Taylor Keegan, superintendent of Anchorage Parks and Recreation, told the Anchorage Assembly on Feb. 7 that the department intends to use a more formalized scoring matrix to prioritize projects for the 2026 Capital Improvement Program and the 2026 Capital Improvement Budget. “The CIP is a 6 year plan for capital projects that put forward for bonds and state and federal and other funding, even tax levies,” Keegan said.

Keegan said parks staff have combined previous internal project prioritization with the Project Management and Engineering (PM&E) scoring matrix and will include partners such as the Anchorage Park Foundation in scoring for 2026. “We really try to spread the love,” Keegan said, describing a goal to distribute bond-funded work across the municipality while leveraging outside funds and volunteer support.

Why it matters: the department’s scoring and the “State of Play” inclusive-play strategy will guide which parks appear in the municipal bond package, state capital requests and grant applications the municipality advances next year.

Keegan walked the Assembly through three case studies showing how the matrix yields different priorities across Anchorage: Forsyth Park (score: 73), Goose Lake Park (score: 81) and a neighborhood park in northwest Anchorage (score: 61). She said the matrix combines multiple weighted categories — including consistency with adopted plans, public support (community council input), operations and maintenance impact, external funding potential and severity of need — and that final scores represent averages across scorers. “The matrix was completed by internal staff,” she said, and for 2026 PM&E and the Anchorage Park Foundation will also contribute to scoring.

The presentation tied the scoring approach to a separate “State of Play” tool developed with the Anchorage Park Foundation. Keegan described the State of Play’s goals as making playgrounds inclusive across community councils and using a two-part park score based on site context (park type, population density, proximate vulnerable populations) and site-level features (parking, surfacing, fencing). Keegan said the department is “working towards accomplishing the goals of that plan,” showing maps and a list of completed, active and on-deck playground projects since 2012.

Keegan noted projects can reach the CIP from several pathways: community council CIP survey requests, letters from the public, maintenance staff reports, challenge grants with the Anchorage Park Foundation, mayoral priorities and legislative grant requests. She referenced AR 20 24 dash 3 2 3 s while explaining why park-type and population-served categories were included on scorecards.

Assembly members raised process questions during the presentation. Member Randy Sault asked whether giving elected officials and community councils equal weight in the scoring could leave some Assembly priorities underrepresented at the CIB/bond decision stage; Keegan and staff acknowledged that scoring weights merit ongoing review. Another member asked whether old master plans remain usable; Keegan said parks treats a master plan as having a roughly 20-year useful life and typically does a small update if a plan is within that window.

Keegan closed by urging Assembly members and community members to use community council CIP surveys and the Anchorage Park Foundation’s challenge grants to elevate projects: “If you see something you have questions about or you have feedback, please reach out to myself, Anchorage Park Foundation, or anyone in our departments or agencies.”

Looking ahead: Keegan said parks will continue refining the scoring matrix as a working document and will engage Assembly members and community councils before final 2026 CIB and bond decisions.