The Parks & Recreation Commission on Tuesday discussed limiting its Community Preservation funding requests for the upcoming fiscal year and putting a feasibility study for a splash pad on hold.

In reviewing capital projects and requests for Community Preservation funds, Parks & Rec director Jon Lewitus told the commission he hoped to narrow the department’s focus in the next fiscal year. “Less is more at this point,” he said. “We have some really big outstanding projects.”

Lewitus cited the ongoing Pyne Field project as a big piece of that focus, noting that Parks & Rec was ready to continue pursuing the development of baseball and cricket fields at the property. 

“For me, I think we go full bore on Pyne Field and getting this project done,” he said. “I think we tackle [and] finish that project before pursuing anything at least bigger than a park bench or water fountain.”

During the conversation, commission members asked about progress regarding a feasibility study for a splash pad. The Community Preservation Committee included the project in its requests for fiscal year 2026. Voters approved the funding at Annual Town Meeting last year.

Lewitus told the commission that some progress had been made to understand what the project needed in order to move forward but that it was being held back by “two very big barriers.”

The first problem, he explained, is that Parks & Rec has limited space in town on which to build the pad. Proposed locations like Sandy Beach may not have the square footage to accommodate the project. 

Another hurdle is the splash pad’s infrastructure. It either can have a recirculation system or be connected to town sewer. If Parks & Rec opted for recirculation, then state regulations mandate the town would need a certified pool operator on call 24/7. 

Lewitus cited ongoing water bans and the public perception on excess water usage as reasons why connection to the town’s sewer system was not an appealing option.

Commission members discussed their options moving forward. Vice chair Dan Terry, the commission’s CPC liaison, clarified that Parks & Rec has the option to give the money back and reapply at another time.

“There’s a desire for the splash pad,” Terry added. 

Members highlighted other locations the splash pad could go, such as the Fruit Street athletic complex, Center School and Pyne Field. Lewitus pushed back on Pyne Field, stating he did not believe there was room to put a pad along with the other proposed playing fields there.

Chair Kyle Smith advocated for getting the CPC’s feedback on the issue, saying the commission should be “extremely transparent” about where the project stands.

Another project highlighted during the discussion was refurbished lights at Carrigan Park. Lewitus said the project should cost around $109,000 minus contingencies and that he was unsure of whether CPC would fund it. He added that he has had discussions with Hopkinton Little League about taking on some of the cost.

“It would be cool if they participated financially,” Terry said of the project.

Commission provides charter feedback

Town Clerk and Charter Review Committee chair Connor Degan met with the commission to hear feedback on proposed changes to the town charter and how they would impact Parks & Rec. The most impactful change, he explained, would be changing the reporting structure for department head level employees.

The Parks & Rec Commission has the authority to directly appoint and supervise the Parks & Rec director. Under the proposed charter revisions, Degan explained, some of those duties — including appointment authority — would shift to the Town Manager’s Office. 

The commission still would provide policy setting for department programming, performance reviews and evaluations, and goal setting for the director, he said.

Terry probed the issue, questioning whether the proposed revisions were fixing something that was “currently broken.”

Degan said a consistent issue was the review process for town employees. “Most of the folks who are appointed directly by elected boards … go for periods of time without receiving reviews and therefore without receiving raises,” he said. 

The proposed revision was intended to create consistency, and towns that have made a shift toward administration under a town manager tend to “consolidate more of the town-side administrative functions under that position,” he added.

While Terry was amenable to the proposal in regard to reviews, he worried about giving the Parks & Rec director two bosses to report to. “I don’t think that’s fair to a director-level employee,” he said.

Both he and member Amy O’Donnell also spoke to how commission members work to get the community’s pulse and bring that feedback directly to Lewitus. 

“We’re here with purpose … so it matters to us,” said O’Donnell. “I don’t see that same energy coming from Town Hall, worrying about the little things we worry about.”

Smith worried about the impacts of the change, noting there are risks involved with any shift. “If you say we’re going to change this, then what is the risk for us in providing services via Parks & Rec to the community?” he wondered.

Degan was receptive to the feedback, noting that the proposals were far from being codified. He recommended continued conversations about what changes would work best for the commission and the Parks & Rec Department.

“I’m happy to entertain even a discussion if you think there’s some way we can write it just to improve the parts we’ve been talking about or potential problems, even if they’re not issues at this moment,” he said.