2001-02-12
1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
3
4
5 February 12, 2001
6
7 MINUTES
8
9 Board Members Present: Sherry Berman, Chair; Chris Miltenberger, Vice-Chair;
10 Cara White, Secretary; Jim Glover, Mary Georgia, Lisa Stokdyk, Michael Nelson
11
12 Board Members Absent: None
13
14 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services; Steve Polasek,
15 Deputy Director of Community Services; Chris Carpenter, Senior Parks Planner; Ben Henry,
16 Park Planning and Construction Superintendent
17
18 Regular Session:
19
20 Agenda Item No. 1, Call to Order. Chair Sherry Berman called the meeting to order at 7:00
21 p.m.
22
23 Agenda Item No. 2, Reports.
24
25 Mr. Hugman stated that he has passed out a draft agenda for the Park Board Retreat. He also
26 stated he was very pleased to announce that Linda Carpenter from the City Secretary's office
27 has accepted the job of Community Services Administrative Assistant.
28
29 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the Recreation Center notes the Board was to receive. Mr. Hugman
30 said that he thought he had sent them with another letter but he would check.
31
32 CONSENT AGENDA:
33
34 Ms. Berman asked for a motion to move Agenda Item #5A up to consent. Motion was made to
35 that effect.
36
37 Motion: Miltenberger
38 Second: Nelson
39 Ayes: Berman, Glover, Nelson, White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
40 Nayes: None
41 Approved: 7-0
42
43 Motion carried.
44
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page I of 10
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on the issue of on-road bike paths still shown on Bob Jones
2 in the previous meeting on the Trail Plan. Mr. Carpenter stated that it was a graphical mistake
3 and that those routes should have been removed based on prior discussions but were
4 inadvertently left on. They have been corrected.
5
6 Agenda Item #3A, Approval of the minutes of the December 11, 2000, meeting,
7 Agenda Item #313, Approval of the minutes of the January 8, 2001, meeting,
8 Agenda Item #3C, Recommendation of park dedication requirements for Lot 4, Block 1,
9 Richards Addition, a portion of Tracts 5D1 and 5D5, O. W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899,
10 Agenda Item #5A, Allocation of proceeds from Circus to Friends of the Southlake Library.
11
12 A motion was made to approve Consent Agenda Items #3A, #313, #3C, and #5A, including any
13 changes to the minutes.
14
15 Motion: Glover
16 Second: Stokdyk
17 Ayes: Berman, Glover, Nelson, White, Georgia, Stokdyk, Miltenberger
18 Nayes: None
19 Approved: 7-0
20
21 Motion carried.
22
23 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
24
25 Agenda Item #3C, Recommendation of park dedication requirements for Lot 4, Block 1,
26 Richards Addition, a portion of Tracts 5D1 and 5D5, O. W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899.
27
28 The applicant is required to furnish a 6' off-road trail per the Trail System Master Plan. The
29 applicant is willing to furnish an additional 2' to be consistent with the Trail Bond
30 implementation program, which is 8'. The estimated cost of the additional 2' is $1,226.40. The
31 applicant requests that this amount satisfies his $800 park fee. The applicant is also willing to
32 escrow the total trail amount ($4,905.60) in his developer's agreement with Council, and that
33 amount will be applied to the Trail Bond implementation.
34
35 Agenda Item #5A, Allocation of proceeds from Circus to Friends of the Southlake Library.
36
37 The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of an agreement between the City and
38 Kelly Miller Brothers Circus, to bring the circus to Southlake on Thursday, March 29 and
39 Friday, March 30. At the time, staff discussed the City's responsibilities, and the opportunity
40 to gain revenue from a percentage of advance tickets sold for the four performances (two per
41 day). It was also discussed with the Board that the possibility of partnering with a community
42 organization to share the work, and also share the proceeds, existed. The Board encouraged
43 staff to pursue a possible partnership. The Friends of the Southlake Library (FOSL) was
44 approached about this partnership and have agreed to participate.
