34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Do you take these fees?



Walkway weddingAlan Kelley and Keri Greenstein got married at the Hagopian Walk on July 7, 2007. Future couples may pay a fee to use the Capron Park site for their wedding.




City proposes charging couples for Capron Park weddings
ATTLEBORO - The marriage business is booming at Capron Park and the cash-strapped city is looking for a cut.

Park commissioners want to charge fees to cover costs for work involved in providing parts of the park, such as the Hagopian Walk or the Rose Garden, for weddings they say are jamming the calendar.

"It's nonstop," park administrative assistant Heather Uriot said of applications to reserve parts of the park for couples tying the knot.

The beauty of the Hagopian Walk and Rose Garden are undoubtedly driving part of the surging number of nuptials at Capron, but the economy could be playing a role as well, Uriot told the park commission.

"Because its free and the economy's bad, I think a lot of people have been using it," she said.
The move comes as the city slashes budgets and work schedules to the bone. Most departments, including the park department are short-handed.

And unpaid furloughs agreed to by all city employees to avoid layoffs are expected to worsen the problem when people take their time off, Parks Superintendent Sonny Almeida said.

While each application to use the park includes a notation that donations are appreciated, only one happy couple out of dozens in recent memory has come up with some cash.

"No one donates," Uriot told the commission.

Chairman Hans Schaefer said fees are justified for the work of park employees, and because the events are not open to the public.

"They're taking public property off the books for a time," he said of the private parties.

Some ceremonies are extensive and involve hard use of the area, one commissioner said.

Commissioner Tony Viveiros said one couple set up about 200 chairs on the lawn for a ceremony.

Almeida said he aims to float the fee plan to Mayor Kevin Dumas today.

The commission did not decide on a specific amount for a fee. Both the mayor and city council would have to approve the charges.


 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 43 comment(s) « Hide Comments

s-plumb wrote on Jun 27, 2009 7:40 AM:

" You still have to go back to the article. What is the point of the fee? If we think $100 is great, why stop there $1000? If we want money take it; just take it all.
On the other hand if you are trying to mitigate an existing drain, analyze it down to the penny, and then determine the most effective solution. "

sunfan wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:56 PM:

" $100 would be a very reasonable basic fee. The city needs to come up with some idea of what it actually costs to maintain these areas to keep them in "ceremony condition"; they could also put on their thinking caps and find ways of offering extra services to add onto their profit: arranging for flowers, tents, ice sculptures, light catering, music, horse-drawn or antique-car-drawn carriages, what-have-you. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 22, 2009 4:09 PM:

" I still can't believe this is a headline, but...here goes:
Step 1) Define the problem. Typically this is backed up with time, wear, etc. and translated into $.
Step 2) Develop a "Problem Statement" based upon this initial analysis. As it stands the Problem Statement is..."?" Don't have one.
Step 5)Establish a "Mission Statement" Ex. Reduce "?" by x%
Step 10) Analysis will determine the cause of the problem "?"
Step 20)The team working on the issue focuses on removing the root cause, taking into account cost and physical restraints, thereby eliminating the problem, and reaching the stated "Mission Statement" (goal).
We are still stuck in step #1. Can't get past it without some value(s).
If we want to raise pennies, just do it. If we value very this we should be proud of that belief.
On the other hand, if there is a real issue, deal with it properly. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 22, 2009 2:59 PM:

" I've not seen anything near the level of activity reported in this "chicken little" approach. But, let's say this became an issue in the next 20 years. At some point ideas could brainstormed (without the headlines)to come up with potential solutions. Just because Tony has an idea doesn't mean we should run with it, without thought.
I like to keep the last vestage of home-town living we have left in Attleboro.
Look at the picture. This is the typical wedding in the garden; small, with very little fanfare. Why are they demonized as "non-contributors"? "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 22, 2009 2:01 PM:

" Ok SPlumb, lets keep going with this The rose garden is part of our public park. Open to the public during regular hours. Let's say that Capron is on the "Best place to have a cheap wedding" list and now every Friday and weekends, various couples start booking it for 3 to 4 hour blocks (1 hour to set up table, chairs, bows, music area, sound system, refreshments, etc ...1 hour for the ceremony, and 1 hour for the reception after, and 1 hour for clean up and put away). Now I know your sitting there and saying its not always going to be that long, but some if not most will. Never mind other use as this gets more popular - general receptions, Birthday parties, political receptions, and local fund raisers. I'm sitting here thinking about the 5 different charities I help and how Id love a Capon Park Reception for them this summer. So that's now various hours that the general public (who paid with their taxes) cant use it, and someone has to clean up, check on the area and do some maintenance that other areas that are not getting as much traffic don't need. Are you still saying that there should be NO charge at all for this? Not even a $100.00 that could be collected by the Rec Department or clerk and used to buy more roses, flowers or materials and labor needed to maintain the garden? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:13 PM:

" I've thought about it, and dissagree it.
Let's play common sense: Don't make a headline out of a brainstorming session. That's all this was. Where is the money going to go, and how will it off-set the funds appropriated for park maintenance? Sure it's an idea, but only an idea, not a "headline"?
The park is maintained whether someone gets married there or not.
I've taken pictures for couples while at the park with my grand daughter. In fact, she and I, dressed in just shorts and a tee shirt have been included in their photos as a simple innocent memory. It's a community thing.
I've never encountered a "mess" when these folks leave. Perhaps we should shift our thinking, and not attempt to gouge pennies out of every person who steps into town. I still believe the paper owes the couple in this picture a huge apology. "

DawnANewDay wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:49 AM:

" To:Splumb and others who dont want any fee at all charged - please just think about it and be open to the idea. Capron Park over the past few years has become so beautiful and well cared for that almost everyone who drives by or visits has good words to say. That being said it does take time and
resources to clean up after any group use. There is trash to pick up (even when groups are told to clean up after them self's), there is grounds to be rakes and repaired if chairs or tents disturbed the area, and of course the regular on-going maintenance to areas that have heavy use. In the past, I
have drove by and seen large pop-up tents, large bouncy blow-ups for the kids to play, up to 100 chairs set up for a wedding/events and many tables with food and drink. I was even told recently that Capron Park is now listed on some wedding online sites of "great local place for a cheap wedding". I'm thrilled to see the Park used, but when a public area is put aside for private use, I believe it is appropriate to request a reasonable fee to be paid for the use. I hope the City can also offer assistance when the fee is a hardship although I believe that a donation of $75 to $150 for a wedding location is a great deal when someone looks at the alternatives. " "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 20, 2009 12:59 PM:

" saywhat: it's hilarious that this passes for headline news. I condemned the effort to tax the innocent use of this garden. There was no mention of 0bama. As Mr. Miyagi would saystay focused "

saywhat wrote on Jun 20, 2009 10:44 AM:

" It's funny how s=plumb doesn't think this is news -- the city trying to charge a 'tax'. If Obama or the state came up with this fee plan he'd be going crazy about overtaxation, etc., etc. but splumb never thinks things through. You'd think for a guy who spends his day blogging with apparently little else to do in life, he'd think things through a little more. "

saywhat wrote on Jun 20, 2009 10:30 AM:

" splumb, you truely are an idiot. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:43 PM:

" mr_average40 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 12:35 PM:

" I agree there should be fee's. Attleboro resident's should be charged lower fee's than out of towner's!This should be put out for further discussion. Even perhaps getting this into the budget for 2010? It's time to charge out of towner's a fee to use the charm of the park... It's done at the zoo.....Wake up! " "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:42 PM:

" GoBigBlue wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:36 AM:

" I am surprised to hear that the city doesn't already charge a fee to use the area for wedding ceremonies. Being recently married, most venues and country clubs charge a "ceremony fee" in addition to paying a person person cost for dinner and even a room rental fee. The city could easily make at least $500 per wedding ceremony!! Or they could just charge a smaller application fee. I believe that is what is done for the Jamestown Cliffs in RI. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:15 PM:

" sunnie13: "If" there is added maintenance a fee may be the right way to go, but to just bring in revenue it's wrong. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 19, 2009 4:40 AM:

" Edmund.Dantes: real world...what else is a bunch of flowers and some sod used for? The area is a pleasant distraction that we pay to maintain regardless of whether kids play on it, teens play in it, or a group of 6-10 people watch weddings vows around it. Don't compare NY in the '70's to Attleboro today. Over-spending and excessive taxes and fees caused their problems.
I understand you may have stayed at a Holiday Inn, but that's about it. "

sunnie13 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:23 PM:

" WOW...Let's be realistic....the park costs the city money...maintenance costs money....nothing is free...I do not fault anyone who does not donate a fee...Who would that "donation" go to? What does that do for future couples? As long as the park makes a responsible, reasonable fee schedule, even if it is a sliding scale for size, what is the harm. "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:41 PM:

" s-plumb, freedom is a word that gets tossed around a good deal when people want to avoid using the word that requires responsibility - liberty. Liberty means not expecting everything or anything to be "free" but, rather, working to earn it each and every day. While that may seem to be overblown rhetoric for an overblown discussion about rental fees for a public park for weddings, it is the principal upon which society in this nation is built. No one should expect anything "free." It must be paid for through hard work, taxes, fees, purchase or by whatever other legal means exist.

