additional discussion the director outlined potential options for the Advisory
Committee indicating that one potential option would be to acquire through
purchase. Members commented that the benefit to the park system was water
based recreational activities and perhaps this was the most significant of the
lakes in the community under City jurisdiction. Members recognize the lack
of park facilities in the surrounding neighborhood and the desirability of
obtaining the parcel. Committee member Thurston indicated that while the parcel
would be desirable, the cost of the parcel, relative to its benefit should be
reviewed. Chairman Martin asked the planning consultant to comment on what
he felt could be developed on the site without this outlot? Mr. Erkkila re-
sponded that very little could be done other than perhaps a pedestrian pathway
into the site with off street parking. He stated that he would not care to
comment further until he had an opportunity to review topographical features
and other relationships. However, he stated that it was obvious that with
the parcel little could be done and that the suggestion for concept development
might be desirable at this time to help the committee to understand how that
parcel could be sufficiently utilized. After additional discussion by the
Advisory Committee the Director of Parks and Recreation was requested to
communicate with the land owner to determine an acquisition price of the parcel
and to prepare a summation for the Advisory Committee to review at its November
4th meeting.
There being no additional business to conduct, the Advisory Committee's special
meeting of October 18, 1982 was adjourned at 10 :15 P.M.
Dated:
FISH LAKE PARK
ADJOURNMENT
KLV
Advisory Narks F Recreation Committee
Secretary