Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-06-09
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via
 Zoom

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom

Please click the link to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96229685484
Or one tap mobile: +13052241968
Webinar ID: 962 2968 5484



1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. May Meeting Minutes
 Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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. Plan BTV NNE Plan
 Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
 Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type Discussion
Subject 4.2. Tree Ordinance Update
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


Type Discussion


Subject 4.3. Auer Property Acquisition
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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. Grow Wild Demonstration Project Presentation
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.5. FY27 Budget Process
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.6. Comprehensive Plan Update
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.7. Urban Reserve
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via
 Zoom

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom

Please click the link to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96229685484
Or one tap mobile: +13052241968
Webinar ID: 962 2968 5484



1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. May Meeting Minutes
 Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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. Plan BTV NNE Plan
 Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
 Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type Discussion




 Page 1 of 69
Subject 4.2. Tree Ordinance Update
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


Type Discussion


Subject 4.3. Auer Property Acquisition
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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. Grow Wild Demonstration Project Presentation
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.5. FY27 Budget Process
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.6. Comprehensive Plan Update
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 4.7. Urban Reserve
Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 St., Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront



 Page 2 of 69
  Type Information



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 June 9, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, June 9, 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 3 of 69
Page 4 of 69
Parks Commission Meeting

May 12th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



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

Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Sauve, Cahill, Cotton & O’Daniel




 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 The meeting began at 5:33pm. Mobley made a motion to adopt the agenda, Etter
 seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 April Minutes
 2.2 Calahan Park Special Use Permit (CKS)
 Etter made a motion to adopt the consent agenda, Bergmann seconded. All were in
 favor, none opposed.
 3. Public Forum – Time Certain, 6pm
 The public forum was opened late and no one was present at the time, but one member
 of the public sent a message via Zoom in regards to the e-bike/motobike discussion that
 read: “An e-bike can be pedaled under rider power and I think those should still be
 allowed wherever normal bicycles are allowed. Completely different are electric
 motorcycles which cannot be pedaled and those should have some amount of
 enforcement as they need to be licensed, insured, and registered. I feel that it would be
 a misstep to limit e-bikes. Motobikes should be forbidden and enforced.”
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Coach of the Year
 Sauve shared a video compilation of the volunteer coach of the year, Carmen Smith. She
 then read the congratulatory write-up about why she was picked as the coach of the
 year as well as community testimony for how dedicated to and important she is for
 youth basketball.
 4.2 Skirack Bike Rentals
 Lewis began by sharing that in the Spring of 2025 the Commission approved the use of a
 city right-of-way just north of Echo for Skirack to host a bike rental operation. He
 continued that the typical rate charged for this type of operation is 10% of gross sales by
 the vendor, but due to the impacts of the city construction in the downtown core, they
 were granted a reduced rate of %5 and are requesting this again for 2026 due to the
 continued impacts of the city construction. Lewis shared that this was and continues to
 be supported by Public Works. He then shared his screen to show where this kiosk
 would be set up if approved.




 Page 5 of 69
 Lantieri asked if Burlington Segway still had a presence.
 Lewis answered yes and that they are in the 2nd year of a 3 year RFP agreement.
 Etter asked if they were at 10% or 5%.
 Lewis answered 10%.
 Etter made a motion to approve the request for Skirack to operate a bike rental kiosk in
 the College Street right away at a 5% gross sales rate for the 2026 operational season,
 Mobley seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.
4.3 FY27 Budget Process
 Lewis began by sharing his screen. He noted that this FY27 proposed budget
 presentation was made to Board of Finance last week and is currently under
 consideration by the City Council. He continued that they are anticipated to have a
 conversation at the June 15th City Council meeting, so over the next month or so they
 will be looking at all of the individual budgets as presented in preparation for further
 conversations about the approved budget, which needs to be adopted by June 30th.
 Lewis continued by noting that this document was put together with staff at all levels
 working in collaboration with people in finance and under the leadership of the Mayor.
 He specifically recognized the 3 division directors, Sauve, Roach and Moreau, who he
 shared worked diligently with the managers and their staff to make sure they looked at
 this collaboratively to move forward in the best way possible. Lewis began the
 presentation by sharing the organizational structure and chart of the current
 Department, noting that there was a small reorganization in April as a follow-up to the
 RIF process last year to align resources in a way to have as supportive of a structure in
 place as possible. He continued that there will be 2 Recreation Managers who will
 report directly to him – noting that one position is currently vacant, but will hopefully be
 filled soon. Each manager will oversee a facility, which will involve rentals, athletics,
 camps, recreation programs for all ages and abilities, as well as working closely with BSD
 and partners.
 Mobley asked for clarification about the vacant positions in the Recreation Division.
 Lewis confirmed that they will be filled, and all of them are currently in process. He
 shared that they will have 9 dedicated positions, 4 of which have been vacant, which has
 been very challenging for the people who have remained through this transition. He
 continued by explaining the structure of the Waterfront Division and the Planning &
 Development Division. Lewis then reviewed the Parks & Central Facilities Division, which
 is the largest division in the Department. He then shared some FY26 highlights, including
 – a successful July 3rd event, operating summer seasonal programs at capacity, reaching
 10k followers on Instagram with that number continuing to increase, the opening of the
 Burlington Bike Park, the new Director was hired, the adoption of the Burlington Open
 Space Plan, emergency cold weather shelter dates at the Miller Center with a total of
 239 individuals and 773 beds used over the 12 nights it was activated, the re-assignment
 of staff reporting structures, expanded the vendor permit program along the waterfront
 and aligned tasks to reflect work distribution and finalized the org chart. He then shared
 some cost saving measures for FY27 including – holding a custodian position open,
 which will impact services by 12% and they are currently working to try and identify




 Page 6 of 69
ways to lessen this impact, and the reduction of part-time/seasonal staff at Oakledge
Park, which will reduce staffing coverage from 7 days a week to 4, so they are working
to cover this gap in other ways.
Etter asked if only Oakledge was going to see a reduction in staff.
Lewis answered that it is the only park that has really had that kind of staffing presence,
so yes.
Etter asked if this impacts people’s ability to reserve things.
Lewis answered no, the spaces will still be prepped for rentals and they are working to
fill the gaps.
Lewis continued that the Department-wide service reduction, which will be
approximately a 7% reduction and will result in about a $271k savings, will involve
tightening belts across the board when it comes to materials, supplies and contractual
services, reduction of staff training and recreation program scholarships (4%, $1,500),
reduction of internally produced events, elimination of annual flower planting and
landscape bed maintenance at all parks (excluding City Hall Park), the reduction of
watering and turf materials such as grass seed and fertilizer and the reduction of facility
reinvestment projects across all divisions (limiting the ability to repair and replace
public-facing infrastructure).
Etter asked about increasing BPD’s enforcement in parks to reduce damage and
vandalism to facilities etc.
Lewis answered that they are challenged with resourcing their core service areas and
will most likely just be responding to events that are safety related, not adding patrols
to parks in. He shared that the Department does work closely with them if we are
noticing something that is regularly occurring to make them aware and increase their
presence as they have resources available and vandalism is not something that typically
rises to the top.
Etter followed up by asking if there was anything internally with Parks that was being
done to address the vandalism.
Lewis responded that the more you allow vandalism to set the more prevalent it tends
to be, so the Department is really trying to get on top of it at the beginning of the
season.
Mobley noted that there used to be a program through CEDO where UVM students
would volunteer to remove graffiti.
Lantieri chimed in that he did not believe CEDO, or any other City Departments, are
operating any volunteer programs like that anymore.
Lewis responded that with the reductions to staffing and budgets over the past few
years that the focus has been on keeping the core business moving forward.
Lewis continued by sharing the FY26 amended revenues and expenses and the FY27
proposed revenues and expenses, noting that revenues have gone down 5.6%, which is
an adjustment based on the CORE closing and right sizing some revenue predictions. He
also noted that expenses have gone up 3.4%, which is tied to increased utilities as well
as salaries, wages and benefits. He reiterated that the Department is proposing a 7%
general fund reduction based on the current fiscal year subsidy, but there will be a net
increase in general funds this next year based off right sizing revenues and looking at




 Page 7 of 69
 expenses that are required in order to do business. Lewis then shared opportunities
 moving forward, including how the new organizational structure will help stabilize and
 strengthen the Department’s collaborative and supportive culture and the revision of
 BPRW’s comprehensive plan, creating a community supported vision for the next
 decade, which will be a critical roadmap for the Department. He then shared that some
 areas of concern are the continued loss of Canadian tourism and the impacts of
 encampments on staff resources, capital assets and revenue. Lewis then shared three
 more opportunities moving forward, including the full activation of Waterfront Park for
 events, the new Leddy Arena Manager and after a time of challenges and transitions the
 Recreation Division is going to be set up to be successful moving forward with a full
 team working with the resources available to maximize opportunities for the
 community. Lewis then summarized that the Department will continue to provide a high
 level of service to the community within the allocated resources, there will be a lack of
 resources for repair and replacement of park and facility infrastructure and the
 Department will continue to identify grand opportunities.
 Etter asked what the expectation across all of the Departments will be.
 Lewis answered that all of the Departments were challenged by the Mayor to reduce
 budgets by 10%, with some of them being a little higher and some a little lower. He
 shared that they struggled to get closer to that 10% given the reductions that happened
 last year and told them the 7% was as close as they could get while still being
 operational in the way the community expects. He felt this was acknowledged.
 Lantieri asked if there was a chance this proposal would not be approved.
 Lewis responded that he hoped not, and feels there has been full transparency on all
 fronts throughout this process.
 Etter asked if the reductions do need to be increased if there was a plan.
 Lewis answered no, but that if there are any further reductions required beyond what
 has already been identified it would most likely either be closing facilities or cutting
 positions, but the City’s focus has been to not cut people as much as possible. He’s
 hopeful that this is the last piece and will be approved by City Council.
 Lantieri asked if there were any updates about charging for services between City
 Departments.
 Lewis answered no and that this would most likely be more of a longer term
 conversation since it would involve a lot of balancing and gray areas.
 Lantieri feels it could be a potential opportunity to review transfers between
 departments and see the flow in and out, and maybe define some of the activities that
 could be revenue generating (or at least neutral).
 Lantieri asked if there is anything with volunteers being included, such as in-kind
 donations.
 Lewis responded that while volunteer work is a generally recognized value in the
 volunteer work hour as a national standard, the Department is challenged with not
 enough administrative support to track or support this at this time.


