Parks Commission

Regular Meeting

Burlington, VT · January 13, 2026

Minutes

Parks Commission Meeting January 13th, 2026 at 5:30pm 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom Commissioners in attendance: Lantieri, Davis, Etter, Bergman, Mobley, Johnson & Boehm Staff in attendance: Lewis, Sauve, O’Daniel Public in attendance: n/a 1. Agenda Lantieri opened the meeting at 5:33pm. Davis made a motion to accept the agenda, Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. 2. Consent Agenda Etter made a motion to accept the consent agenda. Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. 3. Public Forum, time certain at 6pm Public forum opened at 6pm. With no one present in person or on Zoom, it was closed at 6:01pm. 4. Deliberative Agenda 4.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7 Lewis opened by sharing the document on his screen and noting that section 5 was primarily done except for the one question around how to allow for permitted use for vehicles in the park without allowing public access. This opened up more of a process of updating the language about vehicles in parks in general, not just 1 out of 39 properties, so Roach asked for more time to prepare this for next month’s meeting. Boehm asked if it would go to the City attorney after for review. Lewis confirmed yes. He continued by touching on section 7, about dogs, sharing that he went through both documents he had received and began reviewing them with the group. He noted that there were some differences between the two in the proposed amendments for additional review and wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page about them. The first, Section A, had minor differences in the last two sentences, and Lewis assumed the version the City attorney had shared was the most up to date. The group had no concerns and agreed. Lewis continued by touching on a section that was originally in the policy section, but moved to the ordinance and he wanted to confirm that everyone was okay with this change. He continued that he could ask if there are any benefits to including this here as opposed to just having it in the general park portion of the ordinance. Sauve noted that this section was in place so that the Director had the authority to close dog specific sections of parks instead of needing to close the entire park, if it was every needed for any reason. The group felt that keeping it in this section of the ordinance made sense and were curious about what the City attorney would say. Etter asked for clarification about the difference between policy and ordinance. Lantieri answered that typically things that are in the ordinance are more set in stone and things in the policy are more geared towards the operations of things, so there is more flexibility. Lewis continued by reviewing the policy, including hours of operation, which can be adjusted by this group as needed. He noted one highlighted part, the Program in the Parks participant line. O’Daniel explained to the group what this was, sharing that it is a way for businesses/organizations to operate their programs in the parks by paying an annual fee with an application in addition to other fees depending on group size for each use. She continued that this was put here in case there are ever dog trainers etc. who are interested in doing this in fenced or unfenced areas. After updating that line, Lewis shared that he would do an internal review with staff and the City attorney and with the goal of bringing back a final version for the group to vote on next month. Lantieri and Boehm expressed interest in the City attorney’s opinion on what is in the Ordinance vs. the policy. 4.2 Budget FY27 Process Lewis began by noting that a lot of the information he would be sharing has been shared at the last two Board of Finance meetings. He then began explaining the budget overview process, including that the Council needs to adopt the budget before July 1st and that currently Departments are building out their budgets and going through the process of sharing information and asking for input from staff, Council and other appointed/elected bodies to make sure there is a strong document moving forward. Lewis continued by sharing that there is a 10-12 million dollar gap in the FY27 budget and that all of the Departments are working with DFA (Department of Finance & Administration) to verify the revenues and operational expenses and estimates by looking at historical data, trends and where things are at currently and what is anticipated going into next year. Mobley asked what the entire City budget was. Lewis answered 107 million, and the gap is specifically in the General Fund. He shared that the Mayor’s office is looking into options for how to bridge this gap including increasing the police and fire property tax, a reduction of government expenses, voluntary furloughs, utilize one time revenue, and potential for selling City property strategically. He then dove into each of those deeper. He continued that the police and fire tax would be a 5% increase and if referred to the public by the Council and approved by voters, would raise about 3 million. He continued that each Department was asked to provide a 5% ($253,000) and 10% ($506,000) reduced budget out of what BPRW uses from the general fund and that they are currently going through this cost savings process. He noted that the goal of this is to adjust things in a way that the Department can still provide as high of a level of service as possible. Lewis continued by touching on voluntary furloughs, which would include