Playing Favorites? WRA Chair Asserts Proposed Field Use Ordinance Is Unfair to Middletown Residents

Editor's Note:  The following is a letter that Westfield Residents Association Chair Jennifer Mahr has sent to the Director of Public Works, William Russo, and the members of the Common Council.  In it, Mahr makes the case that the proposed new field-use language favors organizations that are not necessarily made up of Middletown athletes.  Mahr attended a meeting of the Public Works Commission on Wednesday, March 13, along with other residents, who were told that the field-use ordinance was not on the agenda, hence the public would not be allowed to speak to the topic.  At the end of the meeting, the topic was discussed by the Public Works director, although not on the agenda, and according to Mahr's reporting (see below), the Public Works director addressed his reasons for favoring some private organizations.  In addition Mahr requested that this posting include hot links to Common Council members' email addresses.

From Jennifer Mahr, to the Common Council and the Director of Public Works:

On behalf of the Westfield Residents Association, I would like to raise multiple concerns with the proposed changes to Ordinances 214-37, 214-38, 214-39, 214-43, and 214-44.

The WRA pays particular attention to city policy-making as it applies to land use, so revision to these policies caught our attention. Specifically:

1. In Paragraph B of the current ordinance 214-37, the sentence starts with “Any person may use Pat Kidney Field, Smith Park, Hubbard Little League…” In the Second Paragraph of the proposed ordinance, the sentence starts with “The scheduled use of fields may be made available to the types of organizations listed below, in order of preference set forth below.” Why the change to more restrictive language? If taxpayers paid for these fields, why make it harder for a taxpayer to use the fields? Why change from any person can use the field if they meet the specified requirements to only organizations can use the fields according to priority status?

2. If the new ordinance gives the Superintendent of Parks the responsibility for scheduling athletic games and facilities, why does the Director of Public Works have competing ability and sole discretion to grant or to deny use of parks, facilities, or fields (Section IV-A) or to negotiate and to set tournament use fees (Section II-B)? Where is the transparency in how these decisions are made? How can one team hosting a tournament be sure it was treated the same or charged the same as a different team? The current ordinances (214-37 and 214-38) clearly spell out specific fees for specific field uses, with the overall policy allowing anyone who meets these conditions the right to use the fields. The new ordinance does not guarantee field access if all policy requirements are met - there is still the additional hurdle of whether the Director of Public Works allows it.

3. In a related question, current ordinance 214-44 lists specific examples of the conditions under which the Public Works Director can deny use of a park, facility or field. While the list is not all-inclusive, most listed reasons are safety related. The context of these conditions makes the intent of the policy clear - that under reasonable and safe conditions, following the reservation process equals access to a field. In the new ordinance, the Superintendent of Parks makes this safety call for scheduled teams, which further concentrates the power to grant access or not into the hands of the Director of Public Works. Where is the checks and balances in this process, and why is there no appeals process for a denied request?

4. Where do the fees for field use go? Under the new ordinance, most fees are waived for Priority One users, except for Palmer Field (Section II-A). Additionally, most Priority One users run tournaments, so who gets to keep the fees charged to play in the tournaments? For example, when MYS runs the Fall Wrap Up Tournament in November, teams pay MYS to play in the tournament. If the Director, who gets to negotiate each tournament fee separately for each tournament and/or organization, decides no fee for tournament use needs to be paid, the net result is that private organizations get to use public facilities for free to make money for their organizations. This is the policy we want to have in Middletown? How does this benefit the taxpayers who pay for the upkeep of these facilities plus the overtime for PW staff to be present during weekend tournaments? Why would the city deliberately choose NOT to collect fees that would offset the cost of bonding to pay for improvements?

5. Why does Section II-A include these two sentences? “The city reserves the right to set up an account in the general fund for the purposes of accepting donations from first and second priority users and non-profit organizations for field usage time. Any fee collected by such donations shall go to support the summer camp fund for the Recreation and Community Services Department.” If fees are waived for first priority users and non-profit organizations, why does the city need to collect donations for field use? What is a “fee collection by such donation”? Is it a fee or a donation? How can it be both? If first priority users get their status because they are “long standing organizations” that Middletown "has to take care of" and because they can’t afford the old fees, how can they afford to donate? And why wouldn’t donations be channeled back into the budget to pay for field upkeep? Why is a summer camp fund even connected to a fields use policy? If one team decides to donate, but another does not, does this give priority to the donating team's access to a field? Isn't this called a bribe in other contexts?

6. If there is a 60% residency requirement applied to second and third priority users, why not to first priority users?

7. If Xavier High School and Middletown Post 75 American Legion are First Priority users, doesn’t this effectively shut out any use of Palmer field by female teams and/or teams with a majority of Middletown resident players? More to the point, how can the city justify using bond money to pay for athletic fields that teams with a non-resident majorities have first right to use? If Palmer Field was previously the largest fee generator for field use, why would the town turn away from that source of funding, yet allow a private organization (Middletown Post 75 American Legion) first right to make money off a city property?

8. Why is the Country Club Field listed as part of this ordinance if it has been leased to MYS for 25 years? Is it a city field or not? If it is subject to this ordinance and thus the city's authority, how can MYS argue it has the right to put in turf fields? Additionally, who made the decision and when was it made to waive MYS's financial obligation to pay a portion of Tenant Improvements and Renovations as required by Article III of the Lease?