4.4 Comprehensive Plan Update




 Page 8 of 69
Sauve began by giving an overview of the open house on April 30th, which was a great
success with 14 stations for the public to interact with, and a constant flow of people
from 3:30pm – after 8pm. She then went through the slide show that was playing
throughout the event, starting with the logo which represents the 4 coordinated plans
that will guide how Burlington evolves and adapts over the next 25 years – the
municipal plan, a transportation plan, a comprehensive economic development plan
and a Parks, Rec and Waterfront plan. Sauve then touched on the timeline for these
plans over the next year, noting that there’s still visioning and engagement that will be
happening, like dedicating time to certain focus groups, recognizing that there was a
certain demographic at the open house and some voices were missing which is who
they want to target for opportunities moving forward. She shared that the Planning
team will have 2 interns this summer who will be going out to parks and do intercept
surveys, so working with Parks staff to identify times when people will be in parks and
also just do observations on park usage and collect data. She then shared various data
shared out at the open house, such as who are the residents of Burlington, population
ages, population size, household income, median sale price for homes and rent costs,
what kind of jobs don’t earn enough to live in Burlington, and cost-burdened
households. She noted that new legislation requires Burlington to add roughly 7,000
new units by 2050, which is a big theme throughout PlanBTV. Sauve then briefly
touched on the economic development slides. Next, Sauve went through BPRW’s slides,
with the first few highlighting the different kinds of places the Department stewards and
the range of programs and initiatives it manages, not all of which are obvious or known.
She continued by noting that it has been a decade since BPRW’s last planning process
and touched on some highlights that have happened since then, including – 6 park
comprehensive plans and siting studies, Oakledge Park universally accessible
playground, widened and expanded most of the Burlington Greenway, new department
logo and Marketing Manager, expanded youth athletics programming and major
improvements to various parks. She shared that the biggest question the community is
being asked is what should BPRW’s top priorities be, given that the Department must
balance investments across the top priorities with limited resources and staff to be able
to go into next season’s budget cycle more confident in terms of prioritization. The next
slide Sauve shared touched on the idea that this is the time to reimagine recreational
program offerings, which will allow for the Department to identify where the gaps are
and evaluate that. She continued by noting that it’s not all dire, like the Conservation
team identifying no-mow areas that can become pollinator habitats, which not only
aligns with budget shifts but also has an ecological value, and highlighted the
community stewardship that already exists as well as philanthropic partners like the
Parks Foundation. The next slide noted that looking to the future, BPRW is focused on
equity, accessibility and addressing the impacts of climate change. Sauve then briefly
touched on the mobility plan slides. Next, she shared some slides that gave a quick
overview of the open house statistics, including – that 323 people signed in to the
meeting from all across the City, info about how long people have lived in the
Burlington, why people are drawn to Burlington and whether they plan to stay here long
term or not, answers to questions like “what is your favorite thing to do in Burlington in




 Page 9 of 69
 the winter?”, why people were excited about the different plans, 105 vision statements,
 dream neighborhood designs, roadway designs, special memories in parks,
 root/trunk/leaves comments for BPRW values and about 90 people weighed in on
 economic development questions. Then Sauve shared that 100 surveys were completed
 online as a part of the random sample, 39 surveys were completed at the open house
 and encouraged Commissioners to continue to share the survey out with their
 communities.
4.5 E-Bikes/Motobikes Strategies
 Lantieri opened by sharing that this item is a continuation of previous conversations on
 the topic – and the hope is to get a sense of where this body is in regards to what kind
 of policy and regulation seem like the right fit for the Greenway. He reminded everyone
 that Phillip from DPW came to discuss this topic and shared that they are currently
 doing some deeper work on the specifics about e-bikes and e-motos and he continued
 that Sauve has been in contact with the State’s Forest, Parks & Recreation Department.
 Sauve shared that they oversee the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail and she had inquired to see
 whether or not they’re facing similar challenges, and while they have not, they are very
 interested in the conversation about various challenges that different kinds of e-bikes
 and e-motos bring up. She continued by sharing that the City’s ordinance committee has
 moved forward the edits to chapter 6, which includes the definitions about bicycles, so
 they are recommending it to City Council. She then shared that she will be continuing to
 connect with DPW as well as Local Motion, who is putting out information about e-bikes
 and e-motos.
 Lewis chimed in that the ordinance language has developed through the ordinance
 commission and DPW is currently under review by legal as well as to the types of
 language that is needed for enforcement in addition to acknowledging that
 enforcement is very challenging for this. He continued that the City is looking at
 opportunities to potentially engage with BSD to share messaging about this with
 parents, given that a lot of the people being observed using motobikes/e-motos are
 youth. He noted that this is a challenging topic because enforcement will be difficult and
 different communities are taking different approaches.
 Sauve shared that the ordinance that DPW is putting forward is more about what is
 allowed and less about what is not allowed, but that there’s a catch all in terms of
 riding/operating recklessly. This will give us something to point to, which is a start,
 otherwise enforcement isn’t even an option.
 Cahill noted that a significant portion of the youth seem to be coming from Colchester.
 He continued that he gets calls from community members daily and his staff get
 stopped regularly while working on the Greenway about this topic. He and his staff have
 started tracking the data around maintenance due to this specific usage and in the past
 3 weeks they have filled 80 ruts from Leddy to the Winooski Bridge in addition to
 harassment incidents with members of the public. He continued that while he has been
 in touch with BSD, and they are supportive and have spoken to students about the
 impacts of this, it’s not really BSD’s responsibility and they are advocates for the
 students, which is appreciated.




 Page 10 of 69
Sauve suggested utilizing Local Motion as a partner in this endeavor with their
connection to schools and bike safety within the community.
Etter noted that enforcement may be needed in this case in an effort to avoid someone
negatively impacted by someone going too fast on the Greenway to resolve the issue on
their own through litigation. He continued that a lot of bikers can go 20 or 30mph on a
regular bike, but it’s more experienced bikers doing that who understand how fast
they’re going and the impact that has, compared to inexperienced people on e-bikes
going that fast with pedestrians around.
Mobley share that she feels the “mixed use” piece of how the Greenway is used is a big
part of the issue and that there are sections of the path that she would not walk on
comfortably, specifically that stretch from Leddy to Colchester, because people zoom by
compared to the south end of the path that tends to be quieter and more low key. She
noted that the e-motos that have been referenced are a whole other thing and offered
the idea of having something like random check points as an educational approach to
enforcement.
Cahill brought up the idea of creating a generative place for this kind of use because it is
not going away.
Etter noted the restrictions to ATVs in regards to where they can be ridden and that this
could be a way to frame things.
The group then discussed what role pedals play and how they could be incorporated
into potential speed limits, which led to how do you enforce speed limits and/or bring
awareness to speed.
Mobley suggested putting up those signs that flash when you’re going too fast. She
noted though that she feels the conversational proactive piece of this can be a part of
the process.
Etter felt that including information about what transpires if you hit and injure someone
and what that liability entails would be helpful.
Johnson felt that making the distinction between an e-bike and a manually powered
bike is going to be difficult to enforce.
Lewis shared that the current signage on the Greenway says to share the path, slower
traffic has the right of way, keep right except to pass, use audible warning when passing,
follow trail and traffic signs, maintain a safe speed and slow down through congested
sections.
Mobley circled back for confirmation that the definitions of e-bikes are currently with
the ordinance committee.
The answer was yes.
Sauve noted that if the Department/Commission wanted specifics to park roads, trails
and the Greenway, then this Department/body would need to tackle that.
Cahill wanted to make the Commission aware that the community member who was
involved in the incident that ended up connecting the Department with school staff has
stopped using the Greenway with their children, partially out of fear of their identity
being known, noting that this whole thing is delicate and challenging and the discomfort
and anger is bubbling.




 Page 11 of 69
 Lantieri brought up the idea of utilizing the new bike park and partnering with the Bike
 Park Coalition for messaging to the youth in the community.
 Mobley circled back to the idea of an educational approach as opposed to an
 enforcement approach. The group then discussed potential inroads for this and the
 possibilities of focusing in on parents who are the ones purchasing these e-motos for
 their children.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Sauve shared that they are launching their newest campaign with the Pomeroy
 playground construction, which has begun and there will be 3-4 more weeks of work
 and they are working to establish a celebration date in June.
 Lantieri shared that their next meeting is on June 6th and he has an e-mail out to their
 chair to re-connect.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis referred to the monthly report and specifically noted that they are looking for
 volunteers for Kids Day this coming Saturday. He also noted that the Department is
 gearing up for summer operations!
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Johnson had 3 hours to report for the Book Fair.
 Bergmann did not have any hours to report.
 Mobley had 4 hours to report for the Book Fair and Plan BTV.
 Lantieri had 33 hours to report for the Book Fair, Plan BTV, attending the PACC meeting
 and several shifts cleaning up at the Urban Reserve. He continued by touching on the
 upcoming reappointment process and encouraged his fellow Commissioners to consider
 why they’re here, if they want to be here and that if this doesn’t feel like a good role for
 you that there is no share in stepping back, because seeing where the budget is going,
 there is a need for a strong group that is able to advocate, be additive and have active
 participation to support the Department.
6. Executive Session
7. Adjournment
 7.1 Motion to adjourn
 Mobley made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Etter seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.




