Council reviews draft parks rules; Parks Committee urges ordinance approach and detailed public permitting language

The Salisbury City Council discussed a draft parks rules and regulations document and a related resolution at the May 19 work session. City staff presented the draft as a starting point and said the administration plans to pursue an enabling ordinance to place core park authority in the city code and then adopt the rules by resolution for easier future updates.

Mike Paretsky, chair of the Parks Committee, and other public commenters said they prefer codifying park rules in Chapter 12 (public spaces) of the city code rather than issuing them only by resolution. Paretsky said the city currently lacks a comprehensive parks code; he and the Parks Committee previously drafted recommendations and urged the council to adopt park rules with clearer legal enforcement and permitting language.

Committee and public comments highlighted several substantive changes they recommended for the draft rules: - Hours of operation: recommend a clear dusk‑to‑dawn or 11 p.m./12 a.m. to 5 a.m. closure window and consistent signage across park entrances; inconsistent posted hours exist in the City Park, a commenter said. Mike Paretsky noted Ocean City uses a 12 a.m.–5 a.m. window as a precedent. - Firearms: the Parks Committee recommended explicit language banning the carrying and discharge of firearms in city parks, including for concealed‑carry permit holders; committee members cited a legal review from the National Recreation and Park Association. - Permitting: commenters asked for a clearer, documented permitting process with examples of eligible activities, liability assignments and conditions under which permits can be denied; Montgomery County and the Capital Area parks permitting materials were cited as reference models. - Animals and dog park rules: commenters said a dedicated subsection should cover dog park rules and off‑leash conditions.

City staff and council members said the draft is an initial working document. City Administrator Andy Kitsrow and staff noted an enabling ordinance is in preparation to provide the legal authority for the rules; the resolution presented at the meeting would be a secondary document that could be updated more easily than an ordinance. Council members asked that the Parks Committee and staff exchange drafts and return with a revised proposal; the administration agreed to bring the item back for more review at a June Parks & Recreation Committee meeting and later to a council work session.

Why it matters: Codifying parks rules affects enforcement, public use, permitting, and liability. Committee members argued that placing core requirements in the code will give staff clearer authority to enforce rules and deny permits when appropriate. Several residents offered line‑by‑line suggestions and volunteered to provide annotated redlines to staff.

Next steps: The administration will share revised drafts with the Parks Committee and the council. The Parks Committee will provide its marked‑up recommendations; city staff will prepare an enabling ordinance and bring the park rules back for committee review and then a future council vote.