 Folks, it is six o'clock, so we're going to get going here with our agenda items. If you're just walking in, we do have a sign-in sheet. If you want to get on the way out, that's fine as well. It's just up on Adrian Gill's desk right there on your way out, so we can keep track of attendance. That'd be great. Please note that chat is disabled on the Zoom, so your comments should be made vocally tonight. If you're here in person, we have a live mic at the podium for you to make comments, because that is the focus of our meeting tonight. Before we dive into the meet of the agenda, let's go through Commissioner introductions. My name is Lincoln Frasca. I'm a Parks Commissioner. I'm also a Parks Commissioner. Andrew Brewer, Parks Commissioner. Stephanie Hunt, Parks Commissioner. Joining on Zoom. Thank you, Stephanie. And Parks staff, we have? Allagas. Parks Director. Oh, I should be muted. Sorry. Okay, excellent. The next is we will need a motion to approve tonight's agenda, April 9th, as well as the April 2nd minutes. So moved. Okay. Andrew Brewer with the motion. Second. Emily with the motion. Second. Emily with the second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. You're in opposition from a non-commissioner on that. Well, if all the commissioners approve the minutes and the agenda, that motion is going to carry. And we are speeding along here to review the proposed changes to the dog rules in Hubbard Park. So I've prepared a bit of an introduction and then I'm going to open it up to you all because that's really why we're here tonight. But I first would like to start by addressing the energy around the topic of leashing dogs in Hubbard Park. This isn't a new problem. This isn't, you know, something that has just come up in the last couple of weeks or a couple of months or a couple of years even. This is a decades-old issue. And this commission, we're short Kasia tonight, our chair unfortunately, but this commission, including Kasia, has been engaged with the issue of off leash or leashing in the park for the last couple of years since we started the management plan process and ransom surveys acknowledging the folks who weren't visiting the park because of off leash dogs. That came to my attention about a couple of years ago. In the past year, we assembled a dog committee and they have been forefront on this issue and leading the way with surveys and public outreach. So I'd like to thank their work because what they've done in this, in their outreach efforts and the information and reports and surveys they've released is the reason we are here today with as much information we have and with as much public input and participation as we have. And I see 27 people on the chat here and about a dozen in the room so I would like to credit the dog committee for getting the word out. The next thing I want to say is that although we definitely do not have a consensus and likely never will on this issue, everybody is working towards a solution that highlights simplicity, complicity and enforceability. Those are words I heard from the dog committee last meeting on April 9th and I fully support and I think everybody in this room can agree that that's what we're here to do. We want to find something that works for the greatest amount of people and is simple and is easy to follow and is easy to enforce from a park staff and from a community and neighbor perspective. Next I want to thank our park staff. Their professional recommendation that we'll be addressing tonight reflects institutional knowledge that is valued across the community and highly regarded across this commission. I'd like to thank the community, everybody in this room, everybody on the Zoom for showing up tonight as well as last week and helping us slow this process down and increasing the public participation and increasing the amount that you all are able to help steer the ship of the parks in Montpelier and helping us to realize that we need to pause and not vote at last week's special meeting and we're here tonight not to make a vote or make any decision but to hear from you all to inform our next hearing and final vote on May 7th. Moving on to the original proposal by the dog committee. This proposal which is outlined and commented on on the first commission update on the Hubbard Park dog policy. This proposed proposal focused on a 2 to 4 p.m. leashing rule across Hubbard Park and was ultimately something that the commission couldn't accept based on the fact that we all agreed it didn't adequately address the equitable goals that we are trying to create more of an equitable park in Hubbard Park, more of a welcoming space. So tonight we're here to hear feedback on the parks update on Hubbard Park dog policy that was the commissioner's response to the park staff professional recommendation as well as the dog committee's initial recommendation. Again we will be making no decisions tonight and nothing will be voted on until the 7th of May. So the parks professional recommendation has two major points and the first option with air would be to leash all of the core or southern area of Hubbard Park you can think roughly of where the parks director the houses sits right now down through the parking areas and all the shelters. That's the core area that's about 100 acres and then the next part of that recommendation would be to keep off leash all the time the northern half about 150 acres of Hubbard Park. The other point that the commission is considering is modifying this zone boundary to allow for more off leash access potentially beginning the off leash and on leash boundary between the two shelters the old and the new shelter in a field which many people see or feel today is an off leash dog field but is also additional parking and would allow for easier access to off leash space if the the boundary for this zone solution was there. The next part of this alternative plan would be to introduce a zone excuse me it would be introduced a time constraint where there would be certain times of the day where there could be off leash access to the core area. For example in New York City Central Park they have off leash in the entire park until 9 a.m. and then the entire park is leashed until 9 p.m. So that's really what we're doing here today. We want to hear from you and we want to hear directed comments about this the what I just outlined those bullets which are the parks which is the professional recommendation that we're all considering and before I pass it on I want to see if there's anything other commissioners or park staff want to add to what I just said okay well with that we're a little bit ahead of schedule 608 we have until 7 p.m. to hear from as many people that would like to speak and I want to keep about a two minute cap on comments so we can hear from the