Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-02-10
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30 pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom:
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/95463588547
Or one tap mobile : +19292056099
Webinar ID: 954 6358 8547
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. January Meeting Minutes
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.2. Roosevelt Park Special Use Permit Request
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.3. Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action
3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Deliberative Agenda
  Subject 4.1. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.2. Conservation Legacy Fund Nature Based Solutions Grant Recommended
 Awardee Slate
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Wetland Walk Legacy Request
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.4. Penny for Parks - Community Requests
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.5. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.6. Budget FY27 Process Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.2. Director's Report
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.3. Commissioner's Items & Volunteer Hours
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action
6. Adjournment
 Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action

Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30 pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom:
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/95463588547
Or one tap mobile : +19292056099
Webinar ID: 954 6358 8547
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. January Meeting Minutes
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.2. Roosevelt Park Special Use Permit Request
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.3. Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 1 of 48
3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
  Department Council and Board


  Type

4. Deliberative Agenda
  Subject 4.1. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.2. Conservation Legacy Fund Nature Based Solutions Grant Recommended
 Awardee Slate
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Wetland Walk Legacy Request
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.4. Penny for Parks - Community Requests
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.5. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7




 Page 2 of 48
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.6. Budget FY27 Process Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.2. Director's Report
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.3. Commissioner's Items & Volunteer Hours
  Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 3 of 48
6. Adjournment
 Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
 Meeting February 10, 2026 - Parks Commission - Tuesday, February 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 4 of 48
Parks Commission Meeting

January 13th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



Commissioners in attendance: Lantieri, Davis, Etter, Bergman, Mobley, Johnson & Boehm

Staff in attendance: Lewis, Sauve, O’Daniel

Public in attendance: n/a



 1. Agenda

 Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:33pm. Davis made a motion to accept the agenda, Bergmann
 seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

 2. Consent Agenda

 Etter made a motion to accept the consent agenda. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.

 3. Public Forum, time certain at 6pm

 Public forum opened at 6pm. With no one present in person or on Zoom, it was closed at
 6:01pm.

 4. Deliberative Agenda

 4.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7

 Lewis opened by sharing the document on his screen and noting that section 5 was primarily
 done except for the one question around how to allow for permitted use for vehicles in the park
 without allowing public access. This opened up more of a process of updating the language
 about vehicles in parks in general, not just 1 out of 39 properties, so Roach asked for more time
 to prepare this for next month’s meeting.

 Boehm asked if it would go to the City attorney after for review.

 Lewis confirmed yes. He continued by touching on section 7, about dogs, sharing that he went
 through both documents he had received and began reviewing them with the group. He noted
 that there were some differences between the two in the proposed amendments for additional
 review and wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page about them. The first, Section
 A, had minor differences in the last two sentences, and Lewis assumed the version the City
 attorney had shared was the most up to date.

 The group had no concerns and agreed.




 Page 5 of 48
Lewis continued by touching on a section that was originally in the policy section, but moved to
the ordinance and he wanted to confirm that everyone was okay with this change. He continued
that he could ask if there are any benefits to including this here as opposed to just having it in
the general park portion of the ordinance.

Sauve noted that this section was in place so that the Director had the authority to close dog
specific sections of parks instead of needing to close the entire park, if it was every needed for
any reason.

The group felt that keeping it in this section of the ordinance made sense and were curious
about what the City attorney would say.

Etter asked for clarification about the difference between policy and ordinance.

Lantieri answered that typically things that are in the ordinance are more set in stone and things
in the policy are more geared towards the operations of things, so there is more flexibility.

Lewis continued by reviewing the policy, including hours of operation, which can be adjusted by
this group as needed. He noted one highlighted part, the Program in the Parks participant line.

O’Daniel explained to the group what this was, sharing that it is a way for
businesses/organizations to operate their programs in the parks by paying an annual fee with an
application in addition to other fees depending on group size for each use. She continued that
this was put here in case there are ever dog trainers etc. who are interested in doing this in
fenced or unfenced areas.

After updating that line, Lewis shared that he would do an internal review with staff and the City
attorney and with the goal of bringing back a final version for the group to vote on next month.

Lantieri and Boehm expressed interest in the City attorney’s opinion on what is in the Ordinance
vs. the policy.

4.2 Budget FY27 Process

Lewis began by noting that a lot of the information he would be sharing has been shared at the
last two Board of Finance meetings. He then began explaining the budget overview process,
including that the Council needs to adopt the budget before July 1st and that currently
Departments are building out their budgets and going through the process of sharing
information and asking for input from staff, Council and other appointed/elected bodies to
make sure there is a strong document moving forward. Lewis continued by sharing that there is
a 10-12 million dollar gap in the FY27 budget and that all of the Departments are working with
DFA (Department of Finance & Administration) to verify the revenues and operational expenses
and estimates by looking at historical data, trends and where things are at currently and what is
anticipated going into next year.

Mobley asked what the entire City budget was.

Lewis answered 107 million, and the gap is specifically in the General Fund. He shared that the
Mayor’s office is looking into options for how to bridge this gap including increasing the police
and fire property tax, a reduction of government expenses, voluntary furloughs, utilize one time




 Page 6 of 48
revenue, and potential for selling City property strategically. He then dove into each of those
deeper. He continued that the police and fire tax would be a 5% increase and if referred to the
public by the Council and approved by voters, would raise about 3 million. He continued that
each Department was asked to provide a 5% ($253,000) and 10% ($506,000) reduced budget
out of what BPRW uses from the general fund and that they are currently going through this
cost savings process. He noted that the goal of this is to adjust things in a way that the
Department can still provide as high of a level of service as possible. Lewis continued by
touching on voluntary furloughs, which would include Departments paid out of the general
fund, like BPRW. There is a survey asking employees about this and 54% of people who have
responded so far (roughly 25% of all City staff) have said that they would potentially be
interested in taking a voluntary furlough, which at this point would save between $100,000 and
$190,000. Lewis then touched on one-time revenue, such as dedicated tax balances leftover
from previous years and various outstanding fees owed to the City. He then discussed the selling
of City properties, noting that the process of this would be complex and involve criteria such as
vacant properties that do not have a strategic value for the City. Lewis closed by touching on
next steps, including the Council voting on the proposed tax increase, further engagement with
staff, unions and elected/appointed bodies, the Mayor’s budget presentation is scheduled for
April which is earlier than usual to allow for additional time for the Council and the community
to look at the different options and give feedback before deadline.

Etter asked if there were things Lewis was already anticipating cutting.

Lewis answered that not being here through the last process that the BPRW team went through,
he is hoping to emphasize the people and positions as much as possible, so he is going to be
looking at vacancies first. He shared that the goal with this would be to adjust things structurally
so that those remain open while still being able to provide expected services and support
remaining staff. He continued that this Department has already been through the process of
looking at cuts and making really hard decisions and unfortunately they are at the point of
making really hard decisions again. With that in mind, they are looking at it equitably and
holistically and strategically so that if the Department does need to lower the number of full-
time staff that services can be provided at the highest level possible, so trying to minimize the
negative impacts of this as much as possible.

Mobley noted that this Department was deeply impacted by the last round of cuts and she
hopes that the decision makers in this process keep this in mind moving forward. She continued
by offering the Commission’s support and help through this.

Lewis appreciated this and shared that he was grateful that this group is established in a way
that they can provide feedback and what these impacts really means for the community, which
is a different lens than other bodies and staff can.

Lantieri offered the Commission’s support in the way of feedback and shared that this
Commission has typically been more reactive to things as they are happening, so he’s not
completely sure what their role could be.

Lewis noted that each Department presents on their budget and having Commissioners there
for support could be helpful.




 Page 7 of 48
Lantieri continued by asking for more details about the potential furloughs.

Lewis answered that in theory it would be a full time employee taking unpaid time off but they
would still retain health care and all benefits and that there would be policies and coordination
to make sure services continued.

Boehm asked how many vacancies there are in BPRW currently.

Lewis answered 3.5 by the end of the month.

Lantieri asked if they are roles that need to be filled quickly.

Sauve answered some of them, yes.

Lewis continued that the internal conversations around this have been focused on how to re-
work the service delivery in a way that makes sense given the available resources. He shared
that once the impacts are known, they will assess and put together strategies for navigating that
impact.

Boehm asked if there are services that can be stopped without also losing the positions that
have been doing them.

Lewis answered that things like this are the discussions that are being had – are there things
that we could do differently, or not do, and what would create the lowest impact from those
decisions.

Sauve added that it’s not really a one for one scenario and there are no easy solutions.

Davis asked about raising fees for programs and reservations.

Lewis noted that equity and participation are big factors in consideration when thinking about
raising rates. He continued that capacity building for existing programs is something that is
being looked at, with a focus on scaling up effectively while creating opportunity.

Etter asked about sponsorship opportunities.

Lewis answered that it’s a question of how do we balance the aesthetic with revenue producing
advertisements, but that all of this is being considered, such as maximizing sponsorship for
events and signage at parks and facilities.

Boehm asked if there has been or will be process to engage BPRW staff.

Lewis answered yes that has started. He shared that there was an all-staff meeting last week
where the budget process was discussed, the surveys are available for all City staff to fill out and
working with staff to come up with ideas for cost saving.

Lantieri noted that staff feeling like they were not engaged as cuts were made last time was a
big problem that emerged, so he felt that this was great to hear.

Mobley shared that she was grateful for the longer runway for engagement this time around.




 Page 8 of 48
Lewis responded that there is sensitivity to the individuals who might be impacted, so trying to
balance the transparency with the anxiousness that can come with all of this.

The group thanked Lewis for informing them and offered to be sounding boards and advocates
at any point in the process.

