And why is that . Because its actually not so much about an insignificant shade around 7 30 in the morning, but its about public safety. We could go there now and find numerous empty cans of alcohol and walk the grounds of the eastern half and find syringes. Its just horrible. 20 years i have livered there. I love that park. I love puc for donating money to improve that park. So my passion is about that park. What this eastern half lacks is housing. 1090 and 1080 eddy with more northeastern park and we overlook the park. We have an obligation for park safety. But next to us is sacred heart and there is nobody there and then 950 goth, which is empty, been empty for two decades and the two other Church Buildings heading towards goth, and turk. Then there is the park view terrace, our third residential building and we have Margaret Hayward field. Huge gaps that just allows people to con stantly shootup and do drugs and we intervened with the Mayors Office. We actually got the Mayors Offic
Preliminary scoping just to see how far down the budget we would be able to get . So in march we would like to come back with the plan okay with the 15. 5 Million Dollars this is the number of playgrounds we think we could do in the first effort and the schedule for those. I think the other main piece of the feedback from the Task Force Committee which was mostly at the last meeting that we rebrand this program and while failing playgrounds sells gets you votes for bonds its not necessarily the inspiring title that you need to engender stewardship and commitment over the longterm. I was unable to singlehandedly able to come up with a rebrand between the Task Force Meeting and today and i will work with the Task Force Members and when we come back in march with the Delivery Plan we could have a compelling title and compelling and inspiring title for the program we could use Going Forward so with that i am happy to take any questions or feedback. Commissioner mcdonnell. Thank you mr. Cha
Beautifully renovated playground in the sites that we have, but we do have this pot of money were hoping to leverage so the short answer is there is more to come on that. Yeah, my only point being i dont like doing things twice so if we mobilize the resources for say any one of the tier one parks, whether we could maybe leverage that think bigger and use the opportunity that we have to expand parks, improve parks beyond the scope that we originally imagined. Again commissioner and dawn if you have thoughts you could certainly dive in. We want to do the most deliver the biggest bang for the bucks that we have but we do have a responsibility to try to focus on all of the playgrounds on this list at once over time before we talk about expanding scope at any one particular site. We do have i think thats correct and i also think in terms of leveraging more broadly there are a number of playgrounds that managed to attract additional funds already in terms of impact fees and add backs so that
Renovations that we did, so i want to make sure were going to invest considerable amount of money and a lot of different resources that we have these parks for as long as possible so i would like that addressed in the future efforts, and to continue planning with these quote unquote failing parks. Commissioner i think its a great question and in march we can come back with more detail but there are two questions embedded in your question. One is what is the current replacement cycle for assets and then what should it be . Because were certainly squeezing every month of life out of the play structures that is possible. When you saw the play structure at bo decker for example at lily wong right now they have been around for over a decade in some places closer to two and Merced Heights and no one has been here in a super long time and so some of those are functional still. You can still play on them, but the trends and in design and whennure compare the quality of those play structures to
And so finally i think that the what we have before us in terms of a recommendation captures three things they think are important going through the process. One that the recommendations represent where both highest in need in terms of conditions but highest opportunity with regard to leverage of resources is represented here. Also the geographic kind of distribution across our city is also i think well represented, not the entire city, but i do think well represented and something that dawn said a few minutes ago around the bang for the buck. It was helpful to have a fuller picture with the capital plans across the city to utilize the small pool of dollars and two final things. One, the opportunity that we have to do the rebranding. I think we should do that. I am hopeful this is ensuring that the parks across the city are beautiful spaces for communities and families, so i am hopeful at some point we dont need a failing playgrounds task force or anything by any other name frankly bec