most people as possible so please be respectful please be listening actively we want to hear support for others ideas but we don't need to hear ideas again and again everything is being recorded tonight and all the emails people have been sending are also being recorded and compiled I apologize if you haven't had a response yet we are reading and receiving those comments and really do appreciate them so with that if there's a representative from the dog committee that would like to speak I'd like to offer them the opportunity to speak to the memo that was released earlier today and begin the public comment spirit period okay we just pause before I think there's something in the chat about folks can't hear on zoom and I just want to make sure we clear that up okay I am able to hear and I'm on zoom and I'm just going to go ahead and mute everybody and then unmute unmute the council chamber is that what you need in order to hear the council chamber just because I think there's quite a few people who are not muted right now okay you think we're all right and then I can't hear you I'm gonna keep talking oh I'm hearing sound in here that seems promising for zoom I think some of them did okay but maybe not all of them yeah and we'll make the recording available as soon as we can if you did miss the intro but I'm gonna hand it over now yeah please introduce yourself and then yeah great I'm Dana Dwine Aliardley I'm one of the members of the dog committee I live here in Montpelier the other three members of the committee are in the room Jessa Diana and Robin and I so appreciate working with these three folks we had a short window of time between last week and this week we're gathered again in just seven days so that was not enough time for us to go through a full consensus process and come up with another alternate proposal for you all but we did meet several times and had some really sort of engaging wrestling deep conversations about this issue which is so big and complex and wrestling for many people we have a memo that's in the back of the room if you're here you can grab it it's also on the parks Commission website I encourage you to look at it and I'm just gonna give a quick summary of what's in there and hopefully like two minutes and then we can hear from people which is really what we're here to do one of the main things we did call out in this memo is about public process and I really want to thank you all for slowing it down and thanking the people last week who spoke up to slow it down we really one of the sort of guiding principles I think about about decision making is that it kind of what the decision is matters less than the process and if people feel heard listen to like they were treated fairly like they had a chance to share their views they're gonna be more likely to be okay with whatever the final decision is and there's been some challenges to the process for us in this in this dog committee and parks Commission process we've had some supported sometimes less supported other times deadlines have been communicated in a pretty rushed fashion we haven't had totally clear communication from the parks Commission on what our role should be and what we should be doing and that's been frustrating and hard and we all care a bunch about this issue so we're still here doing the work and feel really grateful that the dialogue has opened up a lot in the last week partly from last meeting and we're in more communication we wish that that had happened four or five months ago so happy to speak with you more personally about that feedback but just wanted to say out loud that we really are here to champion the public process and the public input and we want to make as much space as possible for as many people in Montpelier to weigh in on this I know you have been talking about it for years and years fully aware but we're sort of coming to a head on this crucial decision and like this is a again that moment for people to feel heard and listen to so thank you for doing that I hope you continue to do that and I want everybody who's listening to know that the dog committee is also receiving your written feedback members of the Parks Commission are kindly forwarding all of those emails to us and we're reading them so I want you to know that you have at least nine listening ears on your feedback who are we're at least in an advisory role of suggesting things to you all so you should know that our we have some specific thoughts about this proposal to split the park into two zones and they're mostly around accessibility of the northern section steepness of trails are they actually walkable by folks of lots of mobility levels parking and access are you know what happens in mud season when a lot of the parking lots are closed are people able to access the park in in points that they can access both north and south and also just other amenities in the northern section which is more rugged more wild we really encourage the parks commission to like look at this holistically and not just make a dog decision but say okay if we make this decision then what maintenance things flow from that let's let's make a full plan to support users of the park going forward this is would be a massive change so let's look at the infrastructure of the park and make sure it works for people and that there's a clear speedy concrete plan to address that and I think the last thing I just want to leave you all with in this room and the people listening is just some of our big picture thoughts that sort of came up those those questions that don't necessarily have one right answer but are worth chewing on in a decision of this magnitude and I'm just going to read the like top level of that from our memo and you can read more if you want but as you speak think about these things whose voices are not being heard in this process what is the difference between harm and inconvenience how do our overlapping identities inform our park use and how do we balance the varied needs that come with that what are we willing to give up to ensure that all members of our community have safe access to Hubbard Park and how can the park be made safer and more accessible for everyone let the discussion begin function in person or online works in both spaces okay yeah please hello I'm Rob Hitzig and let me just start up by saying I appreciate your efforts on this very difficult issue I understand it's been going on for a long time and it's a not an easy one to tackle first with the proposals I I thought the idea of emulating Central Park in New York was a good one in that if New York could do it I think my player can handle it with 930 being a cut off or perhaps that could be changed a little bit here and there but that that sounds like a very good proposal the big problem I have with the