Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-03-10
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30pm, 645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
Please click the link to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96443534529
Or one tap mobile : +13126266799
Webinar ID: 964 4353 4529




1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

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


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.2. City Hall Park Special Use Permit (ONE Arts)
 Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.3. Oakledge Special Use Permit (VT Commons School)
 Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type
  Recommended Action

  Subject 2.4. Pomeroy Park Special Use Permit (UVM Office of Student & Community
 Relations)
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. Legacy Funding Request
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Chapter 20, Section 12: E-bikes on the Greenway
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront
  Type Discussion


  Subject 4.4. Recreation Update: Programs & Reorganization
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.5. FY27 Budget Process
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.6. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.7. General Fund Capital Project Selection & Prioritization Process (CP3)
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action

Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30pm, 645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
Please click the link to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96443534529
Or one tap mobile : +13126266799
Webinar ID: 964 4353 4529




1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

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


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.2. City Hall Park Special Use Permit (ONE Arts)
 Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 2.3. Oakledge Special Use Permit (VT Commons School)
 Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type



 Page 1 of 30
  Recommended Action

  Subject 2.4. Pomeroy Park Special Use Permit (UVM Office of Student & Community
 Relations)
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. Legacy Funding Request
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Chapter 20, Section 12: E-bikes on the Greenway
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront




 Page 2 of 30
  Type Discussion


  Subject 4.4. Recreation Update: Programs & Reorganization
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.5. FY27 Budget Process
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.6. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.7. General Fund Capital Project Selection & Prioritization Process (CP3)
  Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action



 Page 3 of 30
 Subject 5.2. Director's Report
 Meeting March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, 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 March 10, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645
 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 4 of 30
Parks Commission Meeting

February 10th, 2026 @ 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



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

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

Public in Attendance: Tim Larned, Delia Horn



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:30pm and asked for a motion to amend or adopt the
 agenda.
 Boehm made a motion to adopt the agenda, Mobley seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 January Meeting Minutes
 2.2 Roosevelt Park Special Use Permit Request
 2.3 Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request
 Mobley made a motion to approve all items on the consent agenda, Boehm seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.
 3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 The public forum was opened at 6pm.
 Delia Horn was in attendance to encourage commissioners to approve a Penny for Parks
 request for new soccer goals and nets at Appletree Park. She noted that their original
 request was just for new nets, but that the existing frames were deemed unusable by
 Parks staff. She continued that there are many children in the neighborhood who use
 the park consistently and new goals and nets would get a lot of wonderful use there.
 The public forum was closed at 6:04pm.
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Chris DiStasi, from Interface Studio, introduced himself and then began sharing screen.
 He explained that he and his team were brought on to support the Plan BTV 2050
 process and gave an overview of the various pieces of the larger municipal plan and 3
 sub-plans that fit within it – BPRW, Economic Development and Transportation. He
 shared that built into each of these plans will be a scenario planning exercise, which will
 show how Burlington could develop over time depending on different variables. DiStasi
 continued that the municipal plan has a one year timeline so it needs to be done by
 December of this year, but the BPRW and 2 other smaller plans are a little more flexible.
 He then introduced his firm and colleagues and gave an overview of who they are and




 Page 5 of 30
shared that a big piece of their work in other communities has been looking at park
system investments over time with hard data on where spending is going to, which has
led to equitable, data-driven decision making processes to systematize how park
systems are making investment decisions to make sure they are living up to the goals
and values at their core. He continued that they also focus on telling the story of the
impact of parks and rec systems on the cities that they are located in, such as fun and
recreation, education and enrichment, health and wellness, community building,
ecological and climate functions, economic development, tourism and employment,
property values and more – demonstrating that parks and rec have broad and
tremendous impacts on their cities and are an essential public service in many ways,
worthy of adequate investment. DiStasi continued by sharing that public engagement is
at the core of their work and will be a big part of their process. He noted that they
would be using past and existing documents that have already been created to do this
work, so they won’t be starting from scratch, but their role will be to take what
information has already been gathered and continue to work with City staff to get to a
visioning point where residents are being engaged to talk about the vision for the future
of the Department and the City, and then building the strategies to help achieve those
goals. DiStasi then touched on key topics of focus, including the types and amount of
parkland, amenities and recreational facilities, recreational programming, activities and
events, maintenance, design and place making, accessibility, climate resilience, revenue
generation, the Waterfront and supporting staff and community stewards. He continued
by sharing a preliminary schedule, noting that this week is full of on-site meetings which
the team will be building on for a first round of public engagement most likely in late
April. He noted that there will be a statistically valid city-wide survey that will ensure a
sample representative of residents as well as a public survey. He continued that there
will be second and third rounds of public engagement throughout the rest of 2026.
DiStasi then opened it up for questions and discussion, reiterating that he and the team
are there to listen and learn right now, wanting to hear from people what is special and
important as well as what are some elements that need attention and what are
priorities for people and decision making bodies.
Mobley noted that personally, she spends a lot of time at the Leddy Arena, sharing her
hope that it gets included and considered in this process.
DiStasi answered that they will be visiting that site tomorrow and that rec facilities are
going to be an important part of this to receive attention.
Etter asked if the Department knows what facilities and programs are running at
capacity currently.
Lewis answered that the internal system the Department uses has the capabilities to
track that and that there have already been some discussions with the consultants
about focusing in on an overview of recreation in particular, specifically what has
happened in the last year after the cuts with the hopes of re-setting the stage and
looking towards how to move forward. He noted that the 2015 plan had a goal of
opening more recreation facilities and unfortunately through the budget process in
2025, one was closed. He continued by sharing that right-sizing community expectations




