Portland Open Space Vision — Portland, ME
Date: 2015-10-07

Portland Open Space Vision and Implementation Plan
 Stakeholder Meeting No. 6
 Wednesday, October 7, 2015
 6pm – 8pm
 Room: Portland City Hall, Room 24

In attendance:
Sally Deluca, Christine Cantwell, Anne Pringle, Rick Knowland, Michael Mertaugh, Tom Jewell, Diane
Davison, Jamie Parker, David LaCasse, Nathan Robbins, Laura Mailander, Kristen Dow, Bryan Wentzell,
Colleen Tucker


From The Trust for Public Land: Wolfe Tone, Kelley Hart, and Jessica Sargent
____________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
Wolfe welcomed participants and led a round robin of introductions. He explained that we’re
beginning to wrap up this work and will soon be producing a short report that we hope will be a
living document in that it will be useful to the city and other non‐governmental actors,
including those who participated in this process, to help guide/coordinate future efforts. Then
Kelley provided a brief overview of the meeting agenda.

DISCUSSION OF CHANGES SINCE AUGUST MEETING

Kelley referenced a handout (also distributed by email the Friday before the meeting), that is
essentially a summary of the last meeting with an explanation as to how TPL followed up on the
comments/requested made by stakeholders at that meeting. She reviewed the analysis of
service areas for high need populations to show what has changed since the August meeting.
Kelley also showed the service area map that illustrate all residents’ ½ mile access (or 10 minute
walk) to parks or trails, and contrasted that with a map showing the ½ mile service area for just
trails. She reminded the stakeholders that in the 2007 Needs Assessment Survey and the fall
2014 Needs Assessment Survey, new trails were the most popular requested park/recreation
service. Kelley asked if we should be concerned about the un‐served area in the mid‐west
portion of the map, and stakeholders indicated that it shouldn’t be a concern because the area
is essentially all commercial or industrial (no residents), though Jamie Parker did talk about
Portland Trails’ long‐term interest in making sure that residents adjacent to those areas are
able to connect via trails through those areas.

One stakeholder asked Kelley to clarify if residents were asked to choose from a list of potential
services/amenities or if it was an open‐ended question. Kelley said she would look into this.

 1
[Response: the 2015 survey had a list of 20 options and a place for respondents to write‐in
alternative choices. The 2007 survey had a list of 26 options, and asked respondents which they
had the greatest need for in one question; and in a separate question asked which they thought
were most important. For both of these, walking and biking trails was the #1 response.]

Kelley also showed the updated service area maps for 5 types of amenities. Stakeholders noted
that some historic landscapes are not showing on this map and requested that TPL’s mapping
team review the maps and be sure the following historic parks and historic landscapes are
included: Deering Oaks, Western Promenade, Evergreen Cemetery, Lincoln Park, Western
Cemetery, Eastern Cemetery, and Back Cove. [Note: After meeting Kelley checked with Bob
Heuer on this. Bob explained that Eastern Cemetery and Western Cemetery are not showing on
the map and will not be shown because this map (and all of the amenity maps) focus exclusively
on the parks, (as opposed to all open spaces in Portland), and two of the cemeteries are not
classified as parks.]


REVIEW OF VISION DOCUMENT OUTLINE

In response to a question about timing, Kelley explained that the hope is that we will have the
Vision document completed by Thanksgiving, though we are planning to present draft concepts
at a city council workshop in two weeks, and if the concepts are not well‐received, we may
need to revisit some of the Vision components. She said the Steering Committee will also need
to meet once or twice more before we can complete a draft, as some of the Vision concepts
have not been fully vetted with them yet. (Note: All of the major concepts – after this evening’s
meetings – will have all been discussed by the Stakeholder Group.) Stakeholders had a couple
of helpful suggestions about the workshop with council, such as recommending that TPL
provide a high level overview and highlight the mapping analysis.