 Page 12 of 69
MEMO
Date: May 21, 2026
To: Conservation Board and Parks Commission
From: Dan Cahill, City Land Steward, BPRW, Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
 Dept. of Permitting & Inspections
RE: Updated Vegetation Ordinance

Objective of Memo
 ● Provide context and information about the updated City Vegetation Ordinance to prepare the
 Conservation Board and Parks and Recreation Commission for comment and discussion at the
 June meeting of each respective body.


Background:
The City of Burlington is long overdue in updating its Vegetation Ordinance. Updating the Vegetation
Ordinance has been named as a top priority in at least 3 City Plans (2015 Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront Comprehensive Plan, 2022 Nature Based Climate Solutions Plan, and the recently adopted
2026 Open Space Plan). A working group has been assembled to begin the process of updating the
ordinance. This working group has met many times over the past months and has authored a draft
ordinance.

Members of the working group are:
City Staff Members:
Dan Cahill, City Land Steward
VJ Comai, City Arborist
Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager, P&I
Sophie Sauvé, Parks Planning Division Director
Community Members:
Jacob Holzberg-Pill, Branch Out Burlington
Elise Schadler, Urban & Community Forestry Program Manager, VT Dept. Of Forests, Parks & Recreation

Goals of the Updated Vegetation Ordinance:
 ● Build upon the existing vegetation ordinance that was established decades ago by expanding the
 definitions and importance of protecting Burlington’s vegetation.
 ● Provide clarity around controls and authorities in relation to citywide vegetation with special
 attention to trees and the urban canopy.
 ● Develop tree protection through updated definitions and offsets for tree and vegetation losses.
 ● Strengthen process as it relates to reviews and recommendations of trees and vegetation issues
 by outlining review process and considerations.




 Page 13 of 69
 Burlington Vegetation Ordinance


 INDEX


Introduction
Section 1 Statement of Purpose
Section 2 Definitions
Section 3 Applicability
Section 4 Jurisdiction
Section 5 Authority of the City Arborist
Section 6 Authority of City Land Steward
Section 7 Protection
Section 9 Obstruction of Streets
Section 10 Tree Planting and Maintenance
Section 11 Penalties and Enforcement
Section 12 Tree Removal




Introduction
 The Burlington Vegetation Ordinance establishes policies,
 regulations and standards necessary to ensure that the City
 maintains the maximum amount of tree and vegetation cover in a
 healthy manner that also mitigates risk to life and property. The
 goal is to establish and maintain diversity in age and species in
 trees that make up our tree canopy, as well as broad diversity in
 the presence of native species of vegetation in our open spaces,
 including but not limited to natural areas, parks, greenbelts, and
 trees and vegetation on private property. Commented [SG1]: As Parks does not have permit review
 capacity, it should likely remain within the CDO. This
 ordinance can be referenced by the CDO.




 Page 14 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 §Section 1. Statement of Purpose.
 1.1. The City of Burlington hereby finds that the preservation of
 existing vegetation and promotion of new plantings in all public
 and private ways and places is a public purpose that protects the
 public health, general welfare, climate resilience and aesthetics of
 City of Burlington for all its citizens.

 §Section 2. Definitions.

 2.1. Area of Disturbance- An area proposed to be disturbed in
 any manner, temporary or permanent, as a result of construction
 activities, plus a buffer zone of 20 feet.

 2.2. Caliper - The diameter of a trunk that is taken six (6) inches
 above the ground.

 2.3. City Arborist - The City of Burlington employee of that same
 title having the primary responsibilities of administration and
 enforcement of the Burlington Vegetation Ordinance applicable to
 the city owned spaces that they manage. Primarily these spaces
 are city ROW and city parks. The City Arborist shall serve as the
 tree warden per VSA 24, Chapter 67.

 2.4. City Land Steward- The City of Burlington employee of that
 same title having the primary responsibilities of administration
 and enforcement of the Burlington Vegetation Ordinance
 applicable to the city owned spaces that they manage. Primarily
 these spaces are natural areas, large and small, in city parks,
 Urban Wilds, and in the City ROW. The City Land Steward shall
 serve as a deputy tree warden per VSA 24, Chapter 67.

 2.5. City right-of-way (ROW) The real property or other legal
 instrument, such as an access easement, associated with
 transportation infrastructure, including but not limited to streets
 and public paths. For the purposes of this ordinance, this term is
 synonymous with “public way” as defined in VSA 24, Chapter 67.

 2.6. Climate Resilience - the ability of communities, ecosystems,
 and businesses to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover
 from the hazardous effects of climate change, such as extreme
 weather, sea-level rise, and droughts.




 1




 Page 15 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 2.7. Conservation Board – The board of the same name as
 included in the Comprehensive Development Ordinance.

 2.8. Critical Root Zone - An area of root space that is within a
 circle circumscribed around the trunk of a healthy tree using a
 radius of 1 foot per inch Diameter at Breast Height (DBH).

 2.9. DBH (diameter at breast height) – standard
 measurement of tree’s diameter taken at breast height,
 (4 ½ feet above the ground)

 2.10. Deputy Tree Warden – The person(s) appointed by the City
 Council per VSA 24, Chapter 67 who has the same authority over
 shade trees as the Tree Warden but who is directed by the Tree
 Warden. See also City Land Steward.

 2.11. Developer – Any landowner, agent of such landowner, or
 tenant with the permission of such landowner who makes or
 causes to be made, development, or who has applied for a zoning
 permit within the jurisdiction of the city. Commented [el2]: more specifics? acreage? multi-unit?


 2.12. Drip Line – The radius of the outermost branches of a tree.

 2.13. Heritage Tree-Any tree on public or private property
 having a 30 inch DBH or greater. See also Specimen Tree in the
 Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Article 13.

 2.14. Natural Area - a designated land or water unit that retains
 its natural character, featuring unique ecological, geological, or
 scenic value, where natural processes are allowed to operate with
 minimal human intervention. These areas are protected to preserve
 biodiversity, rare species, and native ecosystems, often serving as
 sites for scientific study and limited, low-impact recreation

 2.15. Pocket Forest - a small, ultra-dense, and highly biodiverse
 cluster of trees and shrubs planted in a tiny urban or suburban space,
 often no larger than a tennis court

 2.16. Pollinator Garden - a specialized landscape designed to
 support bees, butterflies, moths, and hummingbirds by providing




 2




 Page 16 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 nectar, pollen, and host plants.


 2.17. Public Property – All property owned, leased, or occupied
 by the City or any of its administrative agencies or departments.
 For the purposes of this ordinance, this term is synonymous with
 “public place” as defined in VSA 24, Chapter 67

 2.18. Public Trees – Trees (shrubs and all other woody
 vegetation) on any public property, including park, playground or
 other property owned or controlled by the City of Burlington or
 within any city right-of-way. See also Shade Tree.

 2.19. Rain Garden – Per US EPA, A rain garden is a depressed
 area in the landscape that collects rain water from a roof, driveway
 or street and allows it to soak into the ground.

 2.20. Shade Tree - Per VSA 24, Chapter 67, a shade tree is a shade
 or ornamental tree that is, in whole or in part, within the limits of a
 city ROW or public property, provided the tree was planted by the
 city, or is designated as a shade tree due to its cultural, historical,
 or aesthetic significance to the character of Burlington.

 2.21. Sight Triangle - A sight triangle (or sight distance triangle)
 is an unobstructed, triangular-shaped area at an intersection,
 driveway, or road corner designed to ensure drivers have a clear
 view of traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists. Commented [DC3]: should we note specific site triangle
 rules and zones as noted by other ordinance and code?

 2.22. Treebelt - The area between the sidewalk and the street on Commented [SS4R3]: I think we can refer to them, but
 which trees are planted; or from the curb to the outer edge of the not repeat them. Section 5.2.6.d. ?

 city right of way on a given street.


 2.23. - Tree Warden – The person appointed by the City Council
 per VSA 24, Chapter 67 who controls all shade trees within the City
 of Burlington. See also City Arborist.

 2.24. Urban Wild - a category of city-owned parcels managed by
 Burlington Parks, Recreation & Waterfront and deemed as high-
 priority conservation lands. Burlington’s “Urban Wilds” are those
 properties that “provide habitat for rare and endangered plant and




 3




 Page 17 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 animal communities, wetlands and other riparian systems, flood
 plain, unique geological and hydrological features, important
 wildlife habitat and travel corridors, areas important for scientific
 research and education, scenic vistas, trails, passive recreation,
 sustainable forest communities, and cultural features.” The Urban
 Wilds are managed to preserve natural and cultural resources
 unique to the property while encouraging their sustainable and
 compatible enjoyment.

§Section 3. Applicability.
 3.1. The terms and provisions of the Burlington Vegetation
 Ordinance shall apply to all trees and vegetation within the City of
 Burlington, except as otherwise provided herein.

 3.2. Severability
 Should any part or provision of this ordinance be declared by a court
 of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the
 validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than
 the part held to be invalid.


  §Section 4. Jurisdiction.
 4.1. The City Arborist, along with the City Land Steward shall have
 control of all trees, including but not limited to shade trees, and
 vegetation in any public property within the city limits relative to
 the spaces that they each manage, and shall have the authority to
 plant, maintain, remove, and replace such vegetation.

  §Section 5. The Authority of the City Arborist, City Land Steward,
 and Conservation Board
 5.1. The Director of the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront
 Department may hire persons to be the City Arborist or the City
 Land Steward. It will be the City Arborist's and City Land Steward’s
 responsibility to make recommendations in order to provide care,
 protection, preservation and removal of municipal vegetation specific
 to the public areas managed by each.

