Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Splash Pad topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Recreation commission votes to advance splash pad at recreation‑center site

Harwich Recreation Commission · June 25, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After consultants reviewed two candidate sites, the Harwich Recreation Commission voted unanimously to advance the splash‑pad project at the recreation‑center location and asked consultants to prepare renderings and a cost estimate for the CPC October 1 deadline.

The Harwich Recreation Commission voted unanimously to advance a splash‑pad at the recreation‑center site after hearing consultant findings that compared Brooks Park and an alternative location adjacent to the recreation facilities.

"They felt that [the rec‑center site] might be the more ideal location," the chair said, summarizing consultants' rationale: easier sewer/water hookups, consistent parking and lower site‑preparation costs compared with Brooks Park, where water would be costlier to run and vandalism risk was higher. Commissioners noted that Brooks Park remains a strong hub but that the rec‑center site would save on moving a wall ball and reduce parking expansion expenses.

Committee member moved to put the location to a vote; another member seconded, and the chair announced a "Unanimous vote." The commission asked the consultant to produce renderings for the selected single site — a step the consultants said would shorten the timeline and improve the commission's chances of meeting a CPC submission target. The chair said consultants were comfortable with an October 1 target to provide a usable cost figure for the Community Preservation Committee.

Commissioners emphasized two constraints: potential vandalism at Brooks Park and the water‑system tradeoffs between recirculating vs. groundwater return systems. Consultants recommended a groundwater return or cistern reuse approach to avoid hiring a pool manager or needing frequent water‑testing regimes. The commission directed staff to pursue design and engineering quotes under the town's available summer design budget and to report back with renderings and an estimated project cost at the next meeting.