Parks director says pickleball courts, Glen Lake repairs will be paid from impact and revolving funds, not taxes
July 17, 2026 | Goffstown, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Rick Welcoming, director of parks and recreation, told the Capital Improvement Program committee that the department will prioritize projects using revolving-fund receipts and applicable impact fees rather than general-tax dollars. He said the revolving fund brings in about $95,000 a year and that the town currently has roughly $400,000 available for projects.
Welcoming said the department has a $50,000 placeholder for a Glen Lake Waterfront redesign in 2027 and plans to hire a landscape architect to explore options and more accurate costs. "We are getting ready to hire a landscape architect who's gonna help us kinda give us a bigger picture of different options," he said, noting the shoreline has significant washouts and hazards.
On recreational facilities, Welcoming described funding for the planned pickleball courts as coming from impact fees and the revolving fund. "Please understand that. We are not using any taxation dollars to build the pickleball courts," he said. He cited roughly $130,000 of impact-fee money committed to the pickleball project and said the plan may draw about $190,000 from the revolving fund as part of the build.
Welcoming also outlined multi-year priorities: a 2028 Phase 2 of the sports complex that would add two rectangular fields (planning-level estimate about $1,000,000), a 2029 tennis-court reconstruction (roughly $700,000), and longer-term options for a community center or field house (he cited a conceptual 32,000-square-foot facility with three indoor courts and community space). He said the community center could provide more year-round benefit than a seasonal pool, but stressed priorities will depend on available funding and voter decisions.
The committee asked about accessibility and costs; Welcoming confirmed any substantial renovation would include handicap-accessible design and said projects above certain cost thresholds would likely be deferred until funding is available. The presentation closed after committee members discussed interagency coordination with schools on shared uses and scheduling.
The committee did not take a formal vote on any parks items and will consider these priorities as part of the overall CIP deliberations.
Welcoming said the department has a $50,000 placeholder for a Glen Lake Waterfront redesign in 2027 and plans to hire a landscape architect to explore options and more accurate costs. "We are getting ready to hire a landscape architect who's gonna help us kinda give us a bigger picture of different options," he said, noting the shoreline has significant washouts and hazards.
On recreational facilities, Welcoming described funding for the planned pickleball courts as coming from impact fees and the revolving fund. "Please understand that. We are not using any taxation dollars to build the pickleball courts," he said. He cited roughly $130,000 of impact-fee money committed to the pickleball project and said the plan may draw about $190,000 from the revolving fund as part of the build.
Welcoming also outlined multi-year priorities: a 2028 Phase 2 of the sports complex that would add two rectangular fields (planning-level estimate about $1,000,000), a 2029 tennis-court reconstruction (roughly $700,000), and longer-term options for a community center or field house (he cited a conceptual 32,000-square-foot facility with three indoor courts and community space). He said the community center could provide more year-round benefit than a seasonal pool, but stressed priorities will depend on available funding and voter decisions.
The committee asked about accessibility and costs; Welcoming confirmed any substantial renovation would include handicap-accessible design and said projects above certain cost thresholds would likely be deferred until funding is available. The presentation closed after committee members discussed interagency coordination with schools on shared uses and scheduling.
The committee did not take a formal vote on any parks items and will consider these priorities as part of the overall CIP deliberations.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
