I admit that I am obsessed with the poor condition of the athletic fields in the city. (This probably comes from almost three decades of coaching, 25 years of refereeing youth and high school teams, and many years of playing.) While I appreciate that Mayor Fuller increased the allocation for field maintenance by several thousand dollars in this year’s budget, a massive problem remains. The maintenance solution will require a combination of regular city appropriations and, likely, more contributions by users of the fields in the form of higher permit fees. (The youth leagues currently pay nothing in that regard.)
But there is also a pent-up demand for capital improvements of many fields because of decades of neglect, not just a need for ongoing maintenance. An appropriate source of funds for some of those capital improvements would be Community Preservation Act funds. (Yes, the same funds that have been used to support low-income senior housing and will–I hope–be used to acquire the forested open space of Webster Woods.)
So, it was with some concern that I read Mayor Fuller’s recent update and found a misconception about the use of CPA funds. She said:
By state law, CPA funding can be used only for four specific uses: land preservation,affordable housing, historic preservation, or complete renovations of outdoor recreation facilities.
The last phrase is wrong. There is nothing in the law that limits CPA funding to a “complete renovation.” As noted on this site:
In the CPA statute (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44B) the definition of “Recreational use” in Section 2 is actually part of the definition of “open space”, as follows:
“Open space”, shall include, but not be limited to, land to protect existing and future well fields, aquifers and recharge areas, watershed land, agricultural land, grasslands, fields, forest land, fresh and salt water marshes and other wetlands, ocean, river, stream, lake and pond frontage, beaches, dunes and other coastal lands, lands to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve and land for recreational use.”
“Recreational use” is further defined, in this same section, as follows:
“Recreational use”, active or passive recreational use including, but not limited to, the use of land for community gardens, trails, and noncommercial youth and adult sports, and the use of land as a park, playground or athletic field. “Recreational use” shall not include horse or dog racing or the use of land for a stadium, gymnasium or similar structure.
In short, there is a good deal of flexibility for use of CPA funds for capital investments related to the athletic fields. The town of Lexington, for example, used CPA funds for lights on a field and to rebuild a track.
I’d like to see the administration, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the City Council, and the various youth and adult leagues jointly come up with a master plan–with funding sources clearly delineated–to bring our fields up to date and maintain them for years to come. Our 7000+ youth athletes deserve nothing less.
Paul,
Step one is for the City to ditch the expanded NewCAL community/athletic complex for simply a Senior Center and direct that savings to fixing up and maintaining existing athletic fields. (I know, I know, one account is for this, one account is for that — but money is fungible any way you slice it.)
Why is she restricting it sooo much. So many people use the fields. I feel like Webster Woods is going to front line every thing else. I haven’t heard anything new about a Senior Center which is also needed.
Amen to the master plan, Paul!
Paul, lights and rebuilding a track I think are clear capital improvements, especially if the track has any features such as bleachers. I’d also say installing sprinkler systems would be a capital improvement. Grading and re-seeding a field? That’s maintenance.
The CPC is a very active committee, so perhaps one of their members could chime in. But the CPA funds aren’t magical fairy dust you just sprinkle on any expenditure to make it exist outside the budget. We get the matching funds if we match the rules.
And I fully support paying for the work in the budget. Or in CPA funds if someone can prove to me it meets the rules. But I’m not seeing how as of yet.
@fig, I agree. I’m not proposing anything that would be outside the letter and spirit of the law. You mentioned irrigation systems as one example of something that could fit the CPA requirements. But to put in an irrigation system, you might need to recondition the subsoil and rebuild the field. Many years ago, the soccer leagues and the city did that for Weeks Field, splitting the cost. There are similar “grand bargains” to be made now, at many locations across town.
Paul, thanks for working on this. We could certainly use new turf fields, especially lined for 7v7 and 9v9. Even under Fuller’s imperfect reading of the statute, wouldn’t this count?
@Craig, yup! My personal view is that Forte would be a logical location for that, especially because it is already lighted, but others might prefer other locations.
BTW, even on grass fields, I bet if we talked to the NNHS athletic director and soccer coaches, they would welcome playable fields for their boys and girls freshman and junior varsity teams, as opposed to the dangerous ones at Warren and Cold Spring. They can be like playing on peat moss, even days after the rain has come through.