4.3 Penny for Parks – Community Requests

Sauve opened by sharing that this is being brought to the Commission later than usual because
they have been trying to get more community requests. She continued that there is $35,000 -
$40,000 allocated annually for these and the goal is to support requests from across the City of
all different project sizes. She asked Commissioners to help get the word out about this
opportunity and any ideas about how to increase awareness of the program in the hopes of
having more requests for them to review next month. Sauve continued that people and
organizations who know about this opportunity come put requests in regularly, but the hope is
to start reaching people who do not know about it to increase equity and accessibility. Sauve
continued that Calahan requested seating and benches in the park and they helped build them,
which is a great example of a request that can also get community members involved in “their”
park.

Boehm asked where they haven’t really seen any applications.

Sauve answered the Old North End and not too many in the New North End.

4.4 Comprehensive Plan Update

Sauve shared that they are working towards the end of finalizing scope with the consultant team
and internally the larger plan BTV has been working on public outreach strategies by thinking
about who are the harder groups to reach out to and coming up with creative ways to involve
them. She shared that she has been meeting BPRW managers to let them know this is
happening and to discuss what would be helpful to direct their and their team’s work moving
forward.

4.5 Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026

Lantieri opened by sharing that this is the best time to take a step back and think about
priorities that Commissioners would like to focus on. He continued that he is thinking about
volunteering and what the scope of that in the Parks & Rec world is and how Commissioners can
support that.

Davis had the list from last year, which Lantieri read aloud: vendors in parks, clarifying the
permitting process, reviewing meeting laws, creating a volunteer structure for active
engagement, reviewing code of conduct during meetings, having a board retreat and building a
stronger relationship with the Conservation Board. He noted that some of those were
accomplished and some can continue to be worked on.

Davis asked how they can support BPRW staff and if that could be added to this year’s list.

Boehm felt that this could be combined with the idea of increasing volunteering. She offered the
example of bringing seltzers to staff on a busy day in the summer.




 Page 9 of 48
 Lewis answered that anyone who is recognized in any form is appreciated. He continued that
 the thoughtfulness for how they can do this is also appreciated.

 The group then discussed ways that they could interact with staff more to increase morale.

 Mobley and Davis agreed that they would stop by February vacation camp at the Miller Center!

 Sauve suggested that offering opportunities for Commissioners to interact with staff could be
 presented at the meetings.

 The group felt that this was a great idea.

 Mobley shared that she felt like communication and outreach have been a theme and was
 curious if this could be incorporated into the Commission’s goals for 2026.

 Boehm noted that this could be a nice tie-in to the Comprehensive Plan.

 Lantieri offered that it could be framed as what is the Commission’s role in communicating
 information out to the community. He continued that he would like to re-visit the idea of a
 retreat for the group in the Spring to work on these goals.

 Boehm offered the idea that maybe the group could also visit some of BPRW’s locations and
 meet staff that day as well.

5. Standing Items

 5.1 Parks Foundation Update

 Lantieri shared that there was a meeting in December and that they have put out their annual
 report so encouraged everyone to check out their website to see that.

 Sauve shared that they are looking to have an event at Pomeroy Park to celebrate breaking
 ground on the new playground, which could be a nice opportunity for Commissioners to
 interface with them.

 5.2 Director’s Report

 Lewis wanted to highlight the monthly report and that he and the leadership team are looking at
 the organizational structure of the Department and how they can appropriately structure things
 to provide the highest level of service. He closed by sharing that he’s continuing to onboard and
 if there are any community connections that Commissioners would like to make, he would be
 happy to receive them.

 Lantieri asked if it seemed like there would be a Recreation manager.

 Lewis answered that they are working on a strategy for that now and they recognize that group
 has been disproportionately impacted, so how to provide support for them is being discussed.




 Page 10 of 48
 5.3 Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours

 Johnson began that he didn’t have any hours to report, but shared that there was circulation on
 his Front Porch Forum about the cat licensing, which people seemed to be unaware of.

 Bergmann didn’t have any hours to report.

 Mobley shared that she participated in the process of reviewing and awarding Conservation
 Legacy Fund Grants and that the really appreciated the opportunity to participate. She
 estimated 10 hours of volunteering throughout that process.

 Davis also participated in that and estimated 9 hours of volunteering throughout that process.

 Boehm reported 1 hour of volunteering for planning the agenda for this meeting.

 Lanteri didn’t have any hours to report.

 Etter left before this portion of the meeting.



6. Adjournment

 Davis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Boehm seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:07pm.




 Page 11 of 48
MEMO
Date: February 10th, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator
RE: Jackie Robinson Day Special Use Permit for April 15th, 2026


Request for a Special Use Permit at Roosevelt Park and the rental fees to be waived.

The Thomas Clairmont Baseball Foundation is looking to host a Jackie Robinson Day at Roosevelt Park on
April 15th. The organization’s mission is to instill and promote the values of kindness and respect of all
through baseball related activities.

The event will take place from 3:30pm – 5:30pm and free food and beverages will be served. They are
coordinating with the local little leagues and the Boys & Girls Club to involve as many youth as possible.
This event is free and open to the public.

Contact for the event is Greg Clairmont.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.


Staff Recommendations:
Allow for Special Use Permit.




 Page 12 of 48
MEMO
Date: February 10th, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator
RE: GBGSL Special Use Permit for June 6th, 2026


Request for a Special Use Permit at Calahan Park for a waiver to allow amplified sound.

Greater Burlington Girls Soccer League (GBGSL) will be holding their annual end-of-season Jamboree at
Calahan Park on Saturday, June 6th. GBGSL has been using the Calahan Park soccer fields for their Spring
and Fall seasons since 1997. At some point during the Jamboree, all of the players and their coaches plan
to get on the field and dance to current pop songs and the Macarena together, usually resulting in a very
long conga line.

The amplified sound will take place between 8am and 1pm, and will consist of music from a playlist and
announcements. They will be informing the surrounding neighborhood via Front Porch Forum ahead of
the event.

Contact for the Jamboree is Kristine Johnson.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.


Staff Recommendations:
Allow for Special Use Permit including a waiver for amplified sound.




 Page 13 of 48
MEMO
Date: Wednesday February 4th, 2026
To: Parks Commission
From: Dan Cahill, City Land Steward, Scott Gustin, Principal Planner
RE: Conservation Legacy Fund Nature Based Solutions (CLF NBS) Grant: recommendation for funding

On January 6 and January 12 a review committee composed of three Conservation Board members
(Rebecca Roman, Dale Azaria, and Kelly Edwards) and two Parks Commission members (Katie Mobley and
Halle Davis) met to deliberate and recommend funding disbursements for the 2026 CLF NBS Grant. The
committee reviewed and scored applications individually prior to arriving at review meetings. The process
was facilitated by Rebecca Roman with staff support from Dan Cahill and Scott Gustin. The results of the
review process and recommendations for funding by the committee are enumerated in the table below.



 Total Score Request Amount Award Amount % of request awarded


Vermont Garden Network 390.5 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500 100%


VYCC 391 $ 30,000.00 $0 0%


Intervale Center 456.50 $42,145.20 $ 29,502 70%


Burlington Wildways 465 $ 12,463.00 $ 12,463.00 100%

BLUE BTV 378 $15,000 0 0%

Rock Point Commons 428.50 $ 13,535.00 $13,535.00 100%

Total $132,426.2 $68,000 51.3%




Proposed Action: Recommend slate of funding as identified by the review committee to be moved
forward to City Council for adoption.




 Page 14 of 48
Action of the Conservation Board 2/2/2026: Recommend the slate of funding as identified by the
review committee and move to City Council for approval.




 Page 2 of 2



 Page 15 of 48
MEMO
Date: Wednesday February 4th, 2026
To: Parks Commission
From: Dan Cahill, City Land Steward, Scott Gustin, Principal Planner
RE: Wetland Walk Funding Request

The Wetlands Walk North (WWN) at the Ethan Allen Homestead, a 370’ elevated boardwalk, built in
1992, has served thousands of visitors as a place of refuge, scientific study, and connection to the natural
world. Normal deterioration and a flooding/freeze event in the winter of 2018 severely compromised the
structure prompting its closure. This project is for reconstruction of the WWN, ensuring accessibility and
longevity for the next generation of outdoor recreationalists and naturalists to enjoy.

See attachments for further detail.

 • Burlington Conservation Legacy Fund Application Wetlands Walk North 10.15.24
 • BTV Legacy Fund Application Narrative Wetlands Walk North 10.15.24
 • City Attorney’s Office pinion on use of fund for Conservation Infastructure
 • January 6, 2025 Conservation Board Minutes


Proposed Action: Recommend funding of the Wetland Walk North rehabilitation as described in the
attached documents and proceed to City Council.

Action of the Conservation Board, 1/25/2026: The Conservation Board supports an exception for the Conservation Legacy
Fund to fund this particular project and to proceed to the Parks Commission and the City Council.




 Page 16 of 48
Burlington Conservation Legacy Program
Department of Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront
645 Pine St, Suite B
Burlington, VT 05401
www.enjoyburlington.com
Telephone: (802) 864-0123




 Burlington Conservation Legacy Program Fund Application

Property Owner Name Winooski Valley Park District

Owner Address 1 Ethan Allen Homestead (permit address: 820 North Avenue)

Owner Phone 802-735-5892 day same evening

Contact Person Name Nick Warner

Contact Address same

Contact Phone same day same evening

CLP Grant Funds Requested $173,375

Property Address & Acreage 1 Ethan Allen Homestead, 284 acres
(Please attach map of your property, include location map and major property features
such as wooded areas, developed areas, wetlands, etc.)

Please describe the proposal (Attach extra sheet as needed.)
WVPD seeks funding to complete reconstruction of “Wetland Walk North”, a highly popular boardwalk loca ted in the
heart of Ethan Allen Homestead Park. A detailed description of the project and its context is attached to this
application. State permitting and regulatory clearances have been obtained, and a local building will be pulled before
work commences.




