Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-05-12
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, May 12, 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 below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93413807272
Or One Tap Mobile: +13092053325
Webinar ID: 934 1380 7272



1. Agenda
  1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
  Subject 2.1. April Minutes
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request (CKS)
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. Coach of the Year
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 4.2. Skirack Bike Rentals
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. FY27 Budget Process
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 4.4. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. E-Bikes/Motobikes Strategies
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 Street, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. Executive Session

7. Adjournment
  Subject 7.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 7. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action

Tuesday, May 12, 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 below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/93413807272
Or One Tap Mobile: +13092053325
Webinar ID: 934 1380 7272



1. Agenda
  1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
  Subject 2.1. April Minutes
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. Calahan Park Special Use Permit Request (CKS)
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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




 Page 1 of 11
4. Deliberative Agenda
  Subject 4.1. Coach of the Year
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 4.2. Skirack Bike Rentals
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. FY27 Budget Process
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 4.4. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. E-Bikes/Motobikes Strategies
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 Street, 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




 Page 2 of 11
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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 May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 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. Executive Session

7. Adjournment
  Subject 7.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine
 Street, Front Conference Room or Remotely via Zoom


  Category 7. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type

  Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 11
Parks Commission Meeting

April 14th, 2026 at 5:30pm



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

Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Sauve, Kaeding, Madalinski, Doyle & O’Daniel

Public in Attendance:



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda

 Boehm made a motion to adopt the April agenda. Bergmann seconded. All were in
 favor, none opposed.

 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 March Meeting Minutes
 2.2 Battery Park Special Use Permit (Burlington Burn Club)
 2.3 Battery Park Special Use Permit (COTS)
 2.4 Battery Park Special Use Permit (CVDSG)
 2.5 North Beach Special Use Permit (PHPG)
 2.6 Oakledge Park Special Use Permit (ALS)
 2.7 Oakledge Park Special use Permit (CFF)
 2.8 Oakledge Park Special Use Permit (Steps)

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



 3. Public Forum, Time Certain 6pm
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 Public forum was opened at 6pm, but with no one was present, it was closed at 6:01pm.



 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Oakledge Park: Food Vendor, Alcohol
 Kaeding opened by introducing himself as the Campground and Beach Manager. He
 continued that last year was the first time they had a food vendor at Oakledge Park and
 it went well. This year, they put out an RFP and introduced the winner of that process,
 Christina McClay, who was in attendance, and explained that they were here today
 looking for approval to add serving alcohol.




 Page 4 of 11
McClay opened by sharing that she has run La Shack LLC in Stowe for 4 years, which was
a concept based on a mobile food model focused on selling food that brings people
together. She continued that most of her food is Italian, which culturally includes the
concept of apertivo, a drink and snack before continuing on to dinner. She shared that it
has been her goal to continue this vision beyond Stowe and develop it in the Burlington
community. McClay continued by sharing her concept of Pizza Serafina, which she’s
hoping will be a forward thinking third place at Oakledge – a place for people to come,
stay and create community, which would include thoughtful intent around serving
alcohol. She continued that this would be a controlled, food-led environment that
encourages people to stay in the park and support the existing activities in the park,
NOT a bar with high-volume alcohol service or a drinking destination. She then shared
the initial menu, which is based on her Stowe menu and she has a plan for trialing
things, which will evolve the menu over time. She noted that all of the items are grab-
and-go friendly and adaptable yet curated. She then touched on the alcohol philosophy,
which will be an apertivo-style program, which involves low ABV and encourages food
pairings. She continued that this will be built for prevention, not reaction, which will
include ID verification and a stamp system, maximum 2 drinks per transaction,
designated drink areas and staff trained with food and beverage service experience.
Next, McClay explained that this will be a hybrid operation, which will include a food
truck and service from the pavilion window with an additional seating area on the patio,
which will be clearly designated.
Bergmann asked for clarification of where the alcohol will be served and where the
alcohol consumption area will be.
Moreau noted that there is an overhang over a paved area that is not part of the public
lower shelter that people rent, and will be designated by a physical barrier provided by
McClay.
McClay explained that the alcohol will be served from the window of that corner of the
building.
Bergmann then asked if people who were just eating food from the truck would be able
to sit in the alcohol section.
The answer was yes, food can be eaten anywhere.
McClay then touched on the community impact, noting that Oakledge is already a
recognized community gathering point, and that this will create a managed alternative
to informal park drinking and encourages longer family-friendly park use and return
visits. She continued that this will diversify users, and offer opportunity for further
expansion and deeper partnerships with local producers. She then explained why “third
places”, community spaces beyond home and work, matter, specifically at Oakledge,
noting that this is where community happens.
Moreau then addressed the Commission, and went over what actions were required
from them. She noted that alcohol is allowed at Oakledge already per the Ordinance,
but that any request for park use which isn’t detailed in the Ordinance, like the vending
of alcohol, needs to be reviewed and approved by the Parks Commission. She shared
that with the success of the North Beach vendor selling alcohol, they will be able to have
the same success at Oakledge.