Departments paid out of the general fund, like BPRW. There is a survey asking employees about this and 54% of people who have responded so far (roughly 25% of all City staff) have said that they would potentially be interested in taking a voluntary furlough, which at this point would save between $100,000 and $190,000. Lewis then touched on one-time revenue, such as dedicated tax balances leftover from previous years and various outstanding fees owed to the City. He then discussed the selling of City properties, noting that the process of this would be complex and involve criteria such as vacant properties that do not have a strategic value for the City. Lewis closed by touching on next steps, including the Council voting on the proposed tax increase, further engagement with staff, unions and elected/appointed bodies, the Mayor’s budget presentation is scheduled for April which is earlier than usual to allow for additional time for the Council and the community to look at the different options and give feedback before deadline. Etter asked if there were things Lewis was already anticipating cutting. Lewis answered that not being here through the last process that the BPRW team went through, he is hoping to emphasize the people and positions as much as possible, so he is going to be looking at vacancies first. He shared that the goal with this would be to adjust things structurally so that those remain open while still being able to provide expected services and support remaining staff. He continued that this Department has already been through the process of looking at cuts and making really hard decisions and unfortunately they are at the point of making really hard decisions again. With that in mind, they are looking at it equitably and holistically and strategically so that if the Department does need to lower the number of full- time staff that services can be provided at the highest level possible, so trying to minimize the negative impacts of this as much as possible. Mobley noted that this Department was deeply impacted by the last round of cuts and she hopes that the decision makers in this process keep this in mind moving forward. She continued by offering the Commission’s support and help through this. Lewis appreciated this and shared that he was grateful that this group is established in a way that they can provide feedback and what these impacts really means for the community, which is a different lens than other bodies and staff can. Lantieri offered the Commission’s support in the way of feedback and shared that this Commission has typically been more reactive to things as they are happening, so he’s not completely sure what their role could be. Lewis noted that each Department presents on their budget and having Commissioners there for support could be helpful. Lantieri continued by asking for more details about the potential furloughs. Lewis answered that in theory it would be a full time employee taking unpaid time off but they would still retain health care and all benefits and that there would be policies and coordination to make sure services continued. Boehm asked how many vacancies there are in BPRW currently. Lewis answered 3.5 by the end of the month. Lantieri asked if they are roles that need to be filled quickly. Sauve answered some of them, yes. Lewis continued that the internal conversations around this have been focused on how to re- work the service delivery in a way that makes sense given the available resources. He shared that once the impacts are known, they will assess and put together strategies for navigating that impact. Boehm asked if there are services that can be stopped without also losing the positions that have been doing them. Lewis answered that things like this are the discussions that are being had – are there things that we could do differently, or not do, and what would create the lowest impact from those decisions. Sauve added that it’s not really a one for one scenario and there are no easy solutions. Davis asked about raising fees for programs and reservations. Lewis noted that equity and participation are big factors in consideration when thinking about raising rates. He continued that capacity building for existing programs is something that is being looked at, with a focus on scaling up effectively while creating opportunity. Etter asked about sponsorship opportunities. Lewis answered that it’s a question of how do we balance the aesthetic with revenue producing advertisements, but that all of this is being considered, such as maximizing sponsorship for events and signage at parks and facilities. Boehm asked if there has been or will be process to engage BPRW staff. Lewis answered yes that has started. He shared that there was an all-staff meeting last week where the budget process was discussed, the surveys are available for all City staff to fill out and working with staff to come up with ideas for cost saving. Lantieri noted that staff feeling like they were not engaged as cuts were made last time was a big problem that emerged, so he felt that this was great to hear. Mobley shared that she was grateful for the longer runway for engagement this time around. Lewis responded that there is sensitivity to the individuals who might be impacted, so trying to balance the transparency with the anxiousness that can come with all of this. The group thanked Lewis for informing them and offered to be sounding boards and advocates at any point in the process. 