Thoughts from a Soccer Dad

I've become a Soccer dad.

For a class project this week, my son had to answer the question: 'what do you want to be when you grow up?' His response: 'an MLS player,' MLS standing for Major League Soccer. [This is on the days when his goal isn't to be a Major League Baseball player.]

For school picture day this week at Cashman, he insisted on wearing his soccer uniform.


With a child so active in their program, I was excited when the Amesbury Soccer Association (ASA) signed a long-term ground lease with the City for space at Woodsom Farm for the purpose of developing new soccer fields for ASA. my wife and I were early and enthusiastic supporters of ASA's fundraising efforts.

So I very much hope that there are new, quality soccer fields in place at Woodsom Farm before my son ages out of ASA's programming.

Given that, why in the world did I not vote in support of the resolution that came up at last night's (9/13) City Council meeting that expressed a commitment from the City Council to use proceeds from the sale of city-owned 'Margaret Rice Park' properties on S. Martin road for the construction of ASA's new soccer fields at Woodsom (I joined Councilor Lavoie in abstaining on the issue).

Why, indeed?

I mean, as my colleagues repeatedly told me last night (amidst the eye rolling and audible sighs), this was 'just a resolution' that had no binding effect (it didn't actually make any appropriation of city $$ for soccer fields). So what's the fuss?

Even though it was only a 'resolution' vote and not an actual allocation of funds, to me it is important to talk through and debate a question before putting my name on something (with an affirmative vote). And the level of discussion and debate that we held as a Council on this issue? Well, on that, the less said, the better ('if you can't say something nice...').

That's why I abstained on the resolution.

Maybe not every resolution is heavy with significance but others are, such as when we resolved to oppose the re-licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Station a couple of years ago.

To me - in my primary fiduciary duty to the city of Amesbury and its residents - a resolution is meaningful when we are talking about resolving to allocate some unspecified amount of money (but likely in the $5000,00+ range, but who knows - see below) that the City does not have from a source that important roadblocks in its way for a purpose that has not been placed into any larger capital planning process. 

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues disagreed and the Council actively avoided any meaningful discussion of this matter.

Here are a few of my concerns.

Unclear status of the properties on S. Martin Road: Decades ago, the city took possession of 3 parcels off S. Martin Road through a tax taking process. In 1999, the City Council voted to transfer custody of the parcels to the Parks and Recreation Commission and declared the properties to be park land, to be set aside for the enjoyment of the citizens of Amesbury. It has been understood since then that based on this 1999 action by the City Council, the land now had a protected 'park land' status under Article 97 of the MA Constitution, a preservation status that can only be reversed by 2/3 of both the State House and Senate in a vote. 

However, given some recent interest by developers in this site, the City has dug in to the issue further and the City's legal counsel has offered an opinion that the 1999 vote was not properly phrased - regardless of clear intention - and so the land was never put under this protected 'park land' status. If this were true, it would make it much easier for the City move forward with selling or leasing the property to a private developer. 

I'll state up front that I'm not a lawyer but having read the counsel's memo to the City, I'm not yet confident that the properties' statuses are clear. The Mayor's resolution has us promising money from a sale that, at least for this Councilor, has a major legal roadblock still in the way - the question of its protected status based on votes in 1999. So, in my mind, it is very premature to be making promises, when we first have some real issues to sort out - very much putting the cart before the horse.

Value of the properties in question: The resolution identifies a need and identifies a solution. Nowhere, however, does the resolution or any of the documentation give a sense of what the revenue might be from the theoretical sale of the 3 properties. Nor did we get any indication of what the Amesbury Soccer Association's financial needs are for this project. 

Would the sale potentially meet the objective (fund fields)? Who knows! Does it matter? Of course it does, otherwise why would we even bother talking about this if the solution wasn't appropriate for the problem? But, again, who knows what the facts are.

Choice of ASA's project to receive the proceeds? Certainly, the ASA's soccer fields project is a prominent non-profit effort being undertaken in Amesbury at present. Maybe you've seen their green and white 'Fields For Kids' yard signs around. So, there's no disputing their need and the worthiness of the project. 