 Per VSA 24, Chapter 67, the tree warden (City Arborist) controls all
 shade trees in town and enforces all laws related to shade trees
 and may manage infested or infected trees. The tree warden may
 also make cooperative and financial agreements with other entities




 4




 Page 18 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 and accept funds and resources to effectuate management of the
 town’s urban forest. The deputy tree warden (City Land Steward)
 has the same authority as the tree warden but is directed by the tree
 warden.

  5.2. The Conservation Board shall serve as an advisory board to the City
 Arborist, Land Steward, and in their capacity reviewing zoning
 permit applications, to the Development Review Board. For the
 purposes of this ordinance, duties of the Conservation Board include:
  Review of zoning permit applications involving tree removal per
 Section 12 of this ordinance.
  Assist with coordination of Arbor Day celebrations.
  Review annual goals and objectives prepared by the City Arborist
 and/or Land Steward as to the urban forest.
  At the request of the City Arborist and/or Land Steward, host
 community discussions as to maintenance of the urban forest.

 5.3. No tree in a public property shall be planted except with the
 approval of the City Arborist or City Land Steward where applicable.
 Each will have the power to prescribe how such trees shall be
 planted, at what distance apart, and what variety. Planted trees will
 be provided with supports and guards whenever in the opinion of the
 City Arborist or Land Steward such supports or guards may be
 desirable.

 5.4. Cutting, pruning, or removing trees and shrubs prohibited.
 No person shall cut, prune, or remove a tree or shrub in a public
 property except with approval and consent of the City Arborist or
 City Land Steward as applicable to the respective public areas
 managed by each.

Section 6. [Hitching horses,] Attaching animals, bikes or any other
objects to trees or shrubs prohibited.
 No person shall [hitch a horse] Attach an animal, or any other object
 such as signs, wires swings, slack lines, hammocks etc. to a tree or
 shrub in a public property without written consent of the City
 Arborist or City Land Steward as applicable.


 §Section 7. Protection.
 7.1. Without written permission from the City Arborist; no person




 5




 Page 19 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 or city agency shall: (1) undertake any development activity Commented [SG5]: This term is defined. Construction is
 (including but not limited to the excavation of any ditches, tunnels, not.

 or trenches or changing the grade (adding or removing soil), and the
 laying of pavement) within the dripline of any public tree or shrub;
 (2) move or park vehicles associated with any construction or
 development activity which may affect any vegetation, including
 trees or shrubs on public property.

 7.2. Root Protection. No person or city agency shall deposit,
 place, store or maintain of the city any stone, brick, sand, concrete
 or other materials which may impede the free passage of water, air
 and fertilizer to the roots on any public tree or shrub within the
 dripline on unpaved surfaces except by written permission of the
 City Arborist or City Land Steward as applicable.

 7.3. Guarding. Guarding during construction or excavation: (1)
 unless the City Arborist or City Land Steward for good cause,
 determines otherwise, all trees or shrubs on any public property
 directly impinging on any excavation or construction of any
 building, structure or street work shall be guarded to protect the
 critical root zone. The critical root zone is the area of root space that
 is within a circle circumscribed around the trunk of a healthy tree
 using a radius of 1 foot per inch diameter at breast height.



 §Section 9. Obstruction of Streets.

9.1. Private Property Pruning. The city shall have the right to prune any
tree or shrub on private property when it interferes with the proper spread
of light along the street from and or interferes with visibility of any traffic
control device, sign, or is impeding views within the site triangle of an
intersection.


 9.2. It shall be the duty of any person owning private property
 bordering on a city ROW to ensure that trees and shrubs on that
 property are pruned in a manner that will not obstruct or shade
 streetlights, obstruct the passage of pedestrians on sidewalks,
 obstruct vision of traffic signs or obstruct views within the sight
 triangle of an intersection. If trees are interfering with utility




 6




 Page 20 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 wires, it is the obligation of the appropriate utility company to
 correct the situation.

 9.3. Property Owner Responsibility. Should any person owning
 private property bordering on any city ROW fail to comply as
 hereinabove provided, the City Arborist or designee shall order the
 owner to take corrective action within fifteen (15) days after receipt
 (certified letter) of written notice. The order requires herein shall
 be served by mailing a copy of it to the last known address of the
 property owner.


 9.4. Removal of Hazardous Conditions. Every owner of any
 tree overhanging any city right-of-way within the City shall remove
 all dead, diseased or dangerous trees, or broken or decayed limbs,
 which poses a threat to safety of the public or other trees.


 9.5. Private Owner Compliance If any person owning real
 property bordering on any city ROW fails to comply as herein above
 provided, the City Arborist or designee shall order the owner to take
 corrective action within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of written
 notice. The order required herein shall be served by mailing a copy
 of it to the last known address of the property owner. In the event
 that required corrective action is not taken by the property owner,
 the City Arborist shall have the authority to undertake the required
 corrective action. In such case, a penalty fee of $500 shall be
 assessed to the property owner.

 for which such permission is given shall be done in accordance with
 the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Urban Forestry Master
 Plan. Commented [SG6]: Not sure where this belongs.



 §Section 10. Tree Planting and Maintenance


 §Section 11. Penalties and Enforcement

 11.1. Penalty. Per VSA XX § 2510. Penalty (a) Whoever shall Commented [SG7]: Need statutory chapter reference.
 willfully mar or deface a shade tree without the written permission




 7




 Page 21 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 of a tree warden or legislative body of the municipality shall be
 fined not more than $50.00 for the use of the municipality. (b) Any
 person who willfully and critically injures or cuts down a shade tree
 without written permission of the tree warden or the legislative
 body of the municipality shall be fined pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3602
 for each tree so injured or cut, for the use of the municipality.

 11.2. Parking on sidewalks and treebelts. Motor Vehicles
 &Traffic/Section 20-66 Penalty (B) (3) The penalty for parking on a
 sidewalk or treebelt in violation of this Section shall be twenty-five
 dollars ($25.00). Commented [DC8]: this seems very low
 Commented [el9R8]: Agreed - this should be higher

 11.3. Enforcement. The Tree Warden and Deputy Tree Warden
 have enforcement authority over all shade trees within the City of
 Burlington. Enforcement and appeals processes as to shade trees
 shall be as per VSA 24, Chapter 67. Enforcement as to trees on
 private property shall be per the Comprehensive Development
 Ordinance, as may be applicable.


Section 12. Tree Removal Commented [SG10]: If we utilize the existing permit
 review process, we don’t need to reinvent submission
 requirements here. The central point here is to outline the
12. 1. Shade Trees role of the Conservation Board and to articulate mitigation
 measures.
 (1) The removal of any shade tree shall be subject to the provisions of
 VSA 24, Chapter 67.

12.2. All other Trees
Including, but not limited to, all public trees that are not shade trees and
trees on private or institutional property.

 (1) Application for tree removal requiring a zoning permit per Article 3 of
 the Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) shall require
 review by the Conservation Board who will provide a
 recommendation to the Development Review Board. The application
 plan shall indicate the size, species, and location of all trees to be
 removed.
 (2) Conservation Board review will include consideration of the size,
 species, and location of all trees to be removed and proposed
 mitigation measures.




 8




 Page 22 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 (3) A planting plan illustrating the size, species and location of trees to
 be installed is required, unless other mitigation measures are
 proposed instead. The planting plan shall include a chart
 summarizing sizes of trees to be removed and trees to be planted.
 (4) Removal of heritage trees is strongly discouraged. Commented [SG11]: The rest of the provisions as to
 (5) The Conservation Board shall consult with the City Arborist in its heritage trees are included in this process – can be approved
 or denied by the Conservation Board in consultation with the
 review of the proposed application for compliance with the City Arborist, and if approved, requires mitigation.
 requirements of the city’s tree replacement formula. The
 Conservation Board shall also consider the impact, if any, on all trees
 with a caliper of 6 inches or greater and shall make recommendations
 for the preservation of existing trees and for the species, size, and
 location of new plantings.
 (6) Application plan(s) shall illustrate the location of protective tree fence
 around trees to remain, including details of such. Additionally, the fol
 lowing measures must be addressed by
 the applicant and inspected by the City Arborist prior to the start of
 work or issuance of the permit: Protective tree fence must be installed.
 All trees to be removed and all trees to remain within the area of
 disturbance must be clearly marked at the base of each tree with
 visible nonremovable marking indicating the status of each tree. It is
 recommended that permanent spray paint be used for trees to be
 removed (red) and trees to remain (green).
 (7) Mitigation measures

 (a) Except as provided for in (b) below, new trees shall be planted caliper-
 for-caliper for removed trees. For example, removal of a 20 inch
 caliper tree may be offset with planting five 4 inch caliper trees.
 Replacement trees may be planted onsite or offsite within the City of
 Burlington. Offsite planting shall be subject to Tree Board
 recommendation in consultation with the City Arborist or Land
 Steward,
 (b ) In the event that replanting per (a) above is impractical or
 impossible as determined by the Tree Board, the applicant shall:
 1. Make payment to a designated city tree planting fund in an
 amount determined in accordance with the current Guide for
 Plant Appraisal as reviewed and approved by the City Arborist or
 Land Steward; and/or,
 2. Install green stormwater infrastructure that mitigates the 10-year
 storm event (see City Code of Ordinance, Chapter 26).
 3. Mitigation measures in items (a) and (b) 1 and (b) 2 above may be
 used in whole, or in part, for mitigation of tree removal. For




 9




 Page 23 of 69
City of Burlington – Vegetation Ordinance




 example, mitigation for tree removal can include replanting new
 trees, payment into a planting fund, and/or installation of green
 stormwater infrastructure.




 10




 Page 24 of 69
MEMO
Date: June 9, 2026
To: Parks & Recreation Commission
From: Phil Lewis, BPRW Director
 Dan Cahill, City Land Steward
RE: Auer Family Boathouse Property and Acquisition Briefing


OBJECTIVE OF MEMO

● Provide overview of Auer Family Boathouse Parcel
● Provide context to Winooski Valley Park District’s (WVPD) Conservation Legacy Fund Request
 ($300,000)
● Communicate the City’s interest in the parcel, and adjoined request of $40,000.

