Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2026 - Meeting Materials PNUT Agenda March 5, 2026 DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC LANDS Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board Meeting Steward, Advocate, Activate March 5, 2026 Join in person: Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W 500 S., Salt Lake City, UT 84104, 2nd Floor Parks Training Room Join Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3703674458?pwd=xigAA5545gKVfb*uBU*QhpOPQtUb2O.l Meeting ID: 370 367 4458 Passcode: 133477 AGENDA I. Call to Order, Introductions, and Welcome (5:00 pm) II. Approval of Meeting Minutes (5:05 pm) a. Minutes from February 5, 2026 III. Public Comment (5:10 pm) a. Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Board meetings are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows Board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. IV. Director's Report (5:25 pm) a. Summary of current high-priority department items- Kim Shelley V. Staff Presentations, Updates & Discussions (5:35 pm) a. Golf Division- Matt Kammeyer, Golf Division Director b. Park Ranger Program- Nick Frederick, Park Ranger Program Director VI. Board Discussion (6:25 pm) a. Administrative Update- Maria Romero, Board Manager PNUT Agenda March 5, 2026 b. Committee Reporting c. Board comments, question period & request for future agenda items d. Board Engagement Opportunities/Requests e. Written Update: i. Parks Leaves Update ii. Golf Update iii. Park Ranger Program iv. Bathroom Study v. Next Meeting: Thursday, April 2, 2026 VII. Closed Session (7:05) The Board will consider a motion to enter into a Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 Pursuant to Government Code Section 52-4-205(d): Conference with Legal Counsel a. The Board will vote to close the meeting b. The Board will vote to open the meeting A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. VIII. Adjourn (7:25 pm) PNUT Agenda March 5, 2026 CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed board manager, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. MARIA ROMERO PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the staff at maria.romero@slcgov.com or 385-214-9408 or relay service 711. PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY Formal Meeting Thursday,February 5, 2026 5:00 p.m. -7:20 p.m. Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building:1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104, Upstairs Parks Training Room Join Zoom Meeting https: us02web.zoom.uW3703674458?pwd=xigAA5545gKVfbjuBUQhpOPQtUb20.1 Meeting ID:370 367 4458 Passcode:133477 Unapproved Minutes 1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM A. Call to order Board Members in attendance Eric McGill Meridith Benally Melanie Perhson Eric McGill Kerri Nakamura Ginger Cannon Aaron Wiley Christian Chavez Austin Whitehead Sarah Foran Thomas Merrill City Staff Attendance Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director Ryen Schlegel, Special Permits and Reservations Manager Cameron Johnson, Senior City Attorney Maria Romero, Executive Assistant I Board Manager B. Chair Comments 5 mins Kerri Nakamura, Chair, thanked those who attended in-person, asked if Thomas Merrill, Board Member, was the only board member online, and he responded that he is traveling to the meeting to attend in-person. 2. Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM — Approve January 8, 2026, meeting minutes 5 mins A motion to approve and adopt the Thursday, January 8th, meeting minutes for the Parks, The Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board was made by a Board Member Melanie Perhson. The motion was seconded by Board Member Christian Chavez. The vote passed unanimously,with the Board Members present to approve and adopt minutes from Thursday, January 8t", Advisory Board meeting. 3. Public Comment 5:10 PM Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Kerri Nakamura welcomed the members of the public present and shared the following opening statement for public comment. Attendees will be provided 3 minutes of time, determined by the number of attendees, 1, so 3 minutes of time. And then, If there's additional time available, that would be determined by the board. Please observe the time limits that's stated at the beginning of the public comment period, and as you start to make your public comment, we'll ask you to state your full name for the record, and Maria will do the timing. And here is the statement that's in our bylaws that we like to have read at the beginning of all of our public comment periods. Board members are intended to be a place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows board meetings to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion, free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. We welcome everyone and ask all meeting participants to keep comments free of discriminatory language. In order to support a respectful meeting, items that disrupt the meeting, intimidate other participants, or that may cause safety concerns are not allowed. If a person fails to conduct themselves in a civil manner, that person may be directed to leave the meeting, or the chair may elect to terminate the board meeting if board business cannot be conducted. Kerri Nakamura gave the time for Yale Crest Community Member Eric Povilus Eric Povilus provided the following public comment statements to the board I live in Salt Lake City on Laird Avenue. All of a sudden, you're about the mini park. thing, which would be... it's weird giving public comment on something you're gonna be saying here in a little bit, but I got... and I'm on the Yale Crest Community Council, so I'm here representing the park people and the community. I have a unique perspective because I've been a soccer coach, I've done numerous field reservations, but I also live really close to the park. And so I just have some comments about the draft that I think will just improve it. I think it's a really good idea to have a policy, so here's my comments, I can write them, or someone could get ahold of me. So, we talked about the three parts, the submitting parts. In the policy, you should tell... say whether it's a Class A, B, or C park. It doesn't, because you talked about A, B, and C in the policy, so let us know what park is which one. And then when you start to talk about 25 people. per reservation. Is that 25 people at a given time, or is it, is it 25 coaches, parents, and kids? 25 total, spell it out, what that means. The other thing is, what is a reservation? Is it 2 hours, 6 hours, or 8 hours? Because I already know, potentially, if I was to abuse the policy. I would just block out 6 or 8 hours, and I would rotate groups of 25 through that field at Laird Park. I don't think that's the intent. So, make it known as the reservation 2 hours, 4 hours, whatever how you rotate people in and out. The other thing is, 3-day, 4-day, depending on the size of the park, you know, all your reservations, I think it's a good idea. But I also think you should look at, potentially, consecutive days. I would hate to be on Blair Park and have someone say, I got 4 consecutive days reserved now, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Me as a... living near the park. That does a disservice. I think that defeats the policy. I think you shouldn't allow consecutive reservations by the same organization. back-to-back on that park. And the other thing is, how many groups are you going to allow reservations? You talk about 34 days. Well, I have to find one group, I want 3 days. On another group, I want 3 days. Now that park is basically jammed up again. So I think you should make it clear, is it only 3 days of reservations through the whole week. So that's basically really what I'm after. I think it's a good idea. I think you just need a little bit more clarification so it's not abused, but it kind of makes sense. Kerri Nakamura asked foe Eric Povilus to email his comments to Maria Romero, Board Manager Eric Povilus shared the remainder of his comment. The only other thing which I think is a sticking point, as a coach, is Bathrooms. I will tell you, when I rent Roland Hall for East High, I have to pay for bathrooms and porta-potties. The port-a-potties at East High are actually paid for by the local soccer organization. They sit at the high school every day, all year. the problem I have... is... The bathroom situation at Laird Park, and I don't know about Stafford and some of the others. I don't know if the city puts in port bodies, or you require the reserving organization to put out a party body. I can tell you... Sorry. Oh, it's his time. Okay. But I can just tell you, I personally have seen kids came against the people... I would never want a property right next to that park. Because people... kids go behind the bushes and pee along the wall. It's not a good thing for the neighborhood. So just think about that, and maybe put it in the policy. Kerri Nakamura commended Eric Povilus for his public comment but asked for him to email his comments to the board by emailing Maria Romero, Board Manager Kerri Nakamura commented that she will not read the statement again for the constituent who walked in but will allow her 3 minutes of time My name is Janet Jemming. I live in the Yale Crest Community My good friend over here, Eric. And I want to thank you for the time that you're allowing me to speak to you. I also want to say something about Kim Schilling, the new Public Lands Director. I think she's just terrific. She didn't pay me to say that. It's a result of having worked with her. She's a great listener. She wants to know what people are really thinking. And she does empathy. And I think great leadership skills. So, we feel comfortable that we can come to her, come to you, and have a civil conversation, hopefully work things out. I won't repeat a lot of what Eric said, but I want you to understand, and I don't know if you went over this, how we got here. We had a, let's just be honest, I'm gonna be honest. We had a group, soccer shops, that came into our park and has been using it for 3 years, illegally, without paying fees and without paying permits. We finally caught them, and they had to be They went back, and they paid for them in arrears. But it was a very, it was not a pleasant, situation. And, As Eric pointed out, what happened, they just started very slowly in 2023, and in 2024, they just went. full door. They took over the park, 5 of the 7 days, and had back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back, classes. Now, this is a for-profit organization, it's a commercial operation, so they can certainly afford to pay the fees and so forth. And, But, you know, they just thought they'd get away with it. We brought it to the attention of some city officials, and they tried to do what they can. Not too much happened. And then, egregiously, the same thing repeated in 2024. And, the neighbors, they came to me. I happened to, I've been on the Yale Crest Neighborhood Council, so it was, it wasn't... came from the grassroots, which I think is the best way. The people who live there, and I just live, by the way, a few yards away from the park, so I know... I go down there frequently, I walk my dogs, and I know what the situation is. But, understand what you're dealing with in Yalecrest This is a neighborhood And the park is completely surrounded by houses. This is very unique, and this is where I don't... I think that one-size-fits-all policies, in terms of how we use our parks,just doesn't work. People want to go to a park and, you know, get away from, sort of, the busyness of urban life. And to see that our park has been taken over by a commercial operation around the clock, on our weekends, I just think that this is really kind of an unfair situation. Thank you. Kerri Nakamura asked Jan Hemmin if she had written comments to submit to the board Jan Hemmin responded that she has provided Public Lands with a presentation and community comments, and she agreed to email the information shared during the meeting. Kerri reminded Jan that the District 7 representative from the board is James Alfandre. She recommended that if there were any concerns, to share those with James Alfandre. 