General Property Characteristics:
Do you wish to sell the property outright or continue to own it and establish a
conservation easement? N/A: the property is conserved via LWCF and TNC Easements

Who will own the property or conservation easement? N/A

What other funding sources and partners are committed to this project?
WVPD will contribute $25,764 worth of labor – and leverage volunteer time mostly during the demolition phase (removal of
old Boardwalk)




What’s the fair market value as determined by a professional appraiser? N/A


 Pg. 1 of 4

 Page 17 of 48
Is the land contiguous with other conserved land? If yes, briefly describe that parcel.
The project is located on a 284-acre parcel that is contiguous with the Intervale Center’s land, and
the Winooski River.




What threats, if any, face the land? Flooding, invasive species, overuse, erosion




What is the current use of the property? Public park/natural area (use will not change)




What is the intended use of the property? Public Park/natural area (continued use)




Is the title to the property free of encumbrances that would defeat the conservation
goals of the transaction or subject the City of Burlington to undue legal risk?
Deed restrictions are in place via LWCF and the Nature Conservancy, ensuring that the entire 284-acre property
remains accessible to the public for outdoor recreation, and protected as a natural area in perpetuity




Are there other legal issues surrounding the transaction that would subject the City of
Burlington to undue financial costs or risks? N/A




Does the property contain any hazardous waste sites, significant trash dumps, fire
hazards, polluted water courses or bodies that would present legal risk or burden to the
City of Burlington or defeat the conservation purposes of protecting the property? No




 Pg. 2 of 4

 Page 18 of 48
  Open Space Land Values:
  (Check all that apply.) Scenic Values
  Natural Values o Vista
 ×Forest Community o Viewshed
 ×Other Natural Communities ×Greenway
 ×Important Plant Habitat
 ×Important Wildlife Habitat Recreational & Educational
 ×Lake or River Shoreline ×Public Park
 ×Wetland ×Trails
×River/Wetland Buffer Zone ×Passive Recreational Activity
o Important Geological/Soil Features ×Educational Resource
×Wildlife Travel Corridors
o Natural Heritage Program Sites Historical, Cultural, Archaeological
o Unique Topography Values
×Floodwater/Stormwater Treatment ×Archaeological Site
×Potential Restoration Area ×Historic/Cultural Site
 o National Register
 Working Values
o Agricultural Potential Other Urban Open Space Values
×Current Agricultural ×Access/Connectors to Protected
o Working Forest Areas
 o Greenbelts
 ×Community Open Space
 o Stormwater Retention
 o Community Garden
 Open Space Types:
 (Check all that apply.)
 Is all or a portion of the property identified in the city’s Open Space Inventory?
×Yes
o No
o Unknown

  Does the property include one or more of the following features or locations?
  o Lake Champlain Shoreline
×Winooski River Corridor/Intervale
  o Englesby Brook/Watershed For assistance contact:
  o Centennial Woods/Brook Dan Cahill, Land Steward
  o Vermont Natural Heritage Site Burlington Conservation Legacy Program
  o Neighborhood Green Space Burlington Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront
  o Urban Waterfront 645 Pine Street, Suite B
×Recreational Linkage Burlington, VT 05401
×Community Garden dcahill@burlingtonvt.gov




 Pg. 3 of 4

 Page 19 of 48
 Budget Sheet

Project Budget
 • CLP grant funds requested: $171,875
 • Values of other funding sources (optimally 60% of total): $22,264




 • Total cost of project: $194,139




 Pg. 4 of 4

 Page 20 of 48
 Winooski Valley Park District
 Ethan Allen Homestead
 Burlington, Vermont 05408
 Tel: (802) 863-5744 Email: info@wvpd.org. www.WVPD.org Fax: (802) 865-0647




 Request for Funding Support:
 Restoration of the Wetlands Walk North Boardwalk
 Ethan Allen Homestead Park, Winooski Valley Park District

Project Team:
Tim Larned, Park Superintendent
(802) 373-0743
Timlarned@wvpd.org

Nick Warner, Executive Director
(802) 863-5744
nickwarner@wvpd.org

Lauren Chicote, Operations Manager
(802) 863-5744
laurenchicote@wvpd.org

Project Description
The Wetlands Walk North (WWN), a
370’ elevated boardwalk, built in 1992,
has served thousands of visitors as a
place of refuge, scientific study, and
connection to the natural world. Normal
deterioration and a flooding/freeze event
in the winter of 2018 severely
compromised the structure prompting its
closure. This project is for
reconstruction of the WWN, ensuring
accessibility and longevity for the next
generation of outdoor recreationalists
and naturalists to enjoy.

Rationale for Project
Located in Vermont’s most populous City, and bookended by low-income neighborhoods, the
Winooski River, and Burlington’s 700-acre Intervale, WWN is located at the hub of multiple
trails, bike paths, and outstanding natural features. Many who live in the area have had limited
opportunities to experience outdoor recreation, and this boardwalk provides an entertaining and




 Page 21 of 48
engaging place to have that experience. Moreover, WVPD has long understood the connection
between public access and support for conservation, ecological stewardship, and community
connection. This project provides safe, low impact access to the natural world while
accommodating public demand for recreation and environmental education. This is achieved by
ensuring robust public access to the wetland with a physical structure that provides protection for
the fragile wetland ecology. Local schools, universities, youth groups, and camps utilize and visit
the site each year as a field trip and service-learning destination to use as an outdoor classroom.




WWN Trail and Path Connectivity
  • Ethan Allen Homestead Park (EAH) hosts 6 miles of trails that follow the Winooski River
 used daily for running, walking, dog-walking, bird watching, access to the river for
 fishing, kayak/canoe access, and wildlife viewing. The Burlington Bike Path has two
 sections that run through EAH: the paved bike path that follows Rt. 127 to Ethan Allen
 Park; and the natural surfaced Cycle the City trail that connects from the Intervale Center.
 These bike routes are used daily by both commuters and recreationalists year-round.
  • A section of the Burlington Wildways Trail meanders through the EAH. The Wildways
 trail connects the existing trails to provide a more welcoming user experience from
 WVPD’s Salmon Hole Park in Burlington, though the Intervale Center trails to the City
 of Burlington’s McKenzie Park, onto WVPD’s EAH and Burlington’s Ethan Allen Park




 Page 22 of 48
 the trail then continues to and around the Rock Point trails currently ending on the
 Burlington Bike Path. This 9+ mile connected trail in the heart of Vermont’s largest urban
 area is almost entirely through natural areas with only one road crossing.
 • The Winooski River borders the eastern edge of the property, and WVPD manages a
 canoe/kayak launch that is directly off the main trail that runs through the park near the
 access for the WWN.


Site Control
WVPD owns and manages the Ethan Allen Homestead, the 288-acre property where the WWN
is located. The park is open at no charge, year-round, from dawn to dusk. The site is deed
restricted by LWCF and TNC, ensuring that it is conserved in perpetuity.

Permitting
WVPD has consulted with regulators and verified Act250 is not required & elevated boardwalks
are permitted use of the wetland rules. It will require a local building permit only.

Project Management
Tim Larned, Parks Superintendent will
serve as Project Manager overseeing all
aspects of the project including removal
of the old structure, construction of new
boardwalk, supervising contractors,
managing permits, and volunteer
coordination. He will supervise WVPD
seasonal maintenance staff who will
assist in construction aspects of the
project. Contractors will be hired for
installation of helical piers, while
WVPD staff and volunteers will work
on deconstruction. Construction of the
new boardwalk will be a collaboration
between contractors, WVPD staff, and
volunteers.

Nick Warner, Executive Director will oversee contractor selection, grant management, and
project management as needed.

Lauren Chicote, Operations Manager will assist with grant and project management as needed.
After construction, she will promote/advertise the WWN for inclusive use, and coordinate with
local education institutions and groups to arrange visits to utilize the reconstructed WWN for
educational purposes.




 Page 23 of 48
Project Scope
WVPD plans for the full replacement of the WWN boardwalk structure that will be more
accessible for everyone to enjoy for the next 30+ years. The new structure will follow the
existing path of the boardwalk through the wetland but will be updated for better access and
using materials that will ensure a long life. The current 4’ wide pressure treated boardwalk will
be replaced with a 5’ wide structure, making it more accessible to individuals with mobility
assistance needs, and easier for educational programs to be conducted on it. Naturally rot
resistant hardwoods such as white oak or black locust will replace the current pressure treated
materials. Helical piers will be used in the new design allowing the structure to withstand the
natural fluctuation of the wetlands water level along with larger flooding events and continuous
freezing/thawing in the winter.

Project Partners
Partners will support the project by volunteering during construction, help to promote use and
access, and utilize the WWN for programming after reconstruction.

The Burlington Wildways partnership connects and protects the wild places and paths of
Burlington, VT. Their mission is to maintain a world-class shared trail network; conserve
biodiversity; and provide equitable access to the city’s natural areas. The Wildways trail
connects through the Ethan Allen Homestead and Wildways has identified the restoration of the
WWN as a high priority.

The Ethan Allen Homestead (EAH) is home to several partner organizations that will benefit
from and utilize the WWN. The Ethan Allen Homestead Museum interprets Ethan Allen’s
original 1787 farmhouse which overlooks the wetland where the WWN is located, welcoming
thousands of visitors each year. Alnôbaiwi, a non-profit preserving Abenaki cultural, has a
classroom/meeting space and holds cultural events in the Abenaki Village. The Burlington
Forest Preschool operates two nature-based classrooms and will use the WWN daily for nature
explorations. The site also hosts several community gardens managed by numerous partners
including two BPRW gardens, the Vermont Garden Network and Janet S. Munt Family Room
teaching gardens, and the New Farms for New Americans 60+ family farm.

Project Funding History
WVPD received $50k in a 2022 VOREC Grant as part of the City of Burlington’s “One
Burlington: Committed to Accessible and Affordable Outdoor Recreation & Nature based
activities for our City” project. Additional funds were sought by WVPD from VOREC in 2023
to cover the full cost and ensure completion of the WWN, however the application was not
successful.