proposal that I saw online or on the sheets was that there isn't a corridor to get to that north section and there are several trails in that in the southern section that aren't widely used that probably could be used for a quarter if we're going to go that that way and the big problem being with without a quarter and without parking access is that by the time you get to that section if you're just going for a moderate short hike you're gonna have to turn around immediately so there's not really going to be access for off leash and I really don't want to think I don't think we want to encourage that the need for driving to get to the north section so I think that that's worth considering so if you want recommendations in terms of what trails might be used for getting using us quarters I think the natural area trail maybe the ravine trail those are very they're not not used much at all and also the trail that this behind the the manager's house the one that goes from the ballpark all the way around that's also a quarter potential quarter just to be clear when you say quarter trail Rob you're talking about a an off-leash trail that would lead to the greater off leash right if you're gonna go that direction that it'd be great to have some way to get over there from the south end somebody's walking like from the meadow right okay right they don't have to have a leash and they can don't have to get to that the bigger section without being on leash and the big problem one of the big problems with not just dog exercise but but the dogs on leash are often more problematic meeting each other than off leash so it'd be great to be able to get that section off leash that's that's my thought thank you thank you okay we have a couple hands online I'm I'm sorry I don't know who was first but we're gonna go David Dobbs and David we can't hear you got it yeah okay thank you no thanks to everybody involved it's been working on this I know it's not the the the funnest thing to do and this has been going on a long time I am really encouraged to see the current proposal from the that the commission's backing about this two area solution I think it has the chance to put this issue to rest after years of corrosive dispute and so on and its beauty is its simplicity and its equity the park is divided roughly in half actually 60 40 and as Alex proposed originally said this gives anyone who wants to go to the park whether they're they're both people who don't want off leash dogs and those who don't mind can go there at any time am I am I done talking this is okay good no there's no little thing but so I think those are great assets to this thing what I am worried about is the suggestion that there will be a time exception to that suspends the on leash zone and turns it into an off-leash zone I don't see the reason for this and I don't see the logic of having there be in a we've the proposal creates equity equity should be the goal this constraint this this removal of the on leash only status in one half of the park compromises that equity there you will find no time of day where the where I for instance would be happy with that exception to the rule the morning is put kited partly because some park places parks do this I don't I don't think that's a good time that that's unfair to people who's whose only time to get exercise in the park is in the morning or who need early light for their mental health or that want to go there and birdwatch without the disturbances that dogs sometimes bring I beg you not to water down the equity of this thing you have a great simple solution and it will be compromised if you start fiddling with it and making exceptions thank you that's all I got to say thanks everyone for your work it's a big thing and I'm impressed thank you your comments are noted okay back to the room is there anyone who'd like to speak we yes please go ahead John Hosea and Barry street again I also want to thank everybody who's been a part of this process and brought it this far I really appreciate it I'm reflecting back to the original work that was done by the consultant I think it was a maybe a couple years ago now I really thought that work was done on a good scientific analysis with input from everybody and I was actually very much in favor of what was originally proposed in that proposal and to me it's been disappointing that that proposal was not adopted and this process has had to drive on for so long so the fact that this recommendation from the parks at least partially reflects that proposal that at least some of the park would be awfully some very much in favor of this and as mr. Dobbs stated I'm also against the idea that there be any modifications made to the proposal as it is now if anything I'd like to see a larger area of the park extending up into a portion of the northern section to be off leash so I'd like the recommendation as it is now if anything to stay as it is um one thing I think it's important to remember is that this this park is a multi-use facility dog walking is only one component of one use of it there are many other uses that some of which have been mentioned already tonight I think that's really important to keep in mind one thing I think that's forgotten sometimes it's recognized in north branch park the value of the wildlife we have there in the um leash law the wildlife and hovered park is no less valuable and it deserves all the protection it can get and when you consider the impacts to large and small animals of dogs running off leash ground nesting birds the more protection they can get the better and um yeah I think this is a long running divisive um problem as has been stated tonight and I absolutely endorse what parks is proposing and like I said of anything I wouldn't be in favor of the area being expanded slightly northward thank you thank you okay we're going back into the zoom room and Bronwyn I'd seen you were trying to raise your hand earlier so I think you're next you are still muted though so you do have to unmute yourself hi can you hear me yeah hi everybody um thank you so much for this um so uh I'm a great user of the park uh really enjoy the park along with my husband and my dog and um uh it's been my observation that most of the dogs that I've ever seen in the park are pretty well under control um and so I'm a fan of you know preserving what access we can to the park I agree that access from the north from the um northern part is difficult um also having walked in that area uh it's it's not very friendly to walk in especially for people with mobility issues etc so if we're going to talk about you know making things equal it would be nice if if we could all walk on and say even pavement or something like that um because some of us are older what we also have dogs um I have observed that there are