 Page 6 of 30
 and resources to make sure we’re providing opportunities for recreation as much as is
 feasible, will be a goal throughout this process.
 DiStasi noted that while growing and expanding resources is great when possible, but
 they’re looking through the lens of long-term planning and prioritization across projects
 and weighing the trade-offs of different kinds of investment by looking at user and
 programming data to help step back and ask where things fall on the long-term list of
 priorities and how far down the list can we get.
 Etter noted the importance of Lake Champlain.
 Mobley asked them to keep the data for underserved communities that they might not
 be capturing in mind.
 DiStasi answered that the hope is that the survey will help mitigate this concern.
 Lantieri suggested that the consultants visit the Sea Caves at Arthur Park, noting that
 there is support from staff as well as community engagement. He continued by
 suggesting that they visit the Leddy Park Bike Park as well, which has heavily involved a
 community group. He wanted to highlight these two locations because there is
 community engagement that is valuable, but not monetary, so may not show up in a
 budget, but having these resources creates additional value. Lantieri feels that there is a
 strong culture for that in Burlington, but also more opportunity for growth in this area.
4.2 Conservation Legacy Fund Nature Based Solutions Grant Recommended Awardee
 Slate
 Cahill opened by sharing that this is the 3rd year that this program has been active and
 that it has been a fun and collaborative process. He continued that this is one of the key
 ways that the community and organizations who are doing great work for the
 environment and climate adaptation are engaged and their work is empowered. Cahill
 continued by thanking Davis and Mobley for being such a fun, engaging and thorough
 members of the review group. He then shared screen to show the scoring and opened it
 up for questions.
 Lantieri asked about Vermont Garden Network being awarded their full requested
 amount even though their score was slightly lower than VYCC, who was not awarded
 any funding.
 Cahill answered that VYCC did not identify a specific project in their application, but all
 of the other applicants did, which was the biggest deterrent.
 Mobley chimed in that it was also written as an all or nothing option.
 Cahill noted that he has been in touch with VYCC since they received the news, which
 included a discussion and plan for how to build a better competitive ask in the future as
 well as how we can continue to collaborate this season despite this.
 There were no other questions or comments.
 Davis made a motion to move the slate forward. Etter seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.
4.3 Wetland Walk Legacy Request
 Cahill opened by sharing that there are 3 pockets of the Conservation Legacy Fund – one
 has historically been understood as the acquisition part of the fund (40%), the Nature
 Based Climate Solutions Grand part of the fund (30%) and the Stewardship part of the
 fund (30%). Cahill continued that there have been a variety of requests that have come




 Page 7 of 30
through for infrastructure projects related to the long-term protection of Burlington’s
natural areas, but there hasn’t been a clear way to support these requests or if it’s an
appropriate use of the fund. He shared that recently, the City Attorney identified that
conservation infrastructure relates to the long-term protection of our City’s natural
areas and that it is an acceptable use of the fund. The Conservation Board received this
request before this new determination, and still supported it as an exception, based on
the fund balance and that they felt it was a vital resource for the community.
Tim Larned, from the Winooski Valley Park District, introduced himself and shared that
he’s excited at the prospect of this project fitting into the Legacy Fund. He continued
that the original boardwalk was installed in 1992 and was heavily used, noting that the
park is free for anyone to visit and use. Larned shared that frost heaves have made a big
impact on the old boardwalk, noting that a new design would use helical piers instead of
the original galvanized posts, which would cut down on the annual labor that has been
required. He shared that the current design is 4ft wide, but they’re hoping to expand it
to 5ft to make it more accessible and comfortable for users. Larned continued by
sharing that they have applied for grants to address this project over the years and
would score relatively well but not be awarded the funding. He feels though that this
would be a big asset for the community. Larned noted that while the amount that
they’re requesting is on the higher side, it would allow for them to complete the entire
project at once, instead of piecemeal, which would be less expensive and more efficient
in the long run.
Davis asked what “helical piers” are and what naturally rot-resistant materials would be.
Larned answered that they are posts that get twisted into the ground until you hit a
certain pressure in the wetland, which creates less disturbance in the wetland overall
and reduces the impact of frost heaves. He continued that they would use rot resistant
wood, like black locust or white oak and ideally locally sourced.
Etter asked if any projects were turned down in order to fund this.
Lantieri followed up asking if this would have any long-term impacts on the fund.
Cahill answered that there aren’t any other applications currently, but there is a
prospective property list that is kept in regard to potential acquisitions, so there is
always the potential for a land deal to pop up that could impact the overall health of the
fund. He continued that to fully answer the question, it might be helpful to look at the
overall balance of the fund, which they could come back to the Commission with next
month if they want to put a hold on this as an action item for now.
Etter asked, given the amount and fund management, would this impede awarding
other requests? And for what length of time?
Cahill answered that this is a great questions and gets at the heart of the dialogue of
how to be good stewards of the Legacy Fund, especially with the new finding that this
can be used for infrastructure. He continued that this request shows the importance of
the flexibility of the fund to come to the aid of moments like these and shared that the
spirit of the Conservation Board’s discussion about this has been to keep this as an ad
hoc process, application by application, and that it will require a discussion around
balance and keeping track of prospective properties and then making real-time
decisions about whether it feels like a viable thing to do at that time.