4. Director's Report 5:25 PM — Summary of current high-priority department items. — Kim Shelley 10 mins Kerri Nakamura expressed appreciation that Meredith was able to join the meeting. She then noted that the board would return to the agenda and move to the Director's Report. She thanked everyone for the thoughtful discussion. Kim Shelley stated that she had several updates for the board. She began with the Mayor's State of the City Address on January 27 and shared that she hoped many board members were able to tune in. She described the address as inspiring and noted that the Mayor outlined her goals and accomplishments during her second term. She shared that she was especially proud that the work of the Public Lands Department was prominently recognized throughout the remarks. She expressed gratitude for the acknowledgment of the department's employees and contributions. She noted that the Mayor unveiled the Civic Center plans during the address and shared excitement about the project. She explained that the department will have a role not only in maintenance, but also in advancing the project moving forward. She encouraged board members to review the Civic Center concept and provide input when opportunities become available through Shape SLC. She highlighted a portion of the Mayor's remarks describing public spaces as places that help people encounter one another, understand different experiences, and build trust across communities. She stated that she strongly agreed that the role of public spaces has never been more important. She expressed appreciation for the board's continued support in maintaining and growing public spaces and opportunities throughout the city. Continuing with Civic Center-related updates, she mentioned the upcoming Watch Party event. She noted that opening night would take place the following evening and that the event would run February 6 through 22 for the Olympics and March 6 through 15 for the Paralympics. She shared that the event is free to the public. She stated that Public Lands teams have played a significant role in preparing for the event and will be present throughout its duration. She encouraged board members to greet and thank staff if they attend. She also noted that event details are available at saltlakecity.gov/watchparty and that opening night would include a drone show, music, and food trucks. Kerri Nakamura asked for clarification about the start time of the opening event. Ginger Cannon: She mentioned that there is a printable calendar available online outlining events for the next two weeks. Eric McGill asked whether the time of the drone show had been confirmed. Kim Shelley responded that the specific timing for the drone show had not yet been provided. She then transitioned to project updates. She noted that Maria Romero had emailed the board regarding the final design concept for Fairmont Park Phase 1 and expressed excitement about the project, describing it as transformative for the community. She shared that a groundbreaking ceremony for the$15 million Pioneer Park project was tentatively planned for February 27, with the Mayor expected to provide remarks. She stated that City Council members have been invited and that additional details would be shared with board members once finalized. She noted that the event would likely take place mid-morning, depending on the Mayor's schedule. She further reported that staff supported City Finance in briefing the City Council earlier in the week regarding the second tranche of the voter-approved geo bond. She explained that this issuance is up to $51 million and is part of the $85 million bond approved by voters in 2022. She noted that the specific impact to residents will be determined once the bonds are sold and interest rates are finalized. However, she shared that the estimated impact is anticipated to be less than $28 per year per resident. She added that the first tranche resulted in no impact to residents due to the City's strong financial practices and described the projected impact as favorable compared to what voters originally expected. Kerri Nakamura commented that lower interest rates would ideally allow the funds to go further. Kim Shelley agreed and expressed hope that interest rates would be favorable. She then transitioned to legislative updates. She noted that the department is tracking legislative activity and acknowledged appreciation for those engaged in the civic process. She shared that over 800 bills had been filed during the session, with approximately 24 directly impacting Public Lands. She explained that the City has a Legislative Affairs Division, supported by contract lobbyists, who advocate for the Mayor's objectives and the City's priorities throughout the 45-day session. She noted that while the internal bill tracker is not publicly available, an external list of bills of interest is updated weekly on the City's website and can be shared with board members. She highlighted several bills of interest: House Bill 205 (Substance Use Intervention Amendments), sponsored by Representative Tyler Clancy and Senator Brady Brammer. She explained that two provisions particularly impact Public Lands: a prohibition on needle exchanges within public parks and authorization for courts to issue geographic"off-limits"orders for individuals charged or convicted of certain drug offenses, potentially restricting access to public spaces. House Bill 456 (Pesticides Amendments), also sponsored by Representative Clancy. She explained that the bill proposes restrictions on applying certain pesticides within 1,000 feet of a school boundary. She noted that several park properties border schools, including Backman Elementary, Clayton Middle School, and Horizonte, and that the department occasionally applies pesticides in those areas. She added that the bill does not yet have a co-sponsor. Senate Bill 242 (Transportation Omnibus Bill). She stated that while the bill does not directly impact the department, it could affect amenities that Public Lands maintains as part of street safety improvements. She noted that the bill is a high priority for the Mayor and the Legislative Affairs team and that staff are closely monitoring its progress. Eric McGill noted that elements of transportation legislation could intersect with park projects, such as the Sugarmont Promenade portion of Fairmont Park. Kim Shelley acknowledged that there could be an overlap. Cameron Johnson commented that certain road classifications under the proposed legislation would likely allow the City greater discretion in managing related projects. Kim Shelley thanked him for the clarification and asked if there were any additional questions. Thomas Merrill commented that 3rd West could be affected, noting that it is likely Tier 1. He added that it is an important artery he and his children use to access the bike park. He asked whether it would be appropriate for the legislative team to inform them of any testimony opportunities, explaining that legislators often respond better when they hear about families and children using the trails rather than just older adult users. He emphasized that knowing about opportunities to testify would be helpful. Austin Whitehead added that the Transportation Committee would hear the item on Monday afternoon. Ginger Cannon suggested that Thomas Merrill sign up for the Sweet Streets newsletter or Bike Utah updates, noting that both typically provide relevant updates. She also mentioned that the Sweet Streets Discord is a valuable resource. Thomas Merrill replied that he was not currently signed up for either newsletter, and Ginger Cannon confirmed that both are good sources of information, explaining that this is also why Austin is well-informed. Eric McGill shifted the conversation to the bond discussion from Tuesday, noting that the department's communications team should emphasize that although the bond was approved by voters in 2022, property taxes have not yet increased. He explained that once the second tranche is approved in July, there will be a property tax increase, but it is important for the community to understand that this was voter-approved and not a decision made by the City Council. He highlighted that clarifying this distinction helps prevent undue criticism of council members and supports future tranches. Eric McGill also referenced Tom Millar's comments, noting that even for projects like Fairmont in his district, the department remains receptive to community feedback during all phases of a project. He emphasized that even with construction underway, the department listens to neighbors and park users, remaining flexible as community needs evolve. He remarked that this approach is important because conditions and needs change over time. Kerri Nakamura thanked everyone and confirmed the report, then transitioned to agenda item 5B. 5. Staff Presentations, Updates & Discussions 5:35 PM A. Mini Park Policy Presentation—Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director 30 mins Kerri Nakamura requested that the presentation begin with the Mini Park Policy. Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director, provided a brief 30-second introduction to frame the presentation before turning the time over to Ryen Schlegel, Special Permits and Reservations Manager. She explained that the policy originated from instances of park misuse and was driven by grassroots community concerns. Specifically, an individual used the park without a reservation, and through community feedback—as Jen noted—it became clear that a formal policy was needed to guide the department in making reservation decisions for this specific category of parks. Kim stated that Ryen would walk the board through the policy and answer questions. Tyler Murdoch was also present to provide additional information regarding 2024 as needed. She then turned the presentation over to Ryen. Kerri Nakamura asked about the process following the board's review of the policy. Staff explained that all feedback from the board and the public would be collected and used to revise or modify the policy as appropriate. The updated policy would then be presented to the Mayor's team for review, finalized, and published on the department's website. Eric McGill, Board Member, asked whether the Council is required to review the policy. Kim Shelley responded that the process differs from some state agencies, as the City does not have a formal rulemaking requirement for internal guiding policies. While a formal rulemaking path exists, this type of internal policy typically does not go through that process. She noted that this is the approach the City has chosen to take. She added that Cameron, if present later, could address any additional process or ordinance-related questions. She clarified that no formal board action is required; the board's role is to provide feedback and public comment, serving in a focus group capacity for the community. Ryen Schlegel reintroduced himself to the board, noting that he had met some members during a previous meeting. He stated that he serves as the Salt Lake City Special Event and Reservation Manager, overseeing special event permits, demonstration and film permits, as well as athletic field reservations—the subject of the current discussion. He introduced the Public Lands internal policy regarding mini park field reservations. In response to public comment and the concerns raised by the community, staff sought to establish a starting point that would balance the needs of organized athletic groups wishing to reserve the park with those of nearby residents. This draft policy represents the department's initial effort to address both perspectives. Ryen Schlegel identified the need to clearly define what constitutes a "mini park."While these parks are public spaces and should not be treated entirely differently from other parks—particularly in that open fields remain available for public reservation—they do have distinct limitations. Mini parks are smaller than parks such as Liberty Park and cannot accommodate the same number of participants. They also lack amenities such as restrooms. As a result, staff evaluated the characteristics of these smaller parks and identified comparable locations. Based on park size and features, staff determined that three parks with reservable athletic fields qualify as mini parks: Laird Park, Stratford Park, and K. Rees Park. All three include reservable athletic fields. To ensure fairness and consistency, staff proposed creating a unified policy applicable to all three parks rather than singling out Laird Park. Ryen invited board members to ask questions at any time during the presentation. Ryen Schlegel recognized that capacity would be a primary concern. Unlike Liberty Park, which can accommodate multiple activities simultaneously along with parking, mini parks such as Laird cannot support large numbers of people. As an initial step, staff proposed a 25-person limit per reservation, including coaches, participants, and spectators. This number was intended as a reasonable starting point based on observed usage. Ryen explained that reservable athletic fields are categorized into three classifications. Class A fields, located exclusively at the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), are the highest quality fields with significant investment and maintenance. Class B fields are larger and suitable for regulation games such as lacrosse or soccer, with improved turf conditions. Class C fields are smaller practice fields, generally used for training rather than official games and maintained at a more basic level. Of the three identified mini parks, Stratford Park and K. Rees Park contain Class B fields, while Laird Park contains a Class C field. Due to these differences, staff determined that separate usage standards were necessary for Class B and Class C fields. Class B fields, which can accommodate more structured league play, were proposed to allow reservations up to four days per week. Ryen also discussed the considerations of the concerns regarding seven-day-per-week bookings. Given the small size of mini parks and their location within residential neighborhoods, staff evaluated whether it would be appropriate to allow reservations every day of the week. Ultimately, staff concluded that limiting the number of reservable days would help reduce the overall impact on the surrounding community and ensure that there are days without scheduled athletic field activity. Ryen indicated he welcomed questions throughout the