owners whose dogs are not under voice control um what we do with our dog is if our dog is off leash and we see somebody coming we'll put him on leash um unless we know the people and the dog um um my question really is about enforcing any of this so you know I would like to see some hours given to off leash I think that's a sensible thing to do um and um uh like the certain certain times of day I'd like to see the corridor where the um the dogs uh in the parking areas around the new shelter and up around what we call the dog park I'd like to see that remain open for uh access but understanding that I mean uh I think we there was some talk about a fencing area of the upper part um I don't know what happened to that um but my my real question is about who's going to enforce any of this um we don't the town doesn't have the money what are we going to do are we going to police up there if we're talking about social control I don't know what that means does that mean you could be nasty to somebody who who has a dog off leash and vice versa uh so that bothers me a bit um uh but at any rate you know I think it's it's very important to be equitable in our decisions um if we can I would I would really like to say if there are certain times of day um that can be off leash for in and certain areas of the park that are not as inaccessible as the northern area that would be something I'd like to see and thank you for listening thank you okay going once in the room okay please thanks um Justin Colbert um thanks everyone for considering this I support the corridor approach I also do support a time approach I think that would be more equitable um I would suggest eight to 12 or nine to one or something in that range that gives some morning hours for dog walking I do appreciate how Lincoln said we're trying to find something for the greatest amount of people knowing we can't get to everyone and I think that comes from the survey a lot of hard work went into the survey I would like to see the survey incorporated and I know the survey found that 31% of people wanted leashing at all times so the top choice was actually more enforcement at 46% um but in any event only 31% said they wanted leashing and at that time it was the core main park there wasn't a north south split for the survey um and I'm someone who wants more enforcement I want to be clear about that too and the survey also found that there was quote a rough split between no change in the current system and more changes um and I'm someone who wants more changes we need you know better systems and better enforcement so I agree with that but if we have a rough split I agree let's split the park so that's splitting the park both space and time and the current staff proposal of just geography I don't think provides equity and I love how Dana reminded us about harm versus inconvenience I worry that could there be harm to people who can't reach the north if you stick to just the geographical split versus just inconvenience and I also appreciate it I think it was David's comment about equity so I'm proposing equity of inconvenience here's a true compromise and I shared this with Alec I'll be very frank Alec and I talked he said he did a good job with the compromise because he made everyone unhappy I said I disagree I think the 31% who want to unleash are very happy but I think the rest is not sharing the same burden so here's what a time split will give you you're going to get four quadrants of grumbling you're going to get I want to walk my dog in the morning I want to walk my dog in the afternoon I want to picnic in the morning I want to picnic in the afternoon everyone's going to grumble about some inconvenience because we're all sharing the resource equally that's what a time split would do equity of inconvenience that would be true compromise I think that's shown on the survey I think a time split is what is needed for equity and I know Alec you wrote in your report that a time split wouldn't work because quote the most basic tenet of a park is to be there when you need it I agree and I know that the dog committee's recommendation from 2 to 4 p.m of off leash was too narrow up a time yeah that was only a two-hour window but to swing the other way and to ban dogs for 24 hours a day and give zero hours that to me is going too far so let's split the park geography and time okay that's one follow up because it came up in a comment too what would more enforcement look like to you um signage and then when I'm walking my dog out there with my dog Tybee I will make sure that I if someone's beyond the time zone I will say you know we have the canine code of conduct can you please adhere to it um and I would be like the personal you know dog person I'd be happy to wear like a blue ribbon you know I'd you know say hey some of us are on the dog enforcement committee we're here to make sure that we all follow this park so we preserve this resource that we can all use it can be a volunteer system and I'll be the first to spearhead it and check in with Alec and anyone else on things like that so like a committee like similar to what we have but for enforcement and implementation absolutely yeah I'd love to be in touch with all of you on how to do this okay yeah okay thank you thank you Alec thank you Justin Amelia Vast hey there um this is actually Rose my wife is also wanting to speak later um I am the chair of the conservation commission um and I I will say like before I make any remarks that the conservation commission was not like brought into this conversation in any capacity and so um I'm not making any remarks on behalf of the conservation commission because we've not had any opportunity to discuss it as a whole so any comments further are just my own um but I do want to say um just from that mindset um I feel like as the chair I have some responsibility to like advocate for this um just so that it's the most informed discussion possible so um you know there is a tool called Vermont Conservation Design where the state um DNR has prioritized areas for habitat connectivity surface water quality physical landscape diversity essentially areas that are like the most important places for continued you know connectivity and ecological value um the northern part of the park that is like being proposed as off-leash has the only block within the park um that is identified as like high quality or high priority for the state um not that this is like for or against dogs I want to be like very clear that I'm not speaking in this regard um but I do think that introducing more off-leash traffic and just traffic in general I think we can all agree that you know this is going to increase a lot of traffic in the northern part of the park um that is going to like incentivize long term like more trails more development