But here's a funny thing. The ink on the ASA's ground lease is not too dry yet (25 year lease, signed about 2 years ago) and an important element in that lease with the City was a prohibition on the ASA seeking funds from the City for the building of soccer fields and it set a very aggressive performance schedule for the ASA to get the job done privately.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the City taking on the very substantial costs of developing fields for ASA's use but this is a rather abrupt (and expensive) policy reversal on the City's part and this decision to now fund the soccer fields is at the heart of the resolution.

In the meantime, the City has a laundry list of other capital needs at is existing recreational facilities that is busy not funding. How does the insertion of a costly new project fit into the City's overall capital planning, let alone recreational facility planning? Why does the ASA project suddenly pop up as a top priority for the City, when its new lease kept it off the City's plate intentionally and we've got a long list of other unfunded capital needs?


It's just a resolution: Funny thing about that, too. It's not just a resolution, it is a statement of policy and intent on the part of the City Council and represents something of a promissory note that the Council has now created to the ASA (unless our resolution are indeed 'meaningless' and not worth the words in them). Without discussion or documentation. Without analysis or deliberation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

So, that is why I wanted very much to move our debate of this resolution to a later date. And, failing to delay the question, Councilor Lavoie and I at least tried to foster some discussion and debate at the Council meeting (to no avail). So I came out of this particular discussion very frustrated. 

And that is why I was compelled to abstain on this resolution, as supportive as I am of its general outcome. 

I often feel that Councilor Lavoie and myself (as well as Councilor Einson) live on a different island than our colleagues, one where we do things very deliberately (we've been accused of talking too much) and, maybe, more slowly. But I see that as approach as at the heart of what the public expect me to do as a City Councilor - research, deliberate, debate, and use caution before rushing into anything, even if only 'symbolically' with a 'meaningless' resolution.
 

Response to 5 CPA Misconceptions

As you may have already heard, I'm involved in an effort to get a question on the local November election ballot regarding the adoption of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in Amesbury.

The Community Preservation Act is a collaborative program between localities and the Commonwealth to raise funds locally for the purposes of:

• preserving open space and historic sites
• developing outdoor recreational facilities 
• creating affordable housing 

The question is not even on the November ballot yet but the debate here in Amesbury has already become quite lively and a good bit of the information I've seen in circulation has been a bit off in my estimation and I thought I'd respond to some of it. Without further ado, here are my comments on the  5 of the more questionable things that I've seen written on Facebook about the CPA so far. Along the way, I hope to highlight some important facts about the CPA program. I'll be writing in more detail about why I support CPA for Amesbury coming up next.

5. Supporters of CPA are like kids with ‘a Sears catalogue at Christmas’: Well, wanting to be in a community that protects and improves its historical assets (and Amesbury is full of them), conserves and improves its open spaces and natural resources, invests in its recreational facilities through continual improvement, and supports housing affordability for its seniors, veterans, and families - that sounds like the best Sears catalogue ever. Should we not want to aim to be a community that is an active custodian and protector of the very things that make it a great place to live? Is aspiring for these things supposed to be a bad thing?

4. “[T]he town loses control of it[self] and the future of our town's livablilty.”: This is an important misrepresentation that needs to be definitively laid to rest. This is exactly opposite of the reality of the CPA program. The fundamental structure of the program is local control of a community preservation fund, in terms of administration, planning, prioritization, and disbursement. True fact - number of personnel at the State level dedicated to 'running' the CPA statewide = 0. Funds are solely managed locally. How? A local committee is created with representatives from existing boards, committees, and commissions with relevant responsibilities - Parks and Recreation Commission, Housing Authority, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and Historical Commission. Citizens can also be appointed by the Mayor. The CPA Committee would set local guidelines, articulate local funding priorities, set the terms of applying for funds, review all applications for funds, and make recommendations for funding. All disbursements of CPA funds would be subject to City Council approval through a 2/3 vote. CPA is a tool for towns to take control over their 'livability'.