4.3 Penny for Parks – Community Requests Sauve opened by sharing that this is being brought to the Commission later than usual because they have been trying to get more community requests. She continued that there is $35,000 - $40,000 allocated annually for these and the goal is to support requests from across the City of all different project sizes. She asked Commissioners to help get the word out about this opportunity and any ideas about how to increase awareness of the program in the hopes of having more requests for them to review next month. Sauve continued that people and organizations who know about this opportunity come put requests in regularly, but the hope is to start reaching people who do not know about it to increase equity and accessibility. Sauve continued that Calahan requested seating and benches in the park and they helped build them, which is a great example of a request that can also get community members involved in “their” park. Boehm asked where they haven’t really seen any applications. Sauve answered the Old North End and not too many in the New North End. 4.4 Comprehensive Plan Update Sauve shared that they are working towards the end of finalizing scope with the consultant team and internally the larger plan BTV has been working on public outreach strategies by thinking about who are the harder groups to reach out to and coming up with creative ways to involve them. She shared that she has been meeting BPRW managers to let them know this is happening and to discuss what would be helpful to direct their and their team’s work moving forward. 4.5 Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026 Lantieri opened by sharing that this is the best time to take a step back and think about priorities that Commissioners would like to focus on. He continued that he is thinking about volunteering and what the scope of that in the Parks & Rec world is and how Commissioners can support that. Davis had the list from last year, which Lantieri read aloud: vendors in parks, clarifying the permitting process, reviewing meeting laws, creating a volunteer structure for active engagement, reviewing code of conduct during meetings, having a board retreat and building a stronger relationship with the Conservation Board. He noted that some of those were accomplished and some can continue to be worked on. Davis asked how they can support BPRW staff and if that could be added to this year’s list. Boehm felt that this could be combined with the idea of increasing volunteering. She offered the example of bringing seltzers to staff on a busy day in the summer. Lewis answered that anyone who is recognized in any form is appreciated. He continued that the thoughtfulness for how they can do this is also appreciated. The group then discussed ways that they could interact with staff more to increase morale. Mobley and Davis agreed that they would stop by February vacation camp at the Miller Center! Sauve suggested that offering opportunities for Commissioners to interact with staff could be presented at the meetings. The group felt that this was a great idea. Mobley shared that she felt like communication and outreach have been a theme and was curious if this could be incorporated into the Commission’s goals for 2026. Boehm noted that this could be a nice tie-in to the Comprehensive Plan. Lantieri offered that it could be framed as what is the Commission’s role in communicating information out to the community. He continued that he would like to re-visit the idea of a retreat for the group in the Spring to work on these goals. Boehm offered the idea that maybe the group could also visit some of BPRW’s locations and meet staff that day as well. 5. Standing Items 5.1 Parks Foundation Update Lantieri shared that there was a meeting in December and that they have put out their annual report so encouraged everyone to check out their website to see that. Sauve shared that they are looking to have an event at Pomeroy Park to celebrate breaking ground on the new playground, which could be a nice opportunity for Commissioners to interface with them. 5.2 Director’s Report Lewis wanted to highlight the monthly report and that he and the leadership team are looking at the organizational structure of the Department and how they can appropriately structure things to provide the highest level of service. He closed by sharing that he’s continuing to onboard and if there are any community connections that Commissioners would like to make, he would be happy to receive them. Lantieri asked if it seemed like there would be a Recreation manager. Lewis answered that they are working on a strategy for that now and they recognize that group has been disproportionately impacted, so how to provide support for them is being discussed. 5.3 Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours Johnson began that he didn’t have any hours to report, but shared that there was circulation on his Front Porch Forum about the cat licensing, which people seemed to be unaware of. Bergmann didn’t have any hours to report. Mobley shared that she participated in the process of reviewing and awarding Conservation Legacy Fund Grants and that the really appreciated the opportunity to participate. She estimated 10 hours of volunteering throughout that process. Davis also participated in that and estimated 9 hours of volunteering throughout that process. Boehm reported 1 hour of volunteering for planning the agenda for this meeting. Lanteri didn’t have any hours to report. Etter left before this portion of the meeting. 6. Adjournment Davis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Boehm seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:07pm.