in that northern part of the park and I think given its potential for being like priority habitat within the park that the state has identified I really do think that there needs to be like a more thoughtful approach to this because I just worry that we're going to introduce like a decision here that really increases the park's usage throughout which is great in one way um but I think being mindful of how that that increased use is ultimately going to result in additional development even in the proposals that were sent out it did say you know we could build a more accessible trail we could do these things there are a lot of different ecological values that that northern part like provide and you know right now it just is not as much use so it's providing obviously more of that value because there is less people going there it's more of an opportunity for you know potential wildlife for these riparian areas to not get you know worn down by dogs um that's something we've done on the commission before is like the fencing in the vernal pools in the southern part of the park um and we don't we're not funded right we got zeroed out so I think that there's a lot here that's like oh we could do these things um which I again I'm not like four against I'm not speaking to that today um I do feel like it's important to like maintain my role as chair there um but I do think this is not a one single decision this is going to have long term impacts on the landscape of the northern part of the park and is how do we protect the resources there um so that's my comment it's not really one way or the other it's just one of those things that I I hope that you all consider um and I think it'd be good for the commission for the conservation commission to be like a space for that that more style of conversation around this rather than you know like dog access you know so yeah thank you point well taken rose thank you okay I'm going to keep getting these hands in the in the zoom room if uh it's quiet here still all right rebecca bluin yeah hi thank you for hearing me rebecca bluin on um bailey av so i bought the park um just the comment i wanted to make is i looked at the new proposal the area proposal today um and was like okay we divided half and half um we did with respect to acreage but when you look at length of trail um it you know if you take out the nature center trail which is not a well marked trail nor is it you know nor is it around trip trail there's not there's not an equal level or equal length of trail that I can see um in both parts so I feel like the acreage interesting but that's not that's not indicative of of of how much trail we have to work with and the other thing is if you look at the whole map you can circle the entire north branch park and put that in the purple so when you look at that comparison of the north branch park and this whole portion of the park it is it is definitely not equitable um I would reflect also it's also you know I walk it almost daily that is a rough that is a harder track harder trail harder area to walk in um and um I I just respect that I respect the decisions and the ideas about time time blocks maybe longer blocks um and I and I'm sorry I don't remember your name but you serve the brilliant four quadrants you're absolutely right it is not equal in convenience um so I appreciate that there are other options and and I understand that the two to four isn't isn't the one but I don't think that this one is is equitable either thank you Rebecca okay let's hear from lindy young please hi guys um first thanks for doing this I know it's like even more contentious to deal with than potholes so I appreciate the work everybody's putting into it um I wrestled with this a lot a lot and you know we all have a dog I've always had a dog of some sort and I'm up for a lot um and I have a lot of um I feel like people who walk their dogs up there are actually often really active participants and help them manage the park because we have our eyes on it a lot so I think we're contributing but I also you know I don't love getting run into by other people's dogs it's not my favorite thing and I have friends who um don't go to the park because they're scared of dogs and so I you know I wrestled with this a lot and I've asked myself over and over again am I just feeling you know am I just being entitled do I just want it my way but the more I think about it I actually think it is a question of equity and I think that um you know we're we're all taxpayers one way or another whether we're paying to our rent or directly through taxes almost none of us have our own back 40 right so um we have to share this resource but one of the real important uses of it for a large portion of the population of city is that it is essentially our back 40 and it is where we can go with our dogs and let them exercise in the natural and you can exercise in the natural way um in terms of things like I'm sorry I'm going to check my answer but I had a chance to use Northman's Park a bit last year because I have a puppy who is too young to go to Hubbard at the time he had to be with a few dogs and I had I was like wow I haven't really spent time here but it's great Northman's is a great park and it's all on leash and it has a wonderful picnic structure and it has a playground for children and it I mean a real playground and it has a great flat trail for people who have some accessibility and mobility issues they can walk all the way into the North Branch Nature Center too and all around that field um it's got wildlife better wildlife preservation in many regards um and so I'd like to see this equity question addressed in more holistic way than the North Branch Park into the picture and I also want to be thinking about we have um those of us who walk up there every day you know that we have some very value community members in this in this town who um our mobility challenge and are older and have dogs that they want to walk off leash and it would be really hard for them to get into any other section use it regularly I saw Alex note in this proposal about making improvements with trails there I think that's a really interesting proposal and I and I I would be that would make me feel a lot better but I'm wondering how quickly that could be done and what the impacts the wildlife would be if we impact it so I'll leave it there but I just um yeah I've I've some of you heard me talk about this before so you know I've been all over the map but the more I think about it I just think equity is um it's not just about Hubbard it's about the bigger picture thank you Linda okay I see Cassandra Hemingway's hand next folks um can you all hear me okay yes um I have a couple of questions um one question I'm just going to say them both and then um that's all I have