Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-10-14
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, October 14, 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

5:30 pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91614872377
Or One tap mobile :
+19292056099,,91614872377# US (New York)
+13017158592,,91614872377# US (Washington DC)
Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US:
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
Webinar ID: 916 1487 2377
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. September Commission Meeting Minutes (attachment)
 Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type Action (Consent)


 Recommended Action Waive the reading, accept the communication and approve the request for special use
 permit

 Subject 2.2. Leddy Bike Park Opening Event Special Use Permit (attachment)
 Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action (Consent)


  Recommended Action Waive the reading, accept the communication and approve the request for special use
 permit

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type Procedural



4. Deliberative Agenda
  Subject 4.1. Open Space Plan (attachment)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. Ordinance Appendix D, Sections 2 & 5 (attachment)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Staff Update/Director Search
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 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. Bike Park Update
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 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. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update (verbal)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Recommended Action

6. Director's Report

7. Commissioner's Items & Volunteer Hours

8. Adjournment
  Subject 8.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 8. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type Procedural


  Recommended Action

Tuesday, October 14, 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

5:30 pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/91614872377
Or One tap mobile :
+19292056099,,91614872377# US (New York)
+13017158592,,91614872377# US (Washington DC)
Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US:
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 305 224 1968 US
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 253 205 0468 US
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
Webinar ID: 916 1487 2377
1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. September Commission Meeting Minutes (attachment)
 Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type Action (Consent)


 Recommended Action Waive the reading, accept the communication and approve the request for special use
 permit

 Subject 2.2. Leddy Bike Park Opening Event Special Use Permit (attachment)
 Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda


 Page 1 of 21
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action (Consent)


  Recommended Action Waive the reading, accept the communication and approve the request for special use
 permit

3. Public Forum
  Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 3. Public Forum
  Department Council and Board


  Type Procedural



4. Deliberative Agenda
  Subject 4.1. Open Space Plan (attachment)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. Ordinance Appendix D, Sections 2 & 5 (attachment)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.3. Staff Update/Director Search
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 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. Bike Park Update
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda


 Page 2 of 21
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Subject 4.5. Comprehensive Plan Update
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Agenda
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update (verbal)
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Information


  Recommended Action

6. Director's Report

7. Commissioner's Items & Volunteer Hours

8. Adjournment
  Subject 8.1. Motion to adjourn
  Meeting October 14, 2025 - Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 14,
 2025, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 8. Adjournment

  Department Council and Board


  Type Procedural


  Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 21
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes

September 9th, 2025 at 5:30pm

645 Pine Street, front conference room & zoom



Commissioners in attendance: Nate Lantieri, Katie Mobley, Kirstin Boehm, Harley Johnson, Robert Etter,
Halle Davis and Ryan Bergmann

Staff & presenters in attendance: Sophie Sauvé, Scott Gustin, Meghan O’Daniel, Jill Dixon & Zoe Richards

Public in attendance: Phillip Pezeshki



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Lantieri opened the meeting by welcoming everyone. He asked if there was a motion to
 amend/adopt the agenda. Mobley made the motion. Boehm seconded. All were in
 favor, none were opposed.
 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 Special Use Permit for Alex Manfull Fund and Gaskell Family on Burlington Greenway
 Lantieri then asked if there was a motion to adopt the consent agenda. Boehm made
 the motion. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed.
 3. Public Forum
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 Opened at 5:35pm. With no one in attendance, Lantieri closed public forum at 5:36pm.

 Noting a member of the public was now present, Lantieri re-opened public forum at
 5:59pm.
 Philip Pezeshki was in attendance and noted that the removal of bittersweet in the
 meadow in Arms Forest is looking very good and asked if there was an update about
 signage that was planned for that area and if there were any design or usage plans for
 that space. He continued by asking if there were any plans to change the stop signage
 along the Bike Path to allow bicycles and pedestrians to have the right of way to cross
 the streets rather than having the stop signs on the bike path.
 He also asked if there were any plans to resurface the stretch of bike path by the North
 Beach Campground.
 Lantieri said he would look into the answers and follow-up with Pezeshki.
 The public forum was closed again at 6:02pm.
 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Open Space Plan
 Scott Gustin began by noting that tonight is for reviewing the draft and the plan is to
 come back again for adoption next month or December if more discussion needs to be
 had at the next meeting. He continued that they have been working on this for roughly a
 year with help from BPRW staff including Sophie Sauvé, Dan Cahill and Juliet Shen,




 Page 4 of 21
Conservation Board representative Zoe Richards, and Sarah Morgan from City Planning.
He shared that UVM spatial analysis labs did a comprehensive tree canopy analysis,
which has been incorporated into this plan as well. Gustin continued that there are 4
primary themes in this plan: conserve, experience, connect and cultivate, as well as the
Urban Forest Plan, the Legacy Fund and climate resiliency. He shared that the City team
received the draft at the end of July and have met 6 or 7 times to go through it line by
line and have made comments, some of which were: looking for a more robust
integration of the spatial analysis lab’s tree canopy work, emphasizing the need for
sustained communications to keep this all in the forefront to keep connections robust
and functional and fleshing out strategies and supportive local community food systems.
He also shared that they are looking to put together a small write-up about the history
of the conservation legacy fund and its central role in all of this. Gustin closed by asking
the Commissioners to share any feedback they have by the end of the week so that they
can incorporate it into a further revised plan. He then handed it over to Jill Dixon, who
shared her screen with the power point presentation.
Dixon began by speaking to the history of open space planning in Burlington, which
began in 2000. She continued that this iteration, like the others was built on a strong
foundation of community engagement including pop-up events to conversations with
students and community workshops, which have all reinforced the different ways that
open space matters for the City. She shared that this plan takes a holistic approach to
open space, including the role it plays for healthy ecologies, recreation, nature
experiences, City identity and food systems. Dixon continued that the vision statement
builds on past plans, what community members are saying today about the need and
want for open space, climate change and our changing environment, with the
underlying theme that Burlington is a nature-filled City, a strong legacy that they wanted
to build upon while also using language that is accessible and gets at what people love
about open space today and its value for the future. Dixon continued by reviewing the 4
main themes of the open space plan: conserve, connect, experience and cultivate as
well as some overarching themes that emerged, including: climate resilience, equity,
community, connectivity, identity and accessibility, which will be seen throughout the
plan. She reviewed conserve first, which she shared focuses on big picture stewardship
of existing protected lands across the City and how these spaces work together to
support healthy ecosystem and a healthy Burlington. She continued that this area has 4
strategies and a number of actions and shared a map showing the core ecological areas,
from large natural cores to areas identified as stewardship zones where residents that
live close to open spaces can take action in their own backyards that can have positive
influences. Next, Dixon reviewed connect, which focuses on how stewardship and
nature-based development can work together to increase connectivity of ecosystems
across Burlington. The strategies for this section focus on expanding nature-based
climate solutions across the City and the ecosystem of stewardship including how all
land stewards play a role. She continued that this area also includes thinking about how
open space and new development can work together and not be an either/or. Dixon
then shared a map and table that showed the amount of impervious service and how
that matters for the future of open space, which is a starting point to figure out which