In addition to the state of the soccer fields, I can also add that the baseball fields in Newton are an embarrassment. We moved to Newton a few years ago, and I was absolutely shocked by the condition of the baseball fields in Newton. This year, during a varsity baseball game at Newton South, one of the South player reached first because the second baseman from the opposing team could not find the baseball in the infield because the grass was so long. Their coaches asked if we could “pass the hat” around for donations so Newton could buy a lawnmower. We have also had to cancel night games at Abermarle because there were so many lights out that had not been replaced it was not safe to play. Definitely not the best experience for the kids playing in Newton, especially when they go to other towns and see what well maintained fields look like.
For reference by this group, here is a list of athletic projects other cities and towns have used CPA funding for. All of this is available on the CPA web site (keyword athletics)
https://tinyurl.com/snev877
Of the 110+ projects, Newton has one (it was cancelled). The other project was Highlands Playground which does in fairness include two new fields. One each for baseball and football. However, unlike the football fields at NNHS and NNHS, the Highlands football field is too narrow to be used by Middle or High School age soccer or lacrosse teams. The baseball field is dedicated to ages 11-12 so it also cannot be used by schools. Remember none of High Schools have enough capacity on their campuses so they rely on “city fields” for games (Weeks, Cold Spring, McGrath, Lincoln/Waban, etc.).
Many cities have utilized this program to support athletics. Newton has set higher priorities on “traditional recreation” aka parks. We love our parks and we also love to go outside and play sports. Somehow the later has been pushed down the priority list for decades while at the same time, participation in athletics has been on the rise especially by women and “new sports” like soccer and lacrosse that need “rectangle fields”. Fifty years ago, few girls in Newton played soccer and none of them played lacrosse (the program is only 30 years old). Now drive by any field any day of the week and you’ll see 100’s of girls (and boys) playing on these fields.
There is no desire to use CPA funds for routine maintenance despite the fact that it is under funded by 100’s of thousands of dollars. However, fields like those at Brown Oak Hill have depressions nearly a foot deep. Repairing them is not a maintenance activity. Many of the fields have poor soil that requires amending (well beyond maintenance activities).
Years of neglect cannot be fixed just by starting routine seeding which should be taking place multiple times a season (it’s often done less than once a year). Refurbishing (Capital) programs are needed.
I fully appreciate that our playing fields need better maintenance, but the problem is even greater for Parks & Rec trails and open space. Active recreation and passive recreation advocates need to work together to get a bigger Parks & Rec budget–and master plans– for both.
Consider that the Parks & Rec budget for maintaining playing fields is $575,00, primarily for mowing. The budget for maintaining Parks & Rec trails and open space is a big fat zero.
Our playing fields are heavily used. But in Cold Spring Park, for example, where I have counted usage, the trails are used by more people, of far more diverse ages, in more seasons, and on more days. In 2012, Newton did a survey that found more support for more and better quality trails and bike lanes than anything else, including playing fields. The 2014 Open Space Plan promised to do more for passive recreation, to address an historical emphasis on playing fields.
But when Parks & Rec did a subsequent use survey of their assets to prioritize capital improvements, trails were not even included. Parks & Rec has fixed the tennis courts. They have replaced obsolete exercise equipment. They are upgrading two city playing fields a year (already using CPA funds, in significant part), while trail and open space maintenance has been neglected.
I have met seniors, and others, who have required surgery after tripping on exposed roots and rocks. The Newton South girls’ cross-country team no longer runs along the Cochituate Aqueduct part of the Cold Spring Park trail because of it’s poor condition and resulting sprained ankles.
I am working with Parks & Rec to improve the Cold Spring Park trail in phases, primarily using private funds. We will get it done. But they are hampered by the lack of a maintenance or improvement budget for this work. I have begun to survey neighboring towns, and am finding that many have budgets for trail maintenance, and also for open space maintenance, like removing invasive species and restoring native plants, unlike Newton Parks & Rec. (The Conservation Commission does have a small budget for trail and invasives work on their properties.)
We all know Newton budgets are very tight, with many competing needs. But trails and open space maintenance, as well as playing fields, need meaningful budgets and much more attention.
Alan Nogee
President, Friends of Cold Spring Park
(P.S., if you made it this far. Much more in my upcoming presentation, and that of biologist Eric Olson, at the Green Newton monthly series, in the Library, on November 25, at 7 pm.)
