Portland Open Space Vision — Portland, ME
Date: 2015-04-01

Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan

 Stakeholder Meeting No. 2

 April 1, 2015

 6:00 – 8:00 pm

 Room: Portland City Hill, Council Chambers

1. Portland Open Space Vision And Implementation Plan Meeting 2 Agenda




 Documents: AGENDA FOR MEETING 2.PDF

Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan

 Stakeholder Meeting No. 2

 April 1, 2015

 6:00 – 8:00 pm

 Room: Portland City Hill, Council Chambers

1. Portland Open Space Vision And Implementation Plan Meeting 2 Agenda




 Documents: AGENDA FOR MEETING 2.PDF
 Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan
 Stakeholder Meeting No. 2
 April 1, 2015
 6 – 8 pm
 Room: Portland City Hill, Council Chambers
___________________________________________________________________

  1. Review and discuss on-line survey findings (30 minutes)



  2. Revisit and refine overarching vision statement for this plan (20 minutes)

 Draft vision statement created by a volunteer vision committee:

 Portland will build on our historic system of parks, trails, and open spaces to enhance our
 quality of life, protect our environment, and promote the economic well-being of our
 remarkable city by the sea.


  3. Discuss desired level of service for parks, trails and open space: (1 hour)

 Level of Service: a developed standard tailored to an appropriate range, quantity and
 quality of recreational facilities within its fiscal limits (e.g. 10 minute walk to an aquatic
 center)

 a. Review existing level of service with GIS maps providing visualization
 tools
 b. Discuss level of service goals with map scenarios
 i. Identify potential gaps in service and ideas for filling those
 gaps.



  4. Review assigned tasks for next meeting (May 6) (10 minutes)

Meeting Notes: Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan
 Stakeholder Meeting No. 2
 April 1, 2015
 6pm – 8pm
 Room: Portland City Hill, Council Chambers

Attendees:

Sally Deluca, Bethany Sanborn, Rick Knowland, Bill Needelman, Jeremy Bloom, Christine Cantwell, Bobbi
Keppel, Laura Mailander, Nat May, Julie Mulkern, Anne Pringle, Rebeccah Schaffner, Amy Segal, Jan
Kearce, Michael Mertaugh, Tom Jewell, Colleen Tucker, Kara Wooldrik, Kate O’Brien

Meeting Notes:

 1. Review of project/deliverable. Base map is in good shape; if anyone finds anything missing,
 please let us know.
 2. When reviewing definitions, Anne Pringle noted that we should change to just “cemeteries” and
 should not name Evergreen specifically.
 3. Community meetings review: Kara gave a brief presentation on the report that Portland Trails
 recently completed re: the community meetings they led last fall.
 4. Online survey results review: 1100 people responded. Note that this is a self-selecting group.
 For details, please see ppt slides on this topic or the summary findings report (revised: there
 was one column in the table on page 9 that has been corrected). Discussion:
 a. Action item: cross-tabulate for ethnicity and also for non-resident responses. (This was
 at the suggestion of Michael Mertaugh). The Portland open space system is really a
 regional system, and non-residents should definitely be considered users.
 b. Action item: get from Sally the 2006 survey and cross-reference
 results/demographics/top issues.
 c. The question of a phone poll was brought up to make sure we capture the voices of a
 wider range of people (seniors, as we have an aging population, for example). This is
 costly, but it is something to keep on our list.
 5. Finalization of Vision Statement: Brief, guiding vision. Focus on brevity, specific to Portland, and
 aspirational. Version that the subcommittee came up with: Portland will build on our historic
 system of parks, trails, and open spaces to enhance our quality of life. Protect our
 environment, and promote the economic well-being of our remarkable city by the sea.
 a. Comments:
 i. Colleen: Thought that the concept of sustainability should be included: Revise
 beginning to: “Portland commits to sustain and build on our historic system…”
 ii. Bill: Loves the Longfellow reference and use of “remarkable” – this used to be
 part of city’s slogan.
 iii. Michael: Likes it. City by the sea is important to note.


