Two neighbors of Swenson Field told the Bedford Town Council on June 25 they oppose adding lighting, a public‑address system and permanent restroom/concession facilities at the Swenson complex and urged the town to reconsider using the Nashua Road complex instead.

Roy Carey, who said he lives across McQuade Brook from Swenson Field, told the council the Little League proposal had been defeated in March in part because “taxpayers did not want numerous lighted fields, a concession stand, a restroom facility, and a PA system in a residential area.” Carey also questioned drilling a septic force main under McQuade Brook for a single restroom and urged the town to explore upgrades at the Nashua Road site, which has nearby sewer, parking and retail access along Route 101.

Jane Carey, who also lives at 8 Hancock Drive, said the neighborhood could tolerate daytime and early‑evening play but not nighttime lighting or a PA system. She said paving the parking lot would introduce lighting the neighborhood does not now experience and said such changes would harm neighbors’ ability to enjoy their yards.

Tom Slattery, who said he lives at 1 Homestead Hill Road, also addressed the council. He said some past information about Nashua Road may have been incorrect and advised caution about assuming Swenson is the only viable site. He urged the council not to fund a new design for Swenson if voters had rejected a similar proposal repeatedly.

Council discussion and staff context: Town Manager Rick Sawyer and councilors discussed alternatives. Several councilors said they support improving youth fields but questioned spending design money for a site that voters recently rejected. Councilors and Recreation Department representatives raised accessibility concerns at Swenson — including steep grades that may limit access for people with mobility impairments — and the need to balance drainage, parking and proximity to residences.

Councilor Michael Strand noted that short‑term measures — such as portable lighting at Nashua Road — could address immediate scheduling issues without committing the town to a large permanent project. Others suggested pursuing a private‑public partnership or focusing on smaller, targeted fixes to existing fields while the council develops a long‑term strategy for facilities.

The Facilities Committee members reported they will shortly launch a public education and survey effort to prioritize repair and renovation of town buildings and public‑safety facilities; that process will also ask residents about prioritizing parks and recreation investments. Several councilors said they prefer a public outreach approach to inform any future warrant article rather than authorizing a new design expenditure for Swenson now.

What the council decided: Councilors did not authorize the $50,000 design appropriation discussed previously and expressed reluctance to spend design funds on a site that had been rejected at the polls. The council signaled interest in short‑term, lower‑cost solutions (portable lights, drainage improvements) and in a town‑wide survey to help set priorities for capital spending and possible future bond questions.

Why it matters: Little League and youth sports stakeholders say improved fields and expanded hours are needed; neighbors cite residential impacts from lights, PA systems and increased nighttime activity. The debate pits competing public aims — recreational access for many children versus neighborhood livability and taxpayer priorities — and the council indicated it will pursue further public outreach before advancing a major capital plan.