Share This Article
After lengthy and respectful deliberation in their September 30 meeting, the Sudbury Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) voted 1 in favor and 4 opposed to supporting changes to the Community Preservation Act (CPA) legislation that would allow towns to use the funds for municipal sidewalks.
The matter came up at the request of the Select Board. During an August 11 meeting, Select Board Member Dan Carty asked for the Select Board to send a letter to Sudbury’s legislative delegation encouraging them to push for a change to the CPA legislation. The Board decided to first gather input from the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning Board and the Community Preservation Committee. (Draft letter to the legislative delegation on Page 68)
Sidewalks and walkways are allowed if they’re associated with recreation, housing or historic projects, but use of the funds for sidewalks not associated with those categories is prohibited.
Park and Recreation Commissioner Ryan Poteat, who manages the CPA program as a member of Town staff, argued that changing State legislation to solve a local problem was inappropriate in his view. He felt pressuring the Town to invest in more sidewalks maintenance and creation was more appropriate.
The majority of the commission appeared poised to support the motion early in the deliberations, but several ended up explicitly stating that Poteat’s argument had convinced them to oppose it.
The issue turned out to be far more complex and nuanced than it first appeared. At one point the PRC discussed their role and purview relative to this issue. Since sidewalks and walkways are allowed when directly associated with recreation projects and assets, members questioned if the matter of municipal sidewalks was outside their purview. They ultimately appeared to agree that they’ve advocated for issues that aren’t associated with existing recreation parcels or assets, so this one didn’t seem to hold up.
Things got interesting when Poteat pointed out that a change to the legislation could actually have a negative impact on other towns that don’t have CPA funding as robust as Sudbury. The potential unintended consequences gave some members pause.
There was also discussion regarding whether such a change to the legislation would lead to towns drawing heavily on CPA funds for sidewalks, in turn taking funds away from other projects that have historically relied on CPA funding.
The CPA funds are the primary source of funding for recreation projects in Sudbury, having funded everything from the ongoing Feeley Field renovation to the purchase and construction of Cutting Field back in the early days of the program.
Sudbury’s Department of Public Works (DPW) Director, Tina Rivard, has previously reported that the 16 miles of sidewalks identified in Sudbury’s decades-old sidewalk analysis would cost $27 million to construct today. That dwarfs what the Town generates from the CPA tax surcharge each year. For the last few years the surcharge generated roughly $2.5 million locally, and the Town received a State match of about $500,000 each year. (Data available here.) While the CPC does carry a fund balance (over $8M according to the financial update in 2025), the costs of identified sidewalk needs is still nearly triple the reserves and one year of annual revenue combined.
In a 2025 presentation, the CPC reported that 75% of the allocations from the CPA funds (since the start of the program in Sudbury) have gone to open space and recreation projects. Recreation may have the most to lose if it suddenly finds itself competing with major sidewalk projects for finite CPA funds. And the timing is relevant, as the PRC is pursuing a major project at Davis Field, and it’s possible that new baseball fields at Broadacres Farm/Featherland may be following soon after. The spike in recreation projects follows a robust Field Needs Assessment that outlined a lengthy set of needs across town, which could keep the PRC busy for years to come.
The Select Board is still waiting for input on the matter from the Planning Board and the Community Preservation Committee. Those groups are likely to discuss the issue in upcoming meetings, as the Select Board wanted input by the end of this month.