 Page 5 of 21
strategies are going to be the most effective and important to prioritize. Next she
reviewed experience, which focuses on the role that opens spaces play from a people
perspective, with strategies that increase awareness about the existing open spaces
across the City, expanding public access to nature-based experiences and breaking down
barriers to open space so that everyone is able to enjoy their benefits. She then shared a
map showing the different levels of access to nature experiences across the City, with
the densest being in the New North End. She noted that this is where the
Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Rec Master Plan could continue to expand on
how to enhance access and experience when it comes to parks, open space and
recreation. Dixon then moved on to review the fourth goal, cultivate, which she shared
was focused on local food systems with strategies of cultivating sustainable and resilient
agricultural practices, expanding community gardens and thinking about how to support
the cultivation of alternate food sources, such as foraging. Then Dixon shared a final
map showing a connected ecosystems framework, which will act as a roadmap where
both people and nature can thrive together over time. She continued that the goal is
that this is a roadmap for the City and also partners and other groups to work together
to achieve a healthy ecosystem across Burlington.
Dixon then opened it up to feedback and questions.
Lantieri felt that it was very comprehensive and noted that he needed more time to
really dive into it.
Etter asked about the survey responses and if this took those into account.
Gustin responded yes, but that was not the main way they received feedback.
Dixon chimed in that about 50 people took the online survey in addition to pop-up
events across the City where they asked the same questions as the survey, which
addressed things like challenges of open space and visions for the future and received
feedback in person. They then put all of that feedback together to see what was most
important to people.
Gustin shared that they attended 24 pop-up events in addition to visiting various
boards, commissions and councils throughout the City. He felt confident that they had
people in the hundreds weigh in between those and the survey.
Lantieri asked about the timeline for this.
Gustin responded that the hope is to have an adoption by this body and the
Conservation Board in October with an adoption by council hopefully in November. If
more time is needed, things could get pushed back a month to December.
Etter stated that if hundreds of people participated, that is about 1% of Burlington.
Gustin shared that they also engaged with people on social media, the website and
Front Porch Forum in addition to the in-person events and survey.
Dixon noted that in addition to the broad public outreach that there was a big effort to
focus on engaging stakeholders that have direct either ownership of open space
properties or some other connection to open space in Burlington. She continued that
Gustin and his team did a great job getting attendance at the stakeholder sessions, so
the plan reflects a lot of those collective ideas from a lot of different people.
Gustin shared that they would be back next month and reiterated that the Plan BTV
open space website has a public comment feature and encouraged Commissioners to




 Page 6 of 21
 check that out and/or e-mail him directly with any comments by Monday. Everything
 then will be sent out to the agency for a revised plan next month.

4.2 Chief Greylock
 Sauvé shared that the sculpture came down this summer and now evaluating the base is
 in process to support a replacement piece. She continued that the work is being led by
 BCA and that communication with the Abenaki Council is happening through the REIB
 Office. She expects that at a future meeting there will be a bigger update and potentially
 a request for approval.

4.3 Director Search
 Lantieri shared that last week there were originally 7 interviews scheduled, but only 5
 were conducted after 2 candidates dropped out. He said he could not go into specifics
 but that there are some good candidates in the mix and that there were honest
 conversations about that at the end of all of the interviews. Based on the group’s
 scoring, their recommendations were sent to the Mayor’s office for appointment
 consideration. He shared that ahead of the interviews, he attended a manager’s
 meeting to hear directly from staff.
 Mobley asked who was on the committee.
 Lantieri shared that there was someone from the Mayor’s office, City Council, BPRW,
 BCA, BSD and himself.
 Davis asked if there were any local candidates.
 Lantieri said no.
 Boehm asked what the timeline was.
 Lantieri reflected that because there were fewer candidates in the first round of
 interviews than anticipated, he was not sure if that would change anything, but if not,
 the first round is done and the next round is with the Mayor who will make her
 selection. Then, it goes to City Council for approval. He shared that the hope is that
 there will be someone in the position soon.

4.4 Comprehensive Plan
 Sauvé shared that BPRW is due for a review of the comprehensive plan since the last
 one was done in 2015. She continued that at the same time, the City’s Plan BTV needs
 to be revised and there has been a request to have a transportation plan done for the
 whole City and potentially an economic development plan. She shared that all of the
 different City departments are collaborating to get a consultant team on board to work
 on all of these plans together, with each having their own sections. She continued that
 this will be called Plan BTV 2050. Sauvé shared that there has been an RFP issued for our
 piece and there is a pre-submission meeting this week with proposals from consultants
 due at the end of this month. From there, they will be ranked and chosen, but in the
 meantime internal teams are meeting regularly to keep the project moving forward
 because there are pieces that staff will start putting together. Sauvé continued that they
 are looking to put together a Project Advisory Committee (PAC), which would include a
 member of the Parks Commission, so she is hoping who might be interested in this can




 Page 7 of 21
 be a conversation amongst Commissioners. She closed by sharing that because this is a
 massive undertaking, the more voices involved in the process would be appreciated and
 being at the table will be important.
 Etter asked how long this process is going to take.
 Sauvé answered that this part would need to be done by January 2027.
 Lantieri asked if this had anything to do with an accreditation process he had heard
 about.
 Sauvé answered no and that the CAPRA initiative had been put on hold due to the
 reduction in force in the spring.
 Mobley shared that this seems like a great opportunity to collaborate and also a lot of
 work.
 Boehm asked when the Department would like the Commission to have someone
 chosen to step into this role.
 Sauvé answered by next month.
 Mobley shared that she would be interested.
 Lantieri closed this item by asking everyone to think on it.

4.5 Off-Leash Dog Policy
 Lantieri shared that he wanted to start fresh with and use this new document as the
 building space to hopefully iron everything out as much as possible together. He
 continued that as he was working through the document, if the group decided to not go
 in the direction of having unfenced, off-leash areas, and it actually brought up the
 question of do we need a separate policy from Appendix D section 7 or can these
 function as the same thing.
 Mobley asked if this was a Commission decision.
 Lantieri answered that the Parks Department needs to have an off-leash dog policy, but
 that’s it.
 Mobley then asked for clarification that the Commission has influence over the
 mechanics of that.
 Lantieri answered yes, but that the ordinance needs to be approved and passed by City
 Council.
 Boehm clarified that section 7 of the ordinance does not exist right now, but in this
 addition to the ordinance there are places where an off-leash dog policy is referenced.
 Lantieri shared screen so that everyone could look at the document together and
 confirmed that currently the part that will go into the ordinance and the policy are
 separate but that the Commission could make the decision to combine them if they
 were interested in doing so. He continued by asking if anyone was against number 3:
 “there are no areas designated as unfenced off-leash dog areas within the City of
 Burlington’s parks”. No one was.
 Davis asked if people get any information about the off-leash dog policy when they
 register their dogs with the City.
 The general consensus was no but that it could be an opportunity to share information
 in addition to on-site signage and the website.