 Page 5 of 11
 Mobley asked for clarification if the approval would just be for this vendor or all
 potential vendors in the future.
 Moreau answered that if there was a different vendor in the future that they would
 come back to the Commission and confirmed that this request is specific to this vendor
 and this location.
 Davis made a motion to approve the request to allow a food and alcohol vendor at
 Oakledge Park. Johnson seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

4.2 Pilot: Vendor Cart Program
 Moreau opened by explaining that over the past few years the Department has gotten a
 lot of inquiries about vending in or near parks, but up until now there hasn’t been a
 process in place to allow for this for vendors that were not associated with an event or a
 brick and mortar location. She continued that they worked with CEDO on this process,
 and what was discovered is that through some Ordinance changes over the years, the
 Department could open an application process for this. Moreau clarified that they are
 looking for an approval of a special use permit for the BPRW Vendor Program from the
 Commission and that this would be a pilot project.
 Kaeding shared that this is based off of the Church Street Marketplace’s program.
 Moreau continued that CEDO has shared that there is a high volume of interest from
 small carts wanting to be in or near the parks. She continued that this pilot will involve 3
 locations to begin with – Leddy, Starr Farm and the Skate Park, and will run from June –
 September. She shared that BPRW is interested in using this pilot and process as an
 opportunity to gather data about these areas from the vendors while they’re out there.
 Moreau noted that the cost would be a new fee, $400 base fee per cart + 3% gross
 sales. Moreau then touched on the requirements to participate in the program,
 including cart management, data reporting and a program sticker for monitoring. She
 then went through the process, starting with this moment with the Commission. If
 approved, the next step will be an online application launch, then a BPRW & CEDO
 committee evaluation followed by signed contracts with vendors, ideally. Moreau
 shared that there will be some considerations, like not setting up on big event days, like
 July 3rd, the expectation that once agreed upon locations and schedules are finalized
 that vendors will be there unless they notify the Department and that payment will be
 due at the end of each month. Moreau then went over the locations, why they were all
 chosen, what the anticipated spots at each location would be and what the
 recommended timeframe for heavier traffic would be.
 Kaeding noted that with these locations as well as the vendors at North Beach and
 Oakledge, it means vendors would be nicely spaced along the entirety of the waterfront.
 Moreau closed by sharing that the actions required from the Commission were
 approving park use that is not in the Ordinance and the fees.
 Davis asked how they came up with the $400 fee, noting that she felt like it was on the
 low side.
 Moreau answered that they wanted to make this program accessible to newer vendors
 and is excited to begin gathering data. She noted that this fee could absolutely be raised




 Page 6 of 11
 in the future. She shared that if approved, she’s hopeful that they will get a lot of
 applications and can accommodate everyone who applies.
 Boehm asked if they would be approving each vendor or the program.
 Kaeding answered the program and the fees.
 Lantieri asked if they would be approving the pilot for one year, or this program moving
 forward.
 Moreau answered just the pilot and that they would like to come back for 2027 with
 data and most likely adjustments to the contract and potentially the process.
 Mobley made a motion to approve this vendor pilot program and the fees associated
 with it. Bergmann seconded.
 Lantieri made a motion to amend it to a vendor pilot program for 2026 and the fees
 associated with it. Davis seconded the amendment. All were in favor of the amendment,
 none opposed.
 All were in favor of the overall item, none opposed.