There would be no discussion here if the article had been about a film company renting the park for a Hollywood film shoot, but get a wedding involved and it becomes a "freedom" issue. And before anyone points out the dichotomy between a for-profit Hollywood film shoot and wedding, let me remind you that, for all of the romantic trappings of most (but not all) weddings, there is as much of a financial element to weddings (wedding planners, caterers, singers/musicians, florists, wedding gifts) as there is to a for-profit film. So let's ditch the sanctimony and just focus on the real world issues, shall we? "

downtownresident wrote on Jun 18, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Charge them. Half of these people getting married at this location probably don't even live in this city. No reason to overcharge, but a few bucks for application and usage fees seems reasonable. I am tired of us responsible landowners feeling all the burdens. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 4:01 PM:

" For the record, Alan & Kelley, I apologize for this paper using your likeness for profit, as well as ruining your good names.
Happy Anniversary! "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:52 PM:

" And what of this poor couple? Why did the SC choose to exploit & "expose" them this way. I don't think they signed a wavier giving rights to be humiliated on their wedding day. Perhaps they'll look back at this in 50+ years and be mildly amused, but for now, they're mud in the eyes of the SC. What was the quote in this story? "No one donates" The SC can donate for them. In fact, there is legal precidence for a law suit here! "

susan wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Hey I attended Tiffany School many years ago.
We had an outing at the Park every June
No one charged us -- all 400 of us we
trampled over the lawns all day long.
I believe our TAX DOLLARS cover the
maintenance of the Park -- Tell the Park Commissioners to take a hike
Attleboro Residents should be allowed full use of the park The land was donated for this very reason
Do any of you remember 4th of July in
Attleboro about 40 years ago. Games were played all afternoon followed by
a firework display Did you charge??
No No we did not, not even to people who
were non residents Think about the
maintenace back then when seven or eight
thousand people were in that park on the same day. Times were tougher then
than they are now but no one was charged
not even to swim in the old pool at the
park. How much do we have to give up
in the name of a budget. Let the average resident sit down with that budget and a red pen we'll find plenty of extra cash. "

susan wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:16 PM:

" The land was given to the city for free use by city residents. Did the benefactor specifically state "no weddings" Don't think so When that land was donated outside weddings were very popular post depression era
Who knows maybe the benefactor had only weddings in mind
What's next setting up shop at the 95 ramps and charging fees for all RI vehicles??? Be glad people are still getting married!!!!!! "

chiman1111 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:55 PM:

" chiman1111: good answer! Make the fee based on the number in attendance. But then you'd need someone from the City there to count...
You wouldnt "need" to count. A certificate could be obtained by going to City Hall and you could have a generalized number to go by. exa-2/10 guests x amount $ 11/20, 20/40 etc. Its not that difficult to make happen. No need for big brother to step in and count heads. But to apply at City Hall with a gen. count could work "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Edmund.Dantes: Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of freedom, not twisted "legal" precident.
Were you there when the plot of land was dedicated? Did you even know Jack?Slow news day I guess. "

kevin h. wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:29 PM:

" For crying out loud, sell the land and put up condos already. ;-) "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:08 PM:

" s-plumb, did it ever occur to you that there is plenty of necessary precedent for charging a fee for using public facilities? Back in the '60s, NY allowed the free Shakespeare in the Park free use of the park and even threw in trash pick-up. Ever since the infamous NYC bankruptcy of the 70s, NY charges a fee for free Shakespeare in the Park, which is paid through corporate donations and underwriting. And before you bring it up, Shakespeare in the Park IS a NY (non-profit) organization so they could count as a resident who should be able to enjoy the benefits of the park, yadda yadda yadda.

A wedding is use of facilities above and beyond standard uses, many times with a far larger and more concentrated body of people than the aforementioned Frisbee game. Since it's usually held in a "pretty" location of the park rather than a playing field, it intensifies the use of that area of the park, potentially requiring extra care and maintenance. That's why I don't see a fee such as this being out of bounds. "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:53 PM:

" mmarcia forgets that while the ceremony takes and hour at best, set-up and take-down for even a modestly attended wedding takes more time. Most people only ever see the end-product of weddings and receptions as guests. Even brides/grooms don't often catch the full brunt of set-up and take-down afterward. Hence the four hour block rental, though the sliding scale fee idea from hardhearted has merit. "

common sense coordinator wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:40 PM:

" No one wants to pay extra money buts lets be realistic about the differences in going to the park for a picnic and going to the park for a major event like a wedding. Anyone who doesn't see a difference is being obtuse. Going to the park to play frisbee is free but if you go to a public ballfield when the local football team is playing you have to pay for a ticket. You can go to Capron Park for free but not the zoo. Certain things just cost money. I can't imagine a $50 or $100 one time wedding fee would make or brake using Capron Park for a wedding. You can't even rent a tux for $100 so a usage fee for the park sounds fine to me. "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:00 PM:

" You folks are beginning to scare me. Do you actually agree with charging folks to use this space? Will the young lads that utilize these same facilities at night be charged the same fee?
If we use the sidewalks to walk on, will there be a fee for this now? Wake up! Young couples have used the rose garden for wedding pictures for as long as I've been around. There should be a donation, for a ceremony, but a mandated fee is ridiculous. "

terry bosh wrote on Jun 18, 2009 12:44 PM:

" From all of the people who get married there, from all over, $10 a wedding wouldn't hurt. It would help to buy some fertilizer for all those beautiful flowers. "

usafvet wrote on Jun 18, 2009 12:42 PM:

" I'm shocked that the city hasn't been collecting a fee right along. As several people here have noted, there is additional wear and tear placed on the grounds by a large wedding, plus clean-up. Also, as noted, many churches do charge a fee. My church does, and the trustees spent a lot of time and prayer trying to come up with a reasonable fee that recovered at least some of the expenses of maintenance (ie utilities, time for the sexton for clean-up, etc.). Ordinarily, I would say that if the site is open to the public for no charge, there should be no charge. However, given that the wedding does close down a section of public property for a private purpose, then a fee would be in order. "

mmarcia wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:54 AM:

" Edmund.Dante: who would pay "hundreds if not thousands" for a site for their wedding ceremony? It's one-hour at best. Churches cost less!

realist: So you create pathways for people, and tell them to clean up after themselves. Rice is bio-degradable, and so is some confetti.

bridalwishes: wear and tear on the grounds should be reimbursed, but it's easy to ignore a bill after the fact, especially if the couple lives out of Attleboro.

chiman1111: good answer! Make the fee based on the number in attendance. But then you'd need someone from the City there to count...

hardhearted: I've gotta ask... Was he like Elvis? ;-) "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:51 AM:

" The big question...How much to play Frisbee? "

hardhearted wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:23 AM:

" Base the fee on the number of guests invited. There is a difference between a wedding with 100 guests and one with the couple, two witnesses and a saxophone player officiating. (don't ask) "

chiman1111 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:09 AM:

" There are two sides of this story for weddings and extra fees. !. I agree with charging a hassle fee for large wedding events that will take up extra space from local park goers and shut off some really nicely cared for area. On the other hand there have been a number of very small weddings with just a handful if not less people at a very short wedding. Some people just go to tie the know and have a bigger wedding later on in the future with all the hoopla involved. It would have to be a detailed fee for certain requirements involved in order to work. "

bridalwishes wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:58 AM:

" Of course the couples should pay. Just think of the extra maintenance that would have to be done. The ware and tare on the grounds of people walking and or sitting in the same spot. What about those people who feel that they would need a momento, how many roses do you think would be left!!! What if damage was done who should pay to repair it!!!! If you love the park enough to hold your special day there, then it should be no problem to pay a fee. If you are resident why wouldn't you want to help out the city you live in. Besides if you are a member of a church they make you pay!!! "

realist wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:48 AM:

" Normally I would tell the city officials to take a hike, but weddings bring a lot of extra traffic to the park, people park where they aren't supposed to and you have others trampling the plants. Then there is the matter of cleaning the rice and confetti and the water bottles that people bring everywhere these days. People don't think twice about the request honorarium or donation requested by their church that their family supports so why not? People agonize for hours over the proper place settings and napkins so throw a few bucks to city for park maintenance. As long as the money goes into a trust for the maintenance. "

snooker wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:36 AM:

" Pay for private use of public property? Now that sounds like a reasonable idea. Unless you folks have a better suggestion....sans the wise cracks!!! "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Given the fact that citizens pay fees above and beyond their taxes to the city for other services, it shouldn't be onerous to include even a modest fee for renting the spaces on an hourly basis with say a four hour minimum for weddings. After all, what's a $50 fee per hour for four hours compared to hundreds if not thousands for a function hall. It' would still be a discount and the Parks Dept. could use the funds to make up for budget cuts. Just an example of "pay as you go." "

mmarcia wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:06 AM:

" What special things are they doing for weddings? Special things should be paid for - if park dept employees were setting up chairs the City should have been reimbursed. But if they're looking for help to pay for weekly mowing, get lost! "

baldone66 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 9:40 AM:

" Brings to mind some interesting questions: Whom do we pay the fee to, and how much? Do we have to have forms and personnel to process them? All that costs money... which drives up the fees. Compared with the often outrageous costs associated with weddings, a fee for use of the park may be a pittance, but if couple are Attleboro residents, should they pay, considering their tax money already goes to park maintenance 24x7? "

s-plumb wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Does this mean that the park would not require maintenance if folks didn't get married?
I have no way of knowing where this story resides in the pay-for version, but it certainly isn't "Headline News".
To the couple: Nice picture, and congratulations :) "

kevin h. wrote on Jun 18, 2009 7:47 AM:

" When do we have to pay for sunshine? "

harry hindsight wrote on Jun 18, 2009 7:21 AM:

" More a-la-carte services from the city. As I think this may be a good revenue stream for the city. "