Taken as a whole, the WRA's concerns about this new ordinance are related to transparency in decision making, equal opportunity for field access between all eligible organizations, and fiscal responsibility. There is no process that establishes a yearly review to see if teams granted first priority status used the fields in a manner that deserves that status. Nor is there a process that would allow new organizations to gain first priority status.

Portland rotates field use between all eligible users so that everyone gets some time. There is no provision for that to happen in Middletown. A related concern is the fact that several of the organizations listed as first priority users (Middletown Youth Soccer for example) are umbrella organizations: they are private organizations who run the youth recreational programs for the town WHILE AT THE SAME TIME operate town travel teams and premier level teams. The name Middletown Youth (fill in the blank) is misleading because it is not a program operated by the town for the town. Middletown has outsourced management of youth recreational programs to private organizations, and this mixing of purpose creates transparency nightmares. The current controversy over the lease of the Country Club Fields to MYS and whether or not a turf field can be built at that location is a perfect example of this concern.

Furthermore, why is the town now scheduled to use bonding funds to pay for improvements to a leased property when the lease clearly assigns responsibility to the tenant for a portion of the cost of these improvements? Who decided and when that MYS no longer had to pay its share to pave the parking lot, build a concession stand, restroom facilities, bleachers and a scoreboard? Most importantly, the current ordinance clearly states that any person can use Middletown facilities provided her or she follows a clear set of qualifying steps and pays the required fee (if required).

The revised policy seems to suggest the opposite: that there is a narrow and unclear qualification process for entities who might be allowed to use Middletown facilities, and it all rests upon the approval of the Director of Public Works. Plus, there is no clear explanation of what fees might be charged and where that money would go.

This lack of fiscal clarity is particularly troubling given this week's national bribery scandal involving the college admission process: the front page of yesterday's Hartford Courant quoted a parent as saying "It brings up the adages that money can buy anything..." A council vote to accept this proposed ordinance makes it look like money can buy field access in Middletown: donate to our camp fund (this is the emotional smokescreen that makes everyone feel good about sending underprivileged kids to camp) and you can have field access for free.

As stewards of the public good and dollars, don't forget the perceived reason for this updated ordinance: an FOIA request brought to light the fact that fees were not being properly collected when "User fees and/or fees are not negotiable and cannot be waived (214-37.B)." So the answer to previously improper management of city infrastructure and resources is this?

To re-write the policy so that no accountability is necessary, fees that could have been used to offset the cost to taxpayers of a $33 million bond are no longer necessary, fees turn into donations (a further tax benefit for private organizations?), and all power is given to one director to grant or deny field access according to unwritten priorities or owed favors?

The WRA does not disagree with the need for new policy language that is easy to follow and updated to "present legal language" (to quote the Director of Public Works during the March 13, 2019 Public Works & Facilities Commission meeting). The WRA does disagree with the Director's assertion at the very end of that same meeting (in a discussion of a non-agenda topic) that the private organizations listed as first priority users (Xavier High School, Vinal Tech, Mercy High School) do a lot for Middletown and so Middletown owes them in return. Doesn't that statement prove our objections right there?What is the true purpose of this ordinance? To fairly administrate city resources for the benefit of all Middletown residents or to have a mechanism for Public Works to use city property to reward favors?

This ordinance is not a shared services agreement between all the available sports facilities in Middletown, private or public, though such a written policy is probably necessary and prudent. Whether or not Middletown should have a fund to accept donations for summer camp is also irrelevant.

Using those discussions to justify this policy is distracting, as this ordinance should be about fair and efficient administration of city property, with Middletown taxpayers as the first beneficiaries.

Recommended changes: A more effective and transparent policy would include the following:

1. Priority users defined in only two categories: first priority users are teams/ organization with greater than 67% Middletown residents, second priority teams have less than 67% users

2. Specific explanation of the requirements or “procedure” set by the Superintendent of Parks to rent a field, with the presumption that anyone can rent a field if all procedural requirements are met

3. Specific listing of the fees required for various field uses

4. Collected fees go back into the Public Works budget for field/facility care

5. A mechanism to make the field/facility schedule visible to the public so everyone can see open/available fields in the schedule (could be an online calendar)

6. Every attempt made to split field/facility use between all eligible users, even if teams/ organizations individually do not receive all the time they would prefer

7. An external appeal process to review denied field/facility rentals.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. I ask that if this proposed ordinance is on the April 1, 2019 Common Council Agenda, that this email be included into the record as public comment.

-- Jennifer Mahr, chair Westfield Residents Association

Carl.Chisem@MiddletownCT.Gov
Gerald.Daley@MiddletownCT.Gov
Mary.Bartolotta@MiddletownCT.Gov
Sebastian.Giuliano@MiddletownCT.Gov
Robert.Blanchard@MiddletownCT.Gov
Grady.Faulkner@MiddletownCT.Gov
Deborah.Kleckowski@MiddletownCT.gov
Eugene.Nocera@MiddletownCT.Gov
Philip.Pessina@MiddletownCT.Gov
Linda.Salafia@MiddletownCT.Gov
Robert.Santangelo@MiddletownCT.Gov