presentation and was prepared to address them as they arose. Sarah Foran asked whether the use of Class A, B, and C designations was intended to allow for future flexibility. She questioned why the policy did not simply reference the specific park names, noting that there are only three parks included. She asked why Class A was referenced at all and suggested it might be clearer to specify which parks are classified as B and which are classified as C. Ryen Schlegel responded that the intent was to outline how the overall athletic field inventory is structured by explaining the Class A, B, and C systems. The breakdown was included to provide context on how fields are categorized citywide. Staff indicated that while the policy currently references Class B and Class C designations, it could be revised to more clearly specify that Stratford Park and K. K Rees Park are Class B fields and Laird Park is a Class C field. Sarah Foran noted that while she understands the classification system from a legal or administrative perspective, it may not be intuitive for park users. She shared that, as a user, the distinctions are not immediately clear and may require an additional step for clarification. She added that public comment is valuable because it offers the perspective of those who do not work within the system daily, and therefore may identify areas where the language or structure is unclear to the broader community. Ryen Schlegel stated that he values public comment because staff work within the system every day, and outside perspectives help identify areas that may not be clear to the public. He noted that when someone from outside the department expresses confusion, it highlights language or processes that may need clarification. He agreed that the comment was helpful and supported incorporating that feedback. Tyler Murdock added that the athletic field inventory classifications have not been updated since 2020. He noted that as improvements are made to fields, classifications may change. For example, he referenced Nine South River Park, which is scheduled for renovation this year and could potentially shift from a Class C field to a Class B field. For that reason, he suggested that maintaining the A, B, and C classification system in policy provides flexibility, rather than listing specific park names that may change classification over time. Sarah Foran responded that the confusion arises because only three parks are referenced in the policy. She questioned why the A, B, and C distinctions are necessary if only three parks are currently included and asked whether there was additional context she might be missing. She acknowledged understanding the reasoning behind the classification structure but sought clarification that the approach was intentional. Ryen Schlegel clarified that the proposed three-day limit referenced earlier applies to days of use rather than specific hourly limits. He acknowledged that it may be important to clarify whether reservations should be limited by total hours per day—for example, distinguishing between an eight-hour reservation and a shorter two-to four-hour reservation. He agreed this was an important point to address within the policy. Kerri Nakamura asked whether Soccer Shots, which currently uses Laird Park, also utilizes other athletic fields within the City's system, including the field referenced by Tyler. Ryen Schlegel responded that while the organization is eligible to reserve other fields, to his knowledge Soccer Shots is currently only reserving Laird Park and does not have a reservation at Nine South River Park at this time. Tyler Murdock added that in previous years, possibly two years ago, Soccer Shots may have held additional permits. Kerri Nakamura indicated she would allow the board to continue its discussion. Tyler Murdock further noted that Soccer Shots may have had permits in 2024 for additional fields, though he would need to confirm the details. Ryen Schlegel confirmed that for 2025 the organization is only permitted at Laird Park. While they may have used other parks in the past, there is currently nothing prohibiting them from reserving multiple parks. He noted that several leagues utilize different parks throughout the year. Kerri Nakamura asked whether the group is using the field strictly for practice or if they are hosting games. Ryen Schlegel responded that, to his understanding, the program is instructional in nature. It serves very young children who are learning the fundamentals of the sport. If games occur, they are more informal scrimmages rather than structured league competitions. Tyler Murdock added that the program operates as a clinic, teaching young children basic skills. He also noted that the organization operates throughout the Wasatch Front and is not limited to this single location. Eric McGill asked about the reservable hours for the parks. Ryen Schlegel explained that reservations fall within established park hours, which at Laird Park are believed to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He noted that most reservations occur in the late afternoon and early evening, typically after work hours when parents pick up their children. He stated that reservations are not commonly seen during the middle of the day or late at night. Kerri Nakamura asked whether the parks have lighting. It was confirmed that they do not. Ryen Schlegel then referenced usage data. He shared that in 2025, after submitting a late reservation, Soccer Shots accumulated approximately 207 hours of use at Laird Park spread throughout the year. At Stratford Park, a different group—primarily adult practices and some games—recorded approximately 742 hours of use. K. Rees Park did not have any current reservations last year and did not experience permitted use during that time. He noted that this led to questions regarding spontaneous or non-permitted use, which he intended to address after completing the remaining overview. Ryen Schelgel reiterated that the proposed policy includes a 25-person cap as a starting point. He added that if violations occur, whether reported to staff or observed in coordination with Parks personnel, the department would address those violations accordingly. Ryen Schlegel stated that the Ranger Program is intended to have a stronger on-site presence and would be able to document activity and any observed violations. Aaron Wiley shared that, based on what he had observed, the group appears to consist of very young children. He noted that for programs involving toddlers, families often attend in larger numbers, with one or two parents, and sometimes grandparents, present to watch and support. He questioned how a 25-person cap would function in practice, asking how many children typically participate at one time, such as in a 4-on-4 format. Ryen Schlegel responded that the numbers he had observed were closer to approximately 10 children with only a few instructors present. He indicated that he had not consistently seen large numbers of parents remaining on-site, as the program functions more as instruction than a formal game. However, he acknowledged that participation levels may vary and agreed that it is important to better understand the actual numbers in attendance. He reiterated that increased documentation through the Ranger Program would help provide clearer data on what typical use looks like and support more informed decision-making. Tyler Murdock clarified that Park Rangers are utilized to periodically check on field reservations or respond to instances of misuse. However, he noted that Rangers do not have enforcement authority and cannot issue violations. They are able to document concerns. He added that Salt Lake City Police Department personnel are assigned to work in parks, and in cases involving criminal behavior or activity, matters can be referred to law enforcement for enforcement action. Sarah Foran asked for clarification regarding enforcement provisions within the permit itself, specifically whether disruptive behavior could result in action under the terms of the permit. Ryen Schlegel confirmed that the 25-person cap is not the only potential violation that could be considered under a permit; other forms of noncompliance may also be addressed. Sarah Foran expanded on Aaron Wiley's question, stating that it appeared the intent of the policy is to limit attendance to 25 people and not to accommodate larger-scale use currently occurring. Ryen Schlegel agreed, explaining that the purpose of the cap is to prevent mini parks from functioning as venues for larger games or events. If demand suggests a need for larger gatherings, he indicated that those activities may be more appropriately held at larger parks better suited to accommodate higher attendance. He emphasized that mini parks may not be appropriate for higher-volume use. Eric McGill expressed concern that enforcing the cap could become complicated in practice. He noted that it may be difficult for a park ranger arriving on site to distinguish between participants, parents, grandparents, and other park users, such as older children playing on the playground. He commented that the approach could become administratively challenging. Eric suggested that the policy might instead define the limit as 25 official participants associated with the reservation, rather than attempting to count all individuals present, though he acknowledged that even this approach could become complicated once family members are included. Tyler Murdock responded that the original intent was to cap participation at 25 participants and agreed that the policy language should be clarified to reflect that intention. He noted that documentation and photographs shared previously showed significantly higher attendance, including both participants and family members, and stated that those observations should be taken into account when refining the policy. He emphasized the need for clearer language to avoid confusion. The discussion then shifted to how the athletic field space is defined within a public park. Questions were raised about whether individuals present in other areas of the park, but not on the reserved field itself, would be counted toward the cap. Eric McGill asked whether participants in programs such as Soccer Shots typically wear jerseys and whether that would make them easily identifiable from an observational standpoint. Tyler Murdock responded that participants generally do wear jerseys, including in Soccer Shots, which could assist park staff in identifying participants. However, he acknowledged that the policy language would need to be clearly defined to support consistent documentation. Aaron Wiley stated that he shared concerns about the difficulty of enforcing a 25-person cap, noting that it could be challenging to send staff out to determine exactly who counts toward that number. He suggested that instead of focusing on headcounts, the solution might center more on availability—such as limiting the number of days mini parks can be reserved for organized activities. He proposed designating specific days for reservations, for example Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, while keeping other days free to ensure the neighborhood has access. Ryen Schlegel acknowledged that approach as establishing designated use days. Aaron Wiley agreed, explaining that this method could simplify enforcement by clearly identifying "off days"when organized reservations are not permitted, thereby preserving certain days exclusively for neighborhood use. Kerri Nakamura made a lighthearted comparison to leash-free days, clarifying humorously that she was not equating children with dogs. Austin Whitehead suggested it could function similarly to open court time at a county recreation center, where structured use alternates with open access. Staff acknowledged the suggestion as constructive. Ginger Cannon then raised a broader question. She asked whether there is an existing, larger Parks reservation policy. Staff confirmed that there is. She questioned why the mini park policy is not incorporated into that broader framework. She suggested clearly defining what constitutes a "mini park," including acreage, facilities, and characteristics, so that any future parks meeting that definition could automatically fall within the policy without needing to be individually listed. Ginger further asked the board to consider whether this type of organized use should be allowed in mini parks at all. She questioned whether staff had analyzed the administrative time and costs associated with permitting this use and asked why such use could not simply be prohibited. She emphasized that mini parks are intended to serve nearby residents within walking or biking distance and questioned whether allowing for-profit entities to use these spaces aligns with that purpose. Kerri Nakamura shared that in her conversations with community members, similar concerns were raised. Residents questioned why small neighborhood parks are being used by for-profit organizations when other, larger fields are available—even if those alternatives are more expensive. She noted that supporting private profit is not the department's primary objective. Ginger Cannon reiterated her challenge to staff, asking whether the City could adopt a policy prohibiting this type of organized use in mini parks and instead focus on education and enforcement to