BACKGROUND

Subject Property: Auer Family Boathouse Parcel, 3181 North Ave.
Property Owner: Estate of Herbert Sr, Kenneth A. (Fay, Karen Power of Attorney)
Property ID: 020-3-012-000
SPAN: 114-035-10021
Acreage: 2.7a
Assessed value: $461,300
Most recent appraised value: $850,000 (Effective February 13, 2026 by O’Brien & Kaffenberger, Inc.)




 Page 25 of 69
The Auer Parcel, affectionately known as “Charlie’s” was placed on the market by the owners on October
2, 2025, for $2.5 million. The WVPD Board of Trustees has been in negotiations over the past several
months with the owner of 3177/3181 North Ave. (“Auer Family Boathouse”) to acquire the parcel, and a
purchase offer has been made and accepted at a price of $960,000. The signing of a purchase and sales
agreement occurred on May 13, 2026. The signing triggers a 90-day due diligence period which allows
WVPD to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, complete title search and legal work,
complete a financing package, and draft a park development plan. After the due diligence period, if no
disqualifying issues are found, closing would occur within 60 days afterwards.

WVPD intends to request Conservation Legacy Fund dollars to help fund the property acquisition and
accompanying project costs.




 Page 2 of 6



 Page 26 of 69
PROJECT OVERVIEW


Background: The Auer Family Boathouse property (AKA “Charlie’s Boathouse”) sits at the southern mouth
of the Winooski River on the shores of Lake Champlain just below the Burlington Bikepath and at the very
end of North Avenue. The site has been vacant for over two years but previously, was in continuous use
for over 100 years as a family-owned, seasonal boating and camping site that welcomed the public.
Flooding and heavy siltation have seriously impacted the site's ability to support boating, and the private
access road is not designed or intended to support public vehicle traffic. The site currently has two
buildings along with several other structures and an accumulation of other items from its various uses
over the years. The majority of the site, along with one of the buildings (the boathouse), is in the floodplain
and Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE).
WVPD’s proposed use of the site is as a conserved public park that welcomes the public for passive
recreation, fishing, and lake access with primary access from the Burlington Bikepath and by foot from
nearby parking spots along North Avenue. A Management Plan will be crafted that will establish the
parameters for access and use of the site and buildings in consultation with the public. Located at the
southern tip of the Winooski river mouth, this site is highly unique from a recreational, ecological, and
historical perspective. Adjacent to Lake Champlain to the west and the Burlington Bikepath to the east, it
would create a contiguous park landscape from the lake across the path to Mayes Landing, Derway Cove,
and Derway Island (WVPD owned and managed parks). The site has numerous riparian landscape features
including floodplain, wetlands, high priority habitats, and floodplain forest characteristics. The Boathouse
and site have over 100 years of history as a public-facing private boating and camping facility and was a
fixture of the North End community for generations.
Project Goals: The primary goal of acquisition is to ensure protection and public control of a parcel of land
at the mouth of the Winooski River. The site will be conserved through a conservation easement held
jointly by the Lake Champlain Land Trust (LCLT) and Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and
actively managed for ecological health and public access by the WVPD. Two structures on the site
(including the beloved Charlie’s Boathouse, a steel Butler Building and several sheds) have been seriously
impacted by flooding and disuse will be documented for historical value/characteristics, evaluated for
structural integrity, and discussed in the public domain to establish a plan for their future use.
WVPD acquisition would:
• Protect significant natural communities
• Increase riparian and shoreline plantings and vegetation
• Manage nonnative invasive plants on the parcel
• Improve the river corridor from Lake Champlain up the Winooski River
• Provide clean water benefits
• Provide the potential for education and research opportunities.

The site’s location fulfills numerous recreation goals:
• Excellent location for fishing
• Direct Burlington Greenway Bikepath access
• Scenic views of Lake Champlain

 Page 3 of 6



 Page 27 of 69
• Birdwatching and wildlife observation/photography/art
• Easy access to other nearby parks (Mayes Landing, Delta Park, Derway Island and Cove)
• Excellent family picnic area
• Potential access from the water for small boats.


Need and Urgency: Urgency is very high for this project. The effort to secure this site for permanent public
access spans decades, and for the first time in over 100 years, the site is listed for sale on the open market.
This moment represents what could be the only opportunity to acquire this parcel for conservation.
Significant Features: Site is located at the southern confluence of the Winooski River and Lake
Champlain, with wetland and floodplain features. It has overlapping species and landscape scale habitat
values and is adjacent (and/or across the river from) already conserved properties creating habitat and
hydraulic connections.
Rare Species: Rare Mussels have been observed nearby, as well as several rare bulrushes at the mouth of
the Winooski River when lake levels are low. Spiny soft-shell turtles have been observed in the area and
were historically found at the mouth of the Winooski.
Partnerships: Lake Champlain Land Trust, Burlington Conservation Board, City of Burlington Staff, and
several neighbors are part of this effort, as well as consultants that have (or will) provide discounted and
pro bono services.
Local/State Priorities: This acquisition would contribute directly to goals laid out in the Vermont
Conservation Plan, and the effort to achieve 30% of Vermont's lands conserved by 2030 ("30x30").
Proactive acquisition of high value conservation lands is cited in Burlington's Open Space Plan (2025), and
the regional ECOS (Environment, Community, Opportunity and Sustainability, 2018) plan.
Water Quality: While there is no specific metric yet that can describe the positive impacts this acquisition
will have on water quality, intuitively it is clear that when conserved, this site's unique location, physical
characteristics, and when managed for conservation and ecological restoration, its' shoreline location,
floodplain and wetland values will provide water quality benefits well into the future.
Climate Change: This is a highly impacted site, with recent major flooding - a symptom of climate change
- adding to siltation issues at the river mouth and carving away over 1/4 acre of shoreline at Mayes Landing
and Derway Cove parks (next to the site). As a result of the 2011 Lake Flood, the FEMA floodplain
boundaries at 3181 North Ave. were changed, placing the Boathouse structure within the floodplain.
Having permanent access to this site will have untold benefits in the future as the river mouth evolves
and issues mitigated.
The removal of items, hardscape, and debris from the site and out of the floodplain will mitigate hazards
to the lake and surrounding community during future flood events.
Impacts on Local Economy: This acquisition would convert a dormant, shuttered family property into a
permanent public recreation asset. As a result, adjacent properties will realize a boost in their value, the
public will have full access to the site for fishing, recreation, and lakeside boat access. Long-term, this will
benefit the local economy and quality of life.
About Winooski Valley Park District: The Winooski Valley Park District (WVPD) is a 501(c)3 non-profit and
Vermont Municipality whose mission is to collaborate with member municipalities to conserve and

 Page 4 of 6



 Page 28 of 69
protect the lands and waters within the Lower Winooski River Valley for stewardship of natural areas and
the establishment of parks that connect people to the outdoors. The WVPD is supported by the eight
member municipalities of Burlington, Colchester, Essex, Essex Junction, Jericho, South Burlington,
Williston, and Winooski.

Created in 1972, today the WVPD manages a network of 18 parks and natural areas in the lower Winooski
River Valley with over 1,750+ acres of permanently conserved land, 24+ miles of trails, and 13+ miles of
protected shorelines along lakes, ponds, and rivers. Over 780 acres (51%) of WVPD managed lands are
within an active floodplain including 550+ acres of wetlands and 200+ acres of floodplain forests. WVPDs
network of parks play a key role in flood mitigation, water quality management, and habitat connectivity,
while providing opportunities for outdoor recreation, connection to nature, and environmental
stewardship. WVPD parks are open to the public year-round with no entry fees and are permanently
conserved for the enjoyment of future generations. Learn more about the WVPD and its regional park
system at www.wvpd.org.

ALIGNMENT WITH THE OPEN SPACE PROTECTION PLAN

Conservation of the Auer Parcel aligns with the following land inventory attributes found in the 2000 Open
Space Protection Plan:

▪ Shoreline, Wetland, Buffers: opportunities for ecological restoration to enhance soil stability and flood
 resiliency;
▪ Important Wildlife Habitat/Wildlife Movement: the river mouth is an important area for aquatic and
 avian wildlife species as well as many large and small mammal species.
▪ Floodwater Treatment: opportunities for ecological restoration to enhance soil stability and flood
 resiliency;
▪ Public Park/Trails/Passive Recreation Value: proximity to Burlington Bikepath creates opportunity for
 significant pause place.
▪ Archaeology Sites/Research-Educational Site/Historic/Cultural Site: human history of land uses
 including as “Charlie’s Boathouse"
▪ Significant Topography/Significant Geological/Soil Features: geo-morphology of river mouth is
 dynamic and conservation improves community resilience as natural process unfolds




 Page 5 of 6



 Page 29 of 69
BPRW’S INTEREST IN THE PARCEL

BPRW fully supports WVPD in the acquisition and management of the Auer Family Boathouse site. BPRW
is requesting up to $40,000 from the Conservation Legacy Fund to support the acquisition process and
administrative costs related to adaptations and considerations related to connecting the parcel to the
Bikepath.

Conservation Legacy Fund Total Request: $300,000 (WVPD) $40,000 (BPRW)
Per resolution, the Legacy Fund can be utilized for 20-40% of the project costs related to an acquisition.
This includes purchase price and any identified costs related to bringing the property up to standard.

WVPD and BPRW’s joint request of $340,000 makes up approximately 29% of the total estimated project
costs.

Communications about potential disbursement thus far:
The Conservation Board and Parks and Recreation Commission were briefed on the potential of the
acquisition during executive session, at their respective May meetings.

REQUESTED ACTION

The Parks and Recreation Commission moves to authorize the use of $340,000, ($300,000 to WVPD and
$40,000 to BPRW) for the project costs related to the acquisition of the Auer Boathouse Family Property.