Agenda

Packet

Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom 5:30pm, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99899730021 Or One tap mobile: +13126266799 Webinar ID: 998 9973 0021 1. Agenda 1.1. Motion to amend/adopt agenda 2. Consent Agenda Subject 2.1. Motion to amend/adopt consent agenda Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 2. Consent Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action 3. Public Forum - Time Certain 6pm Subject 3.1. Verbal Comments Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 3. Public Forum - Time Certain 6pm Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type 4. Deliberative Agenda Subject 4.1. Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Discussion Subject 4.2. Budget FY27 Process Page 1 of 9 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Information Subject 4.3. Penny for Parks - Community Requests Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Information Subject 4.4. Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Information Subject 4.5. Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026 Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 4. Deliberative Agenda Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Discussion 5. Standing Items Subject 5.1. Parks Foundation Update Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 5. Standing Items Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Subject 5.2. Director's Report Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Page 2 of 9 Category 5. Standing Items Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Subject 5.3. Commissioners Items and Volunteer Hours Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 5. Standing Items Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action 6. Adjournment Subject 6.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting January 13, 2026 - Parks Commission Meeting - Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:30 PM, 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room, or Remotely via Zoom Category 6. Adjournment Department Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront Type Recommended Action Page 3 of 9 Parks Commission Minutes December 9th, 2025 at 5:30pm 645 Pine St., Front Conference Room & Zoom Commissioners in Attendance: Lantieri, Bergmann, Johnson, Boehm & Etter Staff in Attendance: Lewis, Moreau, Sauve, Kaeding, Peterson, McClenahan & O’Daniel Public Present: none 1. Agenda 1.1 Motion to amend/adopt agenda The meeting commenced at 5:34pm with Lantieri asking for a motion to amend/adopt the agenda. Boehm made a motion to adopt the agenda, Etter seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. 2. Consent Agenda 2.1 November Minutes Lantieri asked for a motion to adopt the November minutes. Boehm made a motion, Bergmann seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. 3. Harbor Commission Boehm made a motion to recess the Parks Commission and start the Harbor Commission, Etter seconded. All were in favor, none opposed. After the presentation by the Waterfront team, the Harbor Commission was adjourned and the Parks Commission was re-opened. 4. Public Forum (Time Certain, 6pm) Public forum was opened at 6pm. With no one present for it, it was closed at 6:01pm. 5. Deliberative Agenda 5.1 Appendix D, Sections 5 & 7 Lantieri began by giving context that during the leadership transition there were some sections of Appendix D that did not go to McClenahan, the staff attorney for Parks, before going to City Council, so the goal of this is to get clarity on the best process moving forward. McClenahan introduced herself and began by giving an overview and background on where this document has been and where it seems like these changes are headed. She continued that her understanding that the former Director had initiated changes to these sections and had brought them to this body for review and input, which then went to City Council in July, with a recommendation to pass the changes as presented. The City Council decided that more review and updating was potentially needed, Page 4 of 9 specifically in relation to parking at Perkins Pier, so they sent this to PACC (Parks, Arts & Culture Committee) for review. PACC then met in October and decided that they wanted more input from the Parks Commission, which is how things ended up here. She continued that the request from the City Council is still out there and valid and they are waiting for those changes to come back. She shared that her view on the Parks Commission’s role is to look at the last lingering issues with these two sections and send final comments back to PACC and then they can decide from there if they want to make any changes or sent them back as is to the City Council. McClenahan continued that section 7, the dog section, is a different issue. She shared that her understanding is that began with a recommendation from the Dog Task Force and the off-leash dog policy landed with the Commission to work on and then pass to the PACC for their review and feedback to then pass on to City Council. McClenahan feels this approach would be fine and then PACC can decide if they want to send everything to City Council as one package or develop the dog section further in a committee before sending it back. She then said that ultimately the next step is getting consensus from this body on their recommendation. Lantieri asked about the sequence of things and that if the Commission approves something that will become a part of Ordinance, who should it go to first. Haley answered that she would be happy to review and provide feedback but that City Council has the final authority. Boehm