 Page 8 of 30
 Etter asked if he could share what percent of the fund this request would be.
 Cahill answered that this would be roughly 10%.
 Boehm asked for Cahill to reiterate how the fund is split up.
 Cahill answered that the fund accrues $230,000 a year and 30% goes into stewardship,
 which pays part of his and the Conservation Field Coordinator’s salary which supports
 the administrative aspects of the fund, 30% goes to grant awardees, and 40% goes
 towards acquisition and infrastructure.
 Etter noted that means that it would take about 3 years to recover the cost of this
 project. He then asked if they get this type of request on that general timeline.
 Cahill answered that this was the first of its kind, which precipitated the discussion and
 debate and review by the City Attorney, but that the amount is on par with larger
 disbursements that have occurred, such as Rock Point, the Rivers End Marina project
 and the conservation of Kieslich Park.
 Mobley asked if partial funding of this would be possible.
 Cahill answered that awardees are paid out over time as the work is completed and
 acknowledged that he appreciated this kind of creative thinking, but that as Larned
 noted, it would be beneficial to complete the project all at once.
 Etter asked when they would need to know the decision by.
 Larned answered that it would most likely be a winter project. He then touched on
 phases and how that would impede efficiency of the work and therefore the funds, but
 that there might a potential for other grants/organizations to kick in money if they know
 that a large chunk of the funding would be covered by this.
 Davis asked why this work would be better to do in the winter.
 Larned answered that access would be easier for the contractor and there would be less
 of an impact on the wetland.
 The general consensus was for the Commission to take this month to consider this
 request and come back next month to make a decision.
 Etter asked for a history of the use of the fund and trends over time of incremental
 funding and disbursements for them to consider.
4.4 Penny for Parks – Community Requests
 Madalinski opened by introducing himself and explained that the Penny for Parks fund is
 a dedicated tax fund that funds capital projects in parks, which is $40,000 annually, and
 is a way for the community to provide project suggestions to the Department. He
 shared that requests can be as simple as new soccer goals in a park to complex requests
 that can’t necessarily be completed, like a water park partially in the lake, and that the
 fund is set up so the smaller requests can be funded almost immediately, while still
 seeing some of those bigger requests through, like the universally accessible playground
 at Oakledge or the bike park at Leddy. He continued by sharing that there was a very
 low submission rate this year, with a total of 5 requests, and he’s not sure why.
 Madalinski began by sharing the submissions, starting with the one request that wasn’t
 awarded – more trash receptacles at the north end of Waterfront Park, the reason being
 that Roach had already been in touch with this individual and was working to make this
 happen from other funding sources. Madalinski continued by reviewing the 3 requests
 that were awarded, beginning with the Burlington American Little League Scorer’s Booth




 Page 9 of 30
at Calahan Park. He shared that this was an outstanding project from last season and
that the Little League has a design from a local contractor to build. This project initially
began by the little league asking for help with getting permits, but their funding has
fallen short and they estimated needing another $7,000 to complete the project, so the
Department is recommending allocating up to $8,000 in support of the project. He
noted that they have an ample amount of people who are willing to provide volunteer
labor, including the contractor. Next, Madalinski touched on soccer goals at Appletree
Park request, and thanked Delia Horn for attending in support of this. He continued that
Parks staff deemed the existing goals there to be too damaged to put new nets on, but
they identified another set of goal frames out and are recommending allocating $350 to
purchase new nets for those. Madalinski continued by reviewing the last request –
lighting the tennis courts at Calahan Park as well as generally increasing the lighting at
that park. He shared that the Department is currently in design with an engineer looking
at the park’s comprehensive plan to replace the basketball courts, tennis courts and
build a storm water feature, but they weren’t awarded the Land Water Conservation
Fund grant money they had applied for to complete the work, so they have been looking
to peel it back and potentially just re-do the tennis courts at this time. The estimate for
the lighting piece of this is roughly $100,000, so they are thinking that they could
reallocate remaining Penny for Parks funds that have come from this request towards
this project, as well as looking at how they can reduce the cost by doing some of the
work internally instead of by an external contractor. He shared that going about the
lighting installation this way, the cost would be closer to $22,500, mostly for the
materials, so the recommendation is to allocate $31,650 towards this project. He noted
that this is assuming they can get all of the capital dollars they need to move the overall
reconstruction of the tennis courts forward.
Boehm was glad to hear that the soccer goals at Appletree Park had made the list. She
continued by asking if there has been any cross promotion with schools to get the word
out for Penny for Parks, suggesting that might be a new avenue to consider.
Davis suggested going to NPAs with Penny for Parks information.
Sauve shared that they have done NPA tours in the past, but it would be a good thing to
do again, and it could go hand-in-hand with the comprehensive plan outreach that will
be happening soon.
Mobley shared that she has applied in the past, and a sign in a park is what got her
attention to apply. She continued by suggesting that when the new nets are up, to get
pictures of them being used to promote Penny for Parks.
Madalinski shared that he’s been talking with the Department’s Marketing and
Communications Manager about doing videos to plug Penny for Parks.
Lantieri asked if they had considered looking back at past applications from more
competitive years that could be potentially viable now.
Madalinski shared that most that haven’t been awarded were because they were too
expensive, which all go into the broader capital planning list.
With no other questions, Boehm made a motion to approve the slate of Penny for Parks
requests. Mobley seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.