WVPD had also applied for VT Recreation Trail Program (RTP) funds with unsuccessful
applications in 2017 and 2020. While the project scored high overall it was not funded due to the
high cost for a short section of trail. WVPD also applied for funding from the Lake Champlain
Basin Program in 2019 but was unsuccessful due to not having other funds secured to complete
the project at the time of the application.




 Page 24 of 48
In partnership with Burlington Wildways, WVPD sought private donor support for a portion of
the project in 2023. While the was very interested and supportive of the project, their focus for
funding support has shifted to other recent global issues.

The combination of these unsuccessful applications, and a backlog of post-pandemic projects
and continued repairs after three major flood events, WVPD found itself with an expiring
VOREC grant and was preparing to mobilize a more limited scope this fall to get the project
rolling before funds expired. However, in consultation with BPRW, it was decided that the most
appropriate action was to reprogram the $50k allocated to WWN to another project in the
VOREC partnership, and to re-set the fundraising effort for this important project.

 Project Issue and Urgency
 People need safe and well-maintained access to
 the outdoors not just in the remote mountains
 and areas of the state, but in urban areas close
 to where people live and work – providing the
 steppingstone to outdoor recreation. WVPD has
 been providing free, high quality outdoor
 recreational access to the public for over 50
 years through its 18 regional parks in eight
 member communities in Chittenden County,
 with WWN one of the most popular
 components in the system.

Public Benefit and Equitable Access
The WWN boardwalk provided the unique opportunity of direct access through a Class II
wetland in the heart of the most densely populated and culturally diverse low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods (as defined by HUD) in Burlington (Census Tracts 3 & 6), Colchester
(Census Tract 22.04) and Winooski (Census Tract 24).

Burlington school children are bussed out of the city for wetland explorations and nature-based
field trips. In a city that is almost 50% open space, with 40% of its land area in floodplain,
children should have places to see and explore the wetlands and natural areas of their own
backyard – that they can come back to time and time again. The repaired and modernized trail
infrastructure of the WWN will allow area children, teachers, families, and the public, to have an
extraordinary platform for understanding a rich, varied, and productive freshwater marsh close to
many Burlington schools and neighborhoods. The WWN is a powerful way for the next
generation to have a unique experience in their hometown wetland.

Recent flooding events put a sharp focus on the importance of conserving riparian and wetlands
systems as we prepare to face more frequent flood events due to climate change. The new WWN
will be designed to better withstand flood events with the use of helical piers and naturally rot
resistant materials. The boardwalk with its observation platform will serve as a unique tool for
education on how wetlands play a role in climate resiliency. Giving people direct access to a
wetland will promote an increase in understanding for the pressing need to conserve and manage
our natural resources.




 Page 25 of 48
Project Budget




 Page 26 of 48
JESSICA C. BROWN, ESQ. 149 Church Street
  City Attorney Burlington, VT 05401-8489
KIMBERLEE J. STURTEVANT, ESQ. Phone: (802) 865-7121
  ACA, Director of Litigation Fax: (802) 865-7123
HAYLEY I. McCLENAHAN, ESQ. TTY: (802) 865-7142
  Assistant City Attorney
ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN, ESQ.
  ACA, Director of Gen. Gov’t
  & Transactional Servs.
EMMETT WOOD, ESQ.
  Assistant City Attorney




 CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT
 OFFICE OF
 THE CITY ATTORNEY
 AND
 CORPORATION COUNSEL

To: Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
 Dan Cahill, City Land Steward

From: Hayley McClenahan, Assistant City Attorney

Re: Allowable Uses of Conservation Legacy Fund

Date: December 12, 2025

Question Presented: Does the current framework for the Conservation Legacy Fund permit the use of Fund
dollars for physical infrastructure projects related to conserved areas?

Short Answer: Likely yes, so long as the infrastructure is related to one of the identified purposes of the Fund.

Council Authority to Establish a Fund; Funding Sources; Voter Approval

 Per the Burlington City Charter, the City Council has the authority to, “provide for the care, preservation
and improvement of public grounds …”. 24 App. V.S.A. ch. 3, §48(17). Pursuant to such authority, in September
2004, the Council resolved to establish the Conservation Legacy Fund. See C.C. Resolution 10, FY ’05. The
stated purpose of the fund is to, “… facilitate the acquisition and long-term stewardship of Burlington’s
significant natural areas, important open spaces, and urban greenspaces for permanent protection.” Id.
Specifically, the Council resolved to support the acquisition and stewardship of conservation land by the City and
to support ongoing operation of the Conversation Legacy Program through the Fund.




 Page 27 of 48
 In order to stand up the Fund from a financial perspective, the Council resolved to seek voter approval to
raise the so-called splinter tax rate1 by one (1) cent upon each dollar of the property grand list to create revenue
for the Fund, the stated purpose of which as in the ballot question is, “the purchase and protection of important
natural areas and open space”. The voters approved such a tax in November 2004, although due to property
reappraisals conducted by the City, such amount has likely been proportionally ‘factored-down’ in order to adjust
for such an increase in property valuation. See 24 App. V.S.A. ch. 3, §98 (requiring the tax rate to be reduced
proportionally to valuation after a reappraisal).

 In order to provide ongoing financial support for such a Fund, and presumably to offset the burden on
taxpayers, the Council also indicated upon its creation that the goal of such funds would be to leverage funding
from other non-city sources to facilitate acquisition and long-term stewardship of Burlington’s significant natural
areas, important open spaces, and urban greenspaces for permanent protection. This stated goal lends itself to the
inference that the Council is directing the use of tax-payer dollars directed into the Fund for the purpose of
stretching those dollars – through potentially matching grants, public-private partnerships, and other financial
opportunities outside of the direct grand list revenues.

 As to the question of whether physical infrastructure is an allowable use of the Fund without further voter
approval, the analysis turns on whether such infrastructure is consistent with the stated purpose in the ballot
question of promoting the purchase and protection of important natural areas and open space. To use the example
of a wetland boardwalk as raised by conservation staff, a boardwalk may be an allowable use if it is in furtherance
of protection of a natural area by allowing public use and access while minimizing erosion. However, a boardwalk
for purely recreational purposes, may not be in alignment with this purpose. Each physical infrastructure project
under consideration should be carefully reviewed to ensure a nexus between it and the voter approved purpose.

Conservation Legacy Fund Policy Document: Nature Based Climate Adaptation Update

 In addition to resolving to create the Fund, and to fund it by placing a tax increase on the November 2024
ballot, the City Council also at that time approved a Policy Document governing the financial management of the
Fund, as well as designating the Conservation Board and Parks and Recreation Commission to monitor the
operation and activity of the Fund. This Policy Document was prepared by the Conservation Board in
collaboration with the Parks Commission. It also reiterates the Fund’s purposes of land acquisition, long-term
protection and stewardship, and support of the Conservation Legacy Program. Additionally, this Policy Document
outlines that a specific percentage of such Fund is to be used for each of these sub-purposes, specifically capacity
of the Conservation Legacy Program, and acquisition of land, including costs associated with permanent
protection of any new assets.

 In 2023, the Council approved an amendment to this Policy Document, further clarifying how the
percentage of funds designated to be used for capacity of the Conservation Legacy Program. C.C. Resolution
6.49, FY ’24. This clarification includes a specific call out to support the 2022 Nature-Based Climate Solutions
addendum to the 2000 Open Pace Protection Plan. In addition to the general voter approved purpose as outlined


1
 See 24 App. V.S.A. ch. 3, §99 – authorizing the City Council to tax property upon the grand list for any Charter purpose not
provided for in a specific tax (such as here - §48(17)) provided it does not exceed a certain rate, after which voter approval is
necessary.




 Page 28 of 48
above, conservation staff should review any planned physical infrastructure use of the Fund to ensure that it is
compliant with the delineated fiscal distribution and use of the Fund.




 The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color,
 national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive
 status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and
employment opportunities. For accessibility information or alternative formats, please contact Human Resources Department at (802) 540-
 2505.




 Page 29 of 48
Burlington Conservation Board Rebecca Roman, Chair
 Caryn Connolly, Vice Chair
645 Pine Street Zoe Richards
Burlington, VT 05401 Don Meals
http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CB Ryan Crehan
Telephone: (802) 865-7189 Hannah Brislin
 Leslie Spencer
 Kyle Tansley
 Ethan Ely
 Elizabeth Cunningham, Student




 Conservation Board Meeting Minutes
 Monday, January 6, 2025 – 5:30 pm
 Remote & In Person Meeting

Attendance
 Board Members: Zoe Richards (ZR), Caryn Connolly (CC), Rebecca Roman (RR), Leslie Spencer
 (LS), Don Meals (DM), Ryan Crehan (RC), Hannah Brislin (HB), Kyle Tansley (KT), Elizabeth
 Cunningham (EC)
 Absent: Ethan Ely (EE)
 Public: Owen Milne (Sailing Center), Susan Ogden, Sharon Bushor (Public Comment), Nick Larned,
 Nick Warner, Lauren Chicote (WVPD), Jill Dixon (Open Space Plan)
 Staff: Scott Gustin (Permitting & Inspections), Dan Cahill, Daniel Schmidt (Parks & Rec)

RR, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.

Minutes

October 7, 2024 minutes

A MOTION was made by KT and SECONDED by DM:

Approve the October 7 minutes as written.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried.

Board Comment

RC mentioned he’s the Conservation Board member on the Long Range Planning Committee. We had
our first meeting last week since joining the Committee. The city is doing a lot of planning – New North
End, 127 Path Scoping Study, Preservation Burlington, Open Space plan, and Comprehensive Plan due
by end of 2026.