3. “Everything that could be delivered with the CPA could be done without the CPA”

Technically, that is true, so this isn't a misconception. However, the refrain has been that the types of things that CPA could pay for are usually 'wants not needs' and pushing for them are akin to dreaming about rainbows and unicorns. Here's just a few of the many things that CPA could be used for, and this is just based on my own top-of-the-head awareness of current needs, I'm sure others could identify more:

• Improvement of River Trail surface and drainage 
• Replacement of playground equipment at Cashman Elementary 
• Completion of improvements to Collins St. Park 
• Rebuild of Amesbury Skate Park 
• Improved drainage at Cashman ball fields 
• Roof improvements at Amesbury Public Library 
• Saving Whittier Hill from residential development
• Planning and creation of trail network in Amesbury 
• Planning and creation of bike lanes, esp. in the village center 
• Construction of soccer fields at Woodsom Farm 
• Improvements to Amesbury’s War Memorials 
• Improvement/reconstruction of Lake Gardner beach 
• Invasive plant mitigation in Lake Tuxbury, Lake Attitash, and Powow River, to protect out water source and improve their use

To me, these are not luxury items or frivolous expenses. They are the kinds of things that add tremendous social value to our community (and real property value to our homes). A favorite example of mine about how the City has typically approached these sorts of things (looking way back) is the roof at our historic Amesbury Public Library. I would have to go a ways back to find a year that this item was NOT on our city's 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Interestingly enough, though, it always shows up as an item on the next year's budget, never on the current year. Next year comes, it has moved to the following year. I understand full well the budgetary constraints that we operate under and that the library roof will always be competing with other important capital needs. But, in the meantime, this community asset - the library - continues to degrade. The purpose of the CPA is to establish a Fund that can support the many projects that at best take years to come to fruition otherwise, while other assets also continue to languish, if not deteriorate. It's great that the youth soccer league leased space two years ago for new fields to be built at Woodsom Farm. How soon and how far into its lease will it go before it is able to identify the $800,000+ that it needs to build the fields? How many fund-raising triathlons will parents have to run to scrape together the estimated $60,000 to replace unusable and outdated playground equipment at Cashman School? The CPA can be a valuable tool to boost, leverage, and supercharge local volunteer efforts and make serious headway against this backlog of needs.

2. “[I]f the CPA were in effect when we acquired Woodsom, no soccer fields. Ever.”: This is another case of opposite day. I believe that what the author had in mind with this comment is that indeed it is true that if land is purchased with CPA funds for the purpose of conserving 'open space', then the Community Preservation Act requires that a so-called 'conservation restriction' be placed on the property and recorded in the deed. What does this mean? Simply that if the purpose of a purchase is to conserve open space, then the property should be, well, conserved in the future (i.e. not developed for commercial or residential use). What's one of the main reasons we might want to conserve a property such as Woodsom Farm and prevent its development for private use? For recreational use by the public. And of course that use is right there in the definition of 'open space' in the Act itself:

“Open space”, shall include, but not be limited to, land to protect existing and future well fields, aquifers and recharge areas, watershed land, agricultural land, grasslands, fields, forest land, fresh and salt water marshes and other wetlands, ocean, river, stream, lake and pond frontage, beaches, dunes and other coastal lands, lands to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve and land for recreational use.

This sort of scarified (yet inaccurate) statement has been a hallmark of many comments that I've heard so far against the CPA. If CPA had been used to purchase Woodsom Farm way back when (leveraging additional match dollars from the state), nothing that we know about how it is used now - including the placement of soccer fields there - would be different, with one important exception. Right now, there is no protection on the property, nothing that prevents the City from selling it off for development the future, whereas theoretical use in the past of CPA funds to help purchase Woodsom Farm would have ensured its preservation for generations to come. Currently, we have no such assurance in place. Ironically, if CPA funds had been used, we could still have the lease for soccer fields AND the property would be better protected.