4.3 Rate Changes: Recreation
 Lewis opened by referencing the memo that was sent, noting that they are looking for
 an approval of fee increases for Leddy Arena beginning on July 1st, 2026. He continued
 by sharing that the last fee increases were in 2024 and the suggested increases reflect
 that as well as rising expenses. He shared that with approval happening now, there
 would be time to notify users and make appropriate provisions to the system.
 Mobley asked if these fees would be retroactively added to existing reservations.
 Lewis answered that they have only been “penciling” in reservations and having
 conversations with users with this in mind, anticipating this change.
 Boehm made a motion to approve the recreation Leddy Arena rink fees changes for
 FY2027. Davis seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

4.4 Tree Ordinance Update
 Gustin opened by introducing himself and noted that this is more of a teaser for what’s
 to come than anything else. He continued that the Open Space Plan that was adopted
 earlier this year had an action item that called for updating the City’s tree ordinance,
 which is very old and out of date and brief. He shared that the working group has met
 once and focused on baseline conditions and will be meeting again in a few weeks.
 Gustin continued that there is a current state statute that outlines the standards around
 the term “shade trees” and currently that definition is basically any City-owned tree. He
 continued that the City’s existing zoning code has some provisions for tree cutting and
 planting on private property, but the group is looking to flesh some of that out more to
 be more aligned with the statue where need be but also introduce the concept of
 offsets where appropriate. He closed by sharing that they hope to have more details
 and information for the Commission in May and opened it up for questions.
 Mobley asked if the concept about the offset is more focused on City trees or private
 trees.
 Gustin answered tentatively both.
 Lantieri asked how things like the issues with Ash trees would be addressed.




 Page 7 of 11
 Gustin answered that there is a section on handling infestations in the statute.

4.5 VT 127 Pathway Report
 Madalinski opened by introducing himself and Bryan Davis from the Chittenden County
 Regional Planning Commission and then shared screen. He began by explaining where
 the 127 path is and noting all of the project team members and advisory group
 members. He continued by sharing that the main purpose of the project was to scope
 and evaluate opportunities to create a new connection, including a new active
 transportation connection with a focus on creating a safer connection for the public and
 improving safety along the entire length of 127. Madalinski continued that the project
 needs statement was to facilitate improved access for path users and more direct
 connections to important destinations, while making it safer, more accessible and
 comfortable for path users. He shared that there were 2 public meetings – a local
 concerns meeting and then an alternatives presentation, 3 advisory committee
 meetings and an online survey. These resulted in key takeaways like lack of access
 points and path maintenance, safety concerns, and that most users use it recreationally
 and a desire to maximize the separation of vehicles and pedestrians. He continued that
 there was a safety and path widening assessment, including a 5 year crash history and
 roadway-path separation, and some recommendations for potential safety
 countermeasures were made, as well as many other assessments. Madalinski then
 shared the alternative plans that were presented to the community and touched on an
 evaluation matrix, noting that Alternative 1 would be the most cost effective, most
 intuitive and least impactful to the environment, had the greatest public support. He
 continued that they key refinements in the preferred alternative were to increase
 separation between vehicles and path users, improve aesthetics, consider pedestrian-
 scale lighting and how to improve some intersection safety. Madalinski then noted that
 the conceptual cost estimate would be around $5.1 million. He closed by sharing the
 remaining timeline, noting that next will be the DPW Commission, then the
 Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee with a final approval sent to City Council
 in May.
 Mobley noted that this seems like a win across the board, with the lowest costing, most
 effective version also being the public’s favorite option.
 Lantieri asked who would own the project whenever the plan is implemented.
 Madalinski answered that this process has been extremely collaborative, so he was not
 quite sure given that everything is very overlapping.
 Sauve chimed in that this would go into the annual process of reviewing larger, cross-
 Department projects.
 Boehm made a motion to support the recommendations from the 127 Pathway report.
 Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

4.6 Capital Budget Presentation
 Sauve began by sharing screen and noting what she shared about the Capital Budget
 selection process at the last meeting and that some projects will be covered by Penny
 for Parks funding and Bond funds in addition to Capital funds. She continued that a large




 Page 8 of 11
 project for FY27 will be updating the Calahan Park courts and completing a storm water
 project – which will include fixing the existing tennis courts, adding pickleball courts and
 moving the basketball court, and noted that this will tap into multiple funding pots.
 Sauve continued that Leddy Park playground and restroom design is on the list, as well
 as a new playground for Smalley Park. She continued by touching on projects that will
 be covered by the Bond – including major repairs to the Boathouse, maintenance to the
 Marina and a small portion to public art.
 After a brief discussion about the anticipated timing of these projects, all of the group’s
 questions were answered.
 Davis made a motion to approve the capital budget presented to the Commission.
 Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.