Public Comment

Sharon Bushor mentioned the Land and Water Conservation Fund as something that was used for the
Schmanska barn. It may be a consideration for the WVPD. She agrees with the need and value of
WVPD’s boardwalk project, but not with use of the Legacy Fund for it. She also mentioned the
Community Sailing Center. She values the mission of the Sailing Center, but could not find dimensional
info for the land being asked for. She’s concerned with the other project for Derway Island shoreland
erosion mitigation. Has the US Army Corps of Engineers looked at this? Is this a smart thing to invest in,
in light of climate change? There’s an upcoming discussion of the Conservation Legacy Fund as part of
the Open Space Plan work. She thinks it would be prudent to have someone with financial expertise
involved in this discussion. When talking about long term funds, it may be good to have an expert without
any skin in the game to provide advice. When the Legacy Fund was established, there was consideration

 The programs and services of the Dept. of Permitting & Inspections are accessible to people with
 disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188.

 Page 30 of 48
 Conservation Board Minutes
 January 6, 2025 - pg. 2


of funds needed for management. She’d like open space to provide balance for species other than just
humans.

Susan Ogden (author of deer email sent to the Board) commented to the Board. The deer are here and
are continuing to come into the city. We’ve seen their numbers and impacts increase with some pretty
negative results. There are no predators here. She feels its only a matter of time before we see more
deer/vehicle collisions and more pronounced impacts on other wildlife species. Is this item on the Board’s
radar? RR said the Board has talked about deer, especially as related to Intervale farms. The Board has
talked to Intervale Center staff as to potential management strategies. City ordinance is currently an
obstacle to some forms of management. The Conservation Board is advisory and cannot make any
requirements. DM said its been on the Board’s radar but has seemingly dropped off as of late.
Something does need to be done. Public perception may generate substantial outcry unless
management proposals are carefully developed and considered. Having conversations with neighbors
may help make progress. ZR mentioned participation in the Open Space outreach process. Deer have
potential to substantially impact the city’s long term tree canopy health. Susan Ogden said we really
need a public education campaign as to the pretty serious consequences of high deer densities. She
mentioned the Rock Creek Park controlled hunt in Maryland used to control deer numbers there. RR said
something similar has been done in Pittsburgh. RR, do you know what happened with the information
from the UVM student project? Dan Cahill, we still have the data. It could be used to move forward with
an effort here in Burlington. ZR mentioned the Cornell deer management strategy.

Open Space Subcommittee

No meeting today.

Update & Discussion
 1. Community Sailing Center
 Overview of zoning amendment request to enable boat storage in the Urban Reserve

Owen Milne appeared for this item.

Owen Milne said there have been a couple of events to inform and solicit public comment as to the
Sailing Center’s proposal to use an area of the Urban Reserve (UR) for boat storage. He noted
community services provided by the Sailing Center such as floating class rooms, summer camps, lake
stewardship, and kayak and boat rentals. One of the services that used to be provided was storage for
folks to use for their boats. Up to 200 people used this service. The last year we could do it was 2019.
With completion of the Moran FRAME project, the city made the former storage space lawn area. Our
current storage area is limited just to the Sailing Center’s fleet. There is a public desire for this service to
be reestablished. We are considering an area in the UR just to the north of our facility. It is city property.
We are looking to prioritize kayak and paddle board access. He noted the recent shoreline access
improvements and showed a slide of the potential storage area in relation to the existing facility. We’ve
had UVM Rubenstein students do an ecological assessment of this proposal. He noted there are two
wetlands in this area. They are presently considered class 2 wetlands. We may have a reassessment
done. VHB will do a hazardous materials assessment of the area. We don’t anticipate doing any building
or paving. The area would be surfaced with crushed rock.

DM, how large are the trees that would be removed? Owen Milne, there are two trees in particular that
are mature. The rest is dense low growth. We would do new plantings to mitigate the clearing. DM, what
do you envision as the final surface? Owen Milne, crushed rock, not sur-pac. We would keep the surface
permeable. DM, have you evaluated alternatives to this site? Owen Milne, no. We would not provide the
service if lit were located on a different property. Its fine if the city wants to provide it elsewhere. DM,
possibly make it smaller. DM, what would the plan be if a delineation confirms the class 2 wetlands?
Owen Milne, does not yet know. DM, this is the UR. The intent is to preserve it for the future. We are at
most 40 years from its establishment.




 Page 31 of 48
 Conservation Board Minutes
 January 6, 2025 - pg. 3


RC has worked in, and is familiar with, the Urban Reserve. He noted the lakeshore buffer zone in
addition to the wetlands and their 100’ wide buffers. This area is also affected by the lakeshore flood
hazard zone. The UR district standards says that no additional lot coverage is permissible, along with no
permitted or conditional uses. The area is public trust land because it is filled – brings with it
requirements for public access. He noted the interim waterfront management plan. The UR was
conserved with an easement requiring a 100’ wide shoreline buffer. RC is not sure where to start among
these concerns. SG noted that there is no application yet. The Sailing Center is aware that the rules
need to change to allow for this. Owen Milne said that the project would be approvable per the
conservation easement. RC said the city is the easement holder and would need to concur. ZR asked
for clarification of the process here. SG replied that the Sailing Center has requested a zoning
amendment to allow the boat storage use in the UR. The Planning Commission will consider it for the first
time January 28. If they support the amendment request, then it would go to public hearing with the
Planning Commission. From there it would go to the City Council and basically repeat the process. The
Conservation Board can weigh in now and additionally in the future if it wishes. RR said she was
surprised to hear the VHCB found this compatible with the easement. She thinks the service is great, but
not at this location. RR recommended a motion.

A MOTION was made by RC and SECONDED by DM:

The Conservation Board does not support a zoning change in the Urban Reserve because it is not in
keeping with the intent of the Natural Resource Overlay District, the Urban Reserve District, PlanBTV,
Waterfront Urban Reserve Interim Use & Stewardship Plan, or the intent of the conservation easement or
public trust standards.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried.


 2. Open Space Plan
 Project update and solicitation of comment

SG provided a status update and overviewed the history of the Open Space Plan and some of the major
related accomplishments. The effort to comprehensively rewrite the plan began this past summer. It
includes the formerly separate Urban Forest Plan and includes a team of UVM’s Spatial Analysis Lab,
Agency Landscape & Planning, Dan Cahill, Sophie Sauve, Sarah Morgan, myself, and Zoe Richards. We
hosted stakeholder meetings this past November and are gearing up for a first round of public outreach
and engagement this month and next. We’ll have a presence at the January 25 winter farmers market
and also at the January 23 New North End plan event. We’re aiming for an ad hoc event such as skating
at the ice caves and also to have a presence at Wintervale. The initial outreach is aimed at gathering
public input to help build a framework for the new Open Space Plan. This coming spring and summer,
we’ll host a second round of stakeholder meetings and public outreach and engagement. The second
round is aimed at fleshing out a draft and, ultimately, a final Open Space Plan for adoption by the City
Council.

Based on initial outreach and stakeholder discussions, emerging themes include:
  Connectivity and supportive frameworks
  Communities of care
  Balance and flexibility to do the work
  Challenges to successful open space

Some key considerations that have been identified include:
  Whether and how to revamp the Conservation Legacy Fund to support conservation
 infrastructure
  How best to shape our changing landscape in the coming years
  Climate change and resiliency
  Basis for a new Tree Ordinance




 Page 32 of 48
 Conservation Board Minutes
 January 6, 2025 - pg. 4


  Green design standards

SG, what comments does the Board have at this time?

DM said we should have some open spaces to be largely natural, not to emphasize public access and
use. ZR noted the robust conversation that needs to be had in figuring that out. Jill Dixon said Kim
Chapman, ecologist, is on the project team. His work will help to balance these needs of conservation
and accessibility across the community. RR to DM, what do you mean by unmanaged? DM, areas that
are not organized for human access. DC, Arms is a great example of an area with spaces for wildlife that
had informal trails. It took active management to modify the trail network and to improve its natural
function. RC, thinks its great and looks forward to seeing some of the connections. Connect more kids
with nature and natural areas in and around their schools. LS, how were location outreach locations
decided? Jill Dixon, the Farmers Market is likely a better way to connect with the community than a
stand-alone event. We’ll have info boards and activities for folks to engage with. Daniel Schmidt asked
about the website. SG replied that its up and running. It will be updated with information as the project
moves ahead. Currently, there’s a way to sign up for project updates and events on the website. Dan
Cahill mentioned an online component for outreach may be worthwhile as well. It worked well for the
Open Space Addendum during Covid. CC, will there be an online survey? Jill Dixon, yes. RR
emphasized the importance of engaging with the Conservation Board. ZR, especially as a draft emerges.

 3. Winooski Valley Park District
 Continued consideration of Conservation Legacy Fund application

Nick Larned overviewed the boardwalk reconstruction project. It involves infrastructure. He’s hoping as
the Open Space Plan changes, then projects like this one can become fundable. He knows of the Nature
Based Climate Solutions grant program. Burlington is one of 8 municipalities within the Park District. In a
way, the subject property (with the boardwalk) is city land. We’ve applied 2 or 3 times for the recreational
trails grants and were denied. Its an expensive project due to its location within a wetland. The area is
high visibility right off Rte. 127 and the bike path with a number of community garden plots nearby.

RR, the original Legacy Fund language is prescriptive and makes consideration of this request
challenging. This application hits on the education and stewardship pieces. There’s not an easy, clear
path forward with the current language. Long term, we would like to develop a framework to enable
funding of conservation infrastructure projects.