prevent misuse. She framed it as an opportunity for Parks to clearly define what is allowed and what is not, particularly in response to concerns about overuse and impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Sarah Foran offered a counterpoint. She referenced a prior presentation indicating that larger fields are often difficult to reserve and that there may be limited availability citywide. She suggested that permitting structured reservations in mini parks may deter unregulated misuse while generating revenue and accommodating smaller youth programs that do not require full-sized fields. She acknowledged the concern that mini parks were not originally designed for this purpose but questioned whether the broader issue is a lack of field availability for smaller programs. Ginger Cannon responded that if there were clear evidence demonstrating a shortage of fields for such programs, that would merit consideration. However, she encouraged the board to step back and examine whether prohibiting this use in mini parks would better serve the surrounding community, including residents who contribute to maintaining and supporting these neighborhood green spaces. She emphasized that this moment presents an opportunity for Parks to take a firm stance by clearly defining reservation policies, permitted uses, and limits in response to documented concerns about overuse and neighborhood impacts. Ryen Schlegel stated that the feedback being shared was exactly why staff brought the discussion to the board. He explained that while the department sees high demand for field reservations, the broader question is how parks should be used and balanced within the community. He noted that the purpose of the PNUT Board is to elevate these perspectives and ensure community voices are heard. He appreciated the discussion and emphasized that these viewpoints would be part of the ongoing conversation. From a reservation standpoint, he acknowledged that there is demand for field space and that those reservations can be filled, but he encouraged the board to weigh in on how they believe the parks should be managed. Melanie Perhson asked how staff distinguish between individuals who are reserving a field and those who are not, given that the fields are reservable spaces. Austin Whitehead added that some children participating in these programs may also be members of the surrounding community. He noted that the issue is not necessarily about prohibiting coaches from reserving space altogether, but rather finding appropriate balance and flexibility. Melanie clarified that she was not dismissing other options but suggested that the issue might be better addressed within the broader reservation policy rather than through a separate mini park policy. Tyler Murdock responded that he agreed the mini park provisions should ultimately be incorporated into the larger field reservation policy. He explained that comprehensive updates to the overall reservation policy are planned. However, staff moved forward with a separate mini park policy in order to respond more quickly to current concerns and mitigate impacts in the near term. He added that even mini parks like Stratford currently host other leagues, and there are limited alternative locations available for those groups. Nonetheless, he agreed that long-term alignment within a comprehensive policy would be appropriate. Ginger Cannon asked whether it would be preferable to delay implementing a specific mini park policy until a broader policy review is completed, expressing concern that adopting a partial solution might create unintended gaps or complications. Ryen Schlegel responded that staff aimed to be responsive ahead of the upcoming reservation season. The historic use window was already open, and general spring reservations would open on February 15. He explained that the proposed mini park policy was intended as a bridge measure until a comprehensive update could be completed. Tyler Murdock added that under the current policy, there is nothing preventing an organization from reserving a mini park field seven days per week. Without interim changes, staff would lack authority to restrict that level of use. Ginger Cannon asked whether staff could pilot an approach before formally instituting a policy. Kim Shelley shared that during the 2025 reservation season, staff did pilot a more limited approach toward the end of the year, though it was not as robust as what is currently being proposed. She expressed support for piloting the updated approach for a full season and then reassessing based on feedback and observed outcomes. Ginger encouraged piloting if feasible, noting that it would allow neighbors to provide feedback and offer insight into whether the measures were effective, followed, or in need of adjustment. She emphasized the importance of evaluating how the mini park policy aligns with broader reservation classifications and policies. Kerri Nakamura then asked whether part of the pressure to use mini parks for younger children stems from difficulty accessing school district fields for that age group. Tyler Murdock responded that it does not. Kerri acknowledged the clarification, and it was noted that school districts already provide field space for those types of uses. Tyler Murdock clarified that the department does not directly coordinate field use through the school districts, though school districts do independently allow certain groups to use their facilities. A question was raised as to whether programs such as Soccer Shots are permitted to use school district fields. Austin Whitehead responded that, based on information available on the Soccer Shots website, many of their locations appear to be hosted at churches rather than public school fields. Kerri Nakamura acknowledged the clarification and noted that she did not want to divert the discussion too far into that topic. Sarah Foran added that she recognized the school access issue as a separate matter but wanted to connect her earlier submitted question to the current discussion. She asked how the proposed mini park policy integrates with the existing reservation system. Specifically, she questioned whether all permits follow the same structure and whether there are accountability requirements built into them. She raised concerns about practical considerations, such as groups bringing young children to parks without restroom facilities for extended periods, and asked whether permit holders are required to meet certain standards to ensure responsible use. Ryen Schlegel confirmed that the broader reservation policy includes a detailed list of conditions and responsibilities, such as cleanup requirements and prohibitions against misuse. He explained that permit holders must acknowledge these terms during the reservation process. He noted, however, that the current language could be strengthened and clarified to more explicitly outline user responsibilities. He described the existing permit terms as somewhat streamlined and indicated there is room to expand and make expectations more explicit. Sarah Foran responded that this clarification was helpful, particularly in light of Ginger Cannon's earlier comments. She had assumed the mini park policy functioned as a subset within the larger reservation framework, since elements such as pricing were not included in the draft. Ryen Schlegel confirmed that the mini park policy operates within the existing reservation system and that fees are established separately. He provided a brief overview of current rates: for Tier B fields, youth groups are charged $10 per hour, while Tier C fields—such as Laird Park—are $8 per hour. For adult groups, the rates are $18 per hour for Tier B fields and $14 per hour for Tier C fields. Sarah Foran asked whether the fee structure is included within the proposed policy. Ryen Schlegel responded that fee schedules fall under the City's Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) and would require Council action to amend. He explained that the current rates reflect reductions advocated by the youth baseball community in prior years, which were discussed with the Mayor's Office and ultimately approved by the Council. Sarah Foran reiterated a previous comment that she believes there should be a distinction in fees between commercial, nonprofit, and general users. Ryen Schlegel shared that historically, when the recreation component was removed from Parks and Recreation, the City allowed both for-profit and nonprofit groups to use fields in order to encourage the creation of leagues, since Salt Lake City does not operate leagues in the same way the County does. He acknowledged, however, that the idea of differentiating between nonprofit and for-profit users could be revisited. Sarah noted that the youth sports industry has changed significantly over the past decades. What was once primarily community-based recreation has evolved into a more commercialized and competitive environment, and she suggested that the policy framework may need to reflect that shift. Ginger Cannon suggested that these points further support piloting the mini park approach for a year and then returning with data, including financial projections, documented impacts, and feedback from surrounding communities. She emphasized that a pilot would allow for flexibility and refinement before formal adoption. Tyler Murdock agreed that a pilot approach could be feasible, noting that staff informally piloted aspects of this toward the end of the previous season. He reiterated, however, that if mini parks were entirely removed from eligibility, the department does not currently have enough alternative field capacity to relocate all teams using parks such as Stratford. That impact would need to be considered. Kerri Nakamura pointed out that without any interim guidelines, organizations could reserve mini parks seven days per week. Tyler acknowledged that point and indicated that a pilot could still establish limits without formal policy adoption. Aaron Wiley raised concerns about restroom access, noting both the issue of resident access to the park and the practical reality of children needing restroom facilities during extended use. Ryen Schlegel confirmed that Laird Park does not have restroom facilities. While portable toilets have been brought in previously, they created additional concerns and were ultimately removed. Currently, there are no restroom facilities available at the park. Sarah Foran referenced prior public comments indicating that, in the absence of facilities, children had used nearby yards. She asked whether a designated hardscape location could be identified for a portable restroom, rather than placing one on grass or in the roadway. Ryen acknowledged that placement on hardscape would be preferable and agreed that restroom options warrant further discussion. Tyler Murdock suggested that this topic could be assigned to the Community Council, noting that there may be historical context predating current staff that would be helpful to understand. Ryen Schlegel added that mini park reservations currently cannot be made directly through the City's ActiveNet system. Instead, groups must work directly with him. This allows staff to screen requests and ensure users understand the context and pilot parameters. He noted that while other parks can be reserved online once the system opens, staff believed that unrestricted online booking would not be appropriate for mini parks until the policy direction is more clearly established. Sarah Foran observed that this approach conflicts with the current draft language, which references use of the Public Lands reservation system. Ryen agreed that the language should be revised to reflect the current practice, emphasizing the desire to monitor mini park reservations closely during the pilot period. Thomas Merrill asked whether data could be gathered regarding time-of-day usage. He suggested that if parks experience low use during certain hours, such as late morning or early afternoon, those times could potentially accommodate organized activities without displacing neighborhood use. Ryen responded that while staff had reviewed total hours of use, they could also provide more detailed data showing usage patterns by time of day. Ginger Cannon noted that such data could help refine designated days and hours for reservations, rather than applying generalized limits. Tyler Murdock agreed that time-based analysis should be incorporated into the broader reservation policy discussion. He added that when Soccer Shots previously used 9 South River Park—one of the more difficult parks to activate productively—staff considered how to balance underused spaces with program demand. As time was limited, Ryen Schlegel briefly addressed additional written questions. He stated that staff would work toward more systematically documenting overuse concerns and incidents. He acknowledged that spontaneous, unpermitted use can occur because parks are public spaces; while staff can attempt contact if concerns are reported, they cannot fully prevent informal use. He reiterated interest in strengthening permit language to clearly outline user responsibilities and potential violations. He also expressed support for installing signage near athletic fields, potentially including QR codes, to clarify reservation procedures and field rules. Ginger Cannon asked whether ActiveNet