 4.7 FY27 Budget Process
 Lewis shared that he did not have any major updates to share at this time, but gave an
 overview of some important upcoming dates: General Fund overview is scheduled for
 April 27th, the Capital Budget presentation is schedule for May 4th and that BPRW’s
 presentation is scheduled for May 7th. Lewis noted that he would be happy to discuss
 what comes of those meetings at the May 12th Commission meeting, or give an
 overview of the presentations if Commissioners are interested in that.
 Lantieri asked if there was anything Commissioners could do from their end.
 Lewis answered that after the budget information has been shared publically, there will
 be about a month between that and City Council’s adoption of the budget, so this body
 would be welcome to advocate for things they felt were important in that window.
 Lantieri said that he would like to have a full presentation of the BPRW budget at the
 next meeting so that the group can figure out if they want to take any follow-up steps.

 4.8 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Sauve began by sharing the flyer for the Plan BTV 2050 community open house
 happening on April 30th and invited Commissioners to attend.
 Mobley noted that they’re hoping Commissioners can help get the word out! And she
 encouraged Commissioners to attend.
 Lantieri asked if this could be moved to a standing item moving forward.



5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that there was a Parks Foundation meeting last week and that they are
 running their playground campaign with the hopes of figuring out how to do so more
 publically.
 Sauve noted that the Pomeroy Park playground construction will be starting in 2 weeks,
 and she feels that this could be a great moment for them to reignite their campaign.




 Page 9 of 11
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis noted the monthly report and that 2 Commissioner positions will be opening up at
 the end of this fiscal year. He continued that Commissioners can re-apply for their
 positions if they would like and that there is a deadline of May 20th to submit the
 applications.

 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Boehm had 1 hour of volunteering to report.
 Davis didn’t have any hours to report.
 Bergmann didn’t have any hours to report.
 Lantieri had 6 hours of volunteering to report.
 Mobley had 6 hours of volunteering to report.
 Johnson didn’t have any hours to report, but said that he would be at the Book Fair this
 upcoming Saturday.

 Lantieri noted all of the upcoming opportunities with the Department for
 Commissioners to plug into for volunteering!



6. Adjournment
 6.1 Motion to Adjourn
 Davis made a motion to adjourn. Mobley seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 The meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm.




 Page 10 of 11
MEMO
Date: May 12th, 2026
To: BPRW Commission
From: Meghan O’Daniel, Community Garden & Parks Outreach Coordinator
RE: CKS Special Use Permit for May 22nd, 2026


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

Christ the King School (CKS) will be holding their annual Spring Challenge Field Day at Calahan Park on
Friday, May 22nd. Students will be engaging in a variety of outdoor activities including, but not limited to,
kickball, tug-of-war, and obstacle courses.

The amplified sound will take place between 8:30am and 1pm, and will consist of music from a DJ and
announcements. They will be informing the surrounding neighborhood via Front Porch Forum ahead of
the event.

Contact for the event is Jon Hughes.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.