 Page 8 of 21
Lantieri also noted one other change he made, which was adding in an 18 month
timeframe for BPRW to conduct an outreach campaign to educate the community if the
ordinance or policy are modified.
After some discussion, everyone was comfortable with these changes.
Lantieri continued by going through the minor changes he made, including moving
“human food” from the recommended rules to what is prohibited in off-leash dog areas.
Etter asked if there was a mechanism to track violations.
The general consensus was no, but Etter felt that if there was at least some sort of
tracking system, even if it wasn’t through a formal system, that it would be helpful for
enforcement.
Mobley asked if the Rangers had the authority to write tickets to people in parks. The
group was not sure.
Etter also asked if the Director has authority to incur penalties or issue fines.
Sauvé answered that they can ban people from certain parks or BPRW operated spaces,
but she was not sure about in this specific situation.
Boehm said that this is a big discussion point of this whole thing because if the
Commission says off-leash dogs are not allowed in these places but there is no way for it
to be enforced, what does that look like. She continued that this is what is happening
now and there is a culture around having off-leash dogs in places and at times where no
one is there to enforce it.
Etter also asked about removing the piece about restorative justice.
Mobley recalled talking about this one as a “may” vs. “shall” after conversations about
repeated offenders and reflecting back on hearing from community members during
this process. She reinforced Boehm’s point that off-leash dogs are already present in
parks, so how can the Commission help engage people in conversations about it so that
it is not just a penalty.
Etter expressed concerns about adding to people’s workloads by keeping in the part
about restorative justice and what the process could actually do.
Davis circled back to the question about the BPRW Director’s ability to enforce with
penalties.
Sauvé said that she asked a fellow BPRW colleague and he said that the Director can
issue penalties and write tickets.
Lantieri suggested changing the language but leaving them in.
Johnson agreed.
Lantieri continued by addressing the “administration” section that really only has to do
with commercial use in the dog parks, which he felt was strange.
Boehm felt it went hand in hand with certain areas in parks being considered off-leash
areas, but wasn’t completely sure.
Lantieri noted that it was also touched on in the policy.
The group discussed the pros and cons of leaving this section in and ultimately decided
that they would leave it as is.
Lantieri moved on to going through the policy, which he explained is reviewed and
decided on by the Commission, so gives a little more flexibility for change as opposed to
the Ordinance.




 Page 9 of 21
 Davis felt given that information, that it might be better to keep the two documents
 separate.
 Mobley shared that even once Appendix D is adopted, the policy is what people are
 going to pay more attention to so the Commission will has more work to do on it.
 Lantieri suggested that moving the section on what the BPRW Director can do from the
 policy to Appendix D.
 There was general agreement.
 Lantieri then shared the background section, which he feels will be helpful to share with
 PACC.
 Lantieri asked if anyone would like to make a motion.
 Etter moved to approve the document with the amendments that were made. Mobley
 seconded.
 All agreed, none opposed

4.6 Universal Access Design for Playgrounds Policy
 Lantieri continued sharing screen
 Etter shared that he had a number of concerns about this. He began by asking for more
 informational about “equitable use” and if this means that every piece of playground
 equipment has to be usable by everyone, and if not, it should be pointed out that it
 does not mean that in the policy. He continued by sharing his concerns about the
 auditory piece in the policy.
 Mobley summarized that when this was presented to them at the last meeting, one big
 takeaway was that this is already how the Department is approaching projects so this is
 just codifying what is being done.
 Sauvé confirmed that that was correct and shared the context that because the Parks
 Foundation is raising funds specifically for accessible playgrounds, that if any of Sophie’s
 team were to not be there at some point that future staff would still be applying these
 principles. She continued that staff want that certainty too.
 Etter continued that he has heard concerns about the accessible Oakledge playground
 not being as “fun” for older kids and he does not want to see that copied at every other
 playground.
 Sauvé answered that this policy is not necessarily repeating Oakledge, but it is making
 sure that playgrounds have things that support access – for example accessible
 surfacing.
 Etter responded that he recalled a large amount of the budget for these being the
 surfaces and what if only the areas are the accessible pieces of equipment had that type
 of surface underneath.
 Sauvé replied that the point of the Universal Design Principle is for equitable use, so not
 segregating kids in certain areas but allowing them to be throughout the playground, so
 that would defeat the purpose. The goal is equitable access for all and it’s really more
 about differently able bodied children and adults being able to play together. She
 continued that they are aware that not every piece of equipment is going to please
 everybody and not every piece will be accessible to everybody, but as long as there is a
 variety for everyone then they are meeting the needs of playgrounds.




 Page 10 of 21
Mobley chimed in that there should be awareness to not conflate accessibility with
challenge and that the goal of this is not to flatten out the experience for users, but
instead have principles that guide how choices are made. She believes that universal
design is the gold standard and of course they should be looking at spaces through the
lens of access for all. She continued by recalling that it was shared at the last meeting
that it is actually more cost effective in the long run to have these accessible surfaces as
opposed to woodchips.
Sauvé confirmed that even though woodchips are less expensive to install, there is a
large annual cost to replace them, which in addition to maintenance adds up over time.
Etter asked about the maintenance costs of the semi-permeable surfaces.
Sauvé said minimal and it is done by the contractor and they try to time it when they are
already doing an installation at another site. This is much less maintenance compared to
weekly staff maintenance of the woodchips.
Etter asked for confirmation that universal design does not mean that every piece of
equipment needs to be used by everyone.
Sauvé replied that it is a challenging discussion, but the equipment that is available is
not going to be accessible to everyone, but, by putting these principles in the requests
for proposals, they are telling the vendors to start thinking more out of the box.
Etter hopes that playground designs moving forward will have more “traditional” things
as opposed to Oakledge, where he feels everybody can use everything.
Sauvé responded that based on feedback from community members, this is not true.
That families have shared that children who use mobility devices cannot use every
component despite best efforts to not have that be the case.
Etter shared that he hopes that creating spaces for older kids to develop independence
and confidence is retained through this process, with things like platforms and other
climbable structures.
Sauvé responded that with something like a platform, if a ramp can be added to it then
the ability for all to join in that space has been achieved. She continued that doing
things like that, however, is not always possible depending on the space requirements,
which is why considering different types of equipment is so important. She shared that
what exists in catalogs now compared to 30 years ago is so different and that this is a
huge asset to creating accessible spaces.
Mobley noted that “tolerance for error” is in the policy, so one of the principles of this is
that there should be the ability to try something and fail safely while still being
challenged.
Johnson suggested that it might be helpful to see the catalogs for examples of universal
design in action. He continued that it does not seem like this policy is prescriptive, but
because the Parks are already putting this into practice, that this would be a helpful
piece to help staff when working with vendors and to help codify that in terms of
securing grants that rely on universal design as a part of that. He closed by sharing that
this seems like a crucial part of what staff are already doing.
Etter circled back on his question about things like platforms and nets, things that
people climb on so are not everyone can necessarily do, are still being incorporated into
future playground designs, sharing that he thinks those things are important pieces.




