Parks Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-11-18
Time: 17:30

Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

5:30 pm, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR Remotely via ZOOM:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/94737531400

Or One tap mobile, US:+13092053325
Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location), US: +13092053325
Webinar ID: 947 3753 1400

To participate in Public Forum in person, sign up at the meeting.


1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. October Meeting Minutes (attachment)
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
 Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
 Category 3. Public Forum
 Department Council and Board


 Type

4. Deliberative Items
 Subject 4.1. Nature Based Climate Solutions - Legacy Fund Grant Review Team Request
 (attachment)
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
 Category 4. Deliberative Items
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. E-bikes on the Greenway
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Items
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Discussion


  Subject 4.3. Comprehensive Plan Update & Request for PAC Member
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Items
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.2. Director's Report
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.3. Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

6. Adjournment
 Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action

Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR
 REMOTELY via ZOOM

5:30 pm, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR Remotely via ZOOM:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/94737531400

Or One tap mobile, US:+13092053325
Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location), US: +13092053325
Webinar ID: 947 3753 1400

To participate in Public Forum in person, sign up at the meeting.


1. Agenda
 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda

2. Consent Agenda
 Subject 2.1. October Meeting Minutes (attachment)
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 2. Consent Agenda

 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

3. Public Forum
 Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
 Category 3. Public Forum
 Department Council and Board


 Type

4. Deliberative Items
 Subject 4.1. Nature Based Climate Solutions - Legacy Fund Grant Review Team Request
 (attachment)
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
 Category 4. Deliberative Items


 Page 1 of 12
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action


  Subject 4.2. E-bikes on the Greenway
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Items
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Discussion


  Subject 4.3. Comprehensive Plan Update & Request for PAC Member
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 4. Deliberative Items
  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type Action



5. Standing Items
  Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.2. Director's Report
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items

  Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


  Type

  Recommended Action

  Subject 5.3. Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours
  Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 5. Standing Items


 Page 2 of 12
 Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront


 Type

 Recommended Action

6. Adjournment
 Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn
 Meeting November 18, 2025 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, November 18, 2025, 5:30
 PM, Red Stone Cottage, Kieslich Park OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 6. Adjournment

 Department Council and Board


 Type

 Recommended Action




 Page 3 of 12
 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.




 Page 4 of 12
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.




 Page 5 of 12
 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




 Page 6 of 12
 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




 Page 7 of 12
 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.




 Page 8 of 12
 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.




 Page 9 of 12
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.




 Page 10 of 12
To: BPRW Commission
From: Dan Cahill, City Land Steward
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025

Re: Seeking Commissioner(s) for Nature Based Climate Solutions Grant Program Review Committee


Request of the BPRW Commission
We are seeking 1-2 Parks Commissioners to join the review committee for the 2025-26 Nature
Based Climate Solutions Grant Program. The time commitment for this committee is
approximately 4-5 hours of time and includes reviewing and scoring grants with a provided
rubric and attending 1-2 review committee meetings in January. Commissioners will be asked
to share their interest at the November 18 Commission meeting.


 Overview of Grant
 The Conservation Legacy Grant is managed jointly by the Departments of Parks,
 Recreation, and Waterfront and Permitting and Inspections. Grant applications will be
 reviewed and awarded by a joint committee of Conservation Board and Parks
 Commission members. This is an annual grant program that funds Burlington based
 projects that support nature-based climate solutions.

 Funding Priorities

 The 2022 Nature-Based Climate Solutions addendum is the basis for this grant program.
 Successful grant applications will address two or more of the six primary categories
 within the addendum:

 ● Forests and Tree Canopy
 ● Agriculture and Community Gardening
 ● Water and Wetlands
 ● Lawns, Fields, and Small Open Spaces
 ● Green Infrastructure
 ● Equity, Inclusion, and Relationships


The sixth category - Equity, Inclusion, and Relationships - spans the prior five categories
and will be one of the two categories addressed in successful grant applications. The
addendum contains an implementation matrix with a variety of strategies that monies from
this grant program may be used for.




 Page 11 of 12
Available Funds
For the 2025-26 grant cycle, the total amount of available funding is $68,000. Minimum
grant awards will be $10,000.


Dates
Grant applications will be accepted October 1, 2025 to November 30, 2025.




 Page 12 of 12

Parks Commission Meeting

November 18th, 2025 at 5:30pm

Kieslich Park’s Stone Cottage & Zoom



Commissioners in attendance: Lantieri, Mobley, Davis, Bergmann & Boehm

Staff in attendance: Sauve, Cahill & O’Daniel



 1. Agenda
 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda
 Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:30pm.
 Davis made a motion to adopt the agenda. Boehm seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.

 2. Consent Agenda
 2.1 October Meeting Minutes
 Mobley moved to adopt the consent agenda. Davis seconded.
 All were in favor, none opposed.

 3. Public Forum
 3.1 Verbal Comments
 Public forum opened at 5:32pm.
 Commissioners discussed having this be a time certain item later in the meeting moving
 forward.
 With no one present for the public forum, it was closed at 5:34pm.