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




 Page 11 of 11

Parks Commission Meeting

May 12th, 2026 at 5:30pm

645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom



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

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




 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 The meeting began at 5:33pm. Mobley made a motion to adopt the agenda, Etter
 seconded. All were in favor, none opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 April Minutes
 2.2 Calahan Park Special Use Permit (CKS)
 Etter made a motion to adopt the consent agenda, Bergmann seconded. All were in
 favor, none opposed.
 3. Public Forum – Time Certain, 6pm
 The public forum was opened late and no one was present at the time, but one member
 of the public sent a message via Zoom in regards to the e-bike/motobike discussion that
 read: “An e-bike can be pedaled under rider power and I think those should still be
 allowed wherever normal bicycles are allowed. Completely different are electric
 motorcycles which cannot be pedaled and those should have some amount of
 enforcement as they need to be licensed, insured, and registered. I feel that it would be
 a misstep to limit e-bikes. Motobikes should be forbidden and enforced.”
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Coach of the Year
 Sauve shared a video compilation of the volunteer coach of the year, Carmen Smith. She
 then read the congratulatory write-up about why she was picked as the coach of the
 year as well as community testimony for how dedicated to and important she is for
 youth basketball.
 4.2 Skirack Bike Rentals
 Lewis began by sharing that in the Spring of 2025 the Commission approved the use of a
 city right-of-way just north of Echo for Skirack to host a bike rental operation. He
 continued that the typical rate charged for this type of operation is 10% of gross sales by
 the vendor, but due to the impacts of the city construction in the downtown core, they
 were granted a reduced rate of %5 and are requesting this again for 2026 due to the
 continued impacts of the city construction. Lewis shared that this was and continues to
 be supported by Public Works. He then shared his screen to show where this kiosk
 would be set up if approved.
 Lantieri asked if Burlington Segway still had a presence.
 Lewis answered yes and that they are in the 2nd year of a 3 year RFP agreement.
 Etter asked if they were at 10% or 5%.
 Lewis answered 10%.
 Etter made a motion to approve the request for Skirack to operate a bike rental kiosk in
 the College Street right away at a 5% gross sales rate for the 2026 operational season,
 Mobley seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.
4.3 FY27 Budget Process
 Lewis began by sharing his screen. He noted that this FY27 proposed budget
 presentation was made to Board of Finance last week and is currently under
 consideration by the City Council. He continued that they are anticipated to have a
 conversation at the June 15th City Council meeting, so over the next month or so they
 will be looking at all of the individual budgets as presented in preparation for further
 conversations about the approved budget, which needs to be adopted by June 30th.
 Lewis continued by noting that this document was put together with staff at all levels
 working in collaboration with people in finance and under the leadership of the Mayor.
 He specifically recognized the 3 division directors, Sauve, Roach and Moreau, who he
 shared worked diligently with the managers and their staff to make sure they looked at
 this collaboratively to move forward in the best way possible. Lewis began the
 presentation by sharing the organizational structure and chart of the current
 Department, noting that there was a small reorganization in April as a follow-up to the
 RIF process last year to align resources in a way to have as supportive of a structure in
 place as possible. He continued that there will be 2 Recreation Managers who will
 report directly to him – noting that one position is currently vacant, but will hopefully be
 filled soon. Each manager will oversee a facility, which will involve rentals, athletics,
 camps, recreation programs for all ages and abilities, as well as working closely with BSD
 and partners.
 Mobley asked for clarification about the vacant positions in the Recreation Division.
 Lewis confirmed that they will be filled, and all of them are currently in process. He
 shared that they will have 9 dedicated positions, 4 of which have been vacant, which has
 been very challenging for the people who have remained through this transition. He
 continued by explaining the structure of the Waterfront Division and the Planning &
 Development Division. Lewis then reviewed the Parks & Central Facilities Division, which
 is the largest division in the Department. He then shared some FY26 highlights, including
 – a successful July 3rd event, operating summer seasonal programs at capacity, reaching
 10k followers on Instagram with that number continuing to increase, the opening of the
 Burlington Bike Park, the new Director was hired, the adoption of the Burlington Open
 Space Plan, emergency cold weather shelter dates at the Miller Center with a total of
 239 individuals and 773 beds used over the 12 nights it was activated, the re-assignment
 of staff reporting structures, expanded the vendor permit program along the waterfront
 and aligned tasks to reflect work distribution and finalized the org chart. He then shared
 some cost saving measures for FY27 including – holding a custodian position open,
 which will impact services by 12% and they are currently working to try and identify
ways to lessen this impact, and the reduction of part-time/seasonal staff at Oakledge
Park, which will reduce staffing coverage from 7 days a week to 4, so they are working
to cover this gap in other ways.
Etter asked if only Oakledge was going to see a reduction in staff.