 Page 11 of 21
 Sauvé replied that she stands by that everyone should be able to at least join in if they
 want to. She continued by speaking to the Oakledge playground design, which includes
 components like the rocks that go up to the slide vs the ramp that goes up to the slide –
 even though they don’t look like traditional play equipment, it is still challenging to go
 up those, so using the landscape to enhance the equipment and space is a way to think
 outside of the box and still be as in alignment with universal design as possible.
 Etter asked if they could hold off on any action on this to review more material and
 discuss it more at a future meeting.
 Lantieri noted that it is an action item for this meeting.
 Sauvé shared that they are meeting with the subcommittee on playgrounds for the
 Accessibility Committee later this week, which she noted is a warned public meeting,
 where options will be presented so that these decisions are made with community
 feedback, not in isolation, so that we can best serve the community. She continued that
 they would be providing a summary of that meeting next Monday at the full
 Accessibility Committee meeting.
 Etter moved that they wait on any action until a later meeting.
 No one seconded, the motion failed.
 Davis noted that seeing design options feels like more detail than they need to make a
 decision on this policy.
 Johnson agreed, saying that this is meant to be a set of high level principles that staff
 are going to be working with in order to design parks, and while he is curious to learn
 more about the designs, he shared that he was comfortable with voting on this item
 today.
 Lantieri made a suggestion to change that the Parks Commission would be the group to
 review this policy every 5 years. He also noted that this policy, if passed, would go into
 effect today.There was general agreement.
 Mobely made a motion to approve this policy with the amendment. Boehm seconded.
 All but 1 were in favor. The motion passed.

4.7 BPRW Commission Memo: Update to PACC
 Boehm began by giving an overview about how this came to be, based on the last
 meeting and last Director’s report. She continued that the Commissioners were talking
 about how they could at least try to elevate those concerns and share them more
 directly with City Council. She shared that this was the Commission’s effort to do their
 part in making sure that there was an awareness of the challenges that the staffing
 changes have caused and recognize the exceptional work of the BPRW team in the
 busiest part of the year for the department, as well as offer some ideas for how to
 potentially repair relationships with the department and staff and bring awareness to
 what happened to the incoming Director.
 Lantieri continued by reviewing the recommendations in the memo with the group,
 noting that this is a little outside of what the Commission has done in the past 5 years
 but that this is a different moment for the Commission and the Department in general.
 He continued that this is their opportunity to run it up the flagpole and share the
 seriousness of this situation.




 Page 12 of 21
 Boehm chimed in that an action on this would be agreement that the content of this
 memo resonates and that it should be sent to PACC for review, with the hope that they
 would invite the Commission to be on an upcoming agenda.
 Mobely reflected that they did an excellent job capturing what staff have shared and
 agreed that there is a disconnect with what happened and people’s understanding of
 BPRW’s services to the community. She feels that the Commission has a responsibility to
 lift staff’s voices.
 Etter noted that an approach might be to share understanding that budget cuts happen
 sometimes, but that there also needs to be an understanding that not everything can
 continue as it has in regards to tasks and services.
 Mobley wanted to highlight that another goal of this document was to give the
 incoming Director insight into what has happened to help them navigate the next 6 plus
 months ahead.
 Davis asked for clarity about the example of work being done in public buildings.
 Lantieri responded that yes in the last few years, things were consolidated so that all
 public buildings fall under Parks now.
 Mobley noted that she was shocked when she found this out and knows that it’s not
 widely known or understood.
 Lanteri asked if Sauvé felt like this would put staff in a bad spot in any way moving
 forward.
 Sauvé did not think so.
 Lantieri asked if there was any misattribution of feelings in the memo.
 Sauvé did not.
 Lantieri asked if this was outside of the role of the Commission.
 Sauvé answered that it is hard to know what the role of the Commission really is
 because there has been such a disconnect for the past 5 years or so. She feels that this is
 supportive of how many are feeling and hopes that this will help begin conversations
 about why certain services are not happening now 5 months after the reductions in
 force.
 Lantieri asked if anyone would like to make an action on this item.
 Mobley made a motion to approve this memo and send it on to PACC.
 Johnson seconded.
 All were in favor. None were opposed.

4.8 E-bikes on the Greenway
 Lantieri opened by sharing the current ordinance and that City Council asked the
 Commission review this. He noted that this was created in 1995, way before e-bikes
 were created, but that technically all motorized vehicles of every kind and description,
 except when staff or contractors are performing maintenance, are prohibited.
 Mobley shared that they would need education about e-bikes etc. so that they can
 make an informed decision.
 There was a discussion about the nuance of e-bikes and agreement that more education
 would be needed on this topic.




 Page 13 of 21
 Johnson noted that the State defines electric bikes as bicycles and they are allowed
 where bicycles are allowed.
 Lantieri said that this is an introduction to a future action.

5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that they have not met since the last Commission meeting so he did not
 have an update. He noted that the next meeting is at the beginning of October.

6. Director’s Report

 Sauvé shared that they are looking forward to hearing more about the interview process
 and timeline.

7. Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
 Lantieri, 20 hours between meeting with staff, the Director interviews and prepping
 memos for this meeting
 Boehm, 5 hours prepping memos for this meeting
 Bergman, 2 hours coaching for the BPRW soccer program
 Johnson did not have any hours to report this month
 Mobley, 1 hour at the Kieslich VSJO memorial event
 Davis did not have any hours to report this month
 Etter did not have any hours to report this month

8. Adjournment
 8.1 Motion to adjourn
 Etter made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bergman seconded. All were in favor,
 none opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08pm.




 Page 14 of 21
MEMO
Date: October 14th, 2025
To: BPRW Commission
From: Max Madalinski, Parks Project Coordinator
RE: Leddy Park Special Use Permit for October 25th, 2025


Request for a Special Use Permit at Leddy Park to hold a community event and for a waiver to allow
amplified sound.

