The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held a study session on June 4, 2026, to discuss the development of a prioritized capital plan for above-ground park infrastructure. The board reviewed a prioritization matrix and rated five sample projects to test the methodology. No formal votes were taken; the session was for discussion and alignment.
Do we want to do anything formal sentences? Okay. Welcome to our study session. I'm going to start by answering just a couple questions that I got in the process. Some things following up from last time we met. Some new. So first and foremost, I so I filled it out, and I concur, twos and fours are allowed. So like I really need to put one three. I don't think we need to put definitions to two and four, but if you're like, this doesn't really fit this one, or it's in between, we're gonna put a two and a four. Because yeah. Um 2.5. No. No. Yeah, no, no, no. I think that was like our biggest discussion at the last meeting. Um we were fairly consistent on ratings. We did have two outliers. Um heritage cells are Kelsey and I guess close to permit. So pinks are folks' highest rated project. The light green is folks' lowest rated project, and then the two blues I highlighted just were bigger outliers than anything else. Um I did want to talk through those two in particular to see if we understood um if they're up for discussion, really. Pete, I will say I changed one thing on yours. Um the safety column. I think you might have misunderstood and you had some lower numbers in there. Um at first glance, like, yes, it seems like the safety risk of not doing these is like is low, but that the way it's written, like basically every project we had was a five. Okay. And everyone else had fives, and so I upped your last call. Yeah, for what? The safety and legal implications. Um your scores are a little inflated than what you sent, because I changed that last one. I did not commit them to memory, so great. In case you have, um They're also wildly different from each other. You think so? I mean, kinda. Well, I guess in that line for the traffic island is similar. Number five is pretty far off of each other. Maybe number three isn't that bad. Number two is, and I guess number one isn't either. So not huge, but yeah, I mean, I think we definitely like people were putting like variations of weights, like you were either on a higher end or a lower end because we still have really similar trends on like most of us rated heritage gels as the most as the highest priority project, and most of us rated Traffic Islands as the lowest rated project. But yes, you got anywhere from what 79 to 119 as uh within the those five of us that put it at the high end. Because I do think some of it, and I said this to you in my email, but I do think with the examples you gave, does leave it open to some subjectivity, you know, between some of these different what were they called? Like things that we're judging against. So I just I thought it was a really interesting exercise because of that. Um so I originally thought I was gonna make a fake projects. Um these are not totally fake projects, they're not they're not approved, they're not they're not in the pipeline, but they uh we did an initial um workshop with all of the park staff to identify all the capital projects we could think of. And these are five that came up. Um so they may end up at the top of our list when we start looking at like the next three years of what to what to add in to our project requests. Um with that, I was thinking more about your comments, Sandy, because you had put that in an email. Um I've got a list of about a hundred projects. If I sent that out, I I suspect there are still going to be a ton of questions and that subjectivity of each of those.