1.  “Under the CPA, we could lose control over what kind of lights we could install. That's not local control.” Coming in at #1. Presumably, the author here is talking about the use of CPA funds to rehabilitate historical properties (it seems to relate to a nearby comment on a Facebook thread that referenced lights at City Hall). As with open space purchases, there are some standards associated with use of CPA on historical properties. In particular, it requires that any historic "'rehabilitation' shall comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation stated in the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties codified in 36 C.F.R. Part 68." What does this mean? If a property is deemed 'historic' and CPA is being used for the restoration of a 'historic' property then, well yes, there is some expectation that the restoration would meet standard guidelines for historic restoration. Adoption of CPA by Amesbury, however, does not mean we are creating a city-wide historic district or that we all would need to worry about what kind of windows we can install or what color we can paint our house or that someone will control what kind of lights we can install. [Anyone else remember similar fears from when Amesbury adopted the now-popular Green Communities Act?] And I would think that if we have an desire to preserve (or restore/recreate) the historical integrity of a valued historical property, we'd want to do it in such as way as to preserve, well, its historical integrity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm hopeful that the CPA question will get on the ballot and I welcome an open and lively debate about it, if it does. I've been discouraged by the level of fear-mongering that I've heard so far about it and hopefully these remarks are a start to setting the record straight on what CPA is (and is not). You can learn more about the Community Preservation Act HERE. Watch this space for more information.

"Why Don't We Riot?"

I came across a blog post today by 'Public School Mama', a blogger and parent who lives in Boston. She mostly blogs about the Boston Public School system but today's post, titled 'Why Don't We Riot?', struck a chord with me. In turn, I'm writing this longer-than-usual post on a similar theme.

The writer, pondering an example from her law school days about the 'show' of a deliberative process in the absence of the reality of it in a essentially hopeless court case, talks about 'normative legitimacy.'

This professor argued to me that I was missing the point. Allowing Mr. Kelly to participate gave the proceedings a normative legitimacy and people who were allowed to participate in the process had better feelings about the procedure and it’s adverse outcomes if they were given the chance to be heard.

She was writing about the Boston Public School Committee but it got me thinking about the Commonwealth's Legislature and the apparent sham of a process that we all went through with the Legislature's own Foundation Budget Review Commission, tasked with reviewing and updating out of date elements in the Commonwealth's formula for funding local school districts.

Established by an Act of the Legislature in 2014, the Commission was created to “review the way foundation budgets are calculated and to make recommendations for potential changes in those calculations as the commission deems appropriate.”

"Chapter 70" is a shortcut term for the aid that the Commonwealth sends to local and regional school districts to support local public K-12 education. At the heart of Chapter 70 aid is a complex formula that yields an amount of school aid for each district. The formula makes a number of assumptions and applies them uniformly to each district. These include assumptions about health care costs, special education rates, and other factors.

It's no secret among our legislators and the administrators at the MA Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) that the formula's assumptions are outdated and generate flawed results. That is precisely why the Legislature enabled the Foundation Budget Review Commission.

How bad has the formula worked for Amesbury? Check out this graph, which tracks Chapter 70 aid to Amesbury in relation to the total Amesbury Public School budget, 1993 to 2016.[Thanks, School Committee member Rob Chamberlain, for the graphic]

You can see that while our total APS costs have gone up dramatically (red line), our amount of Chapter 70 assistance has not (yellow line). In fact, we receive over $300,000 LESS in Chapter 70 aid than we did in 2000 and that is NOT adjusted for inflation. At the same time, from 2000 to 2016, the total pool of Chapter 70 funding has gone up by 69% (or by a whooping $1.6 BILLION dollars). We are one of only six communities in the Commonwealth receiving LESS Chapter 70 aid than in 2000.

The GAP between those two lines is the difference that has been faithfully made up by the Amesbury taxpayers year after year in increased tax levies on property. [Click HERE for more info.]

That sounds terrible! Can't we do anything about that?

This is my third term on the City Council and for years I've heard Mayors and fellow Councilors bemoan the reality of the steadily rising school costs that have slowly cannibalized other parts of the municipal budget; it now comprises over half of our operating budget. And for years, I've heard that we need to direct our attention to the Governor and the Legislature, because the Chapter 70 framework is not working for Amesbury.

A number of us have done just that. State Reps and Senators have been contacted and letters written.

And when the Foundation Budget Review Commission was established in 2014, we leaped at the opportunity to follow its work and testify. Indeed, in the winter of 2014/15, a number of us presented testimony to the Commission at a regional hearing in Danvers, as well as presented a letter describing the local impact of the flaws in the formula, a letter signed by dozens and dozens of Amesbury residents. [READ the letter HERE.] A few residents even attended other regional hearings and worked closely with Commission staff to get a clear picture of where the Commission was headed. [Read more about the Amesbury School Coalition HERE.]  Make our local voices heard at the state level? Mission (perhaps) accomplished!! Warm fuzzies all around.

