I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't deplete funds that are needed for more urgent needs or funds that could go towards easing the burdens on the taxpayers from projects we've already funded that we couldn't afford.

I believe legislation has recently passed to allow usage of CPA funding to include a recreational use component to the open space criteria under certain conditions which were met with this particular project proposal. Its ultimate passage (or not) will be determined by the voters at Special Town Mtg. in October.

Just to make it clear....this has nothing to do with the athletic field project nor the FOTAC group. This is a SEPARATE project/group.

Karyn,

This was part of what the FOTAC supported. I know that everyone's focus was on the turf field but the tennis courts were also a key piece of the vision of this group. I agree with what Barry talked about last night. I've recently played tennis there with my wife and had my young daughters there and the language coming from the basketball courts and the skate park is not appropriate. I think our high school tennis team needs their own courts at the high school and encourage my fellow residents to support the article that will be presented to us at Town Meeting.

Jim,
I too stopped taking my kid to the Livingston area tennis courts in the evenings after similar experience with the language and noise from the Balketball courts.
We go to the neighboring towns.. but feel like an asylum seeker there.
--B

I recently started playing over at Shedd park after watching Wimbeldon a few weeks ago. I would much rather play at Tewksbury High School. I am looking forward to this addition to our town. Just an extra comment: have you ever seen the courts at Bentley? They are royal blue and just look really classy; I wonder what the Tewksbury ones will look like. Can't wait!

J.W.- They (FOTAC) may have supported it but you can't convince me that the artificial turf field with "lighted stadium bells and whistles" wasn't the primary motivation. People have said they might have supported the "tennis component" as more of a community need and less expensive alternative to a mega complex so IMO, it was wise for this 'faction group' to separate themselves as well as LISTEN to the resident abutters when it came to night lighting. That being said I don't want people to confuse the two individual proposals....and ultimately their vote at Special Town Mtg. in Oct. will decide. IMO, the latter is potentially viable, the first is not.

Thanks Karyn. I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than hoping that you will support the passage of the article at Town Meeting for utilizing CPA funds for the tennis courts at the new High School. I agree with bk and Steve and hope that others feel the same way.

Any chance there is a site plan showing where they will be located? I'm having trouble picturing where they will be.

What is important is that they are open to the public. They can be used by the school; however, they are not for the school.

Can someone explain to me how High School Tennis Courts is covered under the CPA?

If it is then the CPA has become nothing more than a slush fund much in the same way the water/sewer enterprise fund is being used to bypass prop 2 1/2.

Notice how the first 2 goals the CPA lists are Historic and Open Space Preservation. These are worthy goals and the specific reason most supported the CPA program. I'm assuming preservation means something?

How many Historic Homesteads and How much open space has the Tewksbury CPA funds "preserved"

Nothing-Zero-Nada

Why not?

http://www.communitypreservation.org/

In these tough economic times how much longer should the Taxpayers support paying EXTRA property taxes towards the "preservation" fund if neither historic or open space preservation ever takes place?

Is this not a fair question?

Who Me,

There have been 17 projects from which CPA funds are/were utilized for Tewksbury. 9 were historic projects including the much needed renovation of our Town Hall, 6 were for affordable housing to meet state codes and standards, 1 was for open space issues at Long Pond and 1 was for improvements at Livingston and classified as recreation. I hope that helps.

Jim

Most were involved with the Town Hall project. A new furnace I believe was one. Walks a fine line between historic preservation, and expected maintenance, that happens in any building. How much land was involved at the Long Pond site?

How many historic homes have been preserved under CPA?

How much open space has been preserved (in acres) under CPA?

If Tennis Courts for High School Tennis Players is CPA eligible then where does it stop?

Why not use CPA funds to build a new Fire Station in the Town Center? Firemen “preserve” property so they would have a more honest claim to CPA funds than Tennis Courts.

Oh yes, 1 project was "drainage" at the Livingston St Baseball Fields that TYBL in turn charges kid's to play ball on. Again, not a CPA worthy project.

If these "slush fund" projects funded to date had been discussed before the CPA fund was established the CPA fund would have been defeated hands down.

You do realize that in some Towns that the CPA fund was "preserving" nothing but pet projects the fund has become a target of recall votes to eliminate the fund and give the Taxpayers their money back.

While I doubt anything I can say will convince you or other naysayers that the CPA is a GOOD thing for our Town and far from a slush fund,,,,being an advocate of said act I will give it a shot. The CPC adheres to strict guidelines under regulations put forth by the coalition. It has never been the purpose of the Committee to seek the projects, it is up to an applicant to come forward with a researched plan in hand to seek funding that meets the criteria. It is then the committee's responsibility to determine via vote whether it is an appropriate use according to the statute. The committee is made up of reps from BOS, Planning, Conservation, Historical, Affordable Housing, the Town Manager representing the Rec. Dept. and a citizen at large. To address a couple of your points...funding was initially used for the Town Hall boiler/furnace because the need was deemed both immediate and critical to literally save the building....if it weren't, we wouldn't even be discussing the historical renovation now which includes the preservation of Town records which were nearly destroyed by leakage over the years....likewise the steps to the building which were a safety hazard to the public and anyone working/doing business there. CPA funds also allowed for an historical survey to assess and acquire a listing of all historic properties in Town. FYI, there was a parcel of open space privately owned land that the CPC was attempting to purchase at one point but the asking price was too high.

cont.- As far as the "new" use re. the tennis courts (recreation)....that legislation was just recently passed to add that facet to the guidelines when it meets certain criteria. As to the "worthiness/value" of the CPA as a whole, even though the state match is not 100% as it once was, it is STILL a substantial amount for our community's collective investment and it is money that WE pay into via the registry of deeds that would only go to other CPA towns if we didn't have it so why not get our fair share? IMO, it is still a good bang for our buck! As to the "worthiness" of the individual projects....ANYTHING and EVERYTHING brought forth by the CPC to benefit the Town will ALWAYS go to Open Town Meeting and be put before the residents where the voting citizens can have the final say. If you don't like the appropriation toward "whatever" project...don't vote for it....it's as simple as that.

Looking good on their Kylie!! And I'd love for the highschool to be just a healthy clean highschool again and more of us fellow highschoolers to respect it.

I agree they are badly needed and will be a good addition to the town's recreational resources. Outside of school sports, tennis courts, basketball courts, jogging tracks, and bike paths are something that can be used by entire town and are a good use of town funds.

JUST SAY NO

I really don't have a problem with this. At TM we told them to look elsewhere and they have. I think this is reasonable and would make a nice addition to our town. I also like that they would be open to the community. Of all the things in town to worry about, I don't think this is one. Right now this gets a yes from me at TM. Of course, I'll weigh my decision carefully.

Upon researching further, I wanted to make a couple of edits to my above two posts for clarification.
quote:
"As far as the "new" use re. the tennis courts (recreation)....that legislation was just recently passed to add that facet to the guidelines when it meets certain criteria."

In actuality this recreational use has always been allowed under the existing CPA guidelines: "the creation of a new recreational use".....ie. the tennis courts.
The new legislation recently passed has to do with the "restoration of existing facilities on land owned or bought by the Town."

As for Open Space....that left in Town for the most part is either State Land or privately owned. Again, the CPC does not go out and seek this type of thing and to date they have not been approached by any private land owner.

quote: "FYI, there was a parcel of open space privately owned land that the CPC was attempting to purchase at one point but the asking price was too high."

To this statement I would add..... "and exceeded the appraised value of the land" which is a CPA ruling.

Hope this further clarifies the issue.