The Burlington Bike Park Coalition (BBPC) in partnership with BPRW would like to host an event in the
southeast corner of the Leddy Park parking lot to celebrate the completion of the first phase of the
Burlington Bike Park. There would be a short press event and official opening/ribbon cutting
(coordinated by BPRW), followed by games/skills competitions, vendors tabling in the parking lot (food
and gear), and fundraising by BBPC for maintenance and future phases of the Bike Park. The event
would take place from 10 AM - 2 PM on October 25th, 2025.

They are expecting 5-8 vendors to attend. Vendors will have demo bikes and gear for sale. There will
also be 2-3 food trucks (included in vendor total). One DJ will be attending and will be housed under a
10x10 tent adjacent to the site.

An in-person raffle will be held featuring donated items from local bike shops. Funds raised as part of
the event will be used for maintenance and/or construction of future phases of the Burlington Bike Park.

They estimate approximately 200 individuals to attend, spread between the vendor area and bike park
facility.

Contacts for the event are Sean Melinn and Jeremy Oclatis.

It is on a day with no conflicting events.


Staff Recommendations:
Allow for Special Use Permit




 Page 15 of 21
 Rebecca Roman, Chair
Burlington Conservation Board Ryan Crehan, Vice Chair
311 North Avenue Zoe Richards
Burlington, VT 05408 Don Meals
http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/dpi Ryan Crehan
Telephone: (802) 865-7188 Ethan Ely
 Dale Azaria
 Kelly Farrell
 Evan Horne




TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Scott Gustin
DATE: October 14, 2025
RE: Open Space Plan

The 2025 Open Space Plan is included in the Parks Commission’s October 14, 2025 meeting
packet for final review and, hopefully, recommendation for adoption.

This plan is the result of more than a year of collaborative work including assessments,
outreach, visioning, and writing. Most recently, a comprehensive draft plan was circulated for
review and comment to the Conservation Board, Parks Commission, and the Planning
Commission. The draft plan was also made available online for review and comment during the
month of August and into September, 2025. The effort to rewrite the city’s Open Space Plan
has been a collaborative effort between the core city team, UVM’s Spatial Analysis Lab, and
Agency Landscape & Planning.

Following action by the Conservation Board, Parks Commission, and the Planning Commission,
the Open Space Plan will move on to the City Council in November and, ultimately, adoption in
December 2025.




 Page 16 of 21
 CITY OF BURLINGTON
 ORDINANCE ___________
 Sponsor: Parks, Arts & Culture
 Committee (PACC)
 Public Hearing Dates: ___________
 In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Five ______________
 First reading: _________________
 Referred to: ___________________
 An Ordinance in Relation to Rules suspended and placed in all
 stages of passage: ______________
 An Second
 Amendment  reading: ________________
 to Appendix D, Sections 1 and 4, Updating Parks
 Rules Action:  ______________________
 and Regulations
 Date: ________________________
 Signed by Mayor: ______________
 Published: ____________________
 Effective: _____________________

 It is hereby Ordained by the City Council of the City of Burlington as follows:

 1 That Appendix D, Rules and Regulations of the Burlington Parks and Recreation Department, of the Code of
 2 Ordinances of the City of Burlington hereby is amended by amending Section 2 and Section 5, thereof to
 3 read as follows:


 4 2 Perkins Pier Marina, Waterfront Park and Community Boathouse.
 5 (A) Safety and Courtesy:

 6 (1) Motorists shall not operate any motor vehicle within the land area of Perkins Pier or Waterfront
 7 Park at a speed in excess of five (5) miles per hour.

 8 (2) Motorists shall park automobiles and boat trailers only in areas designated for that purpose and
 9 shall ensure that said vehicles and/or trailers do not block or impede pedestrian and bicycle access
10 along designated pedestrian and bicycle paths. Persons wishing to use launching facilities may do so
11 only after purchase of an appropriate daily vehicle entrance ticket permit or season’s vehicle and
12 trailer vehicle entrance pass.

13 (B) Season and Transient Docking Permits:

14 (1) No seasonal boater person shall tie up overnight to any slip or bulkhead without first having
15 acquired a contract transient permit signed by the Marina Manager Dock Master or having paid a
16 transient fee.

17 (2) Transient Vvessels within the approved docking or mooring areas are presumed to be overnight if
18 they remain after 78:00 p.m. E.D.T. All Transient Boaters are required to check in with the Dockmaster
19 upon arrival and acquire an overnight permit and pay an overnight fee.

20 (23) Vessel oOwner must provide adequate line and feneders and maintain them in proper
21 condition and arrangement. In the interest of safety, the DockmMaster may require that dock lines
22 and feneders be changed or altered. Iin an emergency situation threatening damage to the owner’s




 Page 17 of 21
 Page 2
 An Ordinance in Relation to An Amendment to Appendix D sections 1 and 4, Rules and Regulations of
 City Park



23 vessel, another vessel or property of the City of Burlington. The DockmMaster may cause appropriate
24 lines and feneders to be attached to the owner’s vessel and do other necessary work and the cost of
25 so doing shall be charged to the vessel owner.

26 (34) The City of Burlington can will provide docking assistance and will maintain reasonable
27 surveillance during regular hours but will not be held responsible for the security and/or safe-keeping
28 of vessels moored or docked at the facility.

29 (45) Theis seasonal dock or mooring agreement is not transferable and the City reserves the right to
30 use accommodations reserved by this agreement during temporary vacancies by owner. Owner shall
31 give the City advance notice of commencement and duration of such vacancies of 48 hours. There is
32 no permissible subletting of the slip or mooring by vessel owner at any time or length. The vessel in
33 the assigned slip must be registered in the vessel owner’s name and align with the same name on the
34 permit/contract.

35 (56) After May 1st no refunds will be given to persons choosing not to use a designated slip or
36 mooring after having previously made payment to reserve said slip or mooring for the season. The
37 only exception would be if the Department is able to refill the space at full value by May 15th of the
38 same year.

39 (67) In no case may flame, heating elements, inflammable liquids, explosive gases or other
40 hazardous materials or equipment be used on the vessel while it remains at the City’s facilities, but
41 the use of contained approved galley stoves, lamps, motors and other equipment shall be allowed in
42 safe accordance with manufacturer guidelines. Commented [HM1]: Does 'in safe' refer to a place on the
 vessel or is this a typo/extra language?

43 (78) Owner expressly undertakes and agrees to hold the City harmless with respect to damage or Commented [CW2R1]: @Hayley McClenahan - we had
 "safe" in there but I agree with striking it
44 loss to or of the vessel or its outfit, except such damage as may be conclusively attributed to the City’s
45 own negligence, and this undertaking is provided to induce the City to enter into this agreement.