That's great! So, what did that Foundation Budget Review Commission do? What did it recommend?

The Commission published its report in late 2015. You can read it HERE. In the end, the Commission recognized that tackling the many flaws in the formula would cost quite a lot of money (say, if health care escalation cost assumptions actually connected with reality) and it made only 2 recommendations, to change 2 elements of the formula only very slightly and over a few years.

OK, dialed back and realistic recommendations, sounds promising, this might provide some real relief to Amesbury. Then what?

Then it was up to the Legislature and the Governor to act, primarily in the form of building the Commission's reforms into proposed FY17 budgets.

Governor Baker's budget did not fund any changes to the formula.

There were several opportunities for the House and Senate to fund the Commission's recommendations this year. Foremost among them was a bill by Rep. Rogers from Norwood. His bill rather simply enacted the Commission's recommendations to make minor but meaningful adjustments to the formula.

Over 100 School Committees, City Councils, and Boards of Selectmen across the Commonwealth passed resolutions this Spring calling on the Legislature and the Governor to implement the Commission's recommendations. Both the Amesbury School Committee and City Council unanimously passed this resolution, with copies sent to our local legislators and the Governor.

Our State Senator, Kathleen O'Connor-Ives signed on to Rep. Rogers' bill as Co-Sponsor. Our State Representative, James Kelcourse, did not. A few of us met with Rep. Kelcourse to discuss this issue and urge him to support adopting the Commission's recommendations but to no avail. The Representative was candid about his rationale: his leadership did not support the bill and thus neither did he. We also debated about how the changes would be paid for but I argued that by NOT acting, the Amesbury taxpayers were ALREADY paying for the formula's inadequacies (see chart above) and will continue to do so until its flaws are addressed. NOT changing the formula is continuing to transfer costs down to the Amesbury property taxpayer.

Another possible path for making changes to the formula is through the RISE Act that was passed by the Senate earlier this Spring. It is complex legislation but among its features was a full enactment of the Commission's recommendations. The House has shown little interest in taking the RISE Act up, however.

Where does that leave us?

Right now, we have Commission recommendations that appear to be Dead On Arrival at the doorstep of the very body that established the Commission in the first place. And that brings me full circle back to Public School Mama. I feel like the gentleman in the court case that she discusses. Our having been given the pretense of being heard "gave the proceedings a normative legitimacy and people who were allowed to participate in the process had better feelings about the procedure and it’s adverse outcomes if they were given the chance to be heard." Unfortunately, the warm fuzzies generated by putting in a lot of time and energy in to making our voices heard at the state level - as we've always been advised to do on the issue of school funding - have been short-lived...and the status quo remains firmly in place.

2016 seems to be a year when a lot of folks are feeling that the process of being heard in a democracy is more the performance of legitimacy and participation, than the reality of it. Changing Public School Mama's closing just a bit, I can't help but feel like that at the end of the day, the only purpose for the Foundation Budget Review Commission was to keep us from rioting, rather than to make any impact. School advocates in Amesbury and around the state will have to think of what hope there is of improving the formula, if even the Legislature doesn't have the nerve to take it's own advice.

FY17 School Budget Update

Well, it is that time of year again and May/June brings another annual School Budget review and vote. Here's my take, with a veritable treasure trove of linked documents.

You can see a complete copy of the FY17 School budget HERE. You can find additional support documentation on this page posted by Superintendent Reese. You can see the Superintendent's PPT initial budget presentation to the School Committee HERE.

The total School budget request for FY17 is $29,669,627. This is up $712,129 from FY16 (or, 2.46%). The School budget represents 51.8% of the overall General city budget (excluding Water and Sewer enterprise fund budgets). The School budget consistently represents over half of the city's operating budget.

Here's my nickel summary: due to a confluence of budget dynamics unique to this year, the School Committee was able to approve a budget that both grew at a lower amount than recent years and made incremental improvements/additions to staffing and programming.We still have a long ways to go to achieve the levels of programming and smaller classroom sizes from the last decade, but this budget at least represents a (quite) modest step forward.

