Phillips Park Upgrade Price Tag $2.5 Million in Public/Private Funds
Supporters hope to raise about $750,000 in private funds for the project.
Selectmen got an update from Phillips Park improvement plan supporters last week, learning they plan to raise about $750,000 in private donations for the project.
That money would be in addition to the $1.8 million capital request proposed to go to Town Meeting for a vote in April.
The entire $2.5 million package, combining the public and private funds, would fund installation of an artificial surface at Blocksidge Field, seating for about 1,500 people, as well as lights and other improvements.
Right now, the football stadium has a grass surface and no lights.
Selectmen introduced the Phillips Park upgrade in September, asking the town administrator to assemble a financial plan for the work.
Last Wednesday, Board of Selectmen Chairman Matt Strauss and member Jill Sullivan advocated for the project.
"It's not just a stadium, it's an investment in the town infrastructure," the chairman said. "For the longest time Swampscott let things go."
Sullivan said that as things now stand some fields in town are overused — there is no opportunity to let them rest.
That would change with the addition of the artificial surface at Blocksidge, she said.
Selectman David Van Dam had reservations about the spending.
He asked what would happen to the project if supporters failed to collect the private donations?
Supporters told him a new field would be installed regardless of whether the private donations panned out. Other stadium improvements would be on hold but not the field.
Linso Van Der Burg, a member of the team that is raising the private funds, said the group will have a good idea in eight weeks on whether they'll reach their fundraising goal.
And by the time Town Meeting arrives in April they expect to have the money in hand, he said.
JGD34
10:18 am on Monday, January 23, 2012
I wish the focus of this project/proposal wasn't so narrow. For more than $2 million, I would hope that some money could be set aside for an upgrade on the old, rusty (and dangerous) playscape at the corner of the park. I might support the project then.
Citizen Swamp
10:28 pm on Monday, January 23, 2012
I think Select Person Sullivan pointed out that this project served over 1000 kids in this community. How could that be deemed a narrow slice of our town?
JGD34
8:48 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
My comment was not based on the number of people served, but the narrowly focused demographic, and that there are other areas of the park that need attention too. The cost to upgrade the tiny playscape would be minimal compared to the overall expense.
catsmith
9:15 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I think that upgrades to Phillips Park are long overdue. However I have concerns about the use of artificial turf, both in terms of the cost as well as the safety and well-being of the children playing on the field. Not only does the artificial turf get very hot, but there is potential for increases in infections and injuries.In addition there are still maintenance costs plus the cost of removal when the turf needs to be replaced. (See http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html for more info.) I would like to see how much the project would cost without the artificial turf.
Bob Sherriff
9:03 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Why no information on the type and brand of artificial surface on the field? Is it the same as the one at Gillette Stadium?
Louis Massei
12:30 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
I am wondering how they are going to keep the turf field clean? Between the dogs, geese, seagulls and sun beating on it, I wonder how the maintenance costs will be factored in. The Forest Ave field where I walk my dog is littered with feces not being picked up, but at least it gets absorb in the ground and broken down. The turf field will have that stuff bake on top of it.
Citizen Swamp
4:44 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Swampscott Recycles, are you posting as a member of a town advisory board? What community has "ripped up" their artificial turf field?
Swampscott Recycles
9:05 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
Nope, posting as a tax-payer and concerned citizen who feels that a number of questions should be adequately addressed before moving forward - cost installation, required maintenance, surface replacement costs, and any health issues. http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/artificial_turf_fields_pose_safety_issues/
Some turfs materials contain high levels of lead, zinc, VOCs, & PAHs. Isn't it prudent to weigh out the health risk/benefit? Have we been assured that the material(s) we are subscribing to will provide a healthy playing surface for our young athletes/developing children?
CS, you're right, once a field is installed, it probably won't be removed no matter what is found.
Amy OConnor
8:02 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
I couldn't agree more with Swampscott Recycles and Catsmith. I'm completely against artificial turf. With this kind of money, we could be leading the way with natural solutions. As for lighting and seats - great!
David Whelan
11:00 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
Just a guess, but I bet before Town Meeting votes on the budget this issue will be discussed in great detail. In fact I bet this issue will be the subject of lots of dialog in Selectman's meetings before TM.