Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioners urge rebuild of Earl Legacy skate park; funding and tax impact spur long debate
Summary
A citizen petition asking voters to rebuild the Earl Legacy skate park drew extensive public comment; petitioners say safety and longterm usability require a modern rebuild, while others raised concerns about using capital reserves and the unassigned fund balance—amendments to funding splits were proposed and failed; the petition will appear on the March 10 ballot as written.
Lead petitioner David Gilbert presented Article 11, a citizen petition asking voters to raise and appropriate $800,000 to reconstruct the Earl Legacy skate park, describing structural cracking and safety concerns and noting more than $100,000 in private fundraising already committed. “This is a need not a want,” Gilbert said, urging a long‑term, poured‑in‑place replacement with an expected 25‑plus year lifespan.
The article as filed proposed using $88,000 in private contributions, $234,000 from the Recreation Field Improvement capital reserve, and $478,000 from unassigned fund balance so there would be no increase in taxation if those sources were available. Many residents spoke in favor, stressing safety and recreation benefits; others pressed that diverting reserves and fund balance reduces flexibility for other projects or emergency needs and that the article therefore does have an implicit tax impact if those funds are not available.
Residents debated alternatives, including changing the funding mix so the appropriation would raise less from town reserves (which would introduce a modest tax impact). Several amendment motions were made at the deliberative session to change the dollar amounts or funding sources; those amendments were discussed at length (including whether Department of Revenue Administration review could invalidate substantive changes to a citizen petition’s subject), and the assembly rejected key amendment proposals. After debate, the moderator declared the article will go on the ballot as written so voters can decide on March 10.
David Gilbert and supporters noted safety and accessibility benefits, and that private fundraising would continue; opponents warned that reallocating capital reserves and unassigned fund balance reduces future flexibility and asked for clearer accounting of tax consequences. Town staff clarified that the capital reserve line in question has been used for field reconstruction in recent years and that the unassigned fund balance cannot be spent without appropriation.