45
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 2 of 10
NAParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I REGULAR AGENDA:
2
3 Agenda Item #4, Public Forum
4
5 Mr. Glover commented that the in-line hockey program is going well, with 546 kids signed up
6 and all were accommodated; the City of Grapevine was not able to accommodate all who signed
7 up for their program. Mr. Glover was concerned that no Keller City staff is present at the games
8 held at Keller facility, and we do have Southlake kids playing there. He stated we need to look
9 into that. Mr. Miltenberger also stated that he was aware of the huge numbers we accommodate
10 and passed along his support.
11
12 Ms. Berman added that she would like it stated for the record that she thinks Randy Chambers,
13 the Maintenance Crew Leader, has done a great job and she is sad to learn that he will be leaving
14 the City for another job opportunity.
15
16 Ms. Berman closed the Public Forum. Ms. Berman then moved Agenda Item #6A up in the
17 order.
18
19 Agenda Item #6A, Discussion of Field Needs for Southlake Carroll Lacrosse Association
20
21 Ms. Kelley Riley, president of the association, presented a proposal for field needs. The proposal
22 regarded the use of existing joint use facilities at Carroll Intermediate School and the request for
23 funding for installation of lighting at that field. She gave a background of the associations
24 involvement with various leagues and a summary of financial issues, as well as press coverage
25 and accomplishments. The Board members, staff, and audience were then shown a brief
26 videotape of lacrosse players in action on the field.
27
28 Ms. Stokdyk asked how players were recruited, and Ms. Riley said they advertised.
29
30 Ms. Riley stated the primary playing season is from November to May, so a lit field is needed for
31 practice in the dark winter months. Two facilities exist which could serve the needs - Carroll
32 Intermediate and the New Kimball School field, which has a joint use lit field. The CIS site is
33 scheduled for demolition, which includes many of the field lights. The Lacrosse Association asks
34 that the field lights be restored to provide for a facility for lacrosse use (and others). Ms. Riley
35 estimated the cost to be approximately $150,000, with some offset from private benefactors
36 possible.
37
38 In summary, the Lacrosse Association asks City help with: (1) coordination of the use of the
39 Kimball Road school fields for 2001-2002 games and practices (2) the designation of the CIS
40 site as a lacrosse facility and the upgrading of the lights to make it available for use (3) the usage
41 of open space at Bob Jones park for practice and games, (4) the support of use of the fields
42 behind Dragon Stadium for day practices and games.
43
44 Ms. Riley thanked Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall, Bob Ledbetter, Kevin Hugman,
45 John Craft, Dr. Ted Gillum and Dr. Daniel Pressley for working with the association.
46
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 3 of 10
N. (Parks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I Ms. Berman inquired of the field dimensions and was told by David Smith, 617 Cimarron Trail,
2 that the boys' and girls' fields are different, and both are different than other sports. Ms. Riley
3 also answered the Board's questions that the sport is considered a club sport by UIL; that the
4 league attracts from out of Southlake; that the association is insured; that a matching fund
5 request may be an alternative in the future.
6
7 Mr. Hugman stated that the poles are old at CIS and the best alternative is to replace them. Mr.
8 Polasek agreed and said that new lights provide better adjacency "cut-off' in terms of light
9 spillover. Ms. Georgia stated that bleed-over lighting is a big issue with that neighborhood. Mr.
10 Hugman and Mr. Polasek stated that the field in question is not currently used for joint-use, and
11 therefore was not considered for replacement of the lights a year ago when the school district
12 brought it up.
13
14 Staff also discussed that it was likely we would enter into a joint use of the new Kimball Road
15 school's lighted field if it was possible.
16
17 Ms. Berman thanked the association and asked them to keep the Board updated on any new
18 developments. The Board emphasized the need for the association to contribute with
19 sponsorships, through matching funds, etc. The City and the association should pull together. Mr.
20 Hugman stated that the CIS field looks to be the most promising solution and needs to be worked
21 out.
22
23 Agenda Item #513, Proposed Revisions to Trail System Master Plan
24
25 Mr. Carpenter stated the Trail Plan has been reviewed for the third time by the Board and they
26 need to give their final comments on it before it goes to P&Z and Council. Staff will also hold a
27 final SPIN wrap-up meeting on the proposed Trail Plan prior to P&Z.
