Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-01-13
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99899730021
Or One tap mobile: +13126266799
Webinar ID: 998 9973 0021


1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt consent agenda
 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
 Category 3. Public Forum - Time Certain 6pm
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

4. Deliberative Agenda
 Subject 4.1. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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. Budget FY27 Process
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 4.3. Penny for Parks - Community Requests
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 4.4. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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. Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Discussion



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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.
 Commissioners Items and Volunteer Hours


 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or
 Remotely via Zoom

5:30pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99899730021
Or One tap mobile: +13126266799
Webinar ID: 998 9973 0021


1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt consent agenda
 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
 Category 3. Public Forum - Time Certain 6pm
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

4. Deliberative Agenda
 Subject 4.1. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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. Budget FY27 Process



 Page 1 of 9
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 4.3. Penny for Parks - Community Requests
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 4.4. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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. Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Discussion



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom



 Page 2 of 9
 Category 5. Standing Items

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

 Subject 5.3.
 Commissioners Items and Volunteer Hours


 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 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 January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM,
 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 9
Parks Commission Minutes

December 9th, 2025 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



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

Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Moreau, Sauve, Kaeding, Peterson, McClenahan & O’Daniel

Public Present: none



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 The meeting commenced at 5:34pm with Lantieri asking for a motion to amend/adopt
 the agenda. Boehm made a motion to adopt the agenda, Etter seconded. All were in
 favor, none were opposed.

 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 November Minutes
 Lantieri asked for a motion to adopt the November minutes. Boehm made a motion,
 Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

 3. Harbor Commission
 Boehm made a motion to recess the Parks Commission and start the Harbor
 Commission, Etter seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 After the presentation by the Waterfront team, the Harbor Commission was adjourned
 and the Parks Commission was re-opened.

 4. Public Forum (Time Certain, 6pm)
 Public forum was opened at 6pm. With no one present for it, it was closed at 6:01pm.

 5. Deliberative Agenda
 5.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7
 Lantieri began by giving context that during the leadership transition there were some
 sections of Appendix D that did not go to McClenahan, the staff attorney for Parks,
 before going to City Council, so the goal of this is to get clarity on the best process
 moving forward.
 McClenahan introduced herself and began by giving an overview and background on
 where this document has been and where it seems like these changes are headed. She
 continued that her understanding that the former Director had initiated changes to
 these sections and had brought them to this body for review and input, which then
 went to City Council in July, with a recommendation to pass the changes as presented.
 The City Council decided that more review and updating was potentially needed,




 Page 4 of 9
specifically in relation to parking at Perkins Pier, so they sent this to PACC (Parks, Arts &
Culture Committee) for review. PACC then met in October and decided that they
wanted more input from the Parks Commission, which is how things ended up here. She
continued that the request from the City Council is still out there and valid and they are
waiting for those changes to come back. She shared that her view on the Parks
Commission’s role is to look at the last lingering issues with these two sections and send
final comments back to PACC and then they can decide from there if they want to make
any changes or sent them back as is to the City Council. McClenahan continued that
section 7, the dog section, is a different issue. She shared that her understanding is that
began with a recommendation from the Dog Task Force and the off-leash dog policy
landed with the Commission to work on and then pass to the PACC for their review and
feedback to then pass on to City Council. McClenahan feels this approach would be fine
and then PACC can decide if they want to send everything to City Council as one
package or develop the dog section further in a committee before sending it back. She
then said that ultimately the next step is getting consensus from this body on their
recommendation.
Lantieri asked about the sequence of things and that if the Commission approves
something that will become a part of Ordinance, who should it go to first.
Haley answered that she would be happy to review and provide feedback but that City
Council has the final authority.
Boehm asked for clarification that the best path forward would be for the Commission
to discuss and send draft changes to McClenahan for review and feedback that are then
incorporated before voting and passing it on to PACC/City Council.
McClenahan said yes.
Lewis confirmed they would be following these steps moving forward.
Lantieri asked if all things need to go from the Commission to PACC before it goes to City
Council.
Haley answered that everything ultimately needs to be approved by City Council, so
before changes are made it would be helpful to figure out what the most efficient
workflow will be, including what the preference for PACC and the City Council are. She
continued that this body can make recommendations directly to the City Council, and
then they can decide if they’re going to approve it as is or if they want to send it to a
committee to make changes. Or, it can be sent to PACC first. She shared that as long as
all of the appropriate bodies have an informed chance to weigh in and the City Council
formally adopts it that is what’s needed from an efficiency standpoint. McClenahan
confirmed, however, that in this particular instance PACC has requested that these
documents go back to them first.
Sauve asked if the new software system for requesting legal advice etc. would be
available for Commissioners.
Haley answered that currently only staff can access this tool, but that this may change in
the future.
Lewis confirmed that he has been trained on the new system and encouraged
Commissioners to use him as a resource for communicating with the City attorneys.