to say um would the parks commission should you decide to implement the split of the park would you be willing to wait until there is um you know a more accessible trail in the northern part of the park and more parking and the kinds of things people have brought up that's first question and the second question is on along similar lines have you considered doing something like this similar to a pilot project for say six months or a year and then reassess um to see how it worked out and how the park is being used thank thank you Cassandra I don't I don't think we're prepared I'm certainly not prepared to speak for the commission in response to that those questions but I know that they're being that is what we're talking that is what we're all curious about and I know especially the what you mentioned about evaluating is something that's forefront of my mind um does anyone else want to say anything um yeah we did consider a pilot study last year when we were putting out the management plan and we actually decided to go with the dog committee instead um to get more data and more survey results um so it is something we've considered um but we do feel in general you know we've had some incidents recently in the park and I think there is a sense of urgency to implement something okay now we're about at 43 643 so a little bit more than 15 minutes left for comments okay I saw this hand go up first in the room this is Anna I can bury um I live about three blocks from the park from the um frog pond side I'm one of those people who does not have a dog and I drive to north branch to access the side of the park that currently has fewer dogs and so the person who said there's an equality of inconvenience I really appreciated that concept because I think that my experience has been I often walk up to the edge of the park and then turn around that I see a lot of cars going up to the park with dogs and I see very few pedestrians going up to the park with dogs I think that the more car traffic shouldn't be part of the decision on north south split um I'm really curious about if we flipped that north south split and the north end plus north branch park was the on leash section and the off leash section was the frog pond section if that would create that sense of equity that people are looking for and I really appreciate the tone of respect that I hear from everybody and the commitment to making it equal is really it's lovely it's different from previous conversations about dogs in the park I've experienced um I also want to thank the dog committee on one of their suggestions that I really appreciate it was doing more education like when you get your dog license um I would love to see the code of conduct strengthen to clarify that your dog has to be both in voice control and within sight line because a big part of why we don't go is many off leash dogs are fine but you don't know when you see an off leash dog what you're experiencing and so few of the off leash dogs have a clear owner in sight line of where I am their dog to the owner and I think that that is really the bulk of what I want to say I appreciate the ideas that came from Alec and from the parks commission thank you thank you Suzanne do you want to go you want we'll take an online round here okay have not yet heard from Beth Pombar hey everyone um I just really want to also uh say so many thanks to everyone that has been working on this for so long um the one thing that you know it just an idea around the north south split um what I don't hear in that proposal is like a really easy access point for just that quick the dog the dog park the little dog park right where people who don't who aren't actually going to be able to go for a longer walk in the park um can just get to that and at least let their dog run around there um we all know that um puppies when they're young need socialization with other dogs to grow into being good dogs and to learn that park behavior and some sort of um very easily accessible like dog park small contained dog park area would also be a great asset so if there was a longer walk that we had to go to for south for off leash at least having that smaller section which could be you know I've lived in Montpelier for like 20 years and I this is the first time that I heard that what I always called the dog park up below new shelter uh may be the ballpark uh I've always called that very first thing off on the across from the frog pond the ballpark anyways that would be a great space for that contained dog park that is just easily accessible walking up from the meadows um and maybe doesn't connect to anything and is just a little bubble where there can be some off leash dog stuff too uh thanks everyone thanks Beth everyone I'm Brian Pfeiffer and um I live in I live in the city of I will first confess to a lot of ignorance uh about these specific proposals because I've been traveling and not here at all for the last month and a half or so so part of it's negligence on my part and part of it's an absence on my part um but I I've lived in Montpelier for the better part of 40 years and I'm a former parks commissioner and a parks commission chair who has been in the thick of this when it was really acrimonious so I congratulate you first and foremost for for how far you've gotten and how civil it's been and how wonderful how wonderfully civil discussion's been um so but based on my limited knowledge of what I'm seeing so far because I think you've got a great proposal here in the staff's recommendation but I from what I've heard and I really came mostly to listen tonight is I would suggest that you try and take around the edges to address some of these concerns about access and convenience but I hope that you can stick with a zoned approach like this um and if anything you know I am I am I'm owned I'm owned by an English shepherd named Odin who is on leash and off leash he's off leash where he can be safely off leash and he's on leash where he needs to be on leash and um I I I would I would hope that you could you know tinker with this zone proposal and make it work better for folks who have concerns and um just two other quick points are that um one is the surveys are great we get a really good sense of opinion but the ratios like going with numbers on these surveys just be cautious of that um unless they were truly a representative sample and truly scientific surveys and the other thing is the canine code of conduct I wrote those little cards the blue and green ones you know and they're great they're great but it's true that having walked in this park for many years that far too often still I see a dog first with no keeper with no guardian and so that it's hard enough to enforce the the code and I'm not sure that we can do a lot of enforcement I like to think that