Our council member says she delivered a park project that was approved before she took office

A renovated park opened near my home, and the ribbon-cutting photos are everywhere. Our council member's newsletter says she "delivered" the project for the neighborhood. A former council member replied that planning and funding were approved before she took office. Now supporters of both are arguing over who deserves the park.

I checked the public timeline. The project was proposed and funded earlier. Construction began after the current member took office. Meeting records suggest her office helped address delays and communicated with residents, but I have not found evidence that she created the project or secured the original appropriation. The former member also seems to speak as if approval guaranteed completion, which residents know is not always true.

The word "delivered" is flexible enough to absorb every stage. It can mean proposed, funded, protected, implemented, accelerated, or simply announced at the end. That makes it politically useful and historically muddy. Public projects usually cross terms, departments, contractors, and community groups. Credit that belongs to a chain gets packaged as one person's achievement.

I am tempted to post a timeline with dated links: proposal, vote, funding, contract, construction, problem resolution, and opening. I would describe each person's documented role and leave motives out of it. The purpose would not be to award a trophy but to stop the opening ceremony from rewriting the process.

A neighbor says this is petty because voters reasonably judge whoever held office when the project finished. Another says accepting inflated credit encourages officials to neglect long-term work that may benefit a successor.

How should residents evaluate political credit for projects that span administrations? What verbs are more honest than "delivered" when different people were responsible for different stages?