 Page 5 of 9
Lantieri shifted the conversation to reviewing sections 5 and 7 specifically.
McClenahan noted 2 minor changes she suggested to section 2 first: adding “or
designee” in case the Marina Manager was not available or this was ever delegated to
someone else in the future and that she changed some grammatical pieces to another
spot but the content or intent did not change. She continued by reviewing section 5
changes, beginning by asking what time this body wanted Leddy Park to close.
Moreau confirmed that both bodies wanted 9:30pm, after clearing up some confusion.
Haley continued that she recommended language about paying to park overnight at
Perkins Pier be removed because of redundancy.
The group agreed.
Lantieri asked if numbers 1, 2 and 3 are restrictions and if they’re not outlined in that
area, then it’s allowed.
McClenahan answered yes, unless there are other City ordinance or rule that apply.
Moreau chimed in except for number 3, which states that motor vehicles are excluded
from Waterfront Park unless approved.
There was a discussion about whether Calahan should be included in this section or not,
with the consensus being to check in with Roach before making any decisions.
McClenahan then continued with section 3, noting that she didn’t have any feedback on
that.
The group then discussed section C, which included deciphering what this section means
and workshopping the language about the authority to close a park or a portion of a
park. There were feelings that this section was too broad as was and lacking clarity on
who had more authority than the other, the Chief of Police or the BPRW Director.
McClellan explained that they have equal power in this specific scenario, but that the
Chief of Police has jurisdiction to do this anywhere in the City for safety or hazardous
reasons.
Lantieri asked if it would be okay to remove that title then because of that.
McClenahan answered that that would be a policy decision, and other parties would
need to weigh in.
McClenahan had a question about banning alcohol in parks and whether or not this
body had put this in.
Moreau answered that there was a question this summer if they could suspend alcohol
being allowed for a short window to cool things down and help with safety and they
were told no, which is why they asked if it could be included in the Ordinance.
McClenahan explained that open containers are prohibited in the City, with some
exceptions, which are listed in the Ordinance. She continued that her take on this is that
if there is going to be an exception to this rule, it should be in the section of the
Ordinance about alcohol in general and this body could make a recommendation to the
City Council in conjunction with the Appendix change.
Lantieri asked for McClenahan’s opinion on section 7.
McClenahan shared that technically section 7 has expired but it is still used informally
and that based on the minutes from PACC, that they are looking for what would this
body recommend changing about those rules, if they were in effect. She continued that




 Page 6 of 9
 rules that are more stagnant and don’t change are better for the appendix and having a
 Department policy for some of the more granular rules that might need flexibility for
 change, such as locations and time of year, is her biggest takeaway from this section.
 She then shared that she felt the designation of permanent off-leash dog areas would
 make more sense in the appendix, while things like the public education period, maps,
 hours etc., would be better in the policy.
 Commissioners reviewed how they had left things during the last discussion of policy vs.
 appendix and that it felt like they had landed on almost the inverse of this.
 Boehm noted that they had talked about not making any changes to the existing leashed
 areas and asked what a policy would look like if this were the case. She noted that the
 group had worked on a current document.
 McClenahan said she would be happy to review that.