46 (89) Season’s docking permit rates shall be set annually by the Harbor Commission, subject to final
47 approval of the City Council. Persons acquiring a larger or smaller boat during the permit period shall
48 have their fee altered and prorated on the basis of the amount of the season left. Boats shall not tie
49 up prior to May 15th or later than October 15th without written permission from the HarbormMaster
50 or Deputy Harbormaster. Season’s slips remaining open after July 1 may, after due notice by the
51 Harbor Commission, be reclaimed and reallocated by the Harbormaster or Deputy Harbormaster
52 Commission.

53 (910) Permit holders failing to remove vessel from assigned slip by October 15 are subject to a late
54 fee and/or towing fee set annually by the Harbor Commission.




 Page 18 of 21
 Page 3
 An Ordinance in Relation to An Amendment to Appendix D sections 1 and 4, Rules and Regulations of
 City Park



55 (11) All permit holders, both seasonal and transient and their guests, are expected to conduct
56 themselves in a respectful manner. Belligerent behavior, harassment of guests or staff or conduct
57 disruptive to the operations of the marina will not be tolerated and are reasons for immediate
58 removal. The Harbormaster or Deputy Harbormaster have the ability to revoke any permit, either
59 temporary or permanent, if behavior is found to be disruptive.

60 (12) All boaters staying at our docks or moorings are required to provide Vessel insurance in such
61 coverage types and amounts as recommended by the City’s professional insurance consultant.

62 (130) Additionally, rules set annually by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Harbor
63 Commission are in effect and enforceable by ordinance.


64 5 Park closings.
65 (A) Motor vehicles are prohibited at all times within the confines of City Hall Park, Champlain Street Park,
66 Lakeside Park, Pomeroy Park, Roosevelt Park, Smalley Park and Battery Park.

67 (B) Motor vehicles are permitted to be driven and/or parked within the confines of Waterfront Park, Leddy
68 Park, South Calahan Park, Oakledge Park, Schmanska Park, Ethan Allen Park, North Beach Park and Perkins
69 Pier, provided that:

70 (1) Motor vehicles shall be excluded from the confines of Leddy Park between 9:3011:00 p.m. and
71 6:00 a.m., except that motor vehicles may be driven and/or parked within the confines of Leddy Park
72 during such time for the purpose of attending scheduled skating events at Gordon H. Paquette
73 Municipal Arena. Motor vehicles shall be excluded from Perkins Pier between the hours of 11:00 p.m. Commented [HM3]: This section seems to state that no
74 and 6:00 a.m., except that motor vehicles may be driven and/or parked within the confines of Perkins parking is allowed in Perkins Pier overnight, unless it is paid
 for. Isn't that also the case during the day? I'm just not sure
75 Pier if the person driving and/or parking such vehicles displays on his or her dash-board a late what exception this section is trying to carve out for Perkins
76 parking permit obtained from the attendant upon admission to the Pier pays the appropriate parking Pier at night. If we just strike the whole section, won't the
 default of paying parking at Perkins Pier just control?
77 fee associated with such parking activity.

78 (2) Motor vehicles shall be excluded from the confines of Schmanska Park, Ethan Allen Park,
79 Waterfront Park and Oakledge Park between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Commented [EM4]: Account for Waterfront Park


80 (3) Motor vehicles shall be excluded from the confines of North Beach Campground Park, unless
81 access and parking within the campsite area are allowed by reservation permit, between May 15 and
82 October 14. Saturday at 6:00 a.m. on the last weekend in April and the end of Labor Day in the
83 following manner:

84 (a4) Motor vehicles shall be excluded from the "beanch parking lot" between May 15 and
85 October 15 from dusk to dawn. as follows:




 Page 19 of 21
 Page 4
 An Ordinance in Relation to An Amendment to Appendix D sections 1 and 4, Rules and Regulations of
 City Park



 86 1. Between 9:30 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. or

 87 2. Within twenty (20) minutes after the time that the lifeguard in charge shall announce
 88 that the beach is closed.

 89 (45) Between midnight on Labor Day and 6:00 a.m. on the last Saturday of April October 15 and May
 90 14 motor vehicles shall be excluded from the confines of North Beach Park, including the
 91 campground and the beach. between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

 92 (56) Motor vehicles shall not be parked within the confines of any city park except in those areas
 93 properly designated and marked parking areas. Motor vehicles shall not be parked within the
 94 confines of a city park except by those using the park for recreational purposes.

95 (C) The Director of Parks, Recreation & Waterfront superintendent of parks or tour commander of tChief
96 of the police department or their designee shall have the authority to close any park to vehicles and/or Commented [EM5]: Add in portion of a park?
97 person on a temporary basis for the following reasons:

 98 (1) Maintenance and/or construction.

 99 (2) For public protection from conditions caused by weather or climate.

100 (3) When there is reason to believe that the closing of such park is necessary for the maintenance of
101 order, safety and decency in such park and in those areas surrounding such park. Commented [NC6]: is it possible to add an ordinance that
 would make the speed limit at north beach enforceable by
 Burlington Police Department?
102
 Commented [NC7]: Would we be able to a line here that
 would allow us to ban alcohol at any beach or any park on a
103 temp basis if behavior is out of hand such as large amounts
 of underage drinking, large amounts of drinking and driving,
 or or violent behavior?
104 (D) The Director of Parks, Recreation & Waterfront superintendent of parks may, as authorized by the
105 Parks Commission board of parks and recreation commissioners, allow vehicles in prohibited areas for
106 special events occurring in such areas. Additionally, the foregoing restrictions on motor vehicles shall not
107 apply to city vehicles or personal vehicles while being used for official City business.

108 (E) There shall be stop signs placed at the following locations within the city parks:

109 (1) At the Flynn Avenue exit from Oakledge Park.

110 (2) At the North Avenue exit from Leddy Park.

111 (3) At the North Beach entrance.




 Page 20 of 21
 Page 5
 An Ordinance in Relation to An Amendment to Appendix D sections 1 and 4, Rules and Regulations of
 City Park



112 (4) At the entrance to Perkins Pier.

113 (F) No person shall park a motor vehicle in any parking space on Perkins Pier which is marked for boat
114 trailers.

115 (FG) Closing hours for City Hall Park. City Hall Park shall be closed for public use from 12:00 midnight until
116 6:00 a.m. on a daily basis. This park closing shall not aeffect pedestrian crossings through the park.

117

118

119
120 * Material stricken out deleted.
121 ** Material underlined added.
122
123 em/hm/Ordinances 2025/ An Amendment to Appendix D, Sections 2 and 5 Rules and Regulations of the Burlington Parks and Recreation
124 Department
125 July 14, 2025




 Page 21 of 21

Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes

 October 14th, 2025 at 645 Pine Street & Zoom

Commission Present: Lantieri, Boehm, Johnson, Bergmann, Mobley & Davis

Staff Present: Sauvé, Moreau, Madalinski, Gustin & O’Daniel

Public Present: Sean Melinn, Jeremy O’Clatis, Rhiannon Sinclair (presenter), Zoe Richards (Conservation
Board Representative)



The meeting was convened at 5:33pm by Lantieri.



