Skip to content

Permits for the Use of Ballfields and Courts

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Rule status: Adopted

Agency: DPR

Effective date: October 31, 2024

Proposed Rule Full Text
Proposed-Amendment-of-Rules-Relating-to-Permits-for-Use-of-Ballfields-and-Courts-FINAL.pdf

Adopted Rule Full Text
Athletic-Permit-Rules-Notice-of-Adoption-09302024.pdf

Adopted rule summary:

The Department of Parks and Recreation (“the Department”) is adopting rules to clarify the requirements for individuals and groups applying to reserve ballfields and courts under the jurisdiction of the Department and to update its athletic permit fees.

Comments are now closed.

Online comments: 22

  • Franny Civitano

    Hello DPR,

    Generally, I support your efforts to make the permitting process more equitable and fair. Being on our work’s softball team is one of the things I look forward to most each year, and this is only possible through use of DPR fields. Thank you for making this possible. Our league tends to end up most at Commodore Barry Park and, occasionally, Prospect Park. I want sports, and use of these fields, to be accessible to all and a place of community and fun.

    However, there is a communication gap that tends to make using these fields