5.2 Chapter 20, Section 12 (E-bikes on the Greenway)
 Lantieri opened by sharing that it seems to read that e-bikes are not allowed on the
 Greenway and asked McClenahan for her read.
 McClenahan shared that certain areas, like the Greenway, are for bicycle and pedestrian
 travel and “other similar uses” and then it goes on to clarify that motorized vehicles of
 any kind are prohibited. She continued that a caveat could be the term “bicycle”, which
 the ordinance does define as well as “motor assisted bicycle”, which she found
 interesting. She continued that in terms of bicycle and pedestrian travel, that as long as
 an e-bike isn’t hitting that 30 mph threshold that there is an argument that it could fall
 under “other similar uses”, but the no motorized vehicles piece could also lend to the
 argument that they are not allowed, regardless of how fast they’re going. She noted
 that this was the analysis, but asked the rhetorical question of where this would leave
 things practically.
 Moreau asked if this was specific to the Greenway or if this would include our parks and
 trails too.
 McClenahan noted that the legal description of the land is just the Greenway.
 Lantieri asked when this was last updated.
 Haley answered 1995 with some changes made in 2021.

5.3 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Sauve shared that a consultant was selected and they are in scope and fee negotiations
 now. She noted that the sections outlined in the BPRW section did not reflect the
 amount of budget that they had for the effort and the scope did not reflect what is
 needed Department-wide, which has created a lot of back and forth in an effort to
 determine the best way forward, both in the distribution of funding as well as
 supporting the assessment that will be done by staff. She continued that the hope is to
 go to City Council in January for the contract approvals, but that there is a lot of work to
 do between now and then. Currently, Sauve has been meeting with BPRW managers to
 make sure they are familiar with the current plan and to help evaluate what the
 Department has done in terms of strategic initiatives that were outlined in it, as well as




 Page 7 of 9
 needs going forward for the next 10 – 25 years. She noted that the BPRW is eager to
 hear about the process and be included in it.
 Lantieri confirmed that how it is scoped currently, it hasn’t captured what is needed for
 the Department.
 Sauve answered yes, especially Waterfront, Recreation and newer pieces to the
 Department like Central Facilities, Marketing and Communication and the Park Ranger
 program, the goal and need being to build on it not just review it.
 Lantieri noted the impact that the 2015 comprehensive plan has had in terms of it being
 the roadmap for the past 10 years, so it’s an important process and document.
 Sauve continued that this is especially important as everything else is changing, like
 adding housing and the impacts that has on Parks etc., there need to be plans that
 speak to each other across Departments for staff to use as guides, as well as grant
 funding, especially since this process includes input and vetting by the public.
 Lewis shared that they’re working on trying to right-size the scope of the work so that
 we don’t get to the end of the project and realize it doesn’t meet the needs of the
 Department.

 5.4 Waterfront Calendar of Events 2026
 Moreau shared a digital version of the events list noting that it is not public information
 yet because contracts have not been signed. She continued that these have all applied
 and been approved by the Advisory Committee and that the calendar is almost full
 except for June. Moreau noted that there are Act 250 parameters limiting it to 3 booked
 weekends a month at Waterfront Park. Moreau continued by giving kudos to KJ Doyle
 for stepping in this past season year and taking this on in addition to her internal events.
 Moreau continued by noting that Doyle also got an event to come back after being
 somewhere else last year and has added others, all of which have positive impacts on
 Burlington as a whole. She closed by sharing that this will be shared publically once the
 events are under contract!

 5.5 Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026
 Noting that there were only 3 Commissioners left at this point, Lantieri decided to bump
 this item to the next meeting.
 Before doing so though, Lantieri did share some items he had in mind: vendors in parks,
 clarify the permitting process, reviewing open meeting law, creating a volunteer
 structure to more actively engage, reviewing the code of conduct, having a retreat and
 building a stronger relationship with the Conservation Commission.

6. Standing Items
 6.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that they will be meeting later this week and they are working on
 launching their campaign.




 Page 8 of 9
 6.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis shared that he is currently onboarding and the staff have been amazing and
 getting him up to speed as quickly as possible. He continued by sharing his gratitude for
 everyone who has reached out so far and that he’s excited to be here.