@fignewtonville. Sorry to post again but I wanted to respond to your question specifically. Here is one example of a project from Lexington that describes nearly exactly what Paul made reference to. The opening paragraph could be written verbatim for Newton.
The Town of Lexington athletic fields see excessive use and timely renovations and updates are critical to provide safe and playable fields for all user groups The athletic fields are used by the Residents, Non-Residents, Lexington Public Schools, Youth and Adult League programs, Recreation & Community Programs and by youth and adult organizations and neighborhood families evenings and weekends. Proposed future renovations will include natural turf, drainage, new irrigation systems (where applicable), and site amenities.
https://tinyurl.com/yjtcwxdc
The need is well defined. The desire to make this a priority by the city not so much.
Justin:
My guess is that the filing was written on purpose. Notice there is some portion of capital improvement in each section. Lights, structures, sprinklers are all clear capital improvements.
Again, I’m not disputing the need. The need is well defined, we agree. Whether or not all the costs should be covered with CPA is another matter. I really don’t know the answer, but I think if you are counting on the money someone needs to be able to answer the question, or make sure the CPC has the legal guidance in hand.
Just because Lexington did a project doesn’t mean they only used CPA funds, and it doesn’t mean it actually works. I’d also say that this type of project is worthy, and the city should really be funding it across the city at a faster pace than it has traditionally.
There are many Park projects in the Capital Improvement Plan queue with the expected sources of funding, including CPA, identified. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99660
There’s also a lot of non-park competition, and my understanding is the queue is re-evaluated each year as new emergencies and priorities arise.
@Fignewtonville
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I wish I could send you a personal email but I do not know if I know you (maybe I do???).
You take an interesting perspective when you say that the proposal from Lexington was written the way it was “on purpose”
I agree 100%. Of course it is. Every time a group seeks funds from the City or anywhere else, their goal is to make their request both compelling and aligned with the requirements set out by the funding body. I would be certainly upset if our city officials did not make compelling cases for their projects and structure them appropriately.
Newton has actually put in similar funding requests to the city CIP such as replacing the lights at Albemarle. I’ve not seen that project hit the CPC list yet. So the city has potentially already made some of these decisions without even bringing them to committee??? — it’s not listed as pending on the CPC website.
So this comes down to whether we support using CPA funds for “athletics”. I use that specific term because it is neither open space nor parks. It can be just for athletic fields, and we agree we have fields that need to be rebuilt and improved with capital investment.
The source of funds for the CPA is exactly the same as the CIP (The state of MA gives a little kick in for CPA. Now 12% for 2020). And yet, the way we set priorities for the CPA appears to follow a bias towards some areas and away from others within each block of allocation (my focus is on recreation and the minimal amount that has been used in Newton for athletics). For me I’m unclear how we are setting our course as a community as we plan the future use of funds. It hopefully comes down to “what is the desire of our residents and how do we know what that is?”
Many of my fellow sports leaders have told me. “Don’t chase CPA money, that will take years”. Well I don’t understand why it should. We have many needs for our communities, and I am starting to conclude that the city’s decisions to support those needs may not always align with the size and scope of the demand but rather the noise the demand can make (and I am sure many on this forum will say “duhhhhh” to that). The youth athletic programs are already putting in 1,000’s of hours to volunteer both on the fields and off. We are doing it for our own children yes, but also the community at large. And so, after coming home from a 90 minute practice (often in the rain and/or cold) or a game from an hour away, we just don’t have the time or energy to then “advocate” for funding from our city. May I be bold and say “Why should we have to advocate for a well defined need that many of us agree is now required”?
I have requested a meeting with the head of the CPC and hope to be able to help answer your “is this legitimate” question later.
Apologies for posting again and a soap box moment.
Best,
JT
CPC funds have funded many parks. Most recently Newton Highlands for $2.5 million. Other grants have included Forte Park, Bowen & Cabot, Newton Centre Playground, Stearns & Pelligrini and Newton Upper Falls Playground. No reason the city couldn’t put together an application for other parks and fields.
I think the point I’m making is that they have funded capital improvements in those parks, not the fields.
I would suggest folks who have worked on those projects speak up regarding the requirements.
Or so as Justin is going to do and speak to the head of the CPC who is very knowledgeable and also just a nice person.