allows fines to be attached to reservations during a pilot period. Ryen indicated that while the system has that capability, adding fines would likely require approval through the Consolidated Fee Schedule process, which is why staff had not included that option. Currently, the only clearly specified charge relates to cleanup costs. Eric McGill asked what enforcement options exist for noncompliance. Staff explained that enforcement could escalate to Salt Lake City Police Department involvement, potentially through trespass or applicable code violations. Cameron Johnson noted that while various enforcement tools exist, listing each specific violation in the policy could create unintended limitations. Instead, permit language generally requires compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, which preserves flexibility. Ryen Schlegel stated that the discussion provided valuable input and underscored that additional exploration is needed. He expressed appreciation for the board's feedback and reiterated that staff intend to move forward with a pilot approach while continuing the broader conversation. Kerri Nakamura thanked staff and board members for the discussion and noted that Meredith had joined the meeting virtually. B. PNUT Advisory Board Bylaws Review—Ginger Cannon,Vice Chair 10 min Ginger Cannon began by stating that she would keep her remarks brief. She explained that the topic had come up at the recent retreat, particularly given that half of the board members are new. She noted that the discussion centered on the purpose of the bylaws and what they mean for the board. Ginger Cannon mentioned that she and Aaron Wiley serve on the committee responsible for bylaws and are considered the board's experts. She explained that the committee had set goals to update the bylaws based on feedback from the past year,aiming to clarify expectations and help all members understand board norms. She emphasized that the bylaws guide how the board operates and do not carry legal repercussions. She noted that changes are reviewed by legal staff to ensure alignment with other codes and regulations.The bylaws were last updated in June 2024,and it was now time to review them again to align with recent departmental changes. She explained that proposed updates would be shared with the board in advance of a future meeting,followed by a vote on adopting the revised set. Ginger Cannon highlighted that the bylaws are available digitally on the Peanut Board website and in the Google Drive,and that members had received them via email.She drew attention to Section 5 on regular meetings, noting two key points. First, members attending remotely are asked to turn on their cameras and actively participate in discussions and voting as a courtesy to the rest of the board. She acknowledged that exceptions may occur due to travel or other obligations. Second,she noted that meetings can extend as long as necessary to complete board business,with Kerri Nakamura helping keep discussions on track.She added that special meetings could be called with 24 hours'notice,with Maria Romero assisting in organizing them. Sarah Foran asked a question regarding whether meetings could remain open for the board to discuss internal matters without staff present. Ginger Cannon explained that the bylaws are structured to minimize staff presence by scheduling staff presentations and director's reports earlier in the agenda to accommodate their long days. Cameron Johnson added a comment,prompting Maria Romero to respond that she serves as the anchor for the meetings.Aaron Wiley humorously noted that as long as snacks are provided,the arrangement works for him. Kerri Nakamura affirmed that she tries to adjust the agenda to be sensitive to staff time. Ginger Cannon then highlighted two additional points. First, regarding voting,she noted that any member could call for a roll call if there was uncertainty about how members voted.Second,she emphasized Section 10 on member responsibilities and committee formation.She explained that the section provides a simple template for creating committees,and she and Aaron Wiley are available to assist members with adding non-board members or establishing committees.She also pointed out that committee reporting,as outlined in the bylaws, has not been consistently followed,and she emphasized the importance of reporting annually on committee activities,as discussed at the board retreat. Ginger Cannon explained that the board now has a new component involving an annual report,and the goal is to integrate it in a way that simplifies the process for everyone working on committees. She noted that the public involvement section includes the guidance Carrie read earlier about civility during public comments. Beyond that,she did not identify any additional points to highlight, but emphasized that the board is open to input. She invited members to suggest any changes or additions to the bylaws, noting that this iteration is the appropriate time to make adjustments. Sarah Foran raised a question regarding committees. She referenced Eric McGill's point about the communications committee meeting and noted that the current bylaws do not clearly address how committee bylaws can be changed. She asked for clarification on when a committee is allowed to adjust its guidelines and what the scope of those adjustments might be. Ginger Cannon acknowledged that this was an important point. She explained that when new members join a standing committee,the documents that formed the committee may need updating to reflect new goals and initiatives.While the committee's standing structure remains the same, its goals and priorities can be modified,and that is what the bylaws are intended to allow. Eric McGill suggested that each committee could refresh its guidelines at the beginning of the year. Ginger Cannon noted that this has been done in the past,though the practice had fallen out of routine. Eric added that the communications committee had been following this approach during a recent meeting. Sarah Foran commented that there is sometimes uncertainty when previous committee members are no longer present,as the original intentions may not be fully known. She noted that this can be addressed in committee updates but questioned whether allowable adjustments should be more explicitly defined in the bylaws.Ginger Cannon and Aaron Wiley agreed that it was valuable input. Kerri Nakamura asked if there were any additional comments,questions,or suggestions regarding the bylaws. Sarah Foran added that while the working group information in the bylaws provides some historical context,it does not provide sufficient guidance for establishing a new working group. Ginger Cannon confirmed that the bylaws merely authorize the formation of a working group without providing detailed guidance,differentiating it from a committee. Sarah Foran suggested that adding some guiding language could help clarify expectations for future working groups. C. 2026 Goals Discussion— Kerri Nakamura, Chair 30 mins Kerri Nakamura transitioned the group to the 2026 goals discussion, noting that it was a continuation of the conversation from the retreat. She asked for the document to be pulled up and shared that she did not anticipate the discussion taking the full 30 minutes, as she had not seen any requested revisions or format changes. She reminded the board that she and Ginger Cannon had agreed after the last meeting to sit down together and draft revisions based on what they understood from the group discussion. The updated draft was then shared via link for review. Kerri explained that Part One focuses on establishing an overarching goal of increasing the board's level of engagement and participation, both individually and collectively, in support of Salt Lake City Public Lands and the community. The measurable targets for the year include: 100% of department events, as defined by the Executive Director, being attended by at least one board member. This reflects both an individual and collective responsibility to ensure representation. 90% of board members achieving 100% attendance at monthly Peanut Advisory Board meetings. She acknowledged that circumstances arise, but emphasized that the board meets only 11 times per year, as there is no July meeting. Members are expected to attend in person when possible or virtually with cameras on if needed. All committees and work groups formally meeting a minimum of four times per year, consistent with the bylaws. Kerri noted she had not seen any revisions and asked if that indicated general agreement. Melanie Pershson commented that the goals were clear, concise, achievable, and measurable, and expressed appreciation for the work. Aaron Wiley shared one piece of feedback, suggesting that the language specify"board activity goal," as he viewed the outlined items as activity-based engagement measures. He clarified that the goals looked strong overall. Ginger Cannon responded that the focus on engagement aligned with what had been discussed at the retreat. Kerri agreed to incorporate clarifying language in the preamble to make the framing clearer. She then shifted the conversation to committee-level SMART goals and asked for the document to be scrolled further. She explained that each committee is asked to come prepared at the March meeting with its SMART goals. A designated section has been added in the document for committees to outline up to three goals, though having fewer is acceptable. She recommended limiting the number to a maximum of three to maintain focus. This consolidated format will help keep all goals in one document and support Maria's work tracking progress throughout the year. While reviewing the committee list, it was noted that Tom had attended a Communications Committee meeting and should be included on that roster, which was promptly corrected. Ginger added that the purpose of the committee SMART goals is both to provide structure and to create an easier process for year-end reporting. By defining goals at the outset, Maria will be able to review and report to the City Council on whether each goal was achieved. She emphasized that doing the work on the front end creates clarity and direction for committee meetings and planning, while also encouraging collaboration—even informally outside regular meetings. Kerri asked if there were any additional changes or feedback. Sarah Foran raised a question about adding a vision, goal statement, or PNUT Advisory Board statement to the top of each agenda. She recalled a prior discussion about incorporating a concise statement—possibly centered around words such as "activate" and "engage"—to align the board's work with a clear guiding message. She suggested this could potentially fall under a Communications Committee goal and noted she was waiting for further direction or development on that idea. Meredith Benally asked a question regarding the engagement portion of the Peanut Advisory Board's goals. She wondered whether there had ever been an opportunity for the board to participate in a tabling event to help raise awareness about its role. She shared that in one-on- one conversations, many individuals say they have never heard of the Peanut Board and ask what it does, requiring board members to explain its purpose from the beginning. She asked whether there might be an opportunity for the board to become more involved in tabling or public education efforts. Kerri Nakamura responded enthusiastically, calling it a great idea. She noted that when attending community events, there are often tables hosted by different divisions, including Public Lands. She suggested that board members could help staff those tables as volunteers, talk about the board's work, and potentially recruit new members through those interactions. Eric McGill asked Maria to share examples of events she had attended related to Native American recruitment efforts. Maria Romero thanked Meredith for the suggestion and shared that she had previously tabled at the Blessing of the Journey event hosted by the Native Excellence Office while recruiting for three open board positions. She also attended the Indigenous Stay at the Hill event as a representative from Public Lands, where tabling opportunities were available. She expressed that it would make sense for the board to table at similar events in the future. She mentioned an upcoming opportunity connected to the Indigenous community on July 24th at the powwow and vendor event at Liberty Park. She noted that the city already plans to have a table there, and because Public Lands typically hosts a canopy, the board could join under that space with flyers and information. She offered to begin planning and organizing sign-up shifts if the board was interested, noting that she would already be present and that logistics would be manageable. Sarah Foran added that the board could have shirts made to help increase visibility while representing the board at events and in the park. Eric McGill also referenced other engagement opportunities, such as community clean-up events and stewardship activities. He mentioned participating at the Jordan River and expressed that the more events available to the board, the better. He shared that cleanups are enjoyable and provide opportunities to connect with rangers and stewardship staff. He emphasized interest in participating in Indigenous community events