Organized groups press Annapolis council to shift recreation funds to aftercare and field repairs

Dozens of residents, youth athletes and nonprofit leaders urged the Annapolis City Council on May 12 to redirect parts of the proposed fiscal 2026 parks and recreation budget toward after‑school care, scholarships, transportation and field maintenance rather than new offerings such as a proposed city football program.

The appeal came during the council’s public comment period on the annual budget ordinance (O10/25). Veil Garrity, executive director of Play Annapolis, told the council, “Every child, regardless of background, should have the access to the benefits of sports and recreation, belonging, mentorship, academic success, physical and mental well‑being to name a few,” and asked that “any increase in the latch key budget should go toward offering aftercare at these 3 schools” that currently lack it.

Play Annapolis, which Garrity said represents more than 4,000 youth athletes in partnership with 18 local nonprofits, provided council members a written summary of budget suggestions and repeated findings from a community survey of more than 300 families and 17 organizations. Speakers said the top barriers to participation were cost, poor field conditions and lack of access or transportation. “86% of families from title 1 schools said they would use a scholarship if it were easier to access,” Emily Thomasini, treasurer of Play Annapolis and commissioner of Jellyfish Volleyball, told the council.

Speakers pushed several specific changes. Garrity urged expanding the ARPD (Annapolis Recreation and Parks Department) “latch key” after‑school program, which she said now operates in five elementary schools and excludes three Title I schools that serve the highest numbers of low‑income families. Coaches and program leaders asked the council to prioritize maintenance and activation of city facilities, add field lighting and storage where feasible, and finish or repurpose underused properties including the Weems Whalen field site.

Multiple nonprofit leaders said the department’s plan to set aside $32,000 for a city football program — language that some speakers said had been pulled from the budget — exemplified a choice to create a competing city program instead of supporting existing nonprofit operators. “We need solutions, guys. We don't need competition,” said Stanford Womack, who described running a community sports program for more than 30 years.

Tim DeWitt, technical director and field coordinator for Annapolis Soccer Club, urged the council to approve an artificial turf upgrade at the Weems Whalen project (capital project 40075). “An artificial turf field, if it’s laid out properly ... can accommodate practices for about 10 kids in 1 evening on 1 field,” DeWitt said, arguing turf would allow more hours of play and reduce cancellations in bad weather.

Speakers described specific operational problems they said limit non‑profit capacity: inconsistent permitting decisions, denial of requests to place portable storage or lights at city sites, and a shortage of accessible gym space for youth programs. Jeremiah Batchkin, cofounder of Annapolis PEAK Social, said the city’s field policy changes had reduced local teams and pushed activity into other jurisdictions, with attendant economic losses when adults later patronize businesses elsewhere.

Council members and staff acknowledged the comments and suggested follow‑up. Alderman Finlayson asked that Play Annapolis’ concerns be placed on the Housing and Human Welfare Committee agenda for further review; Acting City Manager Vicky Buckland confirmed that the finance committee’s budget amendments had been collected and that council amendment requests would be processed ahead of the next meeting. Mayor Gavin Buckley later closed the public hearing on the budget.

Speakers who addressed the recreation budget included Play Annapolis leaders, volunteer coaches, youth athletes and representatives of existing city sports organizations. Several speakers asked the council to use existing community grant dollars or to amend the ARPD budget to prioritize scholarship access, transportation, facility activation and maintenance rather than capital projects they considered lower priority.

The council did not make a final funding decision during the May 12 meeting; the budget remained under review with opportunities for amendments. Council members repeatedly noted the public hearing on the budget remained open until the council took final action and said they expected to consider additional amendments in the coming meetings.

For now, the primary outcomes from the May 12 session were public documentation of community priorities, a council referral to a committee for follow‑up, and confirmation from staff that submitted finance committee amendments will be incorporated into materials for upcoming deliberations.