_____________________________________________________________________________________




 Page 6 of 6



 Page 30 of 69
Burlington Conservation Legacy Program
Department of Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront
645 Pine St, Suite B
Burlington, VT 05401
www.enjoyburlington.com
Telephone: (802) 864-0123


FIRST DRAFT 6.1.26
 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 $300,000

Property Address & Acreage 3177/3181 North Ave. (Auer Family Boathouse)
(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)

General Property Characteristics:

Do you wish to sell the property outright or continue to own it and establish a
conservation easement?

WVPD seeks to purchase the site and place it under conservation easement, co-held by
VHCB and the Lake Champlain Land Trust.


Who will own the property or conservation easement?
WVPD will be owner, easement co-held by VHCB and Lake Champlain Land Trust.


What other funding sources and partners are committed to this project?

Feasibility/Due Diligence is being funded by VHCB, WVPD, a grant from Great Lakes
 Pg. 1 of 4

 Page 31 of 69
  Fisheries Commission, WVPD staff, Trustees and pro bono assistance.


  What’s the fair market value as determined by a professional appraiser?
  $850,000


  Is the land contiguous with other conserved land? If yes, briefly describe that parcel.

Mayes Landing, Derway Cove, and Derway Island are all contiguous riverfront properties (across the
bikepath corridor) that together create a 156-acre conservation block with two miles of protected
shoreline.

  What threats, if any, face the land?
  The site is unique as it sits at the southern edge of the Winooski rivermouth and is subject
  to flooding, erosion, invasive species, overuse, and vandalism.



  What is the current use of the property?
  Property not in use, was privately owned boathouse/marina, closed for the past 3 years. It
  is permitted for seasonal recreation.



  What is the intended use of the property?
  Public Park/Natural area, with specific functions and access determined during the park
  planning process after acquisition



  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?
  Yes
  Are there other legal issues surrounding the transaction that would subject the
  City of Burlington to undue financial costs or risks?
  No



  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?


 Pg. 2 of 4

 Page 32 of 69
While significant debris and several abandoned structures are known issues, as a
priority WVPD plans a general cleanup of the site after closing. WVPD has contracted
for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment with sampling in the structures for
asbestos, lead paint and other materials as needed. The site will be inspected (and
sampled if needed) for any evidence of hazardous waste or other concerns. Interviews
with the owner and past operators are part of the process.
Decisions about the large structures are being deferred until after the acquisition is
complete, with a process laid out by VHCB to guide a thorough analysis of options.
WVPD has started the process of site inspection and planning. At the end of the due
diligence process, a report will be prepared that will summarize the findings of the due
diligence process.




 Pg. 3 of 4

 Page 33 of 69
  Open Space Land Values:
  (Check all that apply.) Scenic Values
  Natural Values X Vista
  Forest Community x 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 x Historical, Cultural,
XUnique Topography Archaeological Values
×Floodwater/Stormwater Treatment Archaeological Site
×Potential Restoration Area Historic/Cultural Site
 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?
 x 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. 4 of 4

 Page 34 of 69
 Budget Sheet

 Project Budget
 • CLP grant funds requested: $300,000
 • Values of other funding sources (optimally 60% of total): $862,550 (74%)


 Due Diligence/Acquisition Budget:




Sources:
  • Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (in hand) for feasibility/due diligence
  • Vermont Housing Conservation Board (VHCB): grant request submitted
  • Burlington Conservation Legacy: grant request submitted
  • WVPD staff time: supports acquisition, park planning/development, future management



Attachments:
 • VHCB Grant Application
 • VHCB Grant Attachments




 Pg. 5 of 4

 Page 35 of 69
Page 36 of 69
Page 37 of 69
Page 38 of 69
Page 39 of 69
Page 40 of 69
Page 41 of 69
Page 42 of 69
Page 43 of 69
Page 44 of 69
Page 45 of 69
Page 46 of 69
Page 47 of 69
Page 48 of 69
Page 49 of 69
Page 50 of 69
Page 51 of 69
Page 52 of 69
Page 53 of 69
Page 54 of 69
Page 55 of 69
Page 56 of 69
Page 57 of 69
Page 58 of 69
Page 59 of 69
Page 60 of 69
Page 61 of 69
Page 62 of 69
Page 63 of 69
Page 64 of 69
Page 65 of 69
Page 66 of 69
Page 67 of 69
Page 68 of 69
Page 69 of 69

Parks Commission Meeting

June 9th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St. & Zoom



Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Sauve, Cahill, Comai & O’Daniel

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

Public in Attendance:



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:31pm by introducing himself and asked for a motion
 regarding the agenda.
 Davis made a motion to accept the agenda, Boehm seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.2 May Meeting Minutes
 Mobley made a motion to accept the consent agenda, Davis seconded. All were in favor,
 none opposed.
 3. Public Forum – Time Certain, 6pm
 Philip Pezeshki joined the meeting virtually and encouraged the Commission to continue
 talking about e-moto and e-bike problems on the Burlington Greenway. He continued
 that he has raised a different question about changing all of the stop signs for the
 streets that cross the Greenway to have the cars stop instead of the cyclists. He noted
 that this suggestion got brought into the general discussions that are occurring about
 the Greenway with folks feeling like it’s the bikes that are going too fast. He continued
 that he is a cyclist and he wanted to remind people that once you stop a bicycle, it is
 difficult to get it going again so having cars stop is a safer option for everyone. He
 shared that he has researched ways to potentially mitigate some of these issues
 including altering the paths, either in shape or surface, place speed limit detectors or
 other technical solutions understanding that enforcement is expensive and difficult to
 implement, so he encouraged the Commission to look at technical fixes. He also noted
 that it is important to keep in mind that this is a seasonal problem for the most part,
 with the winter being quieter on the Greenway. He then touched on the fact that there
 is signage posted along the Greenway that says that no motor vehicles are allowed on
 the path and he feels that regardless of the Commission and City Council’s decision to
 allow them, they are technically not allowed and yet they are on the path with a lack of
 enforcement happening.
 Lantieri thanked Pezeshki and shared the sentiment that there is a lot of nuance with
 the situation and they are working within a narrow lane to try and create structures so
 that rules are available are enforceable. He confirmed that the conversation will
 continue.
 Pezeshki responded that he felt it would be helpful for the public to know that the issue
 is being considered and taken seriously.
 Lewis noted that this was a topic of conversation at last week’s Ordinance committee
 meeting with council members and that there have been a lot of staff conversations
 around this from a policy and ordinance update piece, as well as community
 engagement and outreach related to how folks interact with the Greenway and other
 spaces with these e-motos. He continued that it is an emerging issues with a lot of folks
 trying to figure out the best approach. He thanked Pezeshki for highlighting this
 concern.
 Dave Parnell, a member of the public, asked if the Ethan Allen Park development plan
 was already moving forward and that there was momentum to implement that, because
 he had heard that this was the case on Front Porch Forum.
 Dillard answered no, that that was a rumor and that it would be years before any
 changes or work began. He thanked the constituent for coming to the meeting to ask
 the question directly.
 Public forum was closed at 6:16pm.
4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Plan BTV NNE Plan
 Dillard began by sharing screen and noting that he came before the Commission a few
 months ago and he was back to update everyone about where they are in the plan, first
 by reviewing the timeline and engagement highlights. He continued by sharing out what
 they have heard from residents in regards to transportation and mobility, housing and
 zoning, neighborhood and character and development and nature and sustainability.
 Dillard noted specifically that people in the New North End love the parks, trails,
 beaches and open spaces and that there is a strong desire for more trees and shade
 along North Avenue, community garden spaces, green soil water infrastructure and
 continued preservation of big key natural areas. He then continued by sharing the vision
 statement and guiding principles and noted that it is all about balance. He then touched
 on urban design, multimodal transportation and placemaking and how the Plan
 supports the vision through these three interconnected frameworks. Dillard specifically
 noted that what is in this Plan overall is contingent on the kind of growth that the plan
 envisions happening, so if in fact in 25 years the New North End continues to be a low-
 density place then a lot of these bigger Capital projects may not be necessary or
 implemented. Next he reviewed the vision for the Greenway, and mentioned that there
 were originally 9 recommendations, which they are currently working with the BPRW
 team on to revise so this section will most likely be some restructuring to the framework
 of these. Dillard noted that they did hear a lot of concerns about safety on the greenway
 throughout the engagement that has happened, which has been exacerbated with the
 presence of e-moto use on the Greenway, and he noted that the Plan recommends
 doing a safety audit internally for spaces like these. After reviewing some placemaking
 slides he noted that the New North End has more capacity to accommodate growth in
 terms of wastewater infrastructure than other parts of the City, which is why there is a
focus on this area. He then began reviewing new public open space in specific locations
in the New North End, and called out that these are concepts, not development plans
and that this work was done to understand what the capacity of a given property could
be in terms of the number of homes that could be created, the amount of new public
space that could be created and new community facilities, parking etc. He continued
that if these properties were to ever come into redevelopment, they would certainly
encourage a mix of housing types, open spaces, mobility hubs etc. like in these plans.
The private properties he reviewed were the North Ave. Church, the Ethan Allen
Shopping Plaza and Plattsburg Ave. and North Ave. intersection. Dillard then pivoted to
reviewing the City-owned focus areas that have been included in the Plan. Before doing
so though, he took a moment to touch on a national and international movement of
cities repurposing their land for community benefits such as housing and nature based
climate solutions and more. He continued that this has already happened in Burlington,
such as turning a parking lot on St. Paul Street into housing etc., among others. Next,
Dillard shared the Mayor’s housing strategy, with the quote, “Burlington will continue to
expand its long-standing practice of leveraging public assets for public good. This
includes pursuing public-private partnerships and thoughtfully developing housing on
City-owned land to meet community needs”. Dillard noted that they are looking across
the City, but that there are no parcels that are just ready to go without any restrictions.
He continued by circling back to the New North End plan and called out that a lot of the
City-owned land in that part of the City is parks, conservations areas or school land. He
then shared 6 points that make up the City-owned land rationale framework including:
building on City land can make housing more affordable, can help fund the park system,
means the community gets a say, can model what sustainable development looks like,
can keep money in the local economy and generates revenue for Burlington
permanently. Next Dillard reviewed the City-owned land recommendations in planBTV
for the New North End, which includes a city assets study, continuing public
engagement via planBTV 2050, park acreage and program replacement, pursue CHIP
financing and accelerating public-private partnership process improvements. He then
touched on the specific City-owned properties in the plan, which included the Ethan
Allen Parkway and Starr Farm Park, noting that there was both community support and
opposition to these locations.
Lewis thanked the planning team for all of their work on this and for being at the
meeting to present on this again and answer questions. He continued by reiterating that
this is conceptual in nature and the engagement process between BPRW and Office of
City Planning will be ongoing as the PlanBTV 2050 is built out.
Lantieri asked what the approval process and timeline for this plan would be.
Dillard explained next steps and said that if everything is approved on the fastest
timeline, it would be adopted in late August/early September.
Lantieri thanked him and shared his reflection on the South End project’s long standing
draft form. He continued that while he is a housing advocate, he feels some trepidation
about how a plan is adopted and what its real ramifications are so even if it is just a
suggestion of being a possibility, we know that once it is adopted people will take it as
truth moving forward and will set what the future conversation of the community is. He
 continued that while he thinks it is good to do this due diligence and a full assessment,
 he would be very disinclined from moving these suggestions forward into the final plan.
 He closed by sharing that this body would continue to engage in conversations about
 this over the next few months as the process continues.
4.2 Tree Ordinance Update
 Comai, the City Arborist, introduced himself and shared that there has been a group of 5
 have been working on a long overdue update to the city’s tree/vegetation ordinance,
 which was last updated in 1962 and was not very comprehensive. Comai continued that
 the recently adopted Open Space Plan included that this ordinance needed to be
 updated and that he, Cahill, Gustin, Sauve and 2 community members have been
 working on this. He shared that they focused on including public and private lands, as
 well as right-of-ways, managed park spaces and natural and conserved lands. He
 continued that the previous Urban Forestry Master Plan did not speak to any of those
 spaces, so this group began by rewriting the definitions in the ordinance and focused on
 defining the roles he and the City Land Steward play relative to the lands that they
 manage and their authorities over those lands – the City Arborist being responsible for
 public trees, or by the State statute, a “shade tree” is described as any tree planted in a
 public space which includes all of the right-of-way trees existing between sidewalks and
 roads throughout the City and all trees in the managed park spaces, the City Land
 Steward being responsible for all natural and conserved areas. Comai shared that the
 group felt it was important to make that distinction and to include all of that. He
 continued by sharing that they also found out that the Parks Commission has been
 named as “Burlington’s Tree Board”, but this group felt that the Conservation Board
 would be a more appropriate fit moving forward so made that change in this process.
 Gustin noted that this is a draft ordinance and that they are making the rounds to
 multiple bodies and that they will circle back with another draft later this summer
 before the final step of adoption. He continued by sharing that there is state statute for
 trees by that it is entirely about shade trees, which only includes tress in public spaces
 by a public entity, so this ordinance update will speak to trees beyond that, including
 trees in natural areas and trees on private property but along straightaways, like a bush
 or tree growing into or over the sidewalk. He continued that this fleshes out private
 property maintenance requirements and articulates a little better what the
 maintenance responsibilities are and the recourse for what can happen if you the
 property owner ignore it. Gustin continued that they reviewed the existing permit
 threshold requirements for tree removal that are in the City’s zoning code and decided
 to use the existing standards and keep that process as is for the time being. He shared
 that keeping this in mind, measures for protecting existing trees on-site for tree variant
 development is occurring and the ordinance will retain those an protect them as
 development activities occur. Gustin then touched on mitigation for tree variant, which
 isn’t expressly called for now but has been done in practice. He continued that they
 fleshed this out with 3 options – caliper replacement, pay a fee into a tree fund and/or
 green infrastructure on-site. He then discussed how the Conservation Board would play
 a role in this, including project review, providing a community forum for all things tree
 related and annual review of the work plan for tree management by the City Arborist.
 Cahill shared his appreciation for the committee, especially Gustin, and is excited about
 the process of making these changes to strengthen it and come back with something
 even better.
 Sauve noted that it is great to have a plan and then it is great to see parts of it
 implemented so quickly, like in this case.
 Gustin asked for Commissioner’s reactions.
 Davis asked for clarification about what private property owners can and can’t do with
 their own trees.
 Gustin answered that it is only in regards to the public right-of-ways.
 Comai shared that this came from regular see-click-fixes coming through about private
 vegetation encroaching on public areas, such as sidewalks. He continued that the
 trickiest part about this is that there are so many rental properties in Burlington that it is
 hard to track down the owners, so these get passed to Code Enforcement to address
 with property owners, so they really wanted to spell that out and address it in this.
4.3 Auer Property Acquisition
 Cahill opened by noting that Lauren Chicote from the Winooski Valley Park District was
 present at the meeting for this item as well. He then reminded Commissioners that this
 was discussed in executive session recently as a potential for this to be an acquisition
 between the Winooski Valley Park District and the owners of the property with support
 from the Conservation Legacy Fund. He continued that as of yesterday, there is a
 purchase and sale agreement in place and so now is the time for discussion and an
 advisory action from the Commission to weigh in on use of the Legacy Fund for the
 acquisition. Cahill noted that this is day 2 of a 90 day due diligence period, including
 looking at contamination on the site, title and other legal pieces and getting the full
 picture of the parcel and making sure that this is the right decision for the Winooski
 Valley Park District and the community. He continued by sharing that there is a building
 on the site and in the event of there being an acquisition, looking into the structures of
 that and the potential historic component. He closed by noting that this is still in early
 stages of deliberation so asked for sensitivity around that and also asked Commissioners
 not to visit the site on their own and shared that they are hoping to coordinate a visit
 with the decision makers if there is interest.
 Chicote thanked Cahill and that she would be happy to answer any questions that
 Commissioners might have.
 Davis noted that what was provided was comprehensive and felt that this was exciting.
 Mobley shared that she was sorry the commissioners with questions weren’t present at
 the meeting and noted they might have more questions moving forward. She continued
 by giving kudos for the amount of information that was provided and she felt like it hit
 all of the questions that had been raised previously.
 Cahill noted that Warner, the Director of the Winooski Valley Park District, has a lot of
 experience and skill with acquisitions like this and creating reports, so wanted to give
 him credit for the memo. He then touched on the addition of the $40,000 placeholder
 for BPRW, which will go toward the unforeseen administrative work that will be
 happening to support this acquisition, such as the functionality with the Greenway.
 Davis asked if septic was or was not an option.
 Chicote answered that it would be a small capacity and expensive with a lot of hurdles
 so would be difficult to establish there.
 Lantieri shared his excitement and support, both for the partnership and the acquisition.
