The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/21/2018 - Minutes �t�#� Parks,Trails and Community Facilities Initiative Community Ad�isory Committee Meeting Summary for March 21,2018 Attending: Advisory Committee Members: A1 Dieckman � J�annie Seil � Angelina Benedetti Jeffrey Kelly � Boh I�eeder (CAC Vice Chair) Melody Kroeger � Brendan Armstrong �f Mij Charhonneau Brian Kaelin Mitch Shepherd ,f Colin Walker ,� Racale�immons Dana Rochex � Ted Rodriguez De�in Malkin � �im S�aring (CAC Chair� ,f Dr. Linda Smith ,� City 5taff and Others: Ed Prince Leslie 8etlach � Carol Ann Witschi Steve Brown � Jay Co�ington � 5tefanie Coleman � Kelly eeymer � Cailin Hunsaker � Jan Hawn � Karen Reed �f Dana Appel Maryjane Van Cleave Misty Baker � Mayar Law Meeting Commenced: 4:OOpm �.. Welcame Tim Searing welcomed everyone. Agenda was �eviewed. Taday's meeting will be a discussion on results of the scoring of 87 projects. 2. It was ma�ed and seconded to accept and appr�ve the Meeting 4 Summary. 3. The questions that have been accumulated are compiled on the Questions Tracking sheet.There is no update to this list at this time. Staff are still working to answer one questian. Continue#a use the 3x5 cards to record any questians that come to mind �include name, wil� be kept confidential) and turn them in before you lea�e. 4. Karen explained a quick overrriew#he rating results in Packet#1 and that a second packet will be distributed later in the meeting pro�iding the same data in different ways ta look at it. 5. Tim described the packet Summary Sheet that shows some high le�el fac#s and totais. It was disca�ered that the Neighborhood breakdawn box is mis5ing EaSt Plateau and VaHey totals. Roberta will update the summary sheet. Then Tim oriented the group to the spreadsheet data sets in Packet #1. a. Item 1—This lists all 87 projects from highest to lowest rating based on Question 1. -�- i, It was later asked that the Projected Maintenance costs be added to this 5preadsheet(s� and to the Deferred Maintenance projects from this sart and dollar taliy. b, Item 2—This lists ali 87 projects f�am highest to lowest rating b�ased on Question 2. i. —Alsa shows how each project ra#ed an Question 1;ta compare. c. Item 3—This lists all 87 projects from highest to lowest rating based on Question3, i. —Also shows how each project rated on Question 1; to campare. G, Karen used a PowerPoint to highlight more data from the project rating results. a. It was a5ked that a total dallar amount be calculated for 5lides 11 and 12. if Slide 11: Pro'ects ratin in the to 25 0�hoth ues. 1 and 2: 49 180 90� 1. 7homas Teasdale Park (AE), Cedar River Park (A�, Cedar River T�ail (P), Wighlands Parks and Neighborhood Center(D), May Creek/MsAskill (R), 5port Courts—Talbot Hill (CH), Lighting Upgrade 2 (na location) (BM� ii. 51ide 12: Proiects rating in tF�e top 25 for both Ques. 1 and 3: $14,108,300 1. Ceda� RiveF Trail Park(P),Tiffany Park (S}, Coulon Parking Lnt Repairs(BD), Ra� RegiS Park (B), Dog Parks (Q) 7. In groups no larger�han �4,they were gi�en Z5 minutes to review Packet 1 and write down any questions they have about the data. And then shared out their observat'rons and questions. Then Karen facilitated discussion an Packet 1, Item 1 and surveyed the whole group far what surpri5ed them from the findings and as a result of what they'�e learned thus far#rom the ratin� exercise what they would tell their neighbo�to `sell them' on this potential ballot measure. Then she facilitated discus5ion af Packet 1, ltems 2 and 3 and surveyed the graup with a hand r►o�� of what types of projects they would want to include in the recommendation, The casual �oting showed the following ta4lies: a. TrailS &Corridor Projects-8 b. Park Projects—10 i. Ba�l �elds/Sport Fields- 10 c. Community Facility Pro}ects i. New—0 �i. Major Maintena�ce- 10 iii. Expand/Improve Current Asset-4 iv, 5pec�al Use—4 d. Other Major Maint�nance—11 e. Quick Wins—6 f. Maximize Number of 5maller Projects- 1 g, Geographic Equity (5omething in each neighborhood area)—8 -�- 8. Then let the groups of 3-4 were gi�en Packet#2 with additional breakdowns of the rating toal findings to discuss what type of allocation of projects they would Cike to see in the recommendation. Q: If some projects could be identified that could patentially be partially funded by grants or alternative funding, could they i�e added to the IiSt of projects as "possi6le" add-ons? Depending on how th�y're identified,this might be an option. A: Kelly wili answer at next meeting. Q: Shfluld w� consider the revenue-generating projects (like sparts fiefds, sports �omplex} as possible funding for the projects? A: Kelly will answer at next meeting. Comment: There's no projects on the West Hill of Renton �ie: EarGngton ParkJ 9. Next Meetin�A�enda: Meeting#6 will Gontinue the discus$ion of project allocation, and is scheduled fo�Wednesday, April 4th, 4:OOpm, 7th Flaar Canferencing Center. Tf�e meeting was adjourned at 6:OOpm. Meeting Summary Appraved: Date: ��.