asked for clarification that the best path forward would be for the Commission to discuss and send draft changes to McClenahan for review and feedback that are then incorporated before voting and passing it on to PACC/City Council. McClenahan said yes. Lewis confirmed they would be following these steps moving forward. Lantieri asked if all things need to go from the Commission to PACC before it goes to City Council. Haley answered that everything ultimately needs to be approved by City Council, so before changes are made it would be helpful to figure out what the most efficient workflow will be, including what the preference for PACC and the City Council are. She continued that this body can make recommendations directly to the City Council, and then they can decide if they’re going to approve it as is or if they want to send it to a committee to make changes. Or, it can be sent to PACC first. She shared that as long as all of the appropriate bodies have an informed chance to weigh in and the City Council formally adopts it that is what’s needed from an efficiency standpoint. McClenahan confirmed, however, that in this particular instance PACC has requested that these documents go back to them first. Sauve asked if the new software system for requesting legal advice etc. would be available for Commissioners. Haley answered that currently only staff can access this tool, but that this may change in the future. Lewis confirmed that he has been trained on the new system and encouraged Commissioners to use him as a resource for communicating with the City attorneys. Page 5 of 9 Lantieri shifted the conversation to reviewing sections 5 and 7 specifically. McClenahan noted 2 minor changes she suggested to section 2 first: adding “or designee” in case the Marina Manager was not available or this was ever delegated to someone else in the future and that she changed some grammatical pieces to another spot but the content or intent did not change. She continued by reviewing section 5 changes, beginning by asking what time this body wanted Leddy Park to close. Moreau confirmed that both bodies wanted 9:30pm, after clearing up some confusion. Haley continued that she recommended language about paying to park overnight at Perkins Pier be removed because of redundancy. The group agreed. Lantieri asked if numbers 1, 2 and 3 are restrictions and if they’re not outlined in that area, then it’s allowed. McClenahan answered yes, unless there are other City ordinance or rule that apply. Moreau chimed in except for number 3, which states that motor vehicles are excluded from Waterfront Park unless approved. There was a discussion about whether Calahan should be included in this section or not, with the consensus being to check in with Roach before making any decisions. McClenahan then continued with section 3, noting that she didn’t have any feedback on that. The group then discussed section C, which included deciphering what this section means and workshopping the language about the authority to close a park or a portion of a park. There were feelings that this section was too broad as was and lacking clarity on who had more authority than the other, the Chief of Police or the BPRW Director. McClellan explained that they have equal power in this specific scenario, but that the Chief of Police has jurisdiction to do this anywhere in the City for safety or hazardous reasons. Lantieri asked if it would be okay to remove that title then because of that. McClenahan answered that that would be a policy decision, and other parties would need to weigh in. McClenahan had a question about banning alcohol in parks and whether or not this body had put this in. Moreau answered that there was a question this summer if they could suspend alcohol being allowed for a short window to cool things down and help with safety and they were told no, which is why they asked if it could be included in the Ordinance. McClenahan explained that open containers are prohibited in the City, with some exceptions, which are listed in the Ordinance. She continued that her take on this is that if there is going to be an exception to this rule, it should be in the section of the Ordinance about alcohol in general and this body could make a recommendation to the City Council in conjunction with the Appendix change. Lantieri asked for McClenahan’s opinion on section 7. McClenahan shared that technically section 7 has expired but it is still used informally and that based on the minutes from PACC, that they are looking for what would this body recommend changing about those rules, if they were in effect. She continued that Page 6 of 9 rules that are more stagnant and don’t change are better for the appendix and having a Department policy for some of the more granular rules that might need flexibility for change, such as locations and time of year, is her biggest takeaway from this section. She then shared that she felt the designation of permanent off-leash dog areas would make more sense in the appendix, while things like the public education period, maps, hours etc., would be better in the policy. Commissioners reviewed how they had left things during the last discussion of policy vs. appendix and that it felt like they had landed on almost the inverse of this. Boehm noted that they had talked about not making any changes to the existing leashed areas and asked what a policy would look like if this were the case. She noted that the group had worked on a current document. McClenahan said she would be happy to review that. 5.2 Chapter 20, Section 12 (E-bikes on the Greenway) Lantieri opened by sharing that it seems to read that e-bikes are not