we can rely on the goodwill of most of us you know and I think that's all we can do that's we get that's what we can try our best to do I don't know that we have the resources to let enforcement be an obstacle here um and uh uh lastly I would still like you know I got the point about inconvenient shared inconvenience I would just love to approach this as shared convenience and recognizing this is a park with many uses and many people who come for various reasons I just want to see if there's a way that we can look at it making people comfortable and making dogs comfortable as well so thanks thank you Brian okay okay Becca Rulf hello thank you um and thanks to everyone that has been working on this uh for many years I'm thinking about it as as have I um I am currently a dog owner um and have a dog who does very much appreciate being off leash in the park um I've also had a dog who was reactive to other dogs and I rarely went to the park because constantly telling people my dog's not friendly is not a very like enjoyable way to spend time in the park um because you constantly feel a little bit like I have to keep saying my dog's not friendly and she is just not in certain circumstances so and I do see it from both ways um in terms of you know the desirability of on leash and off leash I've also done ski drawing with my dog which means that your cross country skiing with your dog pulling you and in that circumstance you actually strongly prefer that other dogs are also on leash um because otherwise you can get kind of tied up in your own rope which is not fun um overall I have a couple reactions uh to this proposal um currently in place overall I prefer a time-based solution I've lived a number of circles a number of places where there's on and off leash days odd odd days versus even days in some places complemented based partly on days for mountain biking um mountain biking and off leash dogs don't always go particularly well together um and I find the on and off leash days inconvenient but not terribly challenging to overall access and access from a variety of locations one of the things that I think I bring uniquely um to conversations sometimes is the transportation approach of someone who I don't have a car in Montpelier I'm not here full-time um but my sister who lives in Montpelier is uh car-free and also has never had a driver's license as an adult um or as a child for that matter um unfortunately and uh and so uh you know many people who live near the park walk to the park I would hate to see more driving to the park um from people who have perhaps specifically set up their life based on the idea and the choice that they want to be car-free or car-light um and people who live in other parts of Vermont certainly have not made that choice um so it's a kind of an upset of the status quo with regard to transportation um so that's one of the reasons that I prefer a time-based solution to a geographic solution um if there is to be a geographic solution um I would find it really odd to put the dogs off leash in the area of the park that has greater wildlife including the deer yard where we are already requested to leash up and um I would find that the more developed part of the park to be much more appropriate for off-leash dogs um than the the northern part of the park um if a geographic split is to be further considered um I'd really love to see the maps so that we're talking about the same areas instead of having kind of these descriptions and you have to kind of construct the map in your head um and a geographic split I think I would love to see more of an analysis again not just of the acreage but of the types of resources the um you know could there be one shelter in each zone the types of trails um easier walking versus harder walking the lengths of trails and so if a geographic split is to be further considered I hope that the commission will do a little bit maybe more of a slowdown of the process in order to do some of those types of analysis of the geographic split but again overall I think a time-based solution is to be preferred whether it's whole days or good chunks of days um but I I guess I think the thing that's easiest is like a whole day on odd days and off and odd and even days in terms of on and off leash thank you thank you Becca and I should have started with this but we do have a map of the proposed leashed core area and that's going to be on the front page of the commission's web page on the c-site on their staff recommendation for changes to hovered parks dog rules and that's where you can find that line so you don't have to try to etch it out in your head but thanks for bringing that up also thank you and we have got um hard copies in the room for those folks are here and I dropped a link in the chat to um a document with the map in it thanks Stephanie all right hi my name is Rachel um and I'm a Montclair resident um I also have been posting some information online and just want to mirror what I saw today which is what I thought is a productive and successful public meeting and I just want to encourage um to continue these conversations I think as you saw today people are interested in a civil conversation about substantive matters people do read the proposals that you put online people have taken a lot of time and effort to fill out the surveys and to read your proposals and so if you can trust the process and trust that people want to contribute productively to issues that impact their lives such as how we spend our time and how we use the park I think you can see that there will be productive outcomes so I just I I've heard on and off that you know people are concerned or scared that the public is going to attend a meeting or like what if the bridge comes to a meeting I think that's fine we're a community we all want to live together we want everybody to have a successful experience in the park nobody wants people to feel unsafe I think we can all agree on those shared values so let's just like I want to everyone collectively pat ourselves on the back for having a productive conversation and realizing that it is possible I also want to recommend that there could be more public process I think another special meeting to hear from the to hear from people would be productive and could be really helpful I heard today that the chair of the conservation commission in her informal capacity had suggested some consultation with the conservation committee to understand the wildlife impacts in the northern area of the park I think that would be a really important conversation I also heard the dog committee which has been reviewing this issue for months is interested in some more space and time to review the proposal and to weigh in and I think that that is a reasonable approach I so I just want to encourage