DM looks favorably on the application but wants to know how this aligns with the standards. RR said that
the project is not acquisition. Stewardship standards refer to lands conserved with the Legacy Program.
Consideration of a variance may be warranted due to the project’s alignment otherwise with stewardship.
(ZR mentioned that we should really revisit Urban Wilds as part of the Open Space Plan). RR mentioned
thirdly the Legacy Fund’s support of conservation education supported by the Legacy Program. CC, does
it connect to an educational area? Nick Larned said it’s a 300’ long boardwalk through a wetland that is
publicly accessible. CC said its an important access point. DM said he’s uncomfortable with asking for a
variance from the policy standards. He’d rather see a comprehensive reevaluation of the role of the
Legacy Fund. CC, we don’t want to see much infrastructure built in these areas. In this case, an existing
pathway would be repaired. DM said there would still be Conservation Board and Parks Commission
oversight. RR said she’s looking for a motion to bring this application forward with a request for variance
and to continue policy discussion around conservation infrastructure. SG summed up the prior Open
Space Subcommittee discussions that the project does not really fit into the “box” of the current Legacy
Fund standards but also that the Subcommittee felt that it doesn’t’ hurt to ask now, especially in light of
the continuing policy discussions that will take place with the Open Space Plan. ZR said that there is a lot
of activity and educational opportunities at the Homestead right here in Burlington. The project will be
great if we do it now or if we wait ~18 months for the Open Space Plan and possible Legacy Fund
changes.

A MOTION was made by DM and SECONDED by CC:




 Page 33 of 48
 Conservation Board Minutes
 January 6, 2025 - pg. 5


The Conservation Board supports an exception for the Conservation Legacy Fund to fund this particular
project and to proceed to the Parks Commission and the City Council.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried.

Dan Cahill said he’d like to see a resolution from the Conservation Board to support/articulate addressing
the conservation infrastructure concept of this item in the new Open Space Plan. He supported Sharon
Bushor’s suggestion to bring a financial professional into the discussion and evaluation. We are in a city
without a whole lot more land to conserve, but we are seeing progress in conservation education and
seeing a need for conservation infrastructure in the community.

A MOTION was made by RR and SECONDED by ZR:

Conduct a comprehensive review of the Conservation Legacy Fund as it is written with periodic
consultation with a conservation finance advisor to review how to achieve a healthy balance for fund
acquisition and also to support conservation infrastructure and conservation education programs (not
limited to Urban Wilds).

Discussion: DM, what do we want a financial advisor to do? Dan Cahill, to advise on how to support
conservation infrastructure initiatives while also keeping sufficient reserve for acquisition. CC, maybe its
just periodic advice – now and maybe every 5 years from now.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried.

 4. 2025 Board Meeting Schedule
 Review and approve 2025 meeting schedule

A MOTION was made by RR and SECONDED by ZR:

Approve the 2025 meeting schedule as presented.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried.

Adjournment

7:32 PM.




 Page 34 of 48
Penny for Park Community Requests – FY2026
Project Ranking Summary
Total budgeted: $40,000
Total approved: $40,000

Following are short descriptions of each project request with staff notes and recommendations for FY26’s
qualifying Penny for Parks (PFP) project requests in their ranked order. Full PFP Request applications are
attached as an appendix to this report.

1) Burlington American Little League Scorer’s Booth

Application Summary: The Burlington American Little League is requesting funds to purchase materials
to construct a scorer’s booth for the middle infield at Calahan Park.

Estimated Project cost: $7,000 (requester’s estimate)

Staff Notes: The Little League approached staff requesting permission to construct the scorer’s booth
last year. Staff approved of the project and provided support with filing local permits, while the Little
League was planning to fundraise for materials and provide the labor for construction.

The requester noted in this year’s application that their fundraising efforts have come up short and they
are hoping PFP funding can close the gap. Staff overall support the request, but have asked for clarity on
whether the Little League has matching funding and for an updated cost estimate to ensure that there is
adequate funding to ensure the scorer’s booth can indeed be constructed in the coming spring.

Staff recommend allocating up to an additional $1,000 in funding, in anticipation that the updated cost
estimate will be higher than when first estimated a year ago.

Recommendation: If confirmation of match funds and the updated cost estimate verify that the
project can successfully be completed, award up to $8,000 for purchase of materials to support the
construction of the scorer’s booth.

2) Soccer Goals at Appletree Park

Application Summary: Two separate requesters submitted requests to put nets on existing soccer goals
at Appletree Park.

Estimated Project cost: $350 (staff estimate)

Staff Notes: BPRW Staff looked into the condition of the existing goals at Appletree Park following these
requests and determined that the existing frames were in too poor of condition to repair. The goals
have been temporarily removed while staff worked on identifying whether additional goals need to be
purchased or if there are existing goal frames in storage that can be repurposed.

 1 of 3


 Page 35 of 48
Two 10-foot-wide goal frames have been located by staff, but need replacement nets.

Recommendation: Allocate $350 for this request for the purchase of new nets. Goals will be placed in
the park as soon as the new nets are received and installed.

3) Light the Tennis Courts at Calahan Park

Application Summary: Request for adding lighting at the Calahan Park Tennis Courts. The requester
notes that they and multiple park visitors use the tennis courts for playing pickleball or tennis, but that
during the shoulder season’s there isn’t adequate lighting to play into the early evening. An additional
request was received for general lighting of Calahan Park.

Estimated Project cost: $100,000 (staff estimate sourced from engineer’s cost estimate for Calahan
Courts design)

Staff Notes: Lighting of the tennis courts is a project that was identified as part of the 2022 Calahan Park
Comprehensive Plan and is currently in preliminary stages of design as part of the Calahan Park Courts
and Stormwater project. We notified the requester that this design process is currently underway and
that the estimated cost of lighting the tennis courts was well above the available PFP Community
Request funding made available.

Despite this request being over the budget for Community Requests, staff think this request could serve
to support the larger project. The current estimated cost for the entirety of the courts and stormwater
project is above the currently available funding, so staff are currently working on reprioritization of
available capital funds to support the reconstruction of only the tennis courts. We are also exploring
creative ways to bring down the cost of lighting using in-house labor for wiring, and pole and fixture
installation, similar to the approach that was used to install the lighting at the Leddy Park Tennis Courts.

The only remaining concern from staff is that as the courts in Calahan have not historically been lit. As
such, staff will integrate outreach with adjacent neighbors to ensure there’s a workable path forward
regarding the time and duration that the lighting would be on.

Recommendation: If community outreach supports adding lighting to the tennis courts, allocate
$32,650 of funding toward the project.




 2 of 4


 Page 36 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 10:32 AM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 5/12/2025

 Name Renee Lauber

 Address 46 Appletree Point Rd.

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05408

 Phone Number 802-373-8072

 Email Address renee_lauber@hotmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer Field not completed.
 Group (if applicable)

 Project Name Soccer nets for Appletree Park

 Park Location Appletree Park


 1


 Page 37 of 48
Cost Estimate (if known) a few hundred dollars or so (a guess)

Project Desciption The soccer goals at Appletree Park have no nets. The nets
 have been missing for years. When families or teams practice,
 they need to bring their own nets. It seems to be such a shame
 to have perfectly good goals sitting on the side of the field like
 trash, with no nets on them. The field would be so much more
 useful with functional nets.

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 38 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:15 AM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 4/21/2025

 Name Robert Sand

 Address 216 Lake Street

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05401

 Phone Number 8025856633

 Email Address rsandvt@gmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer Field not completed.
 Group (if applicable)

 Project Name Trash

 Park Location North End of Waterfront Park


 1


 Page 39 of 48
Cost Estimate (if known) ?

Project Desciption The idea is to put trash bins at the north end of waterfront park.
 There is a great deal of foot and bike traffic on Depot Street
 and a bin would meet their needs. Also, maybe we dont need
 two dumpsters by the dog park.

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 40 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 8:25 AM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 9/26/2025

 Name Nancy Stetson

 Address 88 Locust St

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05401

 Phone Number 8029894140

 Email Address ngstets@gmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer City of Burlington
 Group (if applicable)

 Project Name Calahan Tennis Court Lights

 Park Location Calahan Park


 1


 Page 41 of 48
Cost Estimate (if known) Field not completed.

Project Desciption Hi Max! Over the past few months my friends and I have
 started playing pickleball at Calahan Park. None of us had
 played much, if at all, before, but it's proven to be a great way
 to get together and create community. As weeks have gone by
 we've added friends and now have a solid little league going.
 However! It is almost October. We have to play after work, and
 the hours between work and dark are quickly disappearing.
 Last week we played until we couldn't see the ball well, but that
 point will come earlier and earlier. It seems like it would be
 possible to play even into the winter, if it's not too snowy or wet,
 but the dark will make it impossible to play in the afternoons.

 So with all that said, we are requesting that the Parks
 Department install lights at the tennis courts so that we, and
 the many other neighbors that play both pickleball and tennis,
 can continue to get together into the fall and winter to play.
 Even as climate change continues to make our winters more
 mild, we will always have limited daylight in the late fall. More
 lights in our parks could help counter the isolating and
 depressing early dark of November and December.

 I do not know how much this would cost, but I do think it is
 possible that we could raise some funds for the project both
 ourselves and from other interested neighbors.

 Thanks for considering!

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 42 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:00 AM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 5/9/2025

 Name William Tobey Horn

 Address 58 Nottingham Lane

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05408

 Phone Number 8024978807

 Email Address Tobeyhorn@gmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer Field not completed.
 Group (if applicable)

 Project Name Soccer Goals at Appletree Park

 Park Location Appletree Park


 1


 Page 43 of 48
Cost Estimate (if known) Field not completed.

Project Desciption I would like to see soccer goals with nets at Appletree Park.

 Currently, there is only some frames but no nets.

 Lots of kids around here would love it!

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 44 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 12:59 PM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission

Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 11/6/2025

 Name Krissy Kuhlmann

 Address 88 Linden Ter

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05401

 Phone Number 3153913279

 Email Address krissy.u.kuhlmann@gmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer Field not completed.
 Group (if applicable)



 1


 Page 45 of 48
Project Name Light up the park!

Park Location Calahan Park

Cost Estimate (if known) unknown

Project Desciption This is such a beautiful park that brings so many people in our
 neighborhood together. As soon as the weather turns and
 daylight savings happens, the park is pretty empty after 5pm. It
 would be great to setup lights over the tennis courts, basketball
 courts and playground to continue the vibrancy into the darker,
 colder months. The prohibiting factor for me to take my children
 to the park after dinner is the lack of proper lighting. Happy to
 do some fundraising across the my neighborhood and the 5
 sisters, I know of many supporters who I've talked to.

