Laserfiche WebLink
iv. Ellen reiterated that scoring was subjective during the last round, and that <br />additional comment space would be useful. <br />v. Ellen said a "1" and "Y' scorings were useful to point out particularly good parks <br />or parks needing attention. <br />vi. Nathan pointed out that two separate people should score parks independently. <br />A "1" from one scorer vs. a "Y' from another would spark discussion. <br />vii. Shelly likes the number of categories and asked if Amenities included things like <br />bathrooms, etc. Dean suggested that any amenity present should be scored. <br />viii. Ellen suggested that we assign our parks in April/May and discuss preliminary <br />scoring. Re -scoring could occur following discussion. <br />ix. Dave scored by seeing how the community was using the park. <br />x. Ezra reviewed the athletic fields last time and welcomed switching up the <br />scorers between parks. The numbers outline the story while the comments give <br />the valuable feedback. <br />9. Agenda Items for Next Meeting <br />a. Assign parks for scorecard. <br />b. Updated coding for designated sledding. <br />c. Cottonwood Park playground updates/designated nature play park. <br />d. Fee structures for park rentals <br />10. Adjourn <br />Board member Knapp motioned to adjourn, Dave second. Meeting Adjourned 8:04 PM <br />3 <br />