Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 06 14

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes May 10th, 2017 Page 4 of 6 but any buyer would require a Phase 2 (soil drill sampling) study, given the land's history of storing transformers. Xcel has not done a formal Phase 2 study. Laura commented that she thought the board should re -name the acquisition target property list. She continued that OSAB is trying to communicate the message that acquisition isn't always necessary or even desirable for properties, and the title explicitly mentions acquisition. The board agreed. Mike asked people to brainstorm potentially better names for the list for the next meeting. IX. Discussion Item: Review and Revise the Trail Survey for the Trail Maintenance Sub Program Key Indicator Requirement The City Council wants OSAB to rate trails conditions. Ember presented the draft of a key indicator survey for trail conditions. She mentioned that Fiona helped formalize and format the survey. Ember suggested her idea of including an aerial map where board members could mark any specific maintenance issues that they observe. The key indicator rankings are based on trail safety, but also aesthetics. Fiona suggested "vegetation encroachment" as a potential additional category. The board thought this could be a note, rather than a category, since it implies a different management approach (backpack sprayer vs. trail materials). Fiona suggested a google doc to divide up the trail network into parcels and where board members can sign up for segments. Laura observed that this exercise seems serves two purposes: it's a political benchmark for Council to evaluate Open Space employee performance and it's also practical information to alert staff to maintenance issues. She wants it to make sure that in pursuing the mandated first goal, board members are also mindful of the second, so the board can produce information that staff can actually use. Graeme pointed out that the survey specifies that the score is based on over 75% of the trail segment exhibiting a given condition, and he pushed back on the 75% number. He felt like it might need to be lower, such as 50%, because he felt all the numbers are going to come out as "excellent" (e.g. fabric will never be exposed on 75% of the trail). Laura commented that she felt like the survey needs to be simple and holistic, and the board should push back against changes that make the survey take too long or be too fiddly/subjective. Mike asked if the surveys are going to be used to rank trails, and was wondering if this would skew the data— weighting the ranking towards low-density trails. Mike suggested as a solution that staff could try to prioritize the primary trails over the secondary trails (e.g. set the goal of keeping primary trails at "excellent" vs. secondary trails at "good"). The board liked this idea. Graeme asked if this survey was only for soft -surface trails and only for trails on Open Space parcels. Ember said she tried to pare it down to these trails (as opposed to concrete and off - Open Space trails) since there are a lot of trails to cover. Laura asked Ember her impression of whether all these trails would currently rank at excellent or good. Ember thought the majority would. Mike felt that was this was okay, since it might trend lower over time. Ember asked how the board thinks the network should be divided into segments. The board thought smaller, logical (e.g. between intersections) segments would be most helpful. Jim asked whether the board should replicate each other's work. Most board 5