as well as other neighborhood-based activities where extra hands are needed. However, he noted that if these efforts are to become a regular commitment, he would like to see them reflected clearly in the board's goals so there is shared agreement about the time commitment involved. Ginger Cannon directed the group back to the overarching board engagement goal, noting that it already states the board will increase engagement and participation both individually and collectively in support of Public Lands and the community. She clarified that the listed targets are measurable benchmarks but do not limit the scope of engagement activities. She suggested that if members are participating in additional activities beyond the defined targets, there could be a way to individually track that work. Austin Whitehead suggested something similar to a postcard system for tracking involvement. Sarah Foran humorously added that perhaps additional involvement could even earn another hat, reinforcing the idea of participation and visibility. Ginger emphasized that there are many ways the board could support Public Lands and said that if the group would like a more formal way to document those activities, that could be created. She mentioned that there is already a shared Google document where members can log hours spent, events attended, or meetings participated in, and noted there are multiple ways to structure that tracking. She also shared that when she is invited to table at events, she would be happy to notify board members so anyone available could join her. Eric added that it would also be helpful to capture informal volunteer efforts, such as participating in park cleanups, by sending a quick message or logging the time spent supporting park crews. Sarah expressed concern about creating additional documentation work for Maria and suggested instead creating a shared Google Drive spreadsheet where board members could self-report their participation. Kerri Nakamura agreed with the idea of self-reporting and suggested including fields such as member name, event name, and hours spent. Meredith closed by thanking the group for engaging in the discussion. D. 2026 Meeting Agenda Calendar Planning — Kerri Nakamura—Chair 5 min Kerri Nakamura thanked the group for the idea and transitioned the discussion to the planning document. She explained that, based on feedback from the retreat, a forward-looking planning tool had been created to help map out meetings for the year. She asked that the document be scrolled through and noted that the intent was to create something that could be used year after year. She shared that the document outlines each month's focus, the anticipated agenda items, and how those items align with the board's purpose. She suggested that agenda items could potentially note their alignment as meetings progress. She emphasized that the document is intended to function as a working planning tool to guide scheduling decisions. Kerri pointed out that February had been a particularly full meeting and referenced the 120- minute framework used to plan agendas. As the document moved into March, she observed that the meeting was already quite full based on known commitments. However, by April, there appeared to be more flexibility, which could allow space for department or agency presentations depending on their length. She explained that the document helps visualize time constraints and clarifies why, at times, certain updates may need to be provided in writing rather than as full presentations. She noted that much of the board's time is committed before meetings even begin, and as the year progresses—particularly during Capital Improvement Program (CIP) season—calendar flexibility decreases further. She asked whether this format reflected what board members had envisioned. Sarah Foran responded that the document was more in-depth than she had anticipated but acknowledged that it addressed the need for clarity. Ginger Cannon asked to revisit the format of the document, specifically the column labeled "goal alignment." She shared that the term "goal" initially caused confusion, as the items referenced were drawn from the retreat discussion and the board's charge in code, which speak more to purpose than to discrete goals. Kerri agreed that"purpose alignment"would be a better descriptor and clarified that the language used in the column was taken directly from the retreat conversation and the board's governing code. She added that she had also included a section for committee alignment, recognizing that certain agenda items may align more closely with specific committees. Ginger explained that the document would serve as a shared planning tool that board members could reference when proposing future agenda items. For example, if the board wishes to schedule a golf briefing, the document would help determine the best month to place it. She cited a recent example in which the Jordan River Commission presentation was postponed because the department requested a time-sensitive policy discussion that could not wait. She emphasized that these adjustments reflect real-time prioritization based on operational needs. Eric McGill raised a question about whether adding an additional meeting during the year— particularly around the intensive CIP period—might help alleviate time constraints. He noted that other boards, such as the CDCIP board, meet more frequently during high-demand periods and asked whether the board would consider adding a second meeting in certain months. Kerri Nakamura responded that there is a balance to consider between the board's desire for more information and the workload placed on staff, who already attend numerous meetings, including evenings and weekends. She expressed concern about overburdening staff with additional evening commitments. Sarah Foran asked whether special meetings could be called if needed. Ginger confirmed that the bylaws allow for special meetings, though they must comply with noticing requirements. Cameron Johnson clarified that as long as meetings are properly noticed and compliant with bylaws, format and timing can be flexible. However, quorum requirements would apply if a majority of members were present. Kerri Nakamura stated that while special meetings could be called, she would be hesitant to schedule one solely for an agency report. Sarah clarified that she had understood Eric's suggestion as referring specifically to CIP discussions, which can feel time-constrained. Kerri agreed that a special CIP-focused meeting might be more appropriate if needed. Eric McGill then asked whether informal gatherings without quorum could occur. Ginger explained that if a quorum is present at a noticed meeting, it must function as an official meeting, and business cannot proceed without quorum. The Board alternatives, including daytime or lunch-hour informational sessions with division directors. However, concerns were raised about quorum implications and placing directors in potentially uncomfortable public-facing settings outside the board's formal structure. Cameron noted that committee meetings with fewer than a quorum of the full board could be one avenue for more focused discussions. Additionally, board members are always welcome to contact department staff individually with questions. Kerri Nakamura suggested another possibility: starting regular meetings earlier to allow for an optional educational segment before the formal agenda begins, ensuring the meeting is properly noticed in case quorum is reached. She felt this approach would be less intrusive for staff. Melanie Perhson asked whether the conversation stemmed from a feeling that meetings were too time-constrained. Ginger responded that she believed the board has generally been efficient and prepared. Kerri Nakamura reflected that what she was hearing was a desire from some members to better understand the department's divisions. She acknowledged that it is not feasible to hear from every division within a single year due to scheduling realities, but over the course of a board member's term, there are typically multiple opportunities to hear from each. Sarah noted that the planning document is valuable not only for forward planning but also as a historical reference for past presentations. Aaron Wiley expressed that he did not believe additional meetings were necessary and encouraged members who want deeper knowledge to reach out individually to staff rather than extending formal meetings. Maria Romero shared her experience serving on other commissions, many of which meet less frequently and rely on work between meetings. She emphasized that staff are available for direct outreach if board members have district-specific priorities or questions that cannot fit within the regular meeting schedule. Kerri Nakamura then highlighted another opportunity for deeper departmental insight: the annual budget presentation to the City Council. She explained that during the budget process, the Executive Director presents detailed overviews of each division in a publicly noticed meeting that board members may attend without additional notice requirements. She noted that both general fund and enterprise funds, including golf, receive dedicated presentation time and suggested the board could do a better job of communicating when those sessions occur. She proposed adding those dates to the planning document. Austin Whitehead added that newer board members can access recordings of prior presentations and minutes to catch up on topics they may have missed, noting that Maria can direct members to specific sections of interest. 6. Board Discussion 6:50 PM A. Admin Update—Maria Romero, Board Manager 5 mins Maria Romero shared that in both the digital and printed board packets, members can reference page two to review an upcoming change. She explained that she received a directive from the Recorder's Office indicating that the board will move away from its current format in order to create greater uniformity. The goal is to ensure that when members of the public visit the Open and Public Meetings website, navigate to the board's webpage, and review meeting minutes, the materials reflect consistent branding and a more professional appearance. She provided a preview of what the February version will look like and noted that the official launch of the new template will take place in March. She then invited any questions regarding the change. Sarah Foran expressed interest in reintroducing a one-line purpose statement describing what the PNUT Board is, noting that it previously served as a helpful reminder of the board's role. She shared that including a brief mission-style statement could help re-center and align members. She added that she did not feel strongly about placement but wanted to raise the idea for consideration. Kerri Nakamura suggested that, since the materials are digital, the purpose statement could potentially be included as a hyperlink within the text for easy reference. Maria Romero acknowledged Eric McGill, who raised a question regarding public comment time limits. He referenced the three-minute limit for speakers and asked whether additional time could be provided, particularly in instances where a city-recognized organization is presenting. He noted that some bodies, such as the Planning Commission, may allow additional time in certain circumstances and asked whether a similar exception could be made. Maria Romero clarified that the public comment language currently included in the draft was pulled from a general city template. She explained that beginning in March, the public comment section will reflect the board's specific bylaws, which contain its own established rules. She noted that the bylaws would ultimately guide any decisions about time limits and exceptions, and that such discretion may rest with the chair as outlined in those governing documents. As her second update, Maria Romero reiterated guidance previously discussed during the January GRAMA presentation. She emphasized that it would be extremely helpful administratively if board members would copy her on any email conversations pertaining to PNUT Board business. She explained that this practice would allow her to efficiently respond to any future GRAMA requests without requiring board members to search their individual inboxes for relevant correspondence. Additionally, being copied on these conversations would allow her to provide timely assistance if questions or substantive discussions arise. Thomas Merrill asked whether he should have copied her on emails he sent earlier in the day regarding scheduling for an Urban Trails committee meeting. He clarified that the emails were administrative in nature, focused on confirming date and time availability. Maria Romero responded that scheduling emails that simply ask about meeting times generally do not constitute substantive board business and would not necessarily need to include her. She referenced a similar example discussed in January, noting that emails limited to logistical coordination typically do not carry business content. However, more substantive discussions related to board matters should include her. Christian Chavez asked whether there was a preferred format for subject lines, explaining that in his professional experience, using consistent and specific subject lines makes it easier to search and reference emails later. Maria