 |
The open space and recreation committee goals
- Review existing plans for recreation
- Identify town and community groups who may have needs for outdoor space on the campus and contact these groups to understand needs
- Collect supporting information to help the public understand the needs and why Fairfield Hills is an appropriate venue
We (Mike Mossbarger, Paul Lundquist, Deborra Zukowski) met with staff from the Parks and Recreation department, including Amy Mangold, RoseAnn Reggiano, Carl Samuelson, and the chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Ed Marks. In addition, there was one member of the public, Karen Pierce, present. At the start of the meeting, we discussed our goal of understanding the thought process behind the plans proposed in 2002 and what we might add to supplement the information for a better informed public.
General Background
- All athletic organizations that participate in town programs must have at least 80% of their participants meet residency requirements for Newtown in order to utilize town facilities.
- Town programs do use school fields, NYA, and the SAC complex, though some schools present difficulties with supported scheduled, on-going programs
- The high school fields can become unavailable with little notice, causing re-scheduling problems
- Hawley school has insufficient parking to support concurrent school and athletic functions
- Scheduling NYA fields is posing problems because of competing programs. That is, programs offered by NYA overlap prime time slots needed for town programs. A basketball league is now paying the full NYA rate to get appropriate court time.
- The SAC complex is subject to negotiations with its trustees.
- Scheduling meetings occur every spring and fall, and are often difficult re: negotiating times across all organizations
- In general, while the town does have an inventory of land throughout town – for that land it does have, neighborhood opposition to fields (as well as a lack of access to basic infrastructure, like water and sewer) limit the conversion of this land to active playing fields.
Comments on existing plans for recreation
- Four all purpose fields (or which there are currently two on site)
- Four youth baseball fields (of which there are currently two abutting the site, that are counted as part of these four)
- Two adult softball fields (of which there is currently one on site)
- Two adult baseball fields (of which one has been constructed – with lights to offset the near-term need for second)
- Note that the amount of money listed as spent to construct the field includes roughly $300,000 required by the FFHA to offset parking, and the amount needed to demolish the existing building on the site.
- The original plan was developed based in input from the participating organizations
- The original plan was a long-term vision. The bulk of the identified fields were to be built in the future (20-30 yrs hence), when/if the needs of the organizations could not be reasonably met with existing fields. That is, immediate build-out of the fields was not part of the original Master Plan.
- The portion of the bond identified for fields was “backed into” and did not represent the entire cost for building all fields
Discussion for supplemental information
- How do our current recreation facilities compare with comparable towns (where comparable is defined in socio-economic terms, e.g., other DRG B (Demographic Reference Group - that is used by BOE) towns?
- Amy came with information on our DRG, and noted that it includes 19 towns. We all agreed that she would drive the effort to compare our field assets with 9 of those towns and Ridgefield. She will report out at our next joint meeting.
- The plan seems to be highly skewed towards a single demographics group. What are plans for other demographics, e.g., elderly, young families, and families who do not participate in organized sports?
- While there is support for all demographic groups in the town-wide planning, there are issues that focus attention on placing fields on the FFH campus, including access to infrastructure (water, sewer), cost of maintenance, etc.
- An overall trail system is in plan to accommodate some of the non-organized activity needs
- The planned recreation center includes “zero-entry” and competitive-style pools, a teen center, multipurpose space with dance studio, and additional classroom space to support a variety of programming needs
- There is a desire to augment the support for others, beyond the trail system – see the “Wish List” below.
- What are the tradeoffs re: adding lights to a field vs. adding more fields?
- This was extended to include conversations about artificial turf. The staff will be looking into presenting these tradeoffs at our next joint meeting
- What are the actual construction costs (green field) and operational costs in maintaining the fields, over and above mowing?
- Staff will collect information and report out at our next joint meeting.
Summary of requested information
- Organizations that use the fields
- Enumeration of existing fields, with number of playable hours both with and without lights (for those without lights – excepting fields used only by young children)
- Calculation of existing fields per capita for the town, and comparison per capita for ten like-minded towns (see above). Note that the towns may report differently re: the use of fields from other organizations. The staff will determine how to call such out.
- Costs of construction and operation
- Discussion about the impacts of “resting” fields
- Broader discussion on lighting and artificial turf
Parks and Recreation “Wish List”
There is some discussion needed, re: whether these should be part of town offerings or if they might be better provided by private organizations. Note that the town provides lots of outdoor tennis courts in parks. Indoor courts may be better provided through private organizations.
Community garden (need to better understand what this means)
Gazebo
Bocce courts
Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing
Picnic areas with playgrounds
Exercise stations (already noted near trails)
Completion of the trails
Current Status of overall work
- Parks and Recreation – met on 11/19 (meeting summarized above)
- Conservation + Sustainable Energy + Pootatuck Watershed Commisions/Authority – attended Conservation Commission meeting on 11/09. They have formed their own subcommittee (Marge~Cramer, Adria Henderson, Michelle Germain) to develop a position on FFH, and will report back to the full conservation committee on 12/14. We will meet with them afterwards. Note we still need to contact the other two organizations noted.
Cultural Arts Commission – Paul/Deb to follow up in person
Commission on Aging – Mike to follow up in person
- Group-B: Letter written and sent to Kevin’s Community Center, Farmers’ Market, and Newtown Youth and Family Services. Email sent to Relay for Life. No responses yet.
- Group-C: Letter written and we are in the process of collecting postal addresses for the various groups and sending them letters.
Expected Deliverables
- Summary of the potential uses of open land, with backup information to help public understand the needs and the choice of Fairfield Hills
- Shooting for documenting information in time for the 12/20 meeting with the Board of Selectmen
Next Steps
- Follow up with Conservation Commission at their 12/14 meeting. Contact Dan Holmes/James Belden to try to pull together related information
- Follow up with Parks and Recreation in mid December
- Contact representatives of Cultural Arts Commission and Commission on Aging
- Follow up with phone calls to members of Group-B and gather feedback from members of Group-C.
- Prepare document that conveys information gathered
| |