Lewis answered that it is the only park that has really had that kind of staffing presence,
so yes.
Etter asked if this impacts people’s ability to reserve things.
Lewis answered no, the spaces will still be prepped for rentals and they are working to
fill the gaps.
Lewis continued that the Department-wide service reduction, which will be
approximately a 7% reduction and will result in about a $271k savings, will involve
tightening belts across the board when it comes to materials, supplies and contractual
services, reduction of staff training and recreation program scholarships (4%, $1,500),
reduction of internally produced events, elimination of annual flower planting and
landscape bed maintenance at all parks (excluding City Hall Park), the reduction of
watering and turf materials such as grass seed and fertilizer and the reduction of facility
reinvestment projects across all divisions (limiting the ability to repair and replace
public-facing infrastructure).
Etter asked about increasing BPD’s enforcement in parks to reduce damage and
vandalism to facilities etc.
Lewis answered that they are challenged with resourcing their core service areas and
will most likely just be responding to events that are safety related, not adding patrols
to parks in. He shared that the Department does work closely with them if we are
noticing something that is regularly occurring to make them aware and increase their
presence as they have resources available and vandalism is not something that typically
rises to the top.
Etter followed up by asking if there was anything internally with Parks that was being
done to address the vandalism.
Lewis responded that the more you allow vandalism to set the more prevalent it tends
to be, so the Department is really trying to get on top of it at the beginning of the
season.
Mobley noted that there used to be a program through CEDO where UVM students
would volunteer to remove graffiti.
Lantieri chimed in that he did not believe CEDO, or any other City Departments, are
operating any volunteer programs like that anymore.
Lewis responded that with the reductions to staffing and budgets over the past few
years that the focus has been on keeping the core business moving forward.
Lewis continued by sharing the FY26 amended revenues and expenses and the FY27
proposed revenues and expenses, noting that revenues have gone down 5.6%, which is
an adjustment based on the CORE closing and right sizing some revenue predictions. He
also noted that expenses have gone up 3.4%, which is tied to increased utilities as well
as salaries, wages and benefits. He reiterated that the Department is proposing a 7%
general fund reduction based on the current fiscal year subsidy, but there will be a net
increase in general funds this next year based off right sizing revenues and looking at
 expenses that are required in order to do business. Lewis then shared opportunities
 moving forward, including how the new organizational structure will help stabilize and
 strengthen the Department’s collaborative and supportive culture and the revision of
 BPRW’s comprehensive plan, creating a community supported vision for the next
 decade, which will be a critical roadmap for the Department. He then shared that some
 areas of concern are the continued loss of Canadian tourism and the impacts of
 encampments on staff resources, capital assets and revenue. Lewis then shared three
 more opportunities moving forward, including the full activation of Waterfront Park for
 events, the new Leddy Arena Manager and after a time of challenges and transitions the
 Recreation Division is going to be set up to be successful moving forward with a full
 team working with the resources available to maximize opportunities for the
 community. Lewis then summarized that the Department will continue to provide a high
 level of service to the community within the allocated resources, there will be a lack of
 resources for repair and replacement of park and facility infrastructure and the
 Department will continue to identify grand opportunities.
 Etter asked what the expectation across all of the Departments will be.
 Lewis answered that all of the Departments were challenged by the Mayor to reduce
 budgets by 10%, with some of them being a little higher and some a little lower. He
 shared that they struggled to get closer to that 10% given the reductions that happened
 last year and told them the 7% was as close as they could get while still being
 operational in the way the community expects. He felt this was acknowledged.
 Lantieri asked if there was a chance this proposal would not be approved.
 Lewis responded that he hoped not, and feels there has been full transparency on all
 fronts throughout this process.
 Etter asked if the reductions do need to be increased if there was a plan.
 Lewis answered no, but that if there are any further reductions required beyond what
 has already been identified it would most likely either be closing facilities or cutting
 positions, but the City’s focus has been to not cut people as much as possible. He’s
 hopeful that this is the last piece and will be approved by City Council.
 Lantieri asked if there were any updates about charging for services between City
 Departments.
 Lewis answered no and that this would most likely be more of a longer term
 conversation since it would involve a lot of balancing and gray areas.
 Lantieri feels it could be a potential opportunity to review transfers between
 departments and see the flow in and out, and maybe define some of the activities that
 could be revenue generating (or at least neutral).
 Lantieri asked if there is anything with volunteers being included, such as in-kind
 donations.
 Lewis responded that while volunteer work is a generally recognized value in the
 volunteer work hour as a national standard, the Department is challenged with not
 enough administrative support to track or support this at this time.