28
29 Ms. Georgia stated that residents in the area of item #16 were opposed to lines being shown on
30 existing home sites. Ms. Berman mentioned that it was a long-term possibility and that it may not
31 be possible if it is not shown on the Plan. Mr. Carpenter stated this was the type of trail that
32 would be built and connected over a period of time under differing circumstances.
33
34 Ms. Stokdyk asked about restrictions in the flood plain. Mr. Carpenter stated there were federal
35 guidelines about development in the flood plain where permits, etc., had to be obtained. The
36 Board discussed keeping the Terrabrook link but eliminating #16. The Board also discussed the
37 alternatives available to them on the Hwy. 114 properties as far as land dedication issues go. Mr.
38 Carpenter stated that the developers are probably working on an open space plan, and the
39 Board's suggestions now on the Trail Plan will help them understand what they may need to do.
40
41 Mr. Nelson asked who would pay for the box culvert that would cross under Hwy. 114 at
42 Highland? Mr. Carpenter stated that the City of Southlake could possibly have bond money that
43 could be committed to that. Mr. Glover asked if it would be possible to go to the the developers
44 and ask them to pay for some of that. Mr. Carpenter noted that the amount of money to build the
45 culvert would be way more than the developers would be required to pay. Aventerra will be
46 doing a comprehensive plan in the near future, they can possibly take a look at this option. Mr.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 4 of 10
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I Miltenberger added that the box culvert would be best and hopefully we can somehow tie these
2 trails into the #16 trails. He indicated that he did not want to remove #16 trails from the plan.
3
4 Ms. Georgia asked about the reasoning of natural surfaces versus paving. Mr. Carpenter noted
5 that the paving is better for maintenance and it may be best to use paving for many of these trails.
6 The paving option is one that must be considered with each specific trail during the engineering
7 phase.
8
9 Ms. Berman suggested that the naming of the equestrian trails up north be left up to SEA. Ms.
10 White suggested that it would not be the intention of SEA to come up with new names. SEA
11 would work with naming and marking trails as they are currently identified on the trail maps or
12 are currently identified by the users. The Board agreed that the currently established names (i.e.
13 Corps maps, SEA) should be used.
14
15 Regarding #16, Mr. Hugman noted that if it is not shown on the plan, the opportunity to ever
16 have it is diminished.
17
18 Mr. Nelson stated that the value of the trail is there, whether it is through treed flood plain or
19 wooded meadows, so the alignment specifically through the flood plain may not be necessary.
20
21 Ms. Georgia stated that there is a pretty substantial group of people that are opposed, so we need
22 to be sure of how the specific designation on the map is aligned. She also indicated concern for
23 how that trail is currently shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, stating that the council required
24 that there be specific designation. She recommended either removing the trail as currently
25 shown as #16, or moving the trail where it is not in the neighbors backyards.
26
27 Mr. Hugman stated that the line placement doesn't take away our ability to work with developers
28 to adjust the alignment to get what we need.
29
30 Mr. Glover asked if this was going back to SPIN, and Mr. Hugman stated there was a SPIN
31 meeting planned before P&Z and Council.
32
33 Mr. Carpenter stated that the specific geometry of the alignments need not be finalized in the
34 Master Plan. Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr. Carpenter's suggestion. Ms. Georgia made it clear
35 for the record that she will not support putting trails through already developed homeowners lots
36 and would like to see it removed or moved to an area that isn't in their backyards.
37
38 Ms. Stokdyk asked for clarification on the number of miles of trail types proposed, indicating
39 that were 37 miles of trails. Mr. Carpenter stated that she was correct in that most of the trail
40 miles of both on-road and off-road trails paralleled each other. He also noted that 37- 40 miles
41 of trails were not exact and include subdivisions. There were only a few miles of off-road trails
42 not tied to a roadway right-of-way.
43
44 Ms. Berman asked about modifying our ordinances to encourage trails. Mr. Carpenter stated that
45 the City is working on a Unified Development Ordinance where the City is trying to take all
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page S of 10
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
1 ordinances and make them inter-relate. The Planning Department is drafting it with Parks
2 Department's input and it should be ready soon.
3
4 Ms. Berman also stated she would like to entertain the possibility of several Board members
5 working with staff to obtain grants. Ms. Berman and Ms. Georgia volunteered to do so.
