Davey Glen Park Needs Additional Money to Proceed

Belmont will need to raise thousands of dollars over the next few months if plans to build Davey Glen Park are going to proceed.

Belmont Parks and Recreation Director Jonathan Gervais pitched the to the Belmont City Council on Tuesday night, which includes three design options that range from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands of dollars over budget.

Gervais spent a the beginning portion of his address to council explaining through powerpoint presentation the layout of the proposed park in specific detail, from the entrance of the park to the placement of the children's play equipment to the wheelchair accessibility of the park.

The lingering issue surrounding the development of the park is the lack of funding, causing Gervais to devise several cost-cutting options and present them to the council and those in attendance.

Currently, there are three options as far as park designs, each clocking in at a different amount financially.

Option One, the most far-fetched of the three, comes in at $805,966.46, and includes five separate park areas, Areas A through E.

Area A is tabbed as the park entrance, Area B is the grass section, Area C serves as the playground, Area D is the trail and outlook, and Area E would represent interpretive signage.

However, Option One is $355,966 over the Parks and Recreation Commission's $450,000 budget.

Option Two, which Gervais said his commission prefers, would cost $634,586.54, and cut out Area D. 

Still, Option Two is significantly more than the Commission budget.

Option Three, the cheapest, estimates $486,490, only $36,490 over the Commission budget.

With Option Three, the playground would be moved from Area C to Area B, and Areas C and D would be eliminated, nixing the grassy area of the park in addition to Area D. 

Gervais said the internal struggle facing the Parks and Recreation Commission is simple: take a risk or play it safe.

"Do we want to go out and try to acquire more funding to build a better park, or move through and build option three; that's the tradeoff that we're struggling with right now," Gervais said.

The Belmont population, according to recent surveys, seems to be a bit torn on not only the function of the park, but the need for the park at all.

Statistics show a third of Belmont residents want an active park, the type of park laid out in Options One, Two and Three, while a third wanted a passive park and the rest don't want a park at all.

Michelle Ladcani, a 40-year resident of Belmont, told the council members they cannot rely on the survey as being indicative of what the neighborhood wants or what other Belmont residents want since that survey went to a very small group of residents.

She added that she lives three blocks from the park and didn't receive a survey until she asked for one.

Ad Hoc Committee member and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Susan Wright advocated spending the extra time needed in order to raise money so that Belmont can avoid Option Three.

Option One is estimated to take 18 months of fundraising, Option Two will require 14 months of fundraising, and Option Three is thought to require 10 months of fundraising.

"I think it's worth spending a few months to give it a shot," Wright said.

In the end, the council decided to begin fundraising with Option Two in sight, but if funding is strong enough, aim for Option One.

"I'd like to see how the fundraising begins," said Council Member Christine Wozniak. "I like Option Two as well, but I'm willing to hold out for Option One."

Mayor Coralin Feierbach said, "Option Two, but if we raise a lot of money, go for Option One.

Council Member David Braunstein pointed toward Belmont as a city known for setting an example for neighboring communities as a basis for success with the park. 

"Someone told me recently, when we, Belmont, do something or build something, we do it well," Braunstein said. "I think we can point to this park."