4.4 Comprehensive Plan Update
Sauve began by giving an overview of the open house on April 30th, which was a great
success with 14 stations for the public to interact with, and a constant flow of people
from 3:30pm – after 8pm. She then went through the slide show that was playing
throughout the event, starting with the logo which represents the 4 coordinated plans
that will guide how Burlington evolves and adapts over the next 25 years – the
municipal plan, a transportation plan, a comprehensive economic development plan
and a Parks, Rec and Waterfront plan. Sauve then touched on the timeline for these
plans over the next year, noting that there’s still visioning and engagement that will be
happening, like dedicating time to certain focus groups, recognizing that there was a
certain demographic at the open house and some voices were missing which is who
they want to target for opportunities moving forward. She shared that the Planning
team will have 2 interns this summer who will be going out to parks and do intercept
surveys, so working with Parks staff to identify times when people will be in parks and
also just do observations on park usage and collect data. She then shared various data
shared out at the open house, such as who are the residents of Burlington, population
ages, population size, household income, median sale price for homes and rent costs,
what kind of jobs don’t earn enough to live in Burlington, and cost-burdened
households. She noted that new legislation requires Burlington to add roughly 7,000
new units by 2050, which is a big theme throughout PlanBTV. Sauve then briefly
touched on the economic development slides. Next, Sauve went through BPRW’s slides,
with the first few highlighting the different kinds of places the Department stewards and
the range of programs and initiatives it manages, not all of which are obvious or known.
She continued by noting that it has been a decade since BPRW’s last planning process
and touched on some highlights that have happened since then, including – 6 park
comprehensive plans and siting studies, Oakledge Park universally accessible
playground, widened and expanded most of the Burlington Greenway, new department
logo and Marketing Manager, expanded youth athletics programming and major
improvements to various parks. She shared that the biggest question the community is
being asked is what should BPRW’s top priorities be, given that the Department must
balance investments across the top priorities with limited resources and staff to be able
to go into next season’s budget cycle more confident in terms of prioritization. The next
slide Sauve shared touched on the idea that this is the time to reimagine recreational
program offerings, which will allow for the Department to identify where the gaps are
and evaluate that. She continued by noting that it’s not all dire, like the Conservation
team identifying no-mow areas that can become pollinator habitats, which not only
aligns with budget shifts but also has an ecological value, and highlighted the
community stewardship that already exists as well as philanthropic partners like the
Parks Foundation. The next slide noted that looking to the future, BPRW is focused on
equity, accessibility and addressing the impacts of climate change. Sauve then briefly
touched on the mobility plan slides. Next, she shared some slides that gave a quick
overview of the open house statistics, including – that 323 people signed in to the
meeting from all across the City, info about how long people have lived in the
Burlington, why people are drawn to Burlington and whether they plan to stay here long
term or not, answers to questions like “what is your favorite thing to do in Burlington in
 the winter?”, why people were excited about the different plans, 105 vision statements,
 dream neighborhood designs, roadway designs, special memories in parks,
 root/trunk/leaves comments for BPRW values and about 90 people weighed in on
 economic development questions. Then Sauve shared that 100 surveys were completed
 online as a part of the random sample, 39 surveys were completed at the open house
 and encouraged Commissioners to continue to share the survey out with their
 communities.
4.5 E-Bikes/Motobikes Strategies
 Lantieri opened by sharing that this item is a continuation of previous conversations on
 the topic – and the hope is to get a sense of where this body is in regards to what kind
 of policy and regulation seem like the right fit for the Greenway. He reminded everyone
 that Phillip from DPW came to discuss this topic and shared that they are currently
 doing some deeper work on the specifics about e-bikes and e-motos and he continued
 that Sauve has been in contact with the State’s Forest, Parks & Recreation Department.
 Sauve shared that they oversee the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail and she had inquired to see
 whether or not they’re facing similar challenges, and while they have not, they are very
 interested in the conversation about various challenges that different kinds of e-bikes
 and e-motos bring up. She continued by sharing that the City’s ordinance committee has
 moved forward the edits to chapter 6, which includes the definitions about bicycles, so
 they are recommending it to City Council. She then shared that she will be continuing to
 connect with DPW as well as Local Motion, who is putting out information about e-bikes
 and e-motos.
 Lewis chimed in that the ordinance language has developed through the ordinance
 commission and DPW is currently under review by legal as well as to the types of
 language that is needed for enforcement in addition to acknowledging that
 enforcement is very challenging for this. He continued that the City is looking at
 opportunities to potentially engage with BSD to share messaging about this with
 parents, given that a lot of the people being observed using motobikes/e-motos are
 youth. He noted that this is a challenging topic because enforcement will be difficult and