 Page 10 of 30
 4.5 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 Lewis opened by briefly reviewing the last meeting’s discussion on section 7, specifically
 noting that there were some additional questions around parking in Calahan Park and
 parks in general. He shared that after those conversations began within the
 Department, they connected with the City Attorneys and in further conversations
 amongst them, it was discovered that there is also currently a parking ordinance going
 through the Ordinance Committee, which will need to have language inserted into
 section 5 the park ordinances. He continued that in order to bring all of that together,
 they need more time and are hopeful to bring this back to the Commission in March,
 but will keep everyone posted.
 Mobley asked who has prioritization in cases like this – the Department and the
 Department’s external body or the Ordinance Committee.
 Lewis answered that he was not positive, but that the Ordinance Committee is a sub-
 committee of City Council, who would ultimately need to approve any changes. He
 continued that if there are concerns from this body after reviewing the language
 though, that it should be voiced and that there would most likely be an opportunity to
 redirect if there are contradictions to how they want to see vehicles react in our Parks.
 Boehm noted that while moving this forward would be great, there isn’t necessarily a
 rush from the Commission’s end.
 Lewis responded thanking her, but also that he wants to strike while the iron is still hot,
 so to speak.
 4.6 Budget FY27 Process Update
 Lewis shared that BPRW is still working closely with DFA and the Mayor’s office around
 how to appropriately make adjustments to the budget and work with the directives that
 have been given. He noted that City Council approved going to the voters for the police
 and fire tax on Town Meeting Day and that the Mayor and CAO have been attending
 NPA meetings to inform the community on what it would mean if it passed or not and
 the importance of maintaining public safety as the City is going through obvious budget
 challenges. He shared that knowing the outcome of the vote will inform how we
 continue to move the budget conversations forward, and that the next definite update
 will most likely be in April.
 Lantieri was curious if it was possible to capture the value that is created by volunteers
 for the Department amidst all of these budgeting conversations and scenarios.
 Lewis was not sure but said he would look into whether or not this is something that is
 currently being tracked.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri did not have any updates to share on this item.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis referenced the monthly report that Commissioners received, specifically noting all
 of the moving parts with the cold weather emergency shelter operations and that has
 been stretching staff. He shared that 24 Parks staff have been directly impacted by this,
 and there have been ongoing conversations about how to best support the needs of all
 community members, both in safety and health related aspects, but also the




 Page 11 of 30
 recreational needs, noting that it is a balance. He also gave kudos to Parks staff who
 have been out in the weather making sure that we have a safe and accessible City and
 assets across the system. Lewis also noted that Recreation’s summer camp programs
 have gone live, garden registrations have opened and shelter reservations will be
 opening soon.
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Lantieri shared that he visited the Sea Caves and recommended others check it out. He
 had 1 volunteer hour to report.
 Boehm had 1 volunteer hour to report and that she and her family have been spending
 a lot of time skating at Lakeview Park.
 Davis had 1 volunteer hour to report and recently took a walk down to the Urban
 Reserve.
 Johnson didn’t have any hours to report. He noted that he will not be available for the
 next meeting.
 Mobley has also visited both the Sea Caves and Lakeview for outdoor skating. She also
 shared that she spends a lot of time at Leddy and wanted to shout out the staff there.
 She didn’t have any volunteer hours to report.
 Etter and Bergmann left before this portion of the meeting.
6. Adjournment
 6.1 Motion to Adjourn
 Boehm made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Johnson seconded. All were in favor,
 none opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:24pm.




 Page 12 of 30
MEMO
Date: February 26, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Elizabeth Indorato, BCA Festival & Event Coordinator
RE: Special Use Permit for June 21, 2026


Request for a Special Use Permit at City Hall Park to hold a community picnic and
public concert from 2pm to 3pm on June 21, 2026 and for a waiver to allow amplified
sound.

This event aims to provide a community Father’s Day celebration. This event is
expected to have around 100-200 participants over the course of the afternoon, and
10 volunteers/staff. ONE ARTS Community School will be working with BCA to
ensure all vendors follow the required guidelines and go through the proper process
including having a Certificate of Insurance. They and BCA staff will be responsible
for site clean-up.

The amplified sound will take place between 2pm and 3pm and will be a series of
speakers and a performance by a children’s musician. BCA staff will be managing all
production elements, including sound. ONE ARTS Community School has already
booked City Hall Park.

Contact for the event is Margaret Coleman.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.

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




 Page 13 of 30
MEMO
Date: March 10th, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator
RE: Vermont Commons School Special use Permit for June 11th, 2026


Request for waiver at Oakledge Upper Shelter to allow amplified sound for a school field day on Thursday,
June 11th, reservation hours are 9:00am – 8:30pm.

The amplified sound will consist of music being played from a playlist and announcements between 9am
– 3pm. They will have roughly 120 students and teachers in attendance.

Tim Harger, Dean of Students, Vermont Commons School is the main point of contact for the event.