6
7 Ms. Georgia stated that she thinks Kirkwood agreed to do the engineering on #9 and that it was
8 going to remain natural surface. Mr. Hugman said he couldn't recall whether it was designated as
9 natural or not. Ms. White agreed that in the original discussions between McGuire Thomas
10 and the city, it was agreed that the trails should remain natural, more due to the extensive
11 costs involved in putting in concrete trails. She added that this has been designated as an
12 Environmentally Sensitive Area according to the current COE Plans. If concrete trails are
13 added, they would kill the current large hardwoods that exist on this land. The developer was
14 not in favor of trails at all in their original conversations.
15
16 Ms. Georgia stated she would like for staff to revisit it and make sure of the intent. Mr. Carpenter
17 stated that the best position would be to have trails paved as a default, but to include a statement
18 in the text on these types of trails that, upon detailed study, the possibility exists to implement
19 natural surface trails.
20
21 Ms. Georgia asked if trail #5 will cut off any other access to any other trails that may be provided
22 in the park in the future. If mountain bikes are to access the city-owned park area in Bob Jones,
23 she would like to see it taken off as a proposed trail. She stated she hasn't seen any mountain
24 biking addressed in the Park Plan.
25
26 The Board discussed the types of trails both within Bob Jones and in the adjacent Corps
27 property. Staff stated that there was no wheeled access allowed into the Corps property, but that
28 Bob Jones Phase II will have multi-use trails for all types of bikers. Mr. Nelson stated that the
29 possibility exists for the north S.H. 114 trail (Area #22 on Map) to be used for mountain bikers,
30 among others. He recommended talking to Bud Melton regarding identifying other areas for
31 this use. Ms. Stokdyk added that Mountain Bikes can go on any trails. Tony Debruno noted
32 that Mountain Bikers and BMX are 2 different entities. Ms. White indicated that perhaps we
33 should check with the city attorney regarding liability with regard to building a BMX Park
34 before we go forging ahead. There would appear to be a huge amount of liability involved in
35 providing such an activity for the public. And do the numbers of users support the cost in
36 building such an area?
37
38 Mr. Polasek stated that the City doesn't have the topography or large acreage currently available
39 to accommodate mountain biking. Also, current practices in place with the Corps also limit
40 wheeled access. Future planned development would seem to be the best place to consider
41 mountain biking.
42
43 Mr. Glover and Ms. Berman stated that the Board can't be all things to everyone. Ms. Berman
44 stated mountain bikers can go to Rockledge Park.
45
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 6 of 10
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I Mr. Glover stated that we have to make the decision on our own. Mr. Miltenberger noted that a
2 week ago lacrosse wasn't a big thing, and Mr. Glover stated that there was a room full of lacrosse
3 people, but no one has come to talk about BMX, though there is an obvious desire for biking.
4
5 Ms. White noted that there are many, many miles of trails that are planned and wondered why it
6 is necessary to go into other trail or rural areas. Ms. Georgia stated she has a real problem with
7 sending people outside the City for mountain biking or cutting them off in our park. Ms. White
8 added that noone is having to go outside the city for biking. There are miles and miles of
9 multi-use trails planned within our city, and millions of dollars are currently being spent to
10 implement a portion of these. Why not work on building the trails that are currently on the
11 plan and see how extensively they are used?.
12
13 Ms. Stokdyk asked why a trail in the area of the Presbyterian Church isn't on the plan; it makes
14 sense to continue it there. Staff noted that there is a chance that a sidewalk may be added in that
15 area since the church was putting in a sidewalk, and other developments were, too.