 Chicote shared that they are excited to work closely with the City on this collaborative
 project.
 Boehm made a motion for the Commission to authorize the use of $340,000 for the
 project costs related to the acquisition of the Auer property. Davis seconded. All were in
 favor, none opposed.
4.4 Grow Wild Demonstration Presentation
 Cahill began by sharing screen, noting that he was sharing this presentation on behalf of
 Diane Hannigan, the City’s Nature Based Climate Solutions Coordinator, whose position
 is a partnership project with Burlington Wildways and is largely connected to working
 with the school district to develop and teach nature curriculum and bringing nature into
 the schoolyards. This is important work from an open space standpoint because the
 school district represents such a frontier for opportunity and also from an equity
 standpoint because it is accessible to all students. Cahill noted that Hannigan has more
 than doubled her programming hours this year, which is very exciting. He continued that
 part of this work is providing members of the community opportunities to learn what
 we’re doing with native plants and how to do this work on lands that they have
 connection to in their neighborhoods, whether that’s in green belts through the
 guidance of an update vegetation ordinance, or in their own yard or property. He shared
 that they have created a lawn demonstration at the Lakeview Cemetery in partnership
 with our Grounds and Cemetery team and Burlington Wildways, which houses the Grow
 Wild campaign. He continued that sites like this will be heritage legacy things that are
 going to be a part of our parks but that right now the programs and the humans
 attached to them are pilots and temporary and they are trying to figure out what
 sustainability looks like in the City’s approach to climate adaptation and he feels this
 position is one of the most important things related to that. He then pivoted to talking
 about the new location at Oakledge Park for the next iteration of a Grow Wild lawn
 demonstration, noting that is near the new universally accessible playground and tennis
 courts. He shared that the process for arriving at this location involved scouting out 4
 different locations throughout the park with the Planning Team and Grounds Team and
 this spot rose to the top because of the proximity to the playground with the hope that
 there would be interest from folks visiting that space to learn more, as well as the
 opportunity to tie into the creek connection that was built along with the playground
 installation. He also noted that this location has been difficult for the Grounds team to
 access, so reducing the amount of mowing in this space is helpful. Cahill then spoke to
 adding a demonstration site in the South End so that the two main soil typologies in
 Burlington will be represented for folks to learn from. He noted that while this isn’t an
 action item, he wanted to bring it to the Commission’s attention because in the Open
 Space Plan, it fits perfectly into the Connection section on page 118, identifying some of
 those actions like educating the public on nature based solutions and their value. He
 continued that creating spaces like this allows for connecting communication
 approaches that he feels are really meaningful ways to give people a window into their
 ability to see themselves in this plan. He shared that the plan also identifies
 “stewardship zones”, which are buffered areas around natural areas and if community
 members take on a variety of potential actions, they can support what’s happening
 nearby naturally. He closed by sharing that Madalinski from the Planning Team is
 helping to facilitate where and how all of this nature-based and adaptation work is
 happening to communicate that out effectively through a story map framework where
 the visual map will be connected to where this is all happening.
 Mobley shared her appreciation for the timing of this and having this as an example of
 something coming to life from the Open Space Plan.
 Lantieri echoed what Mobley said and shared that it is great to hear from staff who are
 doing these innovative things and using their knowledge and highly technical skills to
 make meaningful changes in the public realm.
 Cahill noted that it is the cross-team partnerships that make this really effective so to be
 able to go into the field with the Grounds team and then interface with the Planning
 Team at their weekly meeting, and it is the creation of those internal cultural spaces
 that helps the innovation happen.
 Lantieri noted that the momentum of the different divisions and teams within Parks
 working together is getting stronger and that’s really exciting to see.
4.5 FY27 Budget Process
 Lewis shared that the Departments have proposed their budgets and the Mayor’s
 budget has been presented to the Board of Finance and is under consideration by the
 City Council. He continued that it is scheduled to go back to City Council for
 consideration and hopeful adoption on June 15th, but they have until June 30th to do so.
 He continued by noting that there is a public process with the council so if you’ve
 watched the presentations and want to show support or ask questions there will be a
 public forum that is associated with the City Council presentation as well.
 Lantieri asked if Lewis anticipated any changes.
 Lewis didn’t think that would be the case because of the high level of engagement
 across the board throughout this process, but if there are any substantive changes he
 would loop Commissioners in.
 Lantieri encouraged Commissioners to attend the June 15th meeting.
4.6 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Sauve shared screen and provided a quick overview of the open house summary and
 what is going on with planBTV 2050. She shared that there were 322 sign-ins, most of
 whom were Burlington residents who owned or rented. The most represented areas of
 the City were the South End and Old North End/New North End, with most being English
 speakers who plan or hope to stay in Burlington. Sauve continued by sharing the
 questions that BPRW asked, which were: share a special memory related to the places,
 programs and events offered by BPRW, what is at the root of BPRW’s value to
 Burlington, what is a trunk that supports the BPRW system but could or should evolve
 and what is a leaf that could be reimagined, replaced or let go? She shared that all of
 the questions received helpful and informative responses! Sauve continued by reporting
 out on the surveys, and shared that 448 statistically valid surveys were completed as a
 part of the random sample and 105 open public surveys were completed, but they are
 hoping to get more info throughout the summer via direct outreach via REIB, intercept
 surveys in the parks and on the Greenway, user counts, tabling at events and more done
 by 2 interns, who she introduced. Sauve continued by sharing that the next step of this
 process will be scenario planning, which is a method for making decisions by exploring
 several plausible futures, rather than predicting or planning for just one. She continued
 that a big focus of this is adding 7,000 housing units by 2050 and how we could get
 there from here through various scenarios. There will be focus groups occurring to
 solicit feedback and analyze impacts in July, which will include people like housing
 advocates or developers or community organizations, and then the scenario planning
 modeling will occur after. Sauve continued that there will be another open house and
 more public engagement in the Fall where these ideas will be presented. She concluded
 that this process will essentially identify different roadmaps that we could potentially
 take in the future.
 Mobley added that a common theme that has been popping up is a desire for more
 indoor spaces for recreational opportunities. She noted how often what BPRW offers
 has come up throughout this process and yet the balance that we’re striking around
 some of the budgetary choices doesn’t quite align with that. She’s curious about how
 that will emerge in the scenario planning that is done.
 Boehm was glad to hear that there will be another open house and opportunities for
 engagement and she noted that she thought the last open house was incredibly well
 done.
 Lantieri offered to be in a focus group with his housing advocate hat on and welcomed
 the interns and shared that he would like to join them for a day of surveying or tabling.
4.7 Urban Reserve
 Lantieri shared his screen and touched on the background and history of the Urban
 Reserve, noting that it is a 40-acre parcel north of the Moran Plant with limitations for
 development because of its history of being an oil refinery. He continued that it entered
 into the open space of Burlington starting in 1990 and is largely still vacant, with roughly
 half of the acreage being filled lands which are subject to the Public Trust Doctrine,
 which is a key influential legal decision that was created to be used for the public
 benefit, which is how the Urban Reserve came to be. Lantieri continued that the stated
 purpose of the Urban Reserve was to reserve the right for future generations to
 determine what level of development should occur at the site, which essentially meant
 they were not going to do anything there then, but they wanted to save this as an open
 space so that future generations can determine what is included. He continued that as
 part of the conservation easement, 8 acres of shoreline, 1.5 acres of natural area and a
 public recreation area of about 13 acres were included in this. He shared that also in this
 conservation easement that no less than 50% of the property should be retained as
 public open/recreation space or conservation land, which will allow for passive use,
 publicly accessible open space, the continued re-naturalization of the property with
 opportunities for public education informal passive recreation and a commitment to
 investigate and potentially remediate the brownfield site and maintaining some of the
 cultural industrial heritage of the site. Lantieri noted that all of these things, to some
 degree, have been happening. He then shared that it is defined as a “park natural area”
 in the ordinance. Lantieri noted important years for the Urban Reserve – 1990
 purchased by the City, 1994 the last petroleum drum was removed, 2012 voters passed
 a bill to devote $6 million toward waterfront revitalization, 2018 completion of the
 Greenway and 2019 Croteau vs City of Burlington which was a moment in the City
 where a policy around the removal and storage of possessions was created. Lantieri
 then shifted to what has been happening at the Urban Reserve more recently,
 specifically this Spring. He shared a list of dates and groups who participated in cleaning
 up the space, starting with a City-led clean-up on April 21st, to which Lantieri followed
 up by organizing volunteer cleanups of the space, of which there have been 8 so far with
 a 9th planned. He noted that they have been able to fill up a dumpster every time!
 Lantieri then shared a list of the impacts, including: 35 new park volunteers, 73
 volunteer shifts, 292 volunteer hours, about $10k of in-kind labor, at least 100, 42-
 gallong trash bags, a stronger volunteer coordination network and a sense of agency
 within the people of Burlington. He then shared that the overall goal is to give the entire
 space a re-set to see if we can chart a new path for this location and for community
 members who use the space. He noted that he has been working with O’Daniel and
 Cahill about how to partner with BPRW on this as well as working with the NPAs and
 other organizations to leverage this source of potential labor and impact at a time when
 the budget is stretched thin. He continued that when he hears someone say that “the
 City should do something” it encourages the idea in him that people aren’t recognizing
 the agency that they have to interact with and make a positive impact in the public
 realm. He hopes to provide opportunities for people to see that and to grow stronger
 advocates and volunteers that can someday be working on their own kinds of projects
 and making their own positive impact. Lantieri then touched on the costs of endeavors
 like this, including monetary costs and time and poison ivy. Next he discussed what’s
 next – and noted that recently signage went up marking some areas as “sensitive
 conservations areas”, support BPRW in determining the appropriate usages allowed and
 policies needed to maintain a safe, sustainable and vital park and long term determining
 some of the final specific usages of the space through amendments to the ordinance,
 which the Commission can help with.
 Cahill gave kudos to the City staff effort to get things to a baseline, but that clearly
 didn’t get everything, so the fact that different cleanup projects and community
 initiatives have come together and coalesced with the City’s efforts is amazing. He
 continued by giving the Park Rangers a shout out for all of the hard work they do in that
 area on a daily basis, both stewarding the landscape but also being in relationship with
 the humans who are finding their way through the parks as park users in different
 forms. He then noted that staff are in the process of writing a management plan with
 objectives and tasks related to those restoration frameworks for the area identified for
 restoration.
 Lewis gave kudos to Lantieri for all of the time and energy he has put into the space with
 the volunteers. He shared that he recently walked down there with Cahill and leadership
 from the Mayor’s office and the space has been transformed since that first cleanup. He
 asked Lantieri to share their appreciation with all of the volunteers.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that there is a meeting on Thursday and that they are waiting to launch
 their campaign with the opening of the new Pomeroy playground.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis noted that the monthly report has a lot of great information about the current
 goings on. He continued by bringing up the e-moto and e-bike conversation, noting that
 it was a topic at last week’s Ordinance Committee and amongst staff within the
 different Departments that are impacted by this both in park spaces but also along the
 right-of-ways to make sure that we have a unified voice and what options may be
 available in trying to understand the different pinch points as it relates to enforcement
 and ordinance adoption regulations, including in the park ordinances which would
 require staff to work through what the timeline could look like on that, acknowledging
 that there is a request from the ordinance committee to try to move this work forward
 as quickly as possible. He continued that there is interest in trying to establish speed
 limitations along shared use pathways in our system and trying to connect the language
 between shared use paths and parks ordinance information as well as looking at the
 enforcement potential. Lewis then noted that they have been working very closely with
 the school district on this to share information out to families.
 Lewis then thanked Johnson for his commitment to the Commission and the City.
 Johnson was appreciative and shared that while he was sad to be leaving, he’s excited
 about the direction the Commission and the Department is going in.
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Johnson did not have any hours to report but noted that he has been seeing a lot of e-
 motos on the Greenway. He then noted that he would miss everyone and thanked
 everyone.
 Mobley had 3 volunteer hours to report and gave kudos to BPRW’s start to the season.
 Boehm went to the BTV Open House and attended one of the volunteer days at the
 Urban Reserve.
 Davis had 1 volunteer hour to report and noted that she saw coverage about Beach
 Bites on the news already.
 Lantieri shared about his visit to San Francisco and their public parks. He had 20
 volunteer hours to report.
6. Adjournment
 6.1 Motion to adjourn
 Boehm made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Davis seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed. The meeting was closed at 8:18pm.