The request is on a day with no conflicting events.


Staff Recommendations:
Allow waiver for amplified sound.




 Page 14 of 30
MEMO
Date: March 10th, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator
RE: UVM Office of Student & Community Relations Special Use Permit for April 30th & September
10th, 2026


Request for a Special Use Permit at Pomeroy Park to allow for a vehicle to park in the park.

The UVM Office of Student & Community Relations (OSCR) will be hosting 2 community events at Pomeroy
Park and are requesting permission to have a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream truck park within the park and serve
free ice cream for both. These event are open to all residents, whether or not they are UVM students,
with the intention of celebrating the end and start of the school year with the surrounding neighborhoods.
The events will take place from 2pm – 5pm

Contact for the event is John Mejia.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.


Staff Recommendations:
Allow for Special Use Permit.




 Page 15 of 30
MEMO
Date: Wednesday February 25th, 2026
To:​ Parks Commission and Conservation Board
From:​ Dan Cahill, City Land Steward,
RE:​ Conservation Legacy Fund Expense Request, Appraisal 451 Ethan Allen Pkwy

The City is seeking approval for the use of $3500 from the Legacy Fund for an appraisal for 451 Ethan
Allen Pkwy. 451 Ethan Allen Pkwy is currently listed for sale and the City is in dialogue with the owners.


Proposed Action: Authorize use of $3500 from Legacy Fund and move to City Council/BOF for review and
approval.




 Page 16 of 30
 City of Burlington




 General Fund Capital
Project Selection & Prioritization Process (CP3)

 February 10, 2026
 Page 17 of 30
 General Fund Capital Budget
What is included in the General Fund Capital Budget?
• DPW (Streets, Sidewalks, Bridges, Fleet), Parks, Facilities, I&T, Fire, Police, Public Art & TIF
  Districts.

• Does not include repair or maintenance.
• Does not include Enterprise & Special Revenue Departments which are supported
  independently of the General Fund Capital Program.

• City’s Interdepartmental Capital Committee: Charged with reviewing all requests for new
  capital project/purchase funding; recommends the annual capital budget.


 Page 18 of 30
 Why CP3?
• GF Capital Program has become overcommitted – lack of structure,
  transparency, predictability, and equity


• Need across all asset types > capital
 resources available


• Goal: a system that provides clear
 evaluation criteria & a numerical weighted
 prioritization system
 Page 19 of 30
 CP3 Evaluation Matrix


 Criteria Weighting
Evaluation Criteria Max Point Value
Community Impact 45
Asset Condition 40
Risk Management & Collaboration 40
Urgent/Health/Safety 35
Project Readiness 25
Operating Budget Impact 15
Sustainability & Resilience 15
Connection to Local & Regional Planning 10
  Note: Fleet assets will continue to be evaluated and prioritized through the City’s existing Fleet
  Management software (RTA).

 Page 20 of 30
 CP3 Matrix
1. Community Impact: project that addresses a barrier to one of the City’s
 identified community goals, including: increasing the supply of affordable
 housing, anticipating disruptions to local employers and businesses,
 creating opportunities to grow and retain jobs, and/or addressing a
 community health/safety/accessibility need
 • Requirements need to be addressed by a project’s
 90% design to ensure that the elements will be
 continued through to project implementation.

 Examples: sidewalk infrastructure that supports documented
 proposed level of service increase for a new affordable
 housing development; project has a business communication
 plan and has coordinated the construction schedule to
 support business hours of operation

 Page 21 of 30
CP3 Matrix

 2. Asset Condition: project that improves existing asset
 condition by rehabilitating or replacing an asset so
 that there is added value or extension of the useful
 life of the asset

 • Asset service life thresholds are dependent on the type of
 asset, and these are defined more in the City’s Capital Asset
 Policy.


 Examples: replacement of sidewalk segments at end of life;
 replacement of water boilers at end of life; replacement of Fleet
 vehicles at end of life
 Page 22 of 30
 CP3 Matrix

3.Risk Management & Collaboration: funding
request that addresses external payback provisions
and City liability, internal replacement schedule
requirements, consideration of risks at various
project milestones, and interdepartmental
collaboration required to plan for impacts and
long-term maintenance needs

 Examples: City has signed a grant award for a project that has
  life-to-date grant spending (not including local match) of
  >$250,000; project has not passed the ROW clearance
  milestone
 Page 23 of 30
CP3 Matrix
 4. Urgent/Health/Safety: a project or funding
 request that responds to an asset that has
 failed and cannot be used, or failure is
 imminent and will impact the health &
 safety of City staff or the general public

 Examples: asset’s remaining service life is < 1 year;
 failing/failed HVAC system; out of service Police cruiser
 that cannot be repaired




 Page 24 of 30
 CP3 Matrix

5. Project Readiness: project that can be
 completed today – it has received all
 permits and verified cost estimates,
 and could be completed today if it had
 funding to support

 • Consideration will be given to projects that
 commit to completion within requested
 funding amount.