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 46 of 48
Max Madalinski

From: noreply@civicplus.com
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:07 PM
To: Max Madalinski
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Penny For Parks Submission

Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed


[ WARNING ]: This email was sent from someone outside of the City of Burlington.


 Penny For Parks Submission

 Submit Your Ideas

 As always, thanks for your parks project suggestions - keep 'em coming! So, if you
 have an idea, please let us know.

 Just complete the online form below (or use the PFP Project Request Form [PDF]).

 Submissions for projects are accepted on a rolling basis. We will review
 submissions in October and may add your ideas to the following year's project
 plans!

 If you have any questions, please email our Parks Project Coordinator, Max
 Madalinski.


 Date 11/3/2025

 Name Nate Yager

 Address 129 Spruce Street

 City Burlington

 State VT

 Zip Code 05401

 Phone Number 8028256545

 Email Address nyager@hotmail.com

 Organization / Volunteer Field not completed.
 Group (if applicable)



 1


 Page 47 of 48
Project Name BA Scorers Booth

Park Location Callahan Park

Cost Estimate (if known) 7,000

Project Desciption Hi Max,
 As you know we have a permit to build a scorer's booth at
 Callahan. We just had a board meeting. Everyone is very eager
 to help build the booth (we have qualified contractors lined up)
 but our fund raising for materials has fallen short. We would
 love to request penny for parks funds for the materials. The
 permit has an estimated cost of 7k but we have not priced a
 detailed materials list for a while. I can certainly provide an
 updated cost.
 We have a verbal commitment from Rice Lumber for a discount
 on materials. Dave Wark from DW Construction is assisting us
 with the project.
 Please let me know if you have any questions.
 Thank you for your consideration!
 Burlington American Little League

File Upload Field not completed.


 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.




 2


 Page 48 of 48

Parks Commission Meeting

February 10th, 2026 @ 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



Commissioners in Attendance: Lantieri, Boehm, Mobley, Etter, Johnson, Davis & Bergmann

Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Sauve, Cahill, Madalinski, O’Daniel