 1
 iv. Bethany: Should free physical activity/promotion of health/well-being be
 included?
 v. Anne: Likes the addition Colleen suggested above.
 vi. Nat: Likes it. Portland is Maine’s largest city and therefore a huge economic
 driver for the state. Not sure how this would fold into vision statement above.
 (Not pushing a change)
 b. Two versions will be presented to the Steering Committee to vote for final vision
 statement. One will be the subcommittee version and the other will be the modified
 version that Colleen proposed. There was not a quorum of Steering Committee
 members present so they will vote at a future time.
6. Creating Level of Service Goals: What services (related to parks, trails and open space) are we
 measuring and tracking, and how are we doing it?
 a. Reviewed similar cities: Hartford and Burlington, talked to planners there. Burlington
 has decided to focus on maintenance/existing park revitalization in the near-term.
 b. Kelley presented a couple of examples of common level of service goals:
 i. Measuring provision of physical space for parks, recreation and open space: for
 this it is common to divide your park system into different types (e.g. mini-parks,
 neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, special use parks) and
 then identify a desired amount of acreage for each of those categories. Kelley
 gave an example by putting Portland’s parks into those categories and looking
 at how well they are doing in terms of acreage allotments by categories
 compared to common acreage goals for those categories.
 ii. Measuring accessibility of the current parks, recreation and open space. Kelley
 showed two maps – one that showed where the gaps in the current system are
 if you set a goal of having a park within .5 miles of every resident and one that
 shows the gaps if you set a goal of having a park within.25 mile of every
 resident.
 c. We want to find measureable ways to look at success; what service should we
 measure/what do we want to see in 15 years? What service do we want to include in
 provision of space? Everyone was asked to complete a brief worksheet on their own,
 discuss it with 1-2 people, and bring their best ideas back to the group (see #7 below)
 d. Initial comments:
 i. Bobbi: We may lose perimeter land as water level rises.
 ii. Colleen: look at the amount of use of existing space. More people using parks.
7. Small group feedback for “what services should we measure?”
 a. Group 1: Community gardens and food: food security within walking distance
 (PROXIMITY would be measurement). Long wait-list for community garden plots (No
 wait list = metric?). Multi-generational use of space (playground for children and also
 senior citizens after school hours, for instance). Begs the question: is need different in
 different areas of the city?
 b. Group 2): Measuring services provided for events – how many, what kind, do people
 know how to use public space for events?; Access: ease of access for diverse population

 2
 (bus routes, ADA, etc.); citizen stewardship of parks/caring for our parks; safety and
 maintenance; cleanliness; measuring how open spaces provide for wildlife (as well as
 our citizens).
 c. Group 3: Level of use balanced with ecological sensitivity; biological diversity (presence
 of invasive species); don’t focus on the most easily measured – passive use of parks, for
 example: this is not easily measured.
 d. Group 4: How will we use narratives to measure park success?; preservation of historic
 parks/places; social and environmental metrics: justice, values, beauty, passive use;
 think of parks as buffers for climate change/sea level rise; Anne highlighted levels of
 service per category: expenditure per usage/acre – demonstrate how much we spend
 on each category.
 e. Group 5: Measure access of public space for residents (10 minute walking distance, for
 instance); Access to specialty parks needs to be measured (baseball fields, etc.). What
 are the barriers (roads)? Measure inter-connectivity between open spaces; integration
 with neighborhoods: how easy is it to access a particular open space from a
 neighborhood (sometimes this is harder than we think); access to nature and water;
 TREES – count them!
 f. Group 6: Ease of access for entire population (kids to seniors); sustainability – quality of
 open spaces; need to focus on maintaining; improve soil, at least on peninsula, using
 permaculture; benches/plans/pocket parks – all needed.
8. We need a SUBCOMMITTEE to create level of service goals. Volunteers: Bobbi, Michael, Colleen,
 Anne, Rick, Sally, Amy
9. Next Meeting: There’s been a proposal to change the time to 4-6 pm on May 6 (instead of 6 – 8
 pm). Action item: Troy will check with rest of steering committee.




 3