Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission previewed a digital parks-assessment form to replace paper surveys and centralize park condition data
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a new digital parks-assessment form and a proposed rotation of commissioners to submit monthly observations for assigned parks; the presenter said the system will timestamp entries, accept photos and export data for master-plan analysis.
A staff presenter showed St. Helens Parks & Trails Commissioners a digital parks-assessment form designed to replace the commission’s paper checklist and create a timestamped database of park observations, photos and condition ratings.
The presenter said the form will ‘‘keep all of the information collected, and it’ll keep it time stamped,’’ and demonstrated mandatory fields for park name, visit time, observed patron counts and condition ratings for cleanliness, safety and amenities. The presenter described options for attaching photos, adding free-text notes where maintenance is required and exporting the collected data for long-term analysis.
Commissioners discussed a pilot plan where each commissioner would be assigned one or more parks for a three-month rotation and asked to make at least one monthly submission during their assignment. The presenter said the software can be run on Office 365, can generate QR codes for public access, and that IT review is needed before a public rollout. Commissioners and staff discussed limiting public submissions to prevent duplicate or malicious entries; the presenter said she would check whether the tool can be restricted by email or to an internal user list while the commission piloted it.
Advocates of the digital tool argued the system will increase the volume and timeliness of park condition data available for planning and for a future master plan — the presenter noted the last plan’s public survey had only about 211 responses and only 85 respondents reported visiting parks, and said a steady, commission-driven data stream would produce richer, actionable metrics. Commissioners asked about next steps: the presenter said she could finalize a pilot version quickly and would coordinate with Buck and IT staff to host the data and manage notifications.
Commissioners asked for training and asked staff to report back with an implementation timeline and an initial list of park assignments. The commission did not vote on launching a public version during the meeting; presenters recommended piloting the tool internally first and later sharing a scaled-down public link in city communications and newsletters.