16
17 Ms. Stokdyk asked about the impact of driveways, etc., on trails. Are there other roads where the
18 trail is planned on the wrong side? Should we be narrowing trails in certain areas where trees,
19 etc., are in the way? Ms. Stokdyk said she is worried because the area she is familiar with on
20 Peytonville has sharp curves and is dangerous (#33). She wanted to discuss this issue.
21
22 Ms. Berman opened the public hearing.
23
24 Kim Merrin, 200 Ginger Ct., stated that her concern is trail #26 on the north side of F.M. 1709
25 because there is only about 8' in front of their houses. Mr. Henry stated that this trail has already
26 been programmed as part of the trail package within the existing right of way. Ms. Stokdyk
27 asked if the trees in that area will be gone. Mr. Henry stated that, to his knowledge, the trees are
28 not already being taken out and around Ginger Ct, there should only be one or two. The city is
29 awaiting word from TxDOT to install all of the trails at one time. Ms. Merrin was concerned
30 about how it would potentially affect her property since she is selling her home.
31
32 Ms. Merrin asked about the Hwy. 114 trail and whether it was safe. Mr. Hugman stated that
33 those trails would be in the right-of-way and on the access roads. Mr. Polasek stated that those
34 bikers had a different level of skill. Mr. Carpenter stated that highway right-of-way is wider and
35 there will be more areas of parkway.
36
37 Ms. Meda Payne, 1370 Ten Bar Trail, inquired about trail #33. She asked about trail specifics
38 and whether there would be lighting or enough room. Mr. Carpenter stated that these trails are
39 part of ultimate road construction in ultimate right-of-way, in this case, 60 feet. Two lanes are
40 about 31' currently, so 15' on both sides would be available for trails, etc. When the ultimate
41 roadways are built, the trails will be put in. These are long-range plans only.
42
43 Ms. Payne asked why the Clow property keeps being brought up because it isn't planned or
44 purchased and why put a trail there if there isn't anything concrete? There are other more sensible
45 areas to consider.
46
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 7 of 10
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
I Eric Blumquist, 515 N. Peytonville, reiterated safety and hazard issues on Peytonville. Blind
2 curves, people passing each other, and unruly young drivers make it dangerous. He stated that a
3 lot of trees would be taken down.
4
5 Ms. Berman closed the public hearing.
6
7 Ms. Stokdyk inquired about #38. Mr. Carpenter stated it was a trail through a drainage area and
8 an alternative to a major street intersection. Number 43 was suggested by a resident in the area
9 and starts in undeveloped property, goes through the back of Rockenbaugh, to connect long term
10 with the future development of 1709 and the Rucker property.
11
12 Ms. Georgia made a recommendation in the text to say that on #9, where it is shown as paved,
13 natural surface may be substituted based on engineering or maintenance recommendations.
14
15 Ms. Georgia moved that trail #16 be moved to the eastern edge of the Rockenbaugh property. All
16 but Miltenberger and Stokdyk agreed.
17
18 Ms. Georgia moved to state, wherever natural surface was shown, to add text that would say that
19 "surfaces to be paved, with natural surfacing substituted based on engineering and maintenance
20 studies." This includes #36 & #15. All agreed.
21
22 Ms. Georgia recommended that SEA be contacted to assist in naming the equestrian trails in the
23 Corps property. All agreed.
24
25 Ms. Georgia stated that we should add text to say that trails shown on the plan do not carry
26 implied maintenance. Mr. Henry and Mr. Hugman both clarified that since the City of
27 Southlake held the lease on this property, it falls within the City of Southlake's responsibility
28 to maintain these trails. Ms. White added that SEA has been maintaining these trails, and will
29 continue to do so as long as they remain unimproved. The Board took no action.
30
31 Ms. Georgia moved to eliminate #5 from the trail. Ms. Berman said it was already there and only
32 designated as "proposed" because it is proposed to be improved. There was no second and the
33 motion to amend failed.
34
35 Ms. Georgia moved to delete trail #33 from the plan. All were in favor.
36
37 A motion was made to approve the Trail System Master Plan with the amendments as approved
38 by the majority above.