 different communities are taking different approaches.
 Sauve shared that the ordinance that DPW is putting forward is more about what is
 allowed and less about what is not allowed, but that there’s a catch all in terms of
 riding/operating recklessly. This will give us something to point to, which is a start,
 otherwise enforcement isn’t even an option.
 Cahill noted that a significant portion of the youth seem to be coming from Colchester.
 He continued that he gets calls from community members daily and his staff get
 stopped regularly while working on the Greenway about this topic. He and his staff have
 started tracking the data around maintenance due to this specific usage and in the past
 3 weeks they have filled 80 ruts from Leddy to the Winooski Bridge in addition to
 harassment incidents with members of the public. He continued that while he has been
 in touch with BSD, and they are supportive and have spoken to students about the
 impacts of this, it’s not really BSD’s responsibility and they are advocates for the
 students, which is appreciated.
Sauve suggested utilizing Local Motion as a partner in this endeavor with their
connection to schools and bike safety within the community.
Etter noted that enforcement may be needed in this case in an effort to avoid someone
negatively impacted by someone going too fast on the Greenway to resolve the issue on
their own through litigation. He continued that a lot of bikers can go 20 or 30mph on a
regular bike, but it’s more experienced bikers doing that who understand how fast
they’re going and the impact that has, compared to inexperienced people on e-bikes
going that fast with pedestrians around.
Mobley share that she feels the “mixed use” piece of how the Greenway is used is a big
part of the issue and that there are sections of the path that she would not walk on
comfortably, specifically that stretch from Leddy to Colchester, because people zoom by
compared to the south end of the path that tends to be quieter and more low key. She
noted that the e-motos that have been referenced are a whole other thing and offered
the idea of having something like random check points as an educational approach to
enforcement.
Cahill brought up the idea of creating a generative place for this kind of use because it is
not going away.
Etter noted the restrictions to ATVs in regards to where they can be ridden and that this
could be a way to frame things.
The group then discussed what role pedals play and how they could be incorporated
into potential speed limits, which led to how do you enforce speed limits and/or bring
awareness to speed.
Mobley suggested putting up those signs that flash when you’re going too fast. She
noted though that she feels the conversational proactive piece of this can be a part of
the process.
Etter felt that including information about what transpires if you hit and injure someone
and what that liability entails would be helpful.
Johnson felt that making the distinction between an e-bike and a manually powered
bike is going to be difficult to enforce.
Lewis shared that the current signage on the Greenway says to share the path, slower
traffic has the right of way, keep right except to pass, use audible warning when passing,
follow trail and traffic signs, maintain a safe speed and slow down through congested
sections.
Mobley circled back for confirmation that the definitions of e-bikes are currently with
the ordinance committee.
The answer was yes.
Sauve noted that if the Department/Commission wanted specifics to park roads, trails
and the Greenway, then this Department/body would need to tackle that.
Cahill wanted to make the Commission aware that the community member who was
involved in the incident that ended up connecting the Department with school staff has
stopped using the Greenway with their children, partially out of fear of their identity
being known, noting that this whole thing is delicate and challenging and the discomfort
and anger is bubbling.
 Lantieri brought up the idea of utilizing the new bike park and partnering with the Bike
 Park Coalition for messaging to the youth in the community.
 Mobley circled back to the idea of an educational approach as opposed to an
 enforcement approach. The group then discussed potential inroads for this and the
 possibilities of focusing in on parents who are the ones purchasing these e-motos for
 their children.
5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Sauve shared that they are launching their newest campaign with the Pomeroy
 playground construction, which has begun and there will be 3-4 more weeks of work
 and they are working to establish a celebration date in June.
 Lantieri shared that their next meeting is on June 6th and he has an e-mail out to their
 chair to re-connect.
 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lewis referred to the monthly report and specifically noted that they are looking for
 volunteers for Kids Day this coming Saturday. He also noted that the Department is
 gearing up for summer operations!
 5.3 Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Johnson had 3 hours to report for the Book Fair.
 Bergmann did not have any hours to report.
 Mobley had 4 hours to report for the Book Fair and Plan BTV.
 Lantieri had 33 hours to report for the Book Fair, Plan BTV, attending the PACC meeting
 and several shifts cleaning up at the Urban Reserve. He continued by touching on the
 upcoming reappointment process and encouraged his fellow Commissioners to consider
 why they’re here, if they want to be here and that if this doesn’t feel like a good role for
 you that there is no share in stepping back, because seeing where the budget is going,
 there is a need for a strong group that is able to advocate, be additive and have active
 participation to support the Department.
6. Executive Session
7. Adjournment
 7.1 Motion to adjourn
 Mobley made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Etter seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.