the commission to consider all of the alternatives and the ideas that you heard today I think it is really helpful when you update the website with real-time information people obviously read it they are very interested and so if you have conversations behind closed doors and you don't put things in writing you're not giving people an opportunity to substantively weigh in and obviously people want to weigh in but no one's trying to fight this is not a dog fight this is an actual public community conversation so let's let's go for it let's have another meeting let's hear from people and then what the result of that is a community-based solution that people feel like they had input in and then you don't have to worry about people policing people that are very unhappy to be banished to a northern part of the park you'll have community buy-in people I mean the dog off-leash dog users are there every day and nobody wants to be in violation of some rule or feel like they're doing something that's like that they're going to get in trouble we want to follow the rules we want to protect the park we just need information let people contribute a solution let people weigh in on it with my last second I just want to say that I do support a time-based solution but for me that's less important than the public process so I just want to encourage you to lean into that don't shy away from it this is part of our city government government this is how it works so that's all thank you very much Rachel okay so we're closed we're closing out now I do want to just make sure in in case anybody isn't clear with parks commission rules we can't meet outside of these public meetings so we can't have a quorum outside of these meetings so the conversations we're having and hearing tonight are the first time that we're able to do that together and digesting the information as a commission has to happen in a publicly warned setting I'm going to give the last comment to Sean Beckett here and then we're going to wrap up for the night so Sean we got okay all right all right thank you we got two more comments got Sean and then Amelia and then we're calling it oh yeah thanks very much everybody uh Sean Beckett uh live on Elm Street um I just wanted to echo something the last speaker said I uh I work with North Spanish Nature Center my thoughts about this aren't you know aren't reflective of the the nature center but one thing that's been really really wonderful at the nature center is that over a span of several years we began enforcing a dog policy there and we were really concerned that you know it would be very difficult to enforce but really the community of dog walkers the community of Montpelier has has really done a wonderful job of being able to kind of um you know uh self-enforce and so I'm really hopeful and optimistic that you know that by coming up with a really clean and clear policy for Hubbard Park um yeah our community is going to want to respectfully um you know uh you know toe that line and uh it's it's just been really beautiful to see that at the nature center is it is you know is the is the leash law at the nature center enforced perfectly um no certainly not but it's it's been you know really really smooth and easy and um and I definitely see uh this community especially after a meeting like this evening um I see this community being able to to bring that up into Hubbard Park as well and as long as the um the you know the the rules are are nice and clear and easy to enforce easily signed um then I think it'll be uh our community has it in us to be able to do this so yeah thanks very much and thanks for all your work thank you Sean okay so I think Amelia you've got get the last word tonight then we'll close this out okay hi my name is Amelia Vath my wife spoke earlier um I just want to say as a dog owner I've really appreciated being able to um train my dog at Hubbard Park um and teach her good trail etiquette um I also understand that it's my responsibility as a dog owner to be the one policing her behavior so if she's not having a good day she needs to be on a leash I would like to see more folks keeping their dog on leash if they cannot be within site and voice control because often when we've been walking in the park um a dog without a human has approached us and that's really difficult to um you know police a dog that's not my own um that being said I want to echo the sentiments of some folks who spoke earlier about sharing the inconvenience I think if we look at the two parks of the park that we're talking about right now we can all agree that they're not similar um they don't have similar trail trail systems um they're not equidistant to downtown and they're not equally accessible so I would also be for a zone and time split um and I'm also I just want to throw out there I would be fine with um making specific areas where folks like to congregate and have picnics um completely on leash areas such as the Spleving Hill and the pavilions um so yeah thanks so much hey thank you Amelia thank you everybody we did it seven seven or three I think we heard a lot tonight I definitely started to cramp up a little bit it's all good information we have the recording um thank you yes one question yes Stephanie in the chat said there's now going to be a meeting on the 16th okay yeah I was going there next thanks for the transition 416 yeah so that's our next regularly scheduled meeting um and the I do not believe dogs are on the agenda and we can check that um we have to take care of some other matters getting ready into the field season so we need to hold that meeting free of this topic so we can make some decisions to let the park staff do what they need to do and then five seven may seventh Tuesday will be a special meeting will be another hearing another chance for public comment followed by a vote that night so please do attend all of our meetings they're all public please do continue to reach out to us please do continue to digest this information and is there anything else we missed a little caveat about the 416 meeting usually there's a public comment period at the beginning for topics that are not on the agenda so if dogs are not on the agenda you could come comment okay so I guess we'll just set the agenda for that before which we just talked about after I think we need to do that during the meeting here we don't we don't have it actually set the agenda right we have the agenda okay but we'll be posted yeah posted this week with yeah in a couple weeks so we are yeah yeah yeah so we are going to be making a decision on may seven for the record again again and hold ourselves accountable um to making a decision so with that I entertain a motion to adjourn okay second all in favor hi any opposed thank you everybody enjoy your evening thank you