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Mobley made a motion to adopt the agenda. Davis seconded. All were in favor, none
 were opposed.

 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 September Commission Meeting Minutes
 2.2 Leddy Bike Park Opening Event Special Use Permit

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

 3. Public Forum
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 Public Forum opened at 5:35pm.
 Jeremy O’Clatis from the Bike Park coalition was present to share his support of the
 space.
 Seeing no one else present in person or on Zoom, the Public Forum closed at 5:37pm.

 4. Deliberative Agenda
 4.1 Open Space Plan
 Gustin opened that the draft of the plan that the Commission saw at the last meeting
 has been further refined since then and that it is in its almost final form. He continued
 that there have been some key changes since the last draft that they would be sharing
 with the Commission tonight. He shared that the Conservation Board had approved it
 the night before, they were hopeful this body would give its support tonight and then
 they would move ahead to an approval from the Planning Commission and then City
 Council. Gustin continued that once all of those steps have been completed, there
 would hopefully be a new Open Space Plan for the first time in 25 years by the New
 Year.
Sinclair began by sharing her screen and thanked the group for being a part of this
process as they continue to advocate for the open space plan. She continued by
outlining that the plan for this presentation was to focus on where changes have been
made over the past month thanks to community and partner feedback. She shared that
the main updates since the last draft were a more robust executive summary, adding
information on community engagement and the Conservation Legacy Fund, an
expanded urban forest analysis and recommendations, key connection updates, map
updates and new actions throughout. She pointed out though, that there was strong
support for the overall vision and structure of the plan, so that had not changed. She
continued that since the last draft, they have created a “Plan Summary”, which
expressed more about why this work was happening, why it is important to the City and
some things that were learned throughout the process and how that was brought into
the plan itself. She continued that they gave more space for the Conservation Legacy
Fund, including its background and how it has been impactful to the City. Sinclair shared
that they have also managed to incorporate information about all of the different
visioning and outreach opportunities that have taken place throughout the process. She
then touched on the expansion of the Urban Forest plan, including both the technical
side such as highlighting where changes in tree canopy has occurred and why those
changes have happened, as well as a strategy sections, to highlight actions that can be
taken to respond to the changes and steward the tree canopy moving forward. Sinclair
continued by reviewing the map updates that were made in the healthy ecosystem
framework and key connections sections and also general map edits for clarity. She
closed by touching on the actions that were updated throughout the plan, including
ways private land owners could invest in natural spaces and community garden
expansions.
Gustin closed the presentation by explaining to the Commission that they could respond
that they support it as is, they support it with some comments or that they want to see
major changes.
Lantieri opened it up for questions. He began by asking about the tree canopy increases
and where those took place.
Gustin responded that most increases were in City parkland.
Richards chimed in to note that one of the things that was done in this draft update was
to make sure that the spatial analysis data was there but also easy to interpret so that
the data and actions can be understood and responded to.
Davis asked about the ash trees and their impact on the changing canopy.
Sauvé responded that the City Arborist has been planting new trees where ash is being
removed, so it won’t show in this set of data, but in the next iteration of this plan these
trees will be much bigger so the changes will be seen.
Richards shared that she feels the greenbelt trees are the most under control in terms
of long term planning for tree canopy, but the spaces that the City does not have control
over, like private residences, is where there needs to be more communication and
creativity with action steps.
Mobley noted that this seems like a great way to call people in to this process.
 Sinclair chimed in that with 37% of Burlington’s land use being residential, this feels like
 a really important moment to be focusing on residential properties to invest in trees.
 Lantieri asked if there was an understanding of what percentage of places like Arms
 Forest or other spaces are Ash.
 Richards responded that they could take a good guess at the answer and explained
 where what trees are more likely to occur.
 Lantieri shared that he felt like this document was readable and digestible and was
 happy to support it.
 Boehm agreed.
 Mobley made a motion to support the Open Space Plan as is. Davis seconded. All were
 in favor, none were opposed.

4.2 Ordinance Appendix D, Sections 2 & 5
 Lantieri opened this section of the meeting by giving an overview of what these sections
 cover and the history of how things have gotten to this point, including going to PACC
 and the full council, but needing to go to the City Attorney’s office after more review by
 this body. He continued that they would be focusing on a section about Perkins Pier and
 park closings.
 Moreau shared that she met with PACC and they wanted to bring 2 changes back to the
 Commission for review. The first was changing the closing of Leddy Park from 11pm to
 9:30pm, which aligns it with most of the other parks. She continued that this will not
 apply to Arena users, but would help with enforcement of the park, which has had some
 significant issues over the past few years. Moreau then touched on the section about
 only the Director of BPRW and the Chief of Police being able to close a park on a
 temporary basis. She continued that the way this is interpreted is for public protection
 from conditions caused by weather or climate or when there’s a reason that is believed
 that a closing of a park is necessary. Moreau explained that because of unsafe activity at
 North Beach in a specific part of the park this season, they were curious if a portion of a
 park could be closed for public safety reasons and that the hope was to clarify the
 language to allow staff to be protected in these decision making moments.
 Mobley asked for an explanation of what “portion” means.
 Moreau answered by sharing a specific example of something that happened this
 summer in a specific space at North Beach – use of a parking lot for unwanted activities
 and behaviors. She continued that the thought was, if they could close down that
 section of the park, temporarily, that could help bring things back in line.
 Davis asked how they limit the amount of parking.
 Moreau answered that they would keep that lot open as long as they could, but when
 staff felt that things were starting to turn, they would put up temporary wooden
 barricade to stop people from entering that space.
 Johnson asked if the Commission should consider putting any guardrails up like time
 limits etc. or is this meant to be a longer term solution.
 Moreau didn’t feel like she could answer that because each circumstance she could
 recall, she would have recommended a different amount of time for the closure. She
 continued that they would want to limit it as much as possible because they want to see
 spaces used and that they only want to close areas if there is imminent danger or an
 area of growing concern like the space she mentioned at North Beach, where alcohol
 was excessively consumed and a consistent pattern was clearly noted. She shared that
 this is a tool in the toolbox to help reduce issues, not reduce access.
 Lantieri shared that he had one note of trepidation with regards to the Chief of Police’s
 ability to close parks at their discretion.
 Moreau responded that the parameters, maintenance or construction, for public
 protection from conditions caused by weather or climate or when there’s a reason to
 believe that the closing of such parks is necessary for the maintenance of order, safety
 and decency, were listed.
 Lantieri felt like “order and decency” was a vague loophole that he would not like to see
 enacted.
 Mobley asked for clarification that this process would add in the Chief of Police.
 Lantieri clarified that no, that is already in there, but that it’s for the whole park, not
 portions of them.
 Moreau continued that this is actually making things more specific from “police
 department” to “chief of police” and that she agreed that there is some level of
 interpretation here. She then noted that this is something the Commission could take
 their time with, especially since this is something that would be helpful to have during
 the spring/summer months and we’re going in to winter. Moreau did ask how the
 Commission felt about making the Leddy Park closing time change from 11pm to
 9:30pm today.
 Lantieri answered that he was comfortable with that, especially since it would be
 bringing it into alignment with most other park closing times.
 Boehm asked about the Perkins Pier piece.
 Moreau answered that there was some miscommunication on this part and that there
 has always been overnight parking there, nothing was actually changing.
 Mobley shared concerns about the Leddy parking lot will endure more negative activity
 and behaviors if the park is closed earlier.
 Moreau understood her concerns, but shared that they can’t call on external
 enforcement until the park is officially closed and most BPRW staff don’t work as late as
 11pm, so there has been a gap, but having the park close earlier would give more time
 for enforcement to be called upon.
 Moreau continued by sharing that she was gathering that it would be helpful to go back
 to the City Attorney to review the closing portions of the park section based on lingering
 questions that she didn’t feel like they could answer today.
 There was a general agreement from the Commission to table the discussion on section
 5 but approve section 2.
 Boehm made a motion to adopt section 2. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none
 opposed.