allowed on the Greenway and asked McClenahan for her read. McClenahan shared that certain areas, like the Greenway, are for bicycle and pedestrian travel and “other similar uses” and then it goes on to clarify that motorized vehicles of any kind are prohibited. She continued that a caveat could be the term “bicycle”, which the ordinance does define as well as “motor assisted bicycle”, which she found interesting. She continued that in terms of bicycle and pedestrian travel, that as long as an e-bike isn’t hitting that 30 mph threshold that there is an argument that it could fall under “other similar uses”, but the no motorized vehicles piece could also lend to the argument that they are not allowed, regardless of how fast they’re going. She noted that this was the analysis, but asked the rhetorical question of where this would leave things practically. Moreau asked if this was specific to the Greenway or if this would include our parks and trails too. McClenahan noted that the legal description of the land is just the Greenway. Lantieri asked when this was last updated. Haley answered 1995 with some changes made in 2021. 5.3 Comprehensive Plan Update Sauve shared that a consultant was selected and they are in scope and fee negotiations now. She noted that the sections outlined in the BPRW section did not reflect the amount of budget that they had for the effort and the scope did not reflect what is needed Department-wide, which has created a lot of back and forth in an effort to determine the best way forward, both in the distribution of funding as well as supporting the assessment that will be done by staff. She continued that the hope is to go to City Council in January for the contract approvals, but that there is a lot of work to do between now and then. Currently, Sauve has been meeting with BPRW managers to make sure they are familiar with the current plan and to help evaluate what the Department has done in terms of strategic initiatives that were outlined in it, as well as Page 7 of 9 needs going forward for the next 10 – 25 years. She noted that the BPRW is eager to hear about the process and be included in it. Lantieri confirmed that how it is scoped currently, it hasn’t captured what is needed for the Department. Sauve answered yes, especially Waterfront, Recreation and newer pieces to the Department like Central Facilities, Marketing and Communication and the Park Ranger program, the goal and need being to build on it not just review it. Lantieri noted the impact that the 2015 comprehensive plan has had in terms of it being the roadmap for the past 10 years, so it’s an important process and document. Sauve continued that this is especially important as everything else is changing, like adding housing and the impacts that has on Parks etc., there need to be plans that speak to each other across Departments for staff to use as guides, as well as grant funding, especially since this process includes input and vetting by the public. Lewis shared that they’re working on trying to right-size the scope of the work so that we don’t get to the end of the project and realize it doesn’t meet the needs of the Department. 5.4 Waterfront Calendar of Events 2026 Moreau shared a digital version of the events list noting that it is not public information yet because contracts have not been signed. She continued that these have all applied and been approved by the Advisory Committee and that the calendar is almost full except for June. Moreau noted that there are Act 250 parameters limiting it to 3 booked weekends a month at Waterfront Park. Moreau continued by giving kudos to KJ Doyle for stepping in this past season year and taking this on in addition to her internal events. Moreau continued by noting that Doyle also got an event to come back after being somewhere else last year and has added others, all of which have positive impacts on Burlington as a whole. She closed by sharing that this will be shared publically once the events are under contract! 5.5 Visioning: Parks & Recreation Commission 2026 Noting that there were only 3 Commissioners left at this point, Lantieri decided to bump this item to the next meeting. Before doing so though, Lantieri did share some items he had in mind: vendors in parks, clarify the permitting process, reviewing open meeting law, creating a volunteer structure to more actively engage, reviewing the code of conduct, having a retreat and building a stronger relationship with the Conservation Commission. 6. Standing Items 6.1 Parks Foundation Update Lantieri shared that they will be meeting later this week and they are working on launching their campaign. Page 8 of 9 6.2 Director’s Report Lewis shared that he is currently onboarding and the staff have been amazing and getting him up to speed as quickly as possible. He continued by sharing his gratitude for everyone who has reached out so far and that he’s excited to be here. 6.3 Commissioners Items & Volunteer Hours Boehm shared that she went to the Inglesby Brook volunteer day at Champlain Elementary, which was led by a member of the Conservation Team, and said that it was a great experience. She continued that the PTO member who worked with Parks staff to create this opportunity had wonderful things to say about the Department. Johnson did not have any hours to report. Lantieri shared that he finished the class he was taking and submitted his final paper that was an organizational assessment of the Department, which he will be sharing out. He had 1 hour to report. 7. Adjournment Boehm made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Johnson seconded. All were in favor, none were opposed. Page 9 of 9