 6.3 Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours
 Boehm shared that she went to the Inglesby Brook volunteer day at Champlain
 Elementary, which was led by a member of the Conservation Team, and said that it was
 a great experience. She continued that the PTO member who worked with Parks staff to
 create this opportunity had wonderful things to say about the Department.
 Johnson did not have any hours to report.
 Lantieri shared that he finished the class he was taking and submitted his final paper
 that was an organizational assessment of the Department, which he will be sharing out.
 He had 1 hour to report.

7. Adjournment
 Boehm made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Johnson seconded. All were in favor,
 none were opposed.




 Page 9 of 9

Parks Commission Meeting

January 13th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



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

Staff in attendance: Lewis, Sauve, O’Daniel

Public in attendance: n/a



 1. Agenda

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

 2. Consent Agenda

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

 3. Public Forum, time certain at 6pm

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

 4. Deliberative Agenda

 4.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7

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

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

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

 The group had no concerns and agreed.
Lewis continued by touching on a section that was originally in the policy section, but moved to
the ordinance and he wanted to confirm that everyone was okay with this change. He continued
that he could ask if there are any benefits to including this here as opposed to just having it in
the general park portion of the ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 Budget FY27 Process

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

Mobley asked what the entire City budget was.

Lewis answered 107 million, and the gap is specifically in the General Fund. He shared that the
Mayor’s office is looking into options for how to bridge this gap including increasing the police
and fire property tax, a reduction of government expenses, voluntary furloughs, utilize one time
revenue, and potential for selling City property strategically. He then dove into each of those
deeper. He continued that the police and fire tax would be a 5% increase and if referred to the
public by the Council and approved by voters, would raise about 3 million. He continued that
each Department was asked to provide a 5% ($253,000) and 10% ($506,000) reduced budget
out of what BPRW uses from the general fund and that they are currently going through this
cost savings process. He noted that the goal of this is to adjust things in a way that the
Department can still provide as high of a level of service as possible. Lewis continued by
touching on voluntary furloughs, which would include Departments paid out of the general
fund, like BPRW. There is a survey asking employees about this and 54% of people who have
responded so far (roughly 25% of all City staff) have said that they would potentially be
interested in taking a voluntary furlough, which at this point would save between $100,000 and
$190,000. Lewis then touched on one-time revenue, such as dedicated tax balances leftover
from previous years and various outstanding fees owed to the City. He then discussed the selling
of City properties, noting that the process of this would be complex and involve criteria such as
vacant properties that do not have a strategic value for the City. Lewis closed by touching on
next steps, including the Council voting on the proposed tax increase, further engagement with
staff, unions and elected/appointed bodies, the Mayor’s budget presentation is scheduled for
April which is earlier than usual to allow for additional time for the Council and the community
to look at the different options and give feedback before deadline.

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis noted that each Department presents on their budget and having Commissioners there
for support could be helpful.
Lantieri continued by asking for more details about the potential furloughs.

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

Boehm asked how many vacancies there are in BPRW currently.

Lewis answered 3.5 by the end of the month.

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

Sauve answered some of them, yes.

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

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

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

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

Davis asked about raising fees for programs and reservations.

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

Etter asked about sponsorship opportunities.

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

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

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

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

Mobley shared that she was grateful for the longer runway for engagement this time around.
Lewis responded that there is sensitivity to the individuals who might be impacted, so trying to
balance the transparency with the anxiousness that can come with all of this.

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

4.3 Penny for Parks – Community Requests

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

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

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

4.4 Comprehensive Plan Update

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

4.5 Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026

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

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

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

Boehm felt that this could be combined with the idea of increasing volunteering. She offered the
example of bringing seltzers to staff on a busy day in the summer.
 Lewis answered that anyone who is recognized in any form is appreciated. He continued that
 the thoughtfulness for how they can do this is also appreciated.

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

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

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

 The group felt that this was a great idea.

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

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

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

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

5. Standing Items

 5.1 Parks Foundation Update

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

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

 5.2 Director’s Report

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

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

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

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

 Bergmann didn’t have any hours to report.

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

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

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

 Lanteri didn’t have any hours to report.

 Etter left before this portion of the meeting.



6. Adjournment

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