Next stakeholders reviewed/commented on the outline for the draft Vision document. They
had the following comments:
  Section II:
 o Include some basic statistics about the park system, such as total number of
 parks, and also the # of parks and # of acres by park type. It was noted that we
 have lots of parks, but don’t have lots of acreage. Necessitates examining and
 understanding what the parks we do have provide.
 o When defining open space, acknowledge that many of the open spaces are very
 complex in terms of uses and characteristics.
  Section III:
 o Some modifications to the existing language were suggested. The new language
 is shown here in italics:
  Provide high quality, well designed parks and open spaces
 2
  Note: Kris commented here on what it could mean to have well‐
 designed parks, mentioning the need for contemporary landscape
 architecture, industrial design and graphic design. She also talked
 about how the park elements should be integrated. Think about
 what “high quality” means, look at the type of park – in what
 “cultural landscape” does it fit, and apply design standards that
 make sense and achieve that high quality. We talked about the
 possibility of adding a footnote to this item or making sure this
 appears elsewhere in the Vision document.
  Have well‐maintained and safe parks and open spaces.
  Sustain the systems’ breadth and quality with capital planning, adequate
 funding and staffing.
  Promote appropriate uses of parks and open spaces.
 o Kris also suggested including language related to the historic features item, and
 mentioning the need to restore the historically and/or culturally significant
 elements of the open spaces
 o A point was made to think beyond what the goals are as a list ‐ that underneath
 many (all?) of these goals are opportunities.
 Section IV(a)
 o Be sure to add the word “accountability”
 Section IV(e)
 o Re: the rapid park assessment findings:
  Some open spaces to this day do have character, Evergreen Cemetery, for
 instance. However, even Evergreen Cemetery is suffering from
 “maintenance of the decaying.”
  Bryan indicated that park character may be needed in some senses
 because of the “tired” nature of some parks.
  For the bullet about better maintaining basketball courts, etc., suggestion
 that it say “Better maintain all parks, including…” and then list the courts
 and fields.
  Re: the crosswalk item, it was suggested that the item be expanded
 slightly to recommend safe routes and walkability to parks.
  A new item was suggested – that we recommend improving the visibility
 of the trail system since some of the trails can be difficult for people to
 find.
  For install more supportive facilities, can include the cigarette butt
 suggestion, but specify that the receptacles should be at entrances
  A couple of people mentioned that they liked the duo strategy concept
 that we introduced and would like to see it expanded. A couple of people
 specifically requested more language about what it means to improve
 park character, and some language around the creative placemaking
 3
 concept. “Parks lack character”. Examine the amenities, design, and
 distinction within parks and between parks in the system. Equate
 “Creative Placemaking” approach and a park and park system that are
 “well thought out.”
 o Re: Connections between parks adds functionality, helps create a healthy, robust
 “park system.”
  To help get there, deepen collaborations
  Open the door/promote the public – private leverage and cooperation
 opportunities
 o The idea of a recommendation around closing the gap in trail coverage, Jamie
 and others supported this idea and said the map does show where some gaps
 exist and that this recommendation could include language about the fact that
 more analysis will be needed to determine the location of these trails . Kelley
 mentioned that TPL can include mention of Portland Trails and Friends groups
 potential role in supporting this effort.
 o Re: the idea of a recommendation for the city and partners to look at increasing
 other amenities besides trails, playgrounds, for instance, particularly through
 time as the park system expands.
  Some participants liked the idea of showing the high density children
 layer behind the current playground access layer as a visual to reveal
 where there are gaps.
  We should note in the accompanying narrative that:
  There are different kinds of playgrounds,
  We are currently tracking only one kind of play space, and not all
 important playful spaces, such as natural playgrounds.
  We need to consider different structures/amenities for different
 age groups.
  Section VI – there was a request that we mention the need for long‐term capital
 planning in the next steps section.



DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS

Next we discussed the handout that details a proposed annual budget process. Kelley
explained that many ideas for this document emerged from initial discussions with the
stakeholders a few months ago and that a subcommittee has been refining those ideas over the
last few months. Stakeholders had a few questions re: clarifications. Rick suggested that in
criteria #3, we also mention city‐wide plans, and not just park and recreation based plans. He
also requested that we be sure to have criteria that capture efficiencies in doing projects that
 4
benefit multiple departments at the same time, and Kelley explained that that is already
included in the criteria (see #10). Through discussion we also realized that the parenthetical in
#13 needs to be moved back three words. There were no substantive recommendations to the
budget process alternatives.

We also talked about three elements of conservation finance:

 1) Kelley referenced the Conservation Finance Feasibility study, the main purpose of which
 was to identify and assess the list of public sources that are legally permissible, and
 provide a general idea of the respective sources’ capacity to generate funds for parks.
 2) We also discussed the topic of the importance of polling to test voters’ willingness to tax
 themselves to fund parks and related.
 3) Third, we discussed the fact that success at the polls requires framing for the voter a
 clear idea of what they get in exchange for their support – a universe of opportunities
 that can get done with increased funding.

NEXT STEPS

Wolfe explained that the next step is a vetting of the plan concepts with the city council in a
workshop setting. If there are major changes suggested, the stakeholder group will re‐convene.
If no major re‐direction is required, then the Steering Committee will meet a couple more times
to finish reviewing and refining materials for inclusion in the plan. If all goes well, a draft plan
should be ready in December. Wolfe thanked everyone for their participation.



The meeting adjourned around 7:55.




 5