Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/13/2004

Home

Commissioner Shryock noted the plan might change once the missing pictures were received. Commissioner Shryock stated she did not particularly like the layout, as it seemed confusing, and a description of the trail and highlighting of major amenities would be preferable. Pictures should not include such a detailed description of the trail's route. The text should tell the purpose of the trail and why the site was chosen. She indicated it should be kept as simple as possible. Chairperson Johns agreed that the text should discuss regional significance and offered amenities. It should be "a bit of a sales pitch." Commissioner Shryock added information should be given regarding the interesting features of the trail. These changes would make the trail explanations a more user friendly guideline. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Riverblood indicated he did not know of any required action that was needed unless more specifics were given regarding Section 3. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Riverblood noted he had all of the aerial photographs if the Commission wished to review them after the meeting. Chairperson Johns stated some the lengths and cost estimates seemed to be outdated. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Riverblood agreed there was a need to itemize. After significant effort, staff had a master trail plan in AutoCAD and could easily make maps for grant applications, for example. Commissioner Shryock suggested the section be an addendum~ which could be replaced easily as the information became outdated. Commissioner Olds suggested information be included without the cost estimate. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Riverblood responded it might be valuable to have the cost estimate included, as Council could then understand the cost impact. Commissioner Shryock stated she felt information could be included in the main section with reference made to a financing section that would be easy to change. Parks and Utilities Supervisor Riverblood responded he thought that was workable; however, the Commission had suggested it was inconvenient to go back and forth between' documents. He thought it would be understood the figures were 2004 cost estimates and the numbers could be changed when needed. Commissioner Olds indicated the dollar amounts should be left in Section 3, with a notation that the cost estimates were 2004 prices. Park and Recreation Commission/April 8, 2004 Page 11 of 21