First, what helped with this year's 'windfall' of cost savings? A few things. First and foremost, there are 13 retirements at the end of this school year. All of the positions will be replaced, but almost by definition, the replacements will come in at lower salaries. We also have some special education students returning to the district from costly out-placements, other out-placement special education students who have been re-assigned to other school districts, some student's 'aging out' of out-placements, and increased retention of special education students in-district (cost avoidance). The combination of savings in salary and savings in out-of-district placements 'freed up' funds to be re-directed to new positions or increased hours for other positions. This positive 'perfect storm' will likely NOT repeat next year; by comparison, we only have 3 retirements coming next year.

What was ADDED to the budget, over the current year? You can see the full list HERE of what was added. Here are my highlights, with AMS receiving the most new benefit:

• Cashman: increased Pre-K/K staffing (18 hrs/week) and increased clerical support
• AES: 1.0 FTE SPED teacher, increased clerical support
• AMS: 1.0 FTE 'EAST' teacher (English/Arts/Science Technology); 1.0 FTE SPED teacher. 0.5 of a new 1.0 FTE Adjustment Counselor, shared with High School
• AHS: 0.5 Adjustment Counselor (shared with AMS); 1.0 FTE Science/Tech teacher; 2 PT library aides
• Amesbury Innovation High School: increased SPED paraprofessional support
• Central Office: Increased clerical support to Superintendent

In a meeting that I had with Dr. Reese last week, he could assure me that with the staff additions at AMS, the Middle School will not face the threat of recent years of failing to make its 'time on learning' requirements for the Commonwealth.

Sounds positive! Any other good news? A number of fees will be going down. Per student Athletics fees will be going down by $65, to $285. Co-curriculur activity fees will be going down by $30, to $50 per student. Family cap will be going down by $300, to $900. Bus fees will be dropping significantly, from $360 to $250, with the family cap at $450.

OK, any bad news? More a cautionary note but the gains in this year's budget will be challenging to repeat in FY18, since it is unlikely that we'll see the kind of one-time cost savings that it looks like we'll have for FY17. The challenges for ELL (English Language Learner) students at Cashman will continue. For next year, we'll have 1.0 FTE teaching a cohort that includes students with at last 30 different native languages, which is half that staffing recommended by the Commonwealth. Enrollment figures continue to show an upward trend in percent of students with special needs, this year topping 20% of our student population. Average classroom size at Cashman for Grades 2-4 will be 23-24. Most of the additions to staffing are not within mainstream curriculum offerings (with the exception of the two EAST teachers at AMS & AHS). The district dropped from having 3 of 4 schools at 'Level 1' to only having one school at 'Level 1', using this metric from the Commonwealth.

Finally, the district continues to chase its tail to an extent in regards to capital investment in educational technology. In the very near future, the district will have to meet steep demands for having technology in place that can handle required testing and this on top of the use of computer resources for day-to-day educational purposes. This means having enough units, adequate bandwidth and wireless access, and networking switching capacity to handle the volume. You can read the districts 5 year technology capital plan HERE. Read more about projected enrollment and class sizes HERE.

What else? The Innovation High School may be running into a jam with its facility. Currently, the district rents a building from All Saints Anglican Church (by the City Hall/Police Department rotary) but that lease is running up and the church is asking for an increase. They are currently there on a month-to-month lease basis only. There are no likely changes on the horizon for foreign language and arts offerings. Roof work at the Middle School is on this year's capital improvement plan; similar work needed at Cashman is slated for FY18 (you can read the current Capital Improvement Plan HERE). We continue to have a problem with attrition, especially around 9th and 10th grades, with substantial numbers of families opting to send their children to other schools (including Whittier Tech). We average about 70 students a year leaving our high school. That represents over 10% annual loss of enrollment and not because our population is shrinking but because students are opting to study elsewhere. Competition remains a real issue, especially with St. John's Prep in Danvers having recently expanded into offering Middle School education.

Summary - So, this is a good budget in the sense that it does not take steps backward. I applaud Dr. Reese and the School Committee for taking a more strategic approach than even last year. This year, they explicitly did NOT simply fund the top 1 or 2 priorities at each building but rather focused resources where it seemed the most benefit would be gained, which meant directing more resources to AMS and AHS than to other buildings. This will hopefully prevent some expensive out-of-district special education placements and might help with our attrition problems, but that remains to be seen.