Public in Attendance: Tim Larned, Delia Horn



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:30pm and asked for a motion to amend or adopt the
 agenda.
 Boehm made a motion to adopt the agenda, Mobley seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 January Meeting Minutes
 2.2 Roosevelt Park Special Use Permit Request
 2.3 Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request
 Mobley made a motion to approve all items on the consent agenda, Boehm seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.
 3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 The public forum was opened at 6pm.
 Delia Horn was in attendance to encourage commissioners to approve a Penny for Parks
 request for new soccer goals and nets at Appletree Park. She noted that their original
 request was just for new nets, but that the existing frames were deemed unusable by
 Parks staff. She continued that there are many children in the neighborhood who use
 the park consistently and new goals and nets would get a lot of wonderful use there.
 The public forum was closed at 6:04pm.
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Chris DiStasi, from Interface Studio, introduced himself and then began sharing screen.
 He explained that he and his team were brought on to support the Plan BTV 2050
 process and gave an overview of the various pieces of the larger municipal plan and 3
 sub-plans that fit within it – BPRW, Economic Development and Transportation. He
 shared that built into each of these plans will be a scenario planning exercise, which will
 show how Burlington could develop over time depending on different variables. DiStasi
 continued that the municipal plan has a one year timeline so it needs to be done by
 December of this year, but the BPRW and 2 other smaller plans are a little more flexible.
 He then introduced his firm and colleagues and gave an overview of who they are and
shared that a big piece of their work in other communities has been looking at park
system investments over time with hard data on where spending is going to, which has
led to equitable, data-driven decision making processes to systematize how park
systems are making investment decisions to make sure they are living up to the goals
and values at their core. He continued that they also focus on telling the story of the
impact of parks and rec systems on the cities that they are located in, such as fun and
recreation, education and enrichment, health and wellness, community building,
ecological and climate functions, economic development, tourism and employment,
property values and more – demonstrating that parks and rec have broad and
tremendous impacts on their cities and are an essential public service in many ways,
worthy of adequate investment. DiStasi continued by sharing that public engagement is
at the core of their work and will be a big part of their process. He noted that they
would be using past and existing documents that have already been created to do this
work, so they won’t be starting from scratch, but their role will be to take what
information has already been gathered and continue to work with City staff to get to a
visioning point where residents are being engaged to talk about the vision for the future
of the Department and the City, and then building the strategies to help achieve those
goals. DiStasi then touched on key topics of focus, including the types and amount of
parkland, amenities and recreational facilities, recreational programming, activities and
events, maintenance, design and place making, accessibility, climate resilience, revenue
generation, the Waterfront and supporting staff and community stewards. He continued
by sharing a preliminary schedule, noting that this week is full of on-site meetings which
the team will be building on for a first round of public engagement most likely in late
April. He noted that there will be a statistically valid city-wide survey that will ensure a
sample representative of residents as well as a public survey. He continued that there
will be second and third rounds of public engagement throughout the rest of 2026.
DiStasi then opened it up for questions and discussion, reiterating that he and the team
are there to listen and learn right now, wanting to hear from people what is special and
important as well as what are some elements that need attention and what are
priorities for people and decision making bodies.
Mobley noted that personally, she spends a lot of time at the Leddy Arena, sharing her
hope that it gets included and considered in this process.
DiStasi answered that they will be visiting that site tomorrow and that rec facilities are
going to be an important part of this to receive attention.
Etter asked if the Department knows what facilities and programs are running at
capacity currently.
Lewis answered that the internal system the Department uses has the capabilities to
track that and that there have already been some discussions with the consultants
about focusing in on an overview of recreation in particular, specifically what has
happened in the last year after the cuts with the hopes of re-setting the stage and
looking towards how to move forward. He noted that the 2015 plan had a goal of
opening more recreation facilities and unfortunately through the budget process in
2025, one was closed. He continued by sharing that right-sizing community expectations
 and resources to make sure we’re providing opportunities for recreation as much as is
 feasible, will be a goal throughout this process.
 DiStasi noted that while growing and expanding resources is great when possible, but
 they’re looking through the lens of long-term planning and prioritization across projects
 and weighing the trade-offs of different kinds of investment by looking at user and
 programming data to help step back and ask where things fall on the long-term list of
 priorities and how far down the list can we get.
 Etter noted the importance of Lake Champlain.
 Mobley asked them to keep the data for underserved communities that they might not
 be capturing in mind.
 DiStasi answered that the hope is that the survey will help mitigate this concern.
 Lantieri suggested that the consultants visit the Sea Caves at Arthur Park, noting that
 there is support from staff as well as community engagement. He continued by
 suggesting that they visit the Leddy Park Bike Park as well, which has heavily involved a
 community group. He wanted to highlight these two locations because there is
 community engagement that is valuable, but not monetary, so may not show up in a
 budget, but having these resources creates additional value. Lantieri feels that there is a
 strong culture for that in Burlington, but also more opportunity for growth in this area.
4.2 Conservation Legacy Fund Nature Based Solutions Grant Recommended Awardee
 Slate
 Cahill opened by sharing that this is the 3rd year that this program has been active and
 that it has been a fun and collaborative process. He continued that this is one of the key
 ways that the community and organizations who are doing great work for the
 environment and climate adaptation are engaged and their work is empowered. Cahill
 continued by thanking Davis and Mobley for being such a fun, engaging and thorough
 members of the review group. He then shared screen to show the scoring and opened it
 up for questions.
 Lantieri asked about Vermont Garden Network being awarded their full requested
 amount even though their score was slightly lower than VYCC, who was not awarded
 any funding.
 Cahill answered that VYCC did not identify a specific project in their application, but all
 of the other applicants did, which was the biggest deterrent.
 Mobley chimed in that it was also written as an all or nothing option.
 Cahill noted that he has been in touch with VYCC since they received the news, which
 included a discussion and plan for how to build a better competitive ask in the future as
 well as how we can continue to collaborate this season despite this.
 There were no other questions or comments.
 Davis made a motion to move the slate forward. Etter seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.
4.3 Wetland Walk Legacy Request
 Cahill opened by sharing that there are 3 pockets of the Conservation Legacy Fund – one
 has historically been understood as the acquisition part of the fund (40%), the Nature
 Based Climate Solutions Grand part of the fund (30%) and the Stewardship part of the
 fund (30%). Cahill continued that there have been a variety of requests that have come
through for infrastructure projects related to the long-term protection of Burlington’s
natural areas, but there hasn’t been a clear way to support these requests or if it’s an
appropriate use of the fund. He shared that recently, the City Attorney identified that
conservation infrastructure relates to the long-term protection of our City’s natural
areas and that it is an acceptable use of the fund. The Conservation Board received this
request before this new determination, and still supported it as an exception, based on
the fund balance and that they felt it was a vital resource for the community.
Tim Larned, from the Winooski Valley Park District, introduced himself and shared that
he’s excited at the prospect of this project fitting into the Legacy Fund. He continued
that the original boardwalk was installed in 1992 and was heavily used, noting that the
park is free for anyone to visit and use. Larned shared that frost heaves have made a big
impact on the old boardwalk, noting that a new design would use helical piers instead of
the original galvanized posts, which would cut down on the annual labor that has been
required. He shared that the current design is 4ft wide, but they’re hoping to expand it
to 5ft to make it more accessible and comfortable for users. Larned continued by
sharing that they have applied for grants to address this project over the years and
would score relatively well but not be awarded the funding. He feels though that this
would be a big asset for the community. Larned noted that while the amount that
they’re requesting is on the higher side, it would allow for them to complete the entire
project at once, instead of piecemeal, which would be less expensive and more efficient
in the long run.
Davis asked what “helical piers” are and what naturally rot-resistant materials would be.
Larned answered that they are posts that get twisted into the ground until you hit a
certain pressure in the wetland, which creates less disturbance in the wetland overall
and reduces the impact of frost heaves. He continued that they would use rot resistant
wood, like black locust or white oak and ideally locally sourced.
Etter asked if any projects were turned down in order to fund this.
Lantieri followed up asking if this would have any long-term impacts on the fund.
Cahill answered that there aren’t any other applications currently, but there is a
prospective property list that is kept in regard to potential acquisitions, so there is
always the potential for a land deal to pop up that could impact the overall health of the
fund. He continued that to fully answer the question, it might be helpful to look at the
overall balance of the fund, which they could come back to the Commission with next
month if they want to put a hold on this as an action item for now.
Etter asked, given the amount and fund management, would this impede awarding
other requests? And for what length of time?
Cahill answered that this is a great questions and gets at the heart of the dialogue of
how to be good stewards of the Legacy Fund, especially with the new finding that this
can be used for infrastructure. He continued that this request shows the importance of
the flexibility of the fund to come to the aid of moments like these and shared that the
spirit of the Conservation Board’s discussion about this has been to keep this as an ad
hoc process, application by application, and that it will require a discussion around
balance and keeping track of prospective properties and then making real-time
decisions about whether it feels like a viable thing to do at that time.
 Etter asked if he could share what percent of the fund this request would be.
 Cahill answered that this would be roughly 10%.
 Boehm asked for Cahill to reiterate how the fund is split up.
 Cahill answered that the fund accrues $230,000 a year and 30% goes into stewardship,
 which pays part of his and the Conservation Field Coordinator’s salary which supports
 the administrative aspects of the fund, 30% goes to grant awardees, and 40% goes
 towards acquisition and infrastructure.
 Etter noted that means that it would take about 3 years to recover the cost of this
 project. He then asked if they get this type of request on that general timeline.
 Cahill answered that this was the first of its kind, which precipitated the discussion and
 debate and review by the City Attorney, but that the amount is on par with larger
 disbursements that have occurred, such as Rock Point, the Rivers End Marina project
 and the conservation of Kieslich Park.
 Mobley asked if partial funding of this would be possible.
 Cahill answered that awardees are paid out over time as the work is completed and
 acknowledged that he appreciated this kind of creative thinking, but that as Larned
 noted, it would be beneficial to complete the project all at once.
 Etter asked when they would need to know the decision by.
 Larned answered that it would most likely be a winter project. He then touched on
 phases and how that would impede efficiency of the work and therefore the funds, but
 that there might a potential for other grants/organizations to kick in money if they know
 that a large chunk of the funding would be covered by this.
 Davis asked why this work would be better to do in the winter.
 Larned answered that access would be easier for the contractor and there would be less
 of an impact on the wetland.
 The general consensus was for the Commission to take this month to consider this
 request and come back next month to make a decision.
 Etter asked for a history of the use of the fund and trends over time of incremental
 funding and disbursements for them to consider.
4.4 Penny for Parks – Community Requests
 Madalinski opened by introducing himself and explained that the Penny for Parks fund is
 a dedicated tax fund that funds capital projects in parks, which is $40,000 annually, and
 is a way for the community to provide project suggestions to the Department. He
 shared that requests can be as simple as new soccer goals in a park to complex requests
 that can’t necessarily be completed, like a water park partially in the lake, and that the
 fund is set up so the smaller requests can be funded almost immediately, while still
 seeing some of those bigger requests through, like the universally accessible playground
 at Oakledge or the bike park at Leddy. He continued by sharing that there was a very
 low submission rate this year, with a total of 5 requests, and he’s not sure why.
 Madalinski began by sharing the submissions, starting with the one request that wasn’t
 awarded – more trash receptacles at the north end of Waterfront Park, the reason being
 that Roach had already been in touch with this individual and was working to make this
 happen from other funding sources. Madalinski continued by reviewing the 3 requests
 that were awarded, beginning with the Burlington American Little League Scorer’s Booth
at Calahan Park. He shared that this was an outstanding project from last season and
that the Little League has a design from a local contractor to build. This project initially
began by the little league asking for help with getting permits, but their funding has
fallen short and they estimated needing another $7,000 to complete the project, so the
Department is recommending allocating up to $8,000 in support of the project. He
noted that they have an ample amount of people who are willing to provide volunteer
labor, including the contractor. Next, Madalinski touched on soccer goals at Appletree
Park request, and thanked Delia Horn for attending in support of this. He continued that
Parks staff deemed the existing goals there to be too damaged to put new nets on, but
they identified another set of goal frames out and are recommending allocating $350 to
purchase new nets for those. Madalinski continued by reviewing the last request –
lighting the tennis courts at Calahan Park as well as generally increasing the lighting at
that park. He shared that the Department is currently in design with an engineer looking
at the park’s comprehensive plan to replace the basketball courts, tennis courts and
build a storm water feature, but they weren’t awarded the Land Water Conservation
Fund grant money they had applied for to complete the work, so they have been looking
to peel it back and potentially just re-do the tennis courts at this time. The estimate for
the lighting piece of this is roughly $100,000, so they are thinking that they could
reallocate remaining Penny for Parks funds that have come from this request towards
this project, as well as looking at how they can reduce the cost by doing some of the
work internally instead of by an external contractor. He shared that going about the
lighting installation this way, the cost would be closer to $22,500, mostly for the
materials, so the recommendation is to allocate $31,650 towards this project. He noted
that this is assuming they can get all of the capital dollars they need to move the overall
reconstruction of the tennis courts forward.
Boehm was glad to hear that the soccer goals at Appletree Park had made the list. She
continued by asking if there has been any cross promotion with schools to get the word
out for Penny for Parks, suggesting that might be a new avenue to consider.
Davis suggested going to NPAs with Penny for Parks information.
Sauve shared that they have done NPA tours in the past, but it would be a good thing to
do again, and it could go hand-in-hand with the comprehensive plan outreach that will
be happening soon.
Mobley shared that she has applied in the past, and a sign in a park is what got her
attention to apply. She continued by suggesting that when the new nets are up, to get
pictures of them being used to promote Penny for Parks.
Madalinski shared that he’s been talking with the Department’s Marketing and
Communications Manager about doing videos to plug Penny for Parks.
Lantieri asked if they had considered looking back at past applications from more
competitive years that could be potentially viable now.
Madalinski shared that most that haven’t been awarded were because they were too
expensive, which all go into the broader capital planning list.
With no other questions, Boehm made a motion to approve the slate of Penny for Parks
requests. Mobley seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 4.5 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 Lewis opened by briefly reviewing the last meeting’s discussion on section 7, specifically
 noting that there were some additional questions around parking in Calahan Park and
 parks in general. He shared that after those conversations began within the
 Department, they connected with the City Attorneys and in further conversations
 amongst them, it was discovered that there is also currently a parking ordinance going
 through the Ordinance Committee, which will need to have language inserted into
 section 5 the park ordinances. He continued that in order to bring all of that together,
 they need more time and are hopeful to bring this back to the Commission in March,
 but will keep everyone posted.
 Mobley asked who has prioritization in cases like this – the Department and the
 Department’s external body or the Ordinance Committee.
 Lewis answered that he was not positive, but that the Ordinance Committee is a sub-
 committee of City Council, who would ultimately need to approve any changes. He
 continued that if there are concerns from this body after reviewing the language
 though, that it should be voiced and that there would most likely be an opportunity to
 redirect if there are contradictions to how they want to see vehicles react in our Parks.
 Boehm noted that while moving this forward would be great, there isn’t necessarily a
 rush from the Commission’s end.
 Lewis responded thanking her, but also that he wants to strike while the iron is still hot,
 so to speak.
 4.6 Budget FY27 Process Update
 Lewis shared that BPRW is still working closely with DFA and the Mayor’s office around
 how to appropriately make adjustments to the budget and work with the directives that
 have been given. He noted that City Council approved going to the voters for the police
 and fire tax on Town Meeting Day and that the Mayor and CAO have been attending
 NPA meetings to inform the community on what it would mean if it passed or not and
 the importance of maintaining public safety as the City is going through obvious budget
 challenges. He shared that knowing the outcome of the vote will inform how we
 continue to move the budget conversations forward, and that the next definite update
 will most likely be in April.
 Lantieri was curious if it was possible to capture the value that is created by volunteers
 for the Department amidst all of these budgeting conversations and scenarios.
 Lewis was not sure but said he would look into whether or not this is something that is
 currently being tracked.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri did not have any updates to share on this item.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis referenced the monthly report that Commissioners received, specifically noting all
 of the moving parts with the cold weather emergency shelter operations and that has
 been stretching staff. He shared that 24 Parks staff have been directly impacted by this,
 and there have been ongoing conversations about how to best support the needs of all
 community members, both in safety and health related aspects, but also the
 recreational needs, noting that it is a balance. He also gave kudos to Parks staff who
 have been out in the weather making sure that we have a safe and accessible City and
 assets across the system. Lewis also noted that Recreation’s summer camp programs
 have gone live, garden registrations have opened and shelter reservations will be
 opening soon.
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Lantieri shared that he visited the Sea Caves and recommended others check it out. He
 had 1 volunteer hour to report.
 Boehm had 1 volunteer hour to report and that she and her family have been spending
 a lot of time skating at Lakeview Park.
 Davis had 1 volunteer hour to report and recently took a walk down to the Urban
 Reserve.
 Johnson didn’t have any hours to report. He noted that he will not be available for the
 next meeting.
 Mobley has also visited both the Sea Caves and Lakeview for outdoor skating. She also
 shared that she spends a lot of time at Leddy and wanted to shout out the staff there.
 She didn’t have any volunteer hours to report.
 Etter and Bergmann left before this portion of the meeting.
6. Adjournment
 6.1 Motion to Adjourn
 Boehm made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Johnson seconded. All were in favor,
 none opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:24pm.