Romero agreed that this is a strong practice and shared that she also finds structured subject lines helpful in managing multiple responsibilities. She stated that she could develop a brief document outlining suggested subject line conventions for board communications. Kerri Nakamura suggested placing "PNUT"at the beginning of each subject line to make emails easily searchable. Maria Romero thanked members for the suggestion and confirmed that those were her only updates for the meeting. B. Committee Reporting 10 mins Kerri Nakamura asked whether there were any updates related to the bylaws. Aaron Wiley shared that the committee is currently reviewing the bylaws, as previously discussed. The primary goal is to ensure everything is updated and aligned. He encouraged board members to review the document and flag anything that seems unclear or out of place. He noted that in the past, the bylaws lacked clarity and structure, and significant work has since gone into creating stronger guardrails to help keep processes fair and running smoothly. He explained that these revisions were designed to address prior concerns, such as inconsistencies in committee reporting and member participation. He emphasized that fresh perspectives would be greatly appreciated as part of this review. Ginger Cannon added that the target is to present draft revisions in April, with the hope of bringing forward an action item for adoption in May. Kerri confirmed that the timeline would be added to the board's forward-looking calendar. Ginger noted that the review timeline also depends on Cameron Johnson's legal review schedule, as ordinance-related changes require advance coordination. Kerri then moved around the table and invited an update on Urban Trails. Thomas Merrill shared that he has transitioned into the Urban Trails leadership role. He and Melanie met in January for an informal discussion about priorities for the coming year. Given low attendance at that meeting, they questioned whether the current meeting schedule—the fourth Monday at 5:00 p.m.—still works for committee members. Thomas recently emailed all committee members to confirm availability. Unless significant conflicts arise, the committee plans to resume meetings in February and reestablish momentum. Ginger asked whether representatives from TAB or BAC remain on the committee, and Thomas confirmed that they do. Melanie noted there had been some confusion with multiple Google Meet links and prior ownership of the calendar invite. Thomas explained that the leadership transition prompted the shift in invite ownership, and Kerri suggested creating a new meeting link to avoid further confusion. Thomas agreed to coordinate that to ensure members clearly understand that meetings are continuing. Kerri then invited the Communications Committee to provide an update. Sarah Foran explained that she and Christian recently attended their first Communications Committee meeting as new members. During their review of committee documents, they noticed language stating that the committee would receive updates from the City and "parse them down" for the board. She questioned whether that language reflected an outdated practice, possibly predating the current written update structure. She clarified that the committee is evaluating whether certain historical responsibilities remain necessary or valuable. Maria Romero shared that she has reached out to Ashlyn Larson, her predecessor, and the Communications Director to better understand the historical role and purpose of the Communications Committee. Kim Shelley has been invited to participate in that discussion. Maria committed to reporting back after that meeting and expressed her intent to support the committee's evolution, acknowledging that she does not have full historical context. Aaron asked for clarification about how Sarah was interpreting the"parse down" language. Sarah explained that she assumed it referred to summarizing city updates for board consumption, similar to what written updates now provide. Ginger Cannon provided historical context, explaining that at the time the Communications Committee structure was created, Salt Lake City's communications environment was very different. Public Lands did not have the same internal communications capacity it has today, and some PNUT members previously held city positions that gave them access to communications channels. As staff capacity has expanded significantly, the committee's role has naturally shifted. Ginger emphasized that committees may adjust their structure within their governing documents, but substantial changes in purpose should be reported back to the board for transparency. She encouraged the committee to revise outdated language to better reflect current goals and to use SMART goals to clarify direction. Aaron noted that he would like to see communications function more bi-directionally. He expressed interest in improving the board's ability to receive information and also to communicate more effectively outward to the community. Sarah agreed and shared that internal versus external communication has been a central focus of the committee's recent discussions. She outlined several goals moving forward, including reviewing and potentially improving the external website to make it easier for the public to contact the board, and reorganizing the shared Google Drive to improve usability and accessibility. Cameron Johnson reminded members that while reorganizing the Google Drive is appropriate, substantive documents should not be deleted. Kerri Nakamura referenced language in the bylaws indicating that the board chair is responsible for serving as the repository of documents. Ginger clarified that this responsibility can be delegated. Christian Chavez raised the question of whether social media remains a committee responsibility, as referenced in the bylaws. Ginger explained that when the bylaws were drafted, staff relied more heavily on the board to expand social media presence. Since then, Public Lands has experienced substantial growth in staff capacity and communications infrastructure, shifting that responsibility primarily to staff. She expressed support for the committee's renewed focus on strengthening internal systems. Sarah added that having access to the department's strategic communications plan could help the board align more effectively with upcoming initiatives and better engage with the community. Kerri agreed and noted that board members often want to support the department on social media but may not know the correct accounts to tag. She suggested that a simple guide listing official accounts and best practices could empower board members to amplify department efforts more easily. Sarah concluded that one goal is to create a practical on board i ng-style resource for board members—a"board guide"—that consolidates key information such as staff contacts, social media links, and general communication protocols. Kerri observed that this aligns with prior conversations about strengthening onboarding and increasing board member engagement. Austin Whitehead then provided a Foothills Committee update. The committee met prior to the board meeting and used the time to connect with Tyler and review current projects. One major upcoming item is the Environmental Dispute Resolution Report, which is currently in the interview phase. A preliminary report is expected soon. Ginger asked whether there were mechanisms in place to ensure timely delivery of the report. Austin responded lightheartedly, indicating that the process is ongoing. Melanie Perhson added that Soren Simonsen is tentatively scheduled to provide a stakeholder presentation in either February or March, pending confirmation. She also shared that she has drafted SMART goals for the committee but has not yet circulated them for feedback. Additionally, she has been making an effort to communicate more regularly with the department, particularly in light of the potential adoption of the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan. Melanie noted that she has been sharing relevant information on social media, including a survey from the Jordan River Commission regarding conditions along the Jordan River. She offered to circulate the survey to board members. Kerri responded that she would appreciate receiving it. . C. Board comments and question period, & request for future agenda items 10 mins Melanie Perhrson also shared a recent observation from a walk near the International Peace Gardens, where she noticed significant vegetation clearing to increase sight lines. While she acknowledged the visibility improvements, she expressed concern about potential ecological impacts, including coming across what appeared to be a damaged nest. She voiced curiosity about how vegetation management decisions balance safety objectives with habitat protection Kim Shelley provided a brief overview, noting that she and Tyler are coordinating with the aviary to guide vegetation management during the bird nesting season. She explained that their work requires balancing public safety, ecological impacts, and the preservation of hiding areas that deter pro-social behavior. She invited Tyler to add further context. Tyler Murdock affirmed Kim's summary, acknowledging the complexity of the balance. He emphasized that the current efforts are limited and focused on clearing invasive areas that have caused persistent problems. Melanie Perhson noted that unusual weather patterns are affecting bird behavior, adding another layer of complexity. Tyler agreed, recognizing the stark changes along the Jordan River and highlighting that the work also creates opportunities to improve understory and habitat in other areas. Melanie thanked them for the clarification. Maria Romero asked whether she could share a related link in the meeting recap, and Melanie agreed, confirming she would send it later that evening. Ginger Cannon added a general observation regarding vegetation clearing on golf courses, now under the board's oversight. She suggested evaluating whether similar standards around ecological impact and nesting protection are applied in those areas. Kerri Nakamura then asked if there were any additional board questions or requests for future agenda items. Melanie Perhson inquired about the staff-led bathroom study, noting her concern for family-friendly park facilities. She described the poor condition of restrooms during a recent park visit and emphasized that safe and accessible bathrooms are critical to encouraging families to use parks. Kerri agreed, acknowledging the concern, particularly for older women needing access to facilities, and noted that the City Creek bathrooms are relevant to that discussion. Eric McGill raised a question regarding park capacity management, particularly in relation to new plazas such as Fairmont Park. He asked for clarity on how capacities are determined, how different types of events are accommodated, and how planning accounts for factors like food trucks or event layout. Ginger Cannon suggested that the master plan may address capacity through park classifications. Kerri explained that capacities are formally permitted for certain events but noted that spontaneous gatherings fall outside those parameters. She offered to provide a written update detailing how park capacities are determined, both through permitting and design processes, including examples such as Fleet Block and other parks. Eric confirmed that such an update would be helpful, particularly for understanding instances where event demand exceeds available space, as seen with Laird Park. Kerri closed the discussion by asking if any other questions or comments were raised by the board. D. Board Engagement Opportunities/Requests 5 mins Kerri Nakamura moved to the next agenda item, the Board Engagement Opportunity Request, and referenced the link included in the packet. She asked whether there were any requests for future agenda items, then clarified that the board had just reviewed those. Ginger Cannon asked to briefly return to a previous item. She requested an update on the plan for bringing the mini park discussion back to the board and asked that staff let the board know if additional agenda time will be needed at a future meeting. Maria Romero responded that she would follow up as needed. Kerri then returned to the engagement link and confirmed that it was active when distributed. She asked Kim Shelley whether there were any near-term items the board should keep on its radar aside from the February 27 event. Kim indicated there were no additional major items but mentioned an upcoming cloud-watching activity. Kerri noted that it had already been added to the events calendar and commented positively on the creativity of the event. Austin Whitehead mentioned an upcoming cemetery history tour that he described as particularly interesting, noting that it has been well received in the past. Sarah Foran asked whether there is a centralized calendar listing these types of events, as she frequently sees them promoted on Facebook and Instagram but had not explored whether a full calendar exists. Maria Romero confirmed that the shared link includes the events calendar. Maria Romero also added that at the end of March, the Communications Committee will send the seasonal events mailer to print. She explained that it is mailed to city residents and that board