Preserving Amesbury's Open Spaces

It's springtime in Amesbury and that has me thinking about the outdoors. The Amesbury Trails group had it's kick-off meeting for 2016 last weekend and there is a lot poppin' in town, regarding open space and our stewardship of it.

Whittier Hill

Our friends at the Essex County Greenbelt Association have recently made public the very exciting news that they have signed a Purchase and Sale agreement on a good chunk of the undeveloped Whittier Hill ridge line. Where is Whittier Hill?  It is the hill line that runs overlooks both Whitehall Road and Woodsom Farm.

This is about 20 acres of forested land that has a number of virtues as priority open space for the residents of Amesbury:

• It is perhaps the last unprotected and undeveloped ridge line in Amesbury.
• It abuts Cashman School land - there is already an existing trail from Cashman School leading onto this property, used by some educators at CES for science walks.
• It abuts Woodsom Farm land 
• It offers trail connections to: Woodsom Farm, Cashman School, Town Park (via Whitcher Court), and the recently purchased Quinn property at 116 Whitehall Road

If you look at this property in a larger perspective, you can see that it is a very nice link in what we can call Amesbury's 'Emerald Necklace', a circuit of open space that includes: Woodsom Farm, Whittier Hill, Cashman School, Town Park, the High School, the Great Swamp Area, and Town Forest. The vision (ok, maybe for just a few of us at this point) is to create a contiguous circuit of trails that connects all of these properties, for passive recreation use. 


The Greenbelt already owns or manages some properties in town (the boardwalk that was built Fall of 2015 connecting the Town Forest and Woodsom Farm was on a block of Greenbelt property).

They will be embarking on a fundraising campaign very soon for this purchase. You can view the website for this campaign HERE.

Open Space Committee

In February, I put forward an ordinance to the City Council that would establish an Open Space Committee for the City of Amesbury (you can read the original submission HERE, though the Ordinance Committee has proposed several amendments, including the retention of the Parks and Recreation Commission). With representation from the City Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and general public, it would support the City in developing and implementing policy related to the stewardship of open space properties in Amesbury.

Amesbury owns approximately 1,100 acres of open space (view the database here). The two largest parcels are two of the lots that comprise most of Woodsom Farm but did you know that the third largest parcel of City-owned open space is the Merrimack Landing Conservation Area, at 102 acres? You might recall that I wrote about this property two years ago, in reference to the flagrant and unregulated abuse by the previous owners of the Amesbury Sports Park of this property. For me, those events were something of an awakening. On the one hand, even though I was an avid user of various trails in Amesbury, I had no idea about the open space available to the public in the Merrimack Landing Conservation Area. At the same time, it seemed clear that the City didn't really have any robust plans or means to oversee and steward its own open spaces. The Event Permit Ordinance that I submitted and that passed last year was an attempt to help the City regulate the use of its own property and city assets.

With the emergence of the active Amesbury Trails group, the time is right to take this a step further and set up a public body tasked with stewarding the 1,000+ acres of land that we own with active input from residents. We are the only community in the area (city OR town) that does NOT have an Open Space Committee in place to steward open space properties. As any good business owner (or homeowner, for that matter) will tell you, without good planning and active management, your assets will quickly go to waste and will deteriorate in value.

1,000+ acres of open space represents, in my view, a very tangible asset for economic growth and community development that we've barely begun to tap. Sure, a few people might know where the Town Forest is, or have visited Deer Island, or have wandered the trails from Battis Farm, to Po Hill, to Lake Gardner Beach. But our trails are poorly marked, if at all and are only sporadically maintained. We have no management plans in place for any of our open space properties. And we don't really have any priorities for what properties we might want to preserve in the future.

The Open Space Committee measure will come before the City Council for full consideration at our May 10th meeting. Please consider coming out to support this measure.
 +++++++++++++++
UPDATE: The Open Space Committee measure was unanimously adopted by the City Council. Invitations have been sent out to the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, inviting them to appoint a member to the new Committee. We will be looking for three people from the community, as well, to join the Committee.