4.3 Staff Update/Director Search
 Lantieri shared that he was in the first round of the hiring committee, who sent their
 final candidate choices to the Mayor’s office for further review. He continued that he
 was hopeful that they would have had more information at this point, but as of this
 meeting had not heard back from his latest inquiry to the Mayor’s office.
 Sauvé shared that the Waterfront is closing for the season tomorrow, the 15th. She
 continued that there was an all-staff gathering last week that was a positive coming
 together of everyone.
 Boehm asked if the staff was up-to-date on the hiring process.
 Sauvé answered yes.
 Mobley asked what the process for sharing out who is appointed to the role will be.
 No one knew.
 Lantieri closed by saying that he would keep everyone updated.

4.4 Bike Park Update
 Madalinski shared the update that the bike park is mostly complete! He continued that
 they are working on some signage and fencing aspects but the actual construction of the
 trails is complete and everyone is pleased with the end product and that it is already
 getting a lot of use after the soft open. He then invited the Commission to the opening
 event on October 25th.
 Melinn shared that he and the rest of the Bike Park Coalition have been so excited to
 see the space used so much already. He continued that they are working on ambassador
 program starting in 2026 to get kids involved who maybe wouldn’t be able to explore
 and interact with the space. Melinn then touched on some details about the event,
 including vendors who will be trialing different kinds of bikes, food truck vendors, a
 ribbon “breaking” ceremony to officially open the space, among other impromptu
 things.
 Davis asked about pushback from the community about the space.
 Melinn responded that the next year is going to be a big learning process about the
 space and how it is used by the community and how to really make it a community
 space, which will involve conversation with people across the spectrum, including those
 with concerns. He was happy to report that there has already been a certain level of
 “self-policing” amongst users. Melinn continued that there is a good maintenance plan
 in place that will continue to be developed with community involvement. He shared that
 a piece of that plan will be closing down for the winter, which will involve tarping the
 tabletop jumps to help with erosion and discouraging use in the off-season.
 Lantieri asked Melinn to talk a little bit about the structure of his organization.
 Melinn replied that there is a steering committee of 5 people for the volunteer
 organization (Burlington Bike Park Coalition), including himself, who make decisions
 about different things including fundraising. He continued that there is also an advisory
 committee that is comprised of individuals who are interested in the project and have
 different expertise. Melinn then shared that BPRW’s Planning Team has been an integral
 and critical part of this project.
 Davis asked what this phase of the project cost.
 Madalinski answered around $125,000, and it is being paid for entirely with state grant
 funds from the VOREC (Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative) program.
 Melinn said that this has helped immensely with funding and the project as a whole and
 he feels that they are set up for success going into next summer.
 Lantieri asked if they were a non-profit.
 Melinn answered that their fiscal sponsor is Fellowship of the Wheel, who is a non-
 profit, and they also provide insurance coverage for the space.
 Madalinski chimed in that they still need to sort out exactly who is doing what in terms
 of maintenance, but he sees the path forward being a shared responsibility between the
 organization and the Department.
 Melinn was excited to share that they have a lot of volunteers who are chomping at the
 bit to be involved. He then circled back on the Ambassador Program that he mentioned
 earlier, noting that the goal is to support kids who are interested in using the space. He
 continued that they are going to be working with the Boys & Girls Club and Old Spokes
 Home in addition to other organizations to make this happen. Melinn then mentioned
 that this is an adaptive trail, with the intent that everyone will be able to access the
 space.
 Lantieri shared that he feels this space is a big step for equity access across the board
 and gave kudos to Melinn and the Bike Park Coalition for all of their hard work and
 dedication.
 Sauvé shared that working with this group has been amazing and is so glad that they
 have made it to this point.
 Melinn shared the same sentiments in regards to working with the Department.

 4.5 Comprehensive Plan Update
 Sauvé began by sharing that the work has continued to progress towards the visioning
 of the Comprehensive Plan and that there was an RFP out for a consultant to support
 the work and they are in the reading period of those submissions. She hopes to have a
 selection to share by the next meeting. She continued by reminding the Commission
 that the Department would like someone to join the PAC (Planning Advisory Committee)
 to help inform the direction of the plan and to help with outreach to connect it to
 groups and individuals.
 Lantieri asked if anyone was interested.
 Davis asked what would be involved.
 Sauvé answered that it would be about a year long process and involve consistent
 meetings throughout that time.
 Lanteri closed by saying that if anyone is interested that they should reach out to
 Sophie.
 Boehm asked some specifics about the commitment.
 Sauvé answered that it’s hard to answer specifically because it’s a cross department
 process, but there will be more information to share over the next few months.

5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that there was a meeting earlier that day but that there weren’t any
 major updates.
6. Commissioner’s Items & Volunteer Hours
  Boehm shared that her family went to the bike park and that it was very fun. She
 reported 1 hour of volunteer time.
  Bergmann did not have any hours to report
  Johnson did not have any hours to report
  Mobley did not have any hours to report
  Davis reported 1 hour of volunteer time
  Lantieri shared that their memo was received and got people’s attention. He attended
 the PACC meeting and explained everything that was in the letter and said that they
 were appreciative to have transparency and communication and would like that to
 continue. He reported 10 volunteer hours. Lantieri continued by asking the group if they
 were okay with moving the November meeting from the 11th (Veterans Day, a City
 observed holiday) to the 18th. O’Daniel will confirm if the Stone Cottage at Kieslich Park
 is available.
7. Adjournment
 8.1 Motion to adjourn
 Davis made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor,
 none were opposed.