 4. Deliberative Items
 4.1 Nature Based Climate Solutions – Legacy Fund Grant Review Team Request
 Cahill opened by sharing that this is the 3rd year the grand program has been offered and
 that they are hoping to have 1-2 commissioners join the review committee to help with
 awarding the grants. He then went over the commitments, including one or two review
 meetings (which he noted would be 1.5 – 3 hours total) in January with ideally individual
 review of the applications ahead of time (which Lantieri noted took about 1 – 2 hours).
 Cahill then opened it up for questions about the grant program in general and/or the review
 committee.
 Mobley asked if there was a rubric and asked how many applicants have been reviewed in
 the past.
 Cahill shared that last year there were 6 applicants and the year before there were 5. He
 continued that he’s been fielding a lot of questions from potential applicants and that even
 though no one has officially applied yet, he’s expecting 3-6. He noted that this year’s
 funding pool is smaller than the last two years and that he was unsure if this would impact
 interest or not.
 Lantieri asked Cahill to briefly talk through some of the projects that were awarded last
 year.
 Cahill noted that the City web page was just updated and has information about that for
 future reference. He then touched on projects completed by Vermont Garden Network,
 Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, Intervale Center, and Burlington Wild Ways. He said
 that the final reports by these organizations will be available in January.
 Davis asked how the Intervale was only partially funded.
 Cahill answered that in the application there’s a budgeting section where organizations
 break out costs of the different initiatives for review. He continued that this wasn’t done the
 first year, but after review and feedback it was determined that it would be a good
 adaptation to allow for partial funding.
 Lantieri offered that it was a really gratifying project to work on last year, especially being
 able to see those projects come to life like VYCC’s project in Rock Point/Arms Forest.
 Davis said that she was interested.
 Mobley also said that she was interested.
 Boehm made a motion for Davis and Mobley to be the Commission representatives for the
 NBCS Legacy Fund grand review team.
 Bergmann seconded.
 All were in favor, none were opposed.

4.2 E-Bikes on the Greenway
 Lanteri opened the discussion by noting that he was hoping to have the new Director and
 the City Attorney here, but was open to having a broad discussion without them to get
 thoughts and/or questions from the group to start.
 Mobley began by mentioning that there is a lot of community chatter about this and that
 she agreed that having legal guidance would be a helpful tool in this discussion.
 Sauve explained that this topic is coming from all directions – members of the public via
 BPRW’s general info line, City Council etc., noting that it is tricky because enforcement
 might need to be a piece of this among other things.
 Davis asked about the ability to enforce and its role in these decisions.
 Lantieri responded that this is the kind of stuff he’s hoping to get guidance from the
 attorney on because it is tricky.
 Davis noted that she has heard there is a speed limit and anything above it wasn’t allowed.
 Mobley chimed in that at a previous meeting Johnson had referenced the State’s rule.
 Davis continued that having state and City rules makes things convoluted.
 Sauve shared that 20mph is the speed limit on the Greenway except for through Waterfront
 Park, which is slower because traffic is so heavy in that area. She continued that etiquette
 signs on the Greenway speak to this and were installed after complaints about speed in the
 past.
 Davis mentioned that she knows people on both sides of the topic – in favor and against.
 Boehm noted that the initiative to make Burlington a greener City encourages things like e-
 bikes but then people go too fast and then it could be complicated to not allow them in
 parts of the City like the Greenway.
 Mobley brought up e-assist vs. not, which is also a complicating factor.
 Lantieri thanked everyone and said that this would be on future agendas with the City
 Attorney present to help answer legal questions.


 4.3 Comprehensive Plan Update & Request for PAC Member
 Sauve started by giving a quick update on the process since the last meeting. She shared
 that they reviewed proposals through the RFP process and are in negotiations with the
 selected consultant team and they will be under contract soon. Sauve continued that they
 are a promising team, noting that they have a big project ahead of them but that the City
 team is also strong and there to support the work. She mentioned that visioning sessions
 have begun, but so far they have had low attendance so they are hoping to do another
 round in January with more participation.
 Lantieri asked if they were looking for just 1 commissioner.
 Sauve answered yes and that the sooner someone can jump in the better so that this body
 can be well represented and involved throughout the whole Plan BTV process. She shared
 her concern that with this larger process happening in tandem with updating the BPRW
 comprehensive plan, community consciousness might be pulled in too many directions to
 give it the attention it needs. Her hope is to avoid that with parks staff and commissioner
 involvement throughout the entire process and supporting efforts to get community input.
 Mobley shared that she was interested.
 Davis moved that Mobley be the PAC member. Boehm seconded.
 All were in favor, none were opposed.

5. Standing Items
 5.1 Parks Foundation Update
 Lantieri shared that they are working through how to launch their current campaign and
 working through some back logged administrative work.

 5.2 Director’s Report
 Lantieri noted that the new director would be starting next week and thanked the interim
 directors for all of their hard work and dedication.
 Davis asked how the staff were feeling.
 Sauve answered that some staff have met him and that people felt good putting a face with
 a name and that everyone seems to be feeling positive.

 5.3 Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours
 Mobley had 1 hour to report.
 Bergmann had 1 hour to report.
 Boehm had no hours to report.
 Davis had 4 hours to report, including attending the Leddy Bike Park opening.
 Lantieri had 5 hours to report, including interviewing Sauve for a Public Administration class
 he’s taking. He continued that he’s hoping to have some visioning sessions for bigger picture
 things over the next meeting or two and asked everyone to bring any ideas they have for
 that.
 Boehm suggested using parts of that for the report that the Commission gives to City
 Council.
 Everyone agreed.

6. Adjournment
 6.1 Motion to adjourn
 Boehm made a motion to adjourn, Davis seconded.
 All were in favor, none were opposed.
 The meeting was adjourned at 6:17pm.