 Examples: project has 30% design with cost
 estimates showing the project can be
 completed now with funding requested and
 there is no additional/future need
 Page 25 of 30
 CP3 Matrix

6. Operating Budget Impact: project considers long-term impacts to the City’s
 General Fund Operating Budget after the acceptance of an improved asset
 condition or new asset, while also limiting immediate cash flow impacts to the
 General Fund
 • Consideration will be given to projects that provide a
 revenue generating plan that demonstrates how the
 completed project could offset long-term maintenance
 costs or pay back financing commitments upon
 completion.
 Examples: completed project will require long-term
 General Fund revenues to support asset maintenance
 (either for personnel/materials); project has a
 reimbursable grant and the expenses need to be
 supported by General Fund revenues until
 reimbursement
 Page 26 of 30
 CP3 Matrix
7. Sustainability & Resilience: project that
 enhances the resiliency of the City, the
 environment, and the asset by minimizing
 the impacts of planned & unplanned
 events (i.e.: stormwater
 reduction/filtration, use of reusable
 building materials, etc.)

 • Requirements will need to be incorporated into a
 project’s 90% design to ensure incorporation of
 proposed strategies upon implementation

 Examples: project provides annual energy cost savings
 and is part of the City’s NetZero plan for Facilities;
 project reduces stormwater flow into Lake Champlain
 Page 27 of 30
CP3 Matrix
 8. Connection to Local & Regional Planning: project
 that enhances the community by conforming to
 the goals and objectives defined in local &
 regional plans involving a robust public process
 and is identified as a short-term and high-priority
 project (within 5-year Capital Plan cycle)

 • Filter out projects that have either been identified in a
 plan but not as a short-term priority or have not been
 identified by a plan at all.

 Examples: project is identified in planBTV or the City’s Capital
 Plan; project is included on the CCRPC’s Transportation
 Improvement Program (TIP) list; project has been identified
 in an energy audit Page 28 of 30
CP3 Process
 1. Departments will submit an online evaluation form for each project or
 asset funding request
 2. Projects/Needs are assigned weighted scores based on answers
 submitted
 3. Projects/Needs are ranked based on weighted values
 4. Fiscal Year Budget Allocations are determined based on prioritization
 rankings
 5. All projects/needs with an evaluation form are incorporated into the 5-
 Year Capital Plan
 6. Projects/Needs can be re-evaluated throughout the year & should be
 re-evaluated as projects achieve different milestones (i.e.: 30%, 60%, or
 final plan stage)
 7. Projects/Needs will be re-evaluated annually to update the 5-Year
 Page 29 of 30
 Capital Plan based on the City’s changing priorities/needs
Questions?


 For more information, please contact:

 Ashley Parker, Capital Program Director
 aparker@burlingtonvt.gov.