members should receive a copy at their homes. She had requested copies for board distribution but understood that mailers are automatically sent to residents within the city. Sarah Foran asked to confirm that the mailer is widely distributed to city residents and noted that it is a valuable resource. Ginger Cannon asked whether the PNUT Board is referenced in the mailer, such as a note indicating that the board meets monthly. Maria responded that she did not believe so, as the mailer is primarily focused on events. Ginger suggested it might be beneficial to include a brief mention for community awareness. Maria agreed to explore adding a reference before the materials go to print. Thomas Merrill raised a question about community representation. He asked whether it would be helpful for district-representing board members to be notified when Public Lands staff present to community councils within their districts. He suggested that board member attendance at those meetings could strengthen engagement and visibility. Tyler Murdock responded that staff have begun adding community council presentations to the public calendar this year, which will allow board members to see when and where staff are presenting. He welcomed PNUT Board attendance at those meetings and expressed support for increased representation. Kerri agreed that this approach would allow members to attend meetings in their districts without creating an expectation that any one member attend all meetings. Sarah added that members retain flexibility to attend meetings of interest as their schedules allow. E. Written Update: • Parks Division —Liberty Bell Restoration • Urban Forestry—Operational Efficiency Update • Planning & Design— Project Updates • Communications Events Calendar Update Kerri Nakamura introduced the next section of the agenda, written updates. She shared that after reviewing them, she was especially impressed with the Urban Forestry update. She noted how remarkable it was that the division is now fully caught up and able to focus on forward- looking work. She asked that their congratulations be passed along, describing their progress as absolutely amazing. Kerri then referenced the written updates in the packet and confirmed their location. Kerri also expressed enthusiasm about the idea of park rangers beginning to lead volunteer efforts, noting that it was a creative and exciting direction. She invited others to share any reflections they had after reading the updates. Sarah Foran commented that she was pleased to read the update and then see related work in person, which helped connect the written report to real-world impact. Kerri also remarked positively on golf operations performing very well financially, noting how busy the courses have been, particularly on weekends. Aaron Wiley jokingly suggested adding another golf course, possibly even rooftop golf across Salt Lake City, as a creative idea. Kerri then invited Ginger Cannon and Eric McGill to share whether they wanted to provide a broader golf update, particularly in relation to committee-related work. She noted that while golf is part of the department, she had not seen a recent presentation from that division during her time on the board. Kim Shelley explained that although golf is part of the Public Lands portfolio, it does not officially fall under the direct umbrella of the PNUT Board. Golf has its own advisory board, though that body is not currently staffed. She acknowledged that both Eric and Ginger have expressed interest in exploring how Parks, Trails and Natural Lands, and Golf might collaborate more intentionally. She suggested that, if the board desired, future conversations could approach golf updates from that perspective. She also referenced Eric's earlier question about tree-clearing practices and noted that it raised thoughtful considerations about ecological stewardship. Eric McGill asked whether formally incorporating golf under the board's purview would require changes to the bylaws or to the City Council charter. Kim Shelley clarified that such a change would require an amendment to city ordinance. Ginger Cannon suggested that this topic could potentially be addressed through a committee structure. She observed that now that golf is part of the broader department, it may be worth reconsidering the committee's name and scope, given that it encompasses multiple functions within Public Lands. She noted that renaming or restructuring would also require a code change, but a committee could explore that possibility. She explained that this effort could serve as a way to better integrate golf into board conversations, particularly given the ecological impact and scale of land under golf management. Eric McGill acknowledged the idea but also raised a practical concern about workload, noting that the board's agendas and committees are already quite full. Ginger responded that it was simply a potential concept that would need to be formally proposed and discussed. She shared that during previous conversations with golf leadership, there had been disappointment that their advisory board was not currently active. She explained that PNUT Board members had hoped to see more advisory oversight in that area. She described golf as operating under an enterprise model that must generate revenue to sustain itself, making it structurally different from other divisions the board oversees. She emphasized the importance of being sensitive to that distinction while also considering ways to bridge communication gaps. Kerri added that historically, golf has received general fund support, although that subsidy has decreased over time. Kim clarified that a small subsidy remains but has been reduced over the years. Eric referenced a recent funding request and asked for clarification. Kim explained that the request involved either carryover funds or reappropriated funds already allocated to golf, rather than a new general fund subsidy. Kerri concluded by noting that the public has made significant investments in golf over the years and that public input into how those spaces serve the community remains important. She emphasized that golf courses function not only as recreational venues but also as significant green spaces with ecological value. She reflected that stewardship of those lands aligns with the broader role of the board. Kerri Nakamura thanked members for the discussion and asked if there were any additional comments. Regarding the written updates before moving on. E. Next meeting: Thursday, March 5,2026 Eric McGill, Board Member, made a motion to adjourn. Christian Chavez, Board Member, seconded the motion, and all board members present voted in favor. Adjourned at 7:24 PM 7. Adjourn 7:20 PM 0DEPARTMENT of . PUBLIC LANDS Public Lands Updates Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry&Trails Advisory Board Thursday, March 5 Parks: Staff from the Parks and Trails and Natural Lands divisions, along with the department director, met with the District 3 PNUT board member on January 29 to discuss leaf management in public spaces.The discussion included the need to develop a policy to identify parks appropriate for enhanced leaf management; addressing safety concerns related to concealed hazards such as needles or broken glass; exploring the use of leaves in natural areas and perennial beds as an alternative to mulch; and evaluating a pilot using moisture monitors to measure potential water savings.The group also discussed impacts to park appearance standards, strategies to prevent leaves from affecting storm drains or adjacent properties, and the need for specialized equipment sharing.The team agreed to move forward with a coordinated pilot that balances sustainability, safety, and public expectations.Tyler Fonarow will serve as the primary point of contact on this initiative,with support from the Parks Division. He will provide regular written updates to the board as progress is made. Park Ranger Program: The Park Ranger team is saying goodbye to one of the original Rangers.Ashley Wolf. The Public Lands Department is incredibly grateful for her three years and all she brought to the program. Two new hires started this week.Matt Benge is our new Jordan Hub Lead Ranger.Matt used to work for TNL and more recently was a supervisor at Snyderville Basin Rec area. Monica Higgins is our new Ranger on the Fairmont team and has been a seasonal worker with TNL for the last two years.We are very excited to have both of them join our team! Rangers have been leading out on developing a process for disposing of hazardous household waste we encounter in the parks.Most common are canisters of nitrous oxide and gas cans,but we find other types of hazardous waste as well. We have mostly scheduled our programs out for the entire year.The goal was to include those in the 2026 Events mailer from Public Lands. We may still add a few programs but we currently have 6o scheduled. Trails &Natural Lands: TNL Organizational Structure TNL reviewed its org chart at the end of 2025 after the new leadership team created its vision for the future.The leadership team changes were a new Director(Dec 2024), a new Operations Manager position(April 2025), a new Natural Lands Supervisor(May 2025), and moving our Restoration Ecologist into a supervisor position(May 2025).The main shift in organizational structure is shifting from staffing Natural Resource Technicians that are generalists to areas of more specialty.Thus,in lieu of having 5 NRTs that work in nature parks around the City,we have 3 NRTs who now specialize in restoration planting, irrigation,invasive species mitigation; 1 NRT who specialize in the Jordan River and its adjacent parks; and 1 NRT who specializes in our riparian nature parks like Miller Park,Wasatch Hollow, Parley's HNP, etc.This new structure will allow for more targeted training for our staff and more strategic operational planning over the course of our season.We are also shifting many of our summer seasonal positions into year- long part-time positions to offer us more year-round flexibility and continuity with our staff. This includes two part-time NRT positions that focus on training and supervising volunteers (one for trail work and one on restoration planting). Parks&Properties: • Allen Park and Miller Park will both have closures in 2026 for public safety to conduct maintenance projects.Allen Park is currently closed to add a new water line through the park for fire safety and irrigation. Miller Park will close later this year to conduct some historic crib wall and trail repairs. • Foothills: o Planning&Design has been underway in development of the East City Creek and Popperton Zone in the Foothills. Design proposals will be completed this spring and will be shared with the public for input. o An agreement has been drafted and a Purpose&Goals Statement has been completed between the four Foothills public entity landowners.This"SLC Foothills Management Partnership"will meet bi-monthly or quarterly to coordinate management efforts in the Foothills. o A situation assessment has been completed by the Environmental Dispute Resolution(EDR)program staff to determine if a stakeholder working group for the Foothills is needed, and if so,what purpose would it serve. EDR conducted 47 hour-long interviews with key stakeholders ranging from landowners, council members, environmental experts and advocates, recreation experts and advocates,user groups, community members,public safety officials, and other municipal and regional agencies. o Josh McLeod,Trails Team Lead, and Kyle Andrews,Operations Manager,have scheduled our first full season of trail maintenance projects utilizing staff and volunteer events.Josh will be conducting machine work maintenance and Erik Liu, our volunteer specialist,will be leading"volunteer trail days"every Wednesday from 9:ooam— 2:00pm from Spring to Fall. o TNL has initiated a volunteer partnership with the West High School mountain biking team for the 2026 season.We will be hosting team-specific events and will be hosting their student athletes at all of our Foothills stewardship events. • Jordan River: o The Jordan River Vegetation Maintenance project picked up again this year beginning on January 19.They will continue with the work that began in the fall clearing invasive species,overgrown vegetation, and ladder fuels along the City's 9 miles of Jordan River banks from 2100 South to the RAC.They will continue to work until the end of March when they will pause to respect the formalized bird nesting season.They will return in August to complete the sweep of the banks 0 DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC LANDS and remove any in-water debris that cannot be removed during the colder months. Planning&Design: Restroom Study: Public Lands is coordinating with the Architecture and Construction Management Division (ACM)to execute the scope of work for the restroom study,which includes: • Planning study to update planning guidance for city-wide park restroom policy and practice • Design for new suite of suitable public lands restrooms • Design of a new restroom at Fairmont Park Public lands is working on the planning guidance,with ACM managing the new restroom design. Design for the restroom at Fairmont Park is underway and will be accomplished with the construction of the park,funded by the GO Bond.The restroom study is anticipated to be complete this year.