Thank you to the Press for your ongoing scrutiny of issues related to the town’s athletic fields.
There were a number of inaccuracies in your Oct. 25 article, “Parks and Rec votes to use remaining budget for study of athletic fields; finance board objects” which I would like to correct, as well as omissions to fill that I trust will provide constructive context to your otherwise fine coverage and to the beneficial conversation underway in the community.
Knowledge of field conditions is important to any maintenance plan, not just the spring maintenance plan that was the subject of Article 12 of the Special Town Meeting. This is why the very first responsibility set forth in the charge of the Athletic Field Planning Subcommittee (AFPS) is to “Document the current condition of all athletic fields under [Parks and Rec] jurisdiction.” The subcommittee began assessing field conditions in late summer, and—along with the prodigious amounts of data being collected on users and utilization—continues to refine its ratings and findings. While final assessments will be presented later this fall, the subcommittee has completed a preliminary examination of most fields, which will be discussed at the next AFPS meeting.
Of course, conditions change according to the rate of utilization, weather conditions, and playing season. But no documentation of field conditions existed at the time of the subcommittee’s creation, and so even a rudimentary analysis was expected to be helpful. While the specific expertise to conduct scientific examinations like soil pH and percolation tests are beyond the capabilities of the subcommittee, names of providers have been compiled for pursuit of such testing should it be deemed necessary. Indeed, the consultant being referred to lately was just one example of the subcommittee’s collecting and archiving of reports, assessments, and studies funded by other municipalities and conducted by dozens of consultancies.
The subcommittee recognizes that maintenance planning, asset management decisions, and capital improvements will be informed by such ratings, and so finalizing the information that underpins these initial findings is a priority. Given the growing recognition of the problems with the town’s athletic fields, it’s no wonder various parties are increasing their interest in such assessments. But while the Press reported that the subcommittee “has been at work for more than a year,” it achieved full membership and held its first meeting just a few months ago. Nonetheless, it has already issued an interim report (see: www.harvard.ma.us/parks-recreation-commission/athletic-field-sub-committee/files/interim-report-september-2019), which was aimed at informing the planning dialogue at the All-Boards, CPC, School Committee, and Special Town Meeting.
In it, the subcommittee documented its number 1 finding that “No maintenance plans—whether overall or by field—exist for the athletic fields.” And so, as it turns out, not only do no assessments exist, but no maintenance plans do, either. One is left to ponder how the Department of Public Works or the Parks and Recreation Commission can effectively pursue their respective missions or expend taxpayer monies on athletic fields without such plans. It is with those deficits in mind that the AFPS will continue its work to identify potential improvements in management, availability, and planning of athletic fields.
As an all-volunteer board, the subcommittee welcomes participation by all athletic field stakeholders as well as any helping hand from those who seek a collegial and collaborative way to give back to the town.
Dan Daly, at-large member
Athletic Field Planning Subcommittee