39
40 Motion: Glover
41 Second: Stokdyk
42 Ayes: Berman, Glover, Nelson, Stokdyk, White, Georgia, Miltenberger
43 Nayes: None
44 Approved: 7-0
45
46 Motion carried.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 8 of 10
N.Warks & Recreation IBOARDSIPK90ARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc
1 Agenda Item No. 6-B, Proposed revisions to Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
2
3 Mr. Carpenter introduced the consultants, Suzanne Sweek and Rob Fiester of Schrickel Rollins.
4
5 Ms. Sweek highlighted the concept plans of all the neighborhood parks. She stated Southlake has
6 no community parks under the current classification system. Bob Jones Park and Bicentennial
7 Park are classified as city parks.
8
9 Mr. Miltenberger asked if tennis courts were planned at Royal and Annie Smith Park and could
10 there be lacrosse fields? Mr. Hugman stated we can look at it, though there would be lighting
11 issues.
12
13 Ms. Sweek noted that the light green areas in Plate I are proposed park sites and are on sites
14 suitable for development. The consultants looked at property lines, aerial photography,
15 windshield surveys, etc., in preparing their preliminary evaluation. Mr. Nelson asked about tax
16 evaluations, and noted that the trailer parks north of some areas could possibly affect the tax
17 valuation. Ms. Sweek stated that Greg Last recommended some areas based on his knowledge of
18 local property in that regard. She noted that, in Table 6. 1, build-out scenarios were shown. There
19 are no community parks, but with Bob Jones and Bicentennial, there is a surplus of acreage in
20 city parks. The city will still need ball diamonds and soccer fields with the numbers shown now.
21 These uses may take up about 50 acres.
22
23 Mr. Hugman stated that they were looking at pieces that were potential opportunities. Whether
24 they are specifically identified by parcel on the Plan is a big issue. Anyone looking at potentially
25 developing might have a problem with the designation.
26
27 Mr. Nelson asked how it affects the city by indicating them on the plan, and Mr. Carpenter stated
28 a few developers said it might devalue their property. He stated that proposed park areas could
29 be designated by circles and not shading. Ms. White noted that this is an important designation
30 and part of permanent record, and we will have this in the future to look at, regardless of how we
31 decide to ultimately show the plan.
32
33 Mr. Glover agreed that the circles would be better. Ms. Sweek stated they will use the circles,
34 and that their will be larger circles representing potential areas for city parks.
35
36 Ms. Berman suggested that the Board look at the Plan and bring back ideas to the retreat and to
37 contact City staff with any questions prior to the retreat, if possible.
38
39 Mr. Miltenberger stated that he is hearing that lighted athletic fields are a concern and wondered
40 if it is really a crucial issue that we need to discuss. Ms. Sweek stated that the city will need 30
41 acres or so for that type of park.
42
43 Mr. Nelson asked if there was a possible Joint Use opportunity with Keller on the lacrosse
44 facilities. Mr. Glover agreed, stating that there is land that is owned not by parks, but it is high
45 dollar land and surrounded by higher valued properties. He supports integrating projects where
46 possible.
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 9 of 10
N.• I Parks & Recreation I BOARDSI PKBOARDI MINUTES120011021201. doc
1
2 Tony DeBruno, president of the soccer association, noted that there is joint use possible for
3 Meadowmere Park for several activities. The soccer association is currently using it, and they
4 could possibly work with us on other things.
5
6 Ms. Stokdyk suggested the possible joint use of a water park-type facility on the city-owned land
7 on Pearson, that borders Keller.
8
9 Motion was made to table the Park Master Plan to the March Park Board meeting.
10
11 Motion: Glover
12 Second: Stokdyk
13 Ayes: Berman, Glover, Nelson, Stokdyk, White, Georgia, Miltenberger
14 Nayes: None
15 Approved: 7-0
16
17 Motion carried.
18
19 Motion was made to adjourn at 10:45 p.m., forgoing the remainder of the liaison reports on the
20 agenda.
21
22 Motion: Glover
23 Second: White
24 Ayes: Berman, Glover, Nelson, Stokdyk, White, Georgia, Miltenberger
25 Nayes: None
26 Approved: 7-0
27
28 Motion carried.
29
30
31
32 Sherry Ber , Chair
33
34 ~ -
35 "6
36 Cara White, Secretary
37
Parks and Recreation Board Regular Meeting, February 12, 2001 Page 10 of 10
N.IParks & Recreation IBOARDSIPKBOARDIMINUTES120011021201.doc