 Page 30 of 30

Parks Commission Meeting

March 10th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



Commissioners in Attendance: Lantieri, Boehm, Davis & Bergmann

Staff in Attendance: Sauve, Cahill, Santor & O’Daniel

Public in Attendance: none



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Davis made a motion to accept the agenda with the amendment of removing item 4.1.
 Boehm seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 February Meeting Minutes
 2.2 City Hall Park Special Use Permit (ONE Arts)
 2.3 Oakledge Special Use Permit (VT Commons School)
 2.4 Pomeroy Park Special Use Permit (UVM Office of Student & Community Relations)
 Boehm made a motion to accept the Consent Agenda.
 Davis had a question about the City Hall Park request. It was confirmed that the request
 was for amplified sound, which satisfied her question.
 Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 3. Public Forum – Time Certain, 6pm
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 Lantieri opened public forum at 6pm. No one was present in-person or on Zoom, so
 public forum was closed at 6:01pm.
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 4.2 Legacy Funding Request
 Cahill began by referencing the memo included in the agenda packet, noting that it was
 succinct. He continued by sharing that 451 Ethan Allen Parkway is a 7 acre parcel that is
 a little past CP Smith and abuts Ethan Allen Park and that it has been a topic of
 conversation in the conservation realm for a long time because it is largely wetland and
 it would be an extension of the park if acquired. Cahill continued that the owners were
 considering developing the frontage of it, but had an ongoing dialogue with the City in
 regards to when and if they were to do that, they would be open to deeding the
 remainder of the property to the City. He shared that those same owners have now put
 it on the market and they have agreed to do an appraisal, so the current request is to
 use the acquisition bucket of the Legacy Fund to pay for that appraisal, which involves
 Conservation Board, Parks Commission and Board of Finance approval.
 Lantieri asked if the Legacy Fund has been used for appraisal fees before.
 Cahill answered yes since it is a cost associated with an acquisition.
 Boehm made a motion to authorize the use of the $3,500 from the Legacy Fund to move
 forward to the City Council for review and approval. Davis seconded. All were in favor,
 none opposed.
4.3 Chapter 20, Section 12: E-bikes on the Greenway
 Peterson began by introducing himself and clarifying that this is a discussion, not an
 action item, with updates on Ordinance changes to Chapters 6 and 20. He continued
 that the main goal of these updates is clean up and clarity, noting that the current
 language has not kept up with the types of devices people are using, such e-bikes,
 motor assisted bikes, scooters and other micro mobility devices. He shared that the
 updated definitions are aligned with State law and make it clear where these devices
 can and cannot operate. Peterson continued that other updates include: a more
 accurate City center boundary and inside of that area only riders 16 and under can use
 sidewalks, motor assisted devices are not allowed on sidewalks anywhere in the City,
 and Church Street rules have been clarified so bikes and micro mobility devices are only
 allowed in the vehicle travel portions of Bank, Cherry, College and northern end of Main
 Street. He shared that there are also discussions being had about engineering and
 design in terms of creating more definitive space for these devices as well. Peterson
 continued that the Ordinance also confirms what is already standard practice – that
 these devices are allowed on bike paths, bike lanes, shared use pathways and
 crosswalks. He then touched on the safety section update, which is that all riders yield
 to pedestrians on shared use paths and stop before entering street crossings when
 coming off of a sidewalk. He closed by sharing that this was worked on and refined by
 the Walk/Bike Council and that it will go to the Public Works Commission later this
 month and then the Ordinance Committee and City Council.
 Lantieri noted that the main section he saw that referenced Parks was in Chapter 20,
 Section 12 “defining the Greenway”.
 Peterson confirmed and said that he did take a look at Parks & Rec’s specific section,
 noting that there are not many definitions or regulations. He continued by suggesting
 that Parks look to other communities in Vermont who have similar types of trails to see
 how they are approaching things like e-bikes.
 Cahill asked if there was a specific area that Peterson would foresee the Commission
 and staff putting attention towards.
 Peterson answered that looking at it through the lens of what problems are we trying to
 solve would probably be a good place to start.
 Lantieri chimed in that he’s in favor of having one definition for everything to eliminate
 confusion between the general public right of way and the Greenway, so aligning what’s
 happening on the Greenway felt logical to him.
 Sauve agreed but noted that the consequences should be thought through as well, such
 as the potential for lack of enforcement.
 Peterson agreed and suggested thinking about how signage could help.
 Sauve shared that last summer there was a heightened number of calls around e-bikes
 on the Greenway and concerns for safety and that the hope is to get ahead of it for the
 upcoming season. She continued that the Department is thinking through the potential
 for a Greenway etiquette push to hopefully help.
 Peterson responded that the Walk/Bike Council is hearing the same concerns, especially
 around speed and passing behavior, and the goal is to reduce conflicts between faster-
 moving devices and pedestrians especially in constrained areas, so anything we can do
 together on education and etiquette would be helpful.
 Cahill asked if there was a name for the newer devices that look like motorcycles.
 Peterson referenced the State laws, sharing that they are called EPAMDs (Electric
 Personal Assistive Mobility Devices). He continued by sharing that there are 3 classes of
 electric bikes: Class 1 is an e-bike equipped with a motor that provides assistance only
 when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bike reaches a
 speed of 20mph, Class 2 is an e-bike equipped with a motor that may be used
 exclusively to propel a bicycle and uses a throttle to reach the max speed of 20mph, and
 Class 3 is similar to Class 2 just no peddling required and the throttle can reach the
 speed of 28mph. He then shared that devices that can go faster than 28mph are not e-
 bikes, but could be an EPAMD. Peterson noted that speed has been a discussion with
 the Walk/Bike Council because there are some people who can cycle on regular bikes
 faster than e-bikes can go, which makes the speed discussion tricky. He continued that
 we can call out the different classes of e-bikes, but if the Commission is interested in
 discussing restrictions, it is important to keep in mind that not everyone will follow
 them and it may leave some path users out. He noted that personal responsibility does
 need to play a role.
 Boehm asked for clarification around what body has decision making power about the
 Greenway.
 Peterson responded that the City Attorneys could weigh in on that and help clarify.
 Lantieri confirmed that the Public Works Commission is already considering this for
 shared use paths in particular.
 Peterson confirmed yes and that with the regulations the way that they will exist once
 approved, one could make an argument that the Greenway is a shared use path which
 would fit under this banner of regulations, but that if there are other areas that need
 specific rules for safety reasons, like at the Bike Park, then Parks Staff and
 Commissioners could consider additional updates to rules.
 After a brief pause for Public Forum, the discussion continued without Peterson focusing
 on policy vs. ordinance and what Parks staff and Commissioners might need to explore
 further in terms of updating and/or changing what exists for both for the Greenway and
 Leddy Bike Park. The consensus was that they would follow these ordinance changes
 through their next steps and if it feels like something is left out for the Greenway that it
 would be discussed further with Parks staff and Commissioners.
