Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Winter Park City Commission held a work session on October 15, 2026, at 3:30 PM in City Hall Commission Chambers. The primary discussion focused on a staff proposal to evaluate the potential sale or repurposing of five underutilized mini parks, prompted by ongoing budget conversations and the potential impact of Amendment Three on capital improvement funding. Commissioners expressed strong reservations about disposing of any parkland, emphasizing the intangible and tangible value of parks to the community. A secondary agenda item addressed the potential sale of a city-owned building at the Danny Fairbanks intersection to the tenant restaurant, with proceeds funding a boardwalk and park improvements.
Mini Parks Review
Staff (Kyle, Jason, and John) presented a methodology for evaluating the city's 40+ mini parks, focusing on five candidates: Bonnie Burn, Lakeview, Leith, Villa View, and Alberta Drive. Data from a software called Placer, using geofencing and a minimum 10-minute dwell time, showed extremely low visitation — some parks averaging less than one visit per day over a seven-year period. Annual maintenance costs were estimated at approximately $5,000 each, except Villa View which had higher costs due to brickwork and a fountain. Estimated property values ranged from $300,000 to $500,000 for Lakeview, with others varying. Staff noted that the city's current parkland-to-resident ratio is 17.4 acres per 1,000 residents (well above the comprehensive plan requirement of 10 acres), and removing these five would only reduce it to 17.1. All five parks are within a half-mile of other green spaces.
Commissioners voiced strong opposition to selling parks. Commissioner Lindsay stated she is "strongly, strongly opposed" and considers parks defining assets that increase property values, reduce density, and enhance neighborhood pride. Commissioner Crossada called this an "absolute last resort" that should only be considered if deep budget cuts threaten maintenance of major amenities like tennis courts and playgrounds. Commissioner Lindsey agreed, noting parks are a core reason residents choose Winter Park. Commissioner Crossada also inquired about deed restrictions and reversion clauses, and staff confirmed they have not yet performed title searches on these five parcels.
Alternative approaches were discussed: (1) selling parks to adjacent neighbors with deed restrictions requiring permanent green space maintenance, (2) partnering with the Winter Park Land Trust for acquisition or maintenance, (3) sponsorship programs where businesses maintain parks in exchange for recognition (though several commissioners found commercial signage tacky in neighborhoods), and (4) evaluating other city-owned parcels (e.g., at Winter Pines Golf Course) for potential sale or use. Staff was directed to consult with the public works department on possible stormwater management uses for some parcels.
Danny Fairbanks Property
Staff provided an update on the Danny Fairbanks corner, where the city previously approved a 30% design concept for a boardwalk around Lake Rose and associated parking. The tenant restaurant (Perlas and Saseki) has expressed interest in buying back the building they occupy. Staff asked whether the commission would entertain selling the building to fund the entire capital project — including the boardwalk, parking, and park space. Commissioner support was unanimous, citing benefits such as generating ad valorem tax revenue, funding a high-quality public amenity, and retaining a good tenant. The property is located in CRA District Two, requiring a notice of disposal process. Staff noted that engineering studies (by a firm named Pond) are underway to assess whether the lake bottom can support a boardwalk; if not, the project design would change significantly, potentially eliminating the boardwalk and some parking. The city is also monitoring an old dry cleaner site on the property for contamination, with only a few clean tests remaining.
Okay, then Kyle. Take that off a little bit. Kyle and Jason will kind of walk through the narrative a little bit. And we have it because we're, you know, have some composition and staff team today of millennials, we did something a little bit techy, so I'll I'll make sure to carve out you know a couple moments for for John to talk about his piece. But really this is a response to part of our ongoing budget conversations. And you know, as we think about proactively uh on the heels of the potential for amendment three, what we have to do with our 90% exercise. Uh we need to make sure that we're utilizing our assets effectively and cohesively. And so one of the pieces that we brought up to you a few months back was how do we look at our parks, particularly our mini parks. And so certainly as part of this conversation, there's there's the full spectrum. We're just looking for a temperature gauge, ironically enough, as we get into the middle of October, that's certainly a right time to do that. Uh but um you know, this is really just to get your feedback uh as we think about methodology and the different ways that we're thinking about these things moving forward. Um you know, anything from the potential to not do anything to thinking about different uses, thinking about monetizing assets. All of that, I think certainly within this conversation discussion is on the table. Um but I I do just sort of uh uh uh uh a general thought process and and moving forward the agenda is just um you know, my my role is to give you a little bit of a preamble on that. Um I I mentioned I want to give John an opportunity to have an interactive role as you uh talk about these different types of mini parks and methodologies and how we kind of got to our short list. Uh we'll sort of unveil that here really shortly, but certainly want to give Jason the opportunity to speak to any of these parks that we think about uh maybe utilized um for whatever we think moving forward. So um John, I'm gonna sort of give you the the proverbial mic to sort of showcase what we have in our background as we have these discussion topics. Um if you don't mind just before John starts. One of the things I want to kind of just keep in mind as we do this exercise is that I don't think we're looking at any type of massive maintenance or operational savings in this. Yes, there will be savings depending on how many parks you removed from the potentially looked at, but one on ones there's not a huge maintenance uh or operational savings. Where I think we're looking at this more is that if we get amendment three passing um and it becomes a situation where we don't have funds for CIP, um I think that's when it becomes a lot more of a uh a potential um solution to a problem. Um I know we you know I think I think it's important to also realize with the parks and rec department CIP, um it's not just to fund new amenities or new things, it also has a great deal to do with maintaining some of the major um amenities that we do provide. So like tennis courts and uh uh basketball courts and pickleball courts, those things have to be they have to be resurfaced every five to eight years. Um I use that kind of a wide range because in a I an ideal world you would do them every five years, sure. But we don't we're a government, we're a city, we're not we're not the USTA center, but still, you know, every eight years you need to resurface those. And if you don't, then you're gonna hear about it. Um same thing with you know, your you have to have you know your lights, um, you know, the lights that we've replaced on the sp on the stadiums, on the tennis courts, those things. Um, you know, they're they're gonna last you you know, you get you're gonna get 10 to 15 years out of them, maybe 20 if you're lucky, but you're gonna have to replace them in this in the somewhat relatively you know future. There's something that's and so we have some big costs that that are covered in the CIP. If we don't have funding for them, they're going to have a an impact. So that's kind of what you know. When I look at this, it's not like we're just wanting to get rid of parks, get rid of parks. We're looking at, you know, we have if we have if we get to it, we're gonna have to try to save the things that are most vital. So that's okay, John. One minute. Um Jason, a quick question. Um on these parks, I mean, it doesn't uh from what I've read through it, that they're not getting a ton of use like MLK park or something like that. They're getting really no use in even if it's only 28,000, give or take to maintain them. I mean, it's still something we have to keep up, and it's it doesn't make any sense. It's just like the one,