Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Good Farm Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Southampton Committee approves Good Farm Recreation improvements after split vote

Southampton Township Committee · June 1, 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

Southampton Township Committee approved Phase 1 improvements for the Good Farm Recreation complex and added a $250,000 appropriation for the project to the agenda; both measures drew public concern about funding and maintenance and passed on 3–2 roll calls.

The Southampton Township Committee voted to approve Phase 1 improvements for the Good Farm Recreation complex after a contentious public comment period and discussion, and later added a $250,000 appropriation for the project to the agenda.

Mayor James F. Young, Sr. opened the hearing on Resolution 2018-80 allowing Phase 1 work on the Good Farm Recreation complex and took public comment. Several residents urged caution, raising concerns about where funds would come from for construction and long-term maintenance and whether county funding would continue after phased completion. Other residents urged approval, saying the project would provide safer play fields for children and attract families to the township. One resident argued the complex could raise property values and reduce local youth crime by providing recreation space.

After discussion the Committee approved Resolution 2018-80 on a 3–2 vote: Deputy Mayor William Raftery, Committeewoman Elizabeth Rossell and Committeeman Mikulski voted in the affirmative; Mayor Young and Committeeman Ronald Heston voted in the negative. Committeeman Mikulski moved to add Ordinance No. 2018-09—an appropriating ordinance of $250,000 from the capital improvements fund for Good Farm improvements—to the agenda; that motion passed on a roll call. On first reading the ordinance drew the same 3–2 split along the same lines.

Committee members framed the decision around competing priorities. Supporters said new fields address youth recreation needs and long-range community benefits; opponents expressed fiscal caution and concern for taxpayers’ interests. The record shows no binding commitment from the county to fund future phases and no additional maintenance plan was adopted at the meeting.

The ordinance will return for future readings as required by municipal procedure. No timetable for construction was provided during the meeting.