4.4 Recreation Update: Programs & Reorganization
 Santor began by introducing herself and explained that she oversees the recreation
 programmers and that she would be sharing a quick overview of where things are at and
 their programs and welcomed questions. She continued by speaking to the past
 organizational structure of the recreation team before the RIFs last spring, when there
 was a Recreation Superintendent above her and then various programmers underneath
 her. She continued that after the RIFs, both adult programmer positions were cut and
 they were directed by the Mayor’s office to cease adult programs. Santor shared that it
 seemed like they did not fully understand the implications of the RIFs so there were a
 lot of conversations throughout the summer about how that was not a good idea, to the
 point where they were ready to potentially reinstate the full time position but that was
 paused in the fall to think through some additional places that position could land
 instead. Santor continued by sharing that the entire Rec team moved from the CORE to
 the Miller Center last fall and then earlier this year 2 of the remaining rec programmers
 resigned from their positions, leaving the athletics coordinator, the outdoor
 programmer and Santor, which is making them nervous as they gear up for their busiest
 time of the year. She continued that they are hiring for one of the open programmer
 positions right now, who will oversee all of the licensed childcare programming and are
 hoping to hire for the other open position soon, which would give them a team of 4
 instead of 5 like before the RIFs with the plan that everyone is a little more generalized
 and less specialized in their roles, giving the team a little more leeway to offer other
 programming to the City. Santor continued that while this has been a somewhat forced
 change she does feel that it is a good thing and is giving them a chance to look
 holistically at their offerings to see if they are truly serving every age of community
 members and be strategic about what they can offer with the staff they have.
 Santor then shared the interim post-RIF organizational chart after and explained which
 positions were eliminated during that process and what temporary reporting structure
 changes took place. She then shared the new organizational chart, noting that Lewis will
 be overseeing all of Rec – with two recreation manager roles, one for Miller, which
 Santor is in, and one for Leddy, which will be a new role and is currently going through
 the approval processes, with the appropriate programmers and admin under each
 location and manager. She continued that there will essentially be 2 separate recreation
 teams in terms of space, but they will have to operate very closely to offer
 programming.
 Sauve noted that it’s important to keep in mind that the new Leddy manager position
 has yet to go to City Council for approval, so until that happens it does not actually exist.
 Davis asked when that position would be going to City Council.
 Sauve answered in 2 weeks.
 Lantieri asked if this was in alignment with what was discussed a few months ago.
 Sauve answered yes and that it has become more and more clear that this position is
 needed. She continued that adult programming should be within all of the existing
 programming buckets instead of having a position dedicated to it.
 Santor chimed in that recreation programming is a unique area that has the capacity to
 be fully revenue generating, which it has not been in the past but she feels that they are
 on more solid ground now and is hopeful that they can get there. She closed by offering
 an opportunity for Commissioners to collaborate and support with the recreation team
 by helping them get more settled and organized into their space at the Miller Center.
 There was consensus that they would be interested in doing this and Santor said that
 she would be in touch soon to get that scheduled.
4.5 FY27 Budget Process
 Sauve shared that the safety tax passed, which is a huge relief and means less cuts
 overall. She continued that Department budget presentations will happen in late
 April/early May which is a little later than originally planned, but it gives everyone a
 little more time. She also shared that there will be another all-staff informational
 session with the Mayor’s office next week.
 Boehm asked if the org chart they were shown is what the Department feels will fit
 within the budget with the impending cuts.
 Sauve answered yes.
 Davis asked if there were any concerns with getting the new Leddy manager position
 passed by the City Council.
 Sauve did not think so since it is such a logistical position in terms of operations at that
 facility.
 Boehm asked what constituted Council approval for positions.
 Sauve answered all new, full-time positions need to be approved by City Council.
 Lantieri noted that grade changes for existing positions also need to be approved by City
 Council.
4.6 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Sauve shared that they are currently working on a statistically valid survey that will go
 out to residents, but that there has been a lot of push and pull trying to sort through
 prioritizing what goes in it since it will be for all of the upcoming plans that will be
 updated through this process. She’s planning to have an intern go out into the parks
 throughout the summer to ask people more questions that the Department is looking
 for feedback and answers on, noting that the conversations and anecdotes can be more
 informative than numbers. Sauve shared that they are aiming to have the first open
 house public meeting on April 30th, but that has not been confirmed yet.
4.7 General Fund Capital Project Selection & Prioritization Process (CP3)
 Sauve began by sharing her screen, noting that Ashley Parker, the Director of Capital
 Planning, created this and presented it to City Council last month and suggested
 bringing it to the various Commissions to explain how capital planning is prioritized now
 within the City.
 Davis asked how they came up with the prioritization numbers.
 Sauve answered that while she’s not an expert, she believes they are based on
 Department proposals as well as the Mayor’s prioritizations. She continued that BPRW
 has a capital plan list for the next 5 years and ranked every single project per the criteria
 listed in the deck which gets incorporated into an overall list across the City. She shared
 that it does not mean it’s a guarantee but they are at least on the list and conversations
 can be had.
 Lantieri asked if this differs from what BPRW has been doing up until now.
 Sauve answered that they did not give rankings to projects before, but that the Planning
 team would break things down and prioritize safety/health/welfare projects with the
 help and insight from staff. She continued that BPRW has also tried to make sure all
 parts of the City are being considered, not just one area over and over. Sauve then
 shared that she will likely be sharing the BPRW capital list with Commissioners in April
 so that they are in the know about what they are working on for fiscal year 27.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that they are getting ready to re-launch the Playgrounds for All
 campaign.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Sauve asked if anyone has questions about the Monthly Report.
 Davis asked who puts that together.
 Sauve answered that she was but now Jules, the Marketing and Communications
 Manager, is.
 Davis asked if anything is done for work anniversaries.
 Sauve answered no, just acknowledgement.
 Davis noted the Book Fair and asked who organized that.
 Sauve answered KJ.
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Davis shared that she went to the Miller Center in February and spoke with staff and
 said that she did roughly an hour of volunteering.
 Bergmann did not have any hours to report.
 Boehm did not have any hours to report for herself, but she shared that Mobley had 4
 hours to report between Comprehensive Plan work and bringing bagels to the Miller
 Center staff during February vacation camp week.
 Lantieri had 1 hour to report.
 Davis asked if they could volunteer at upcoming Department events like the Book Fair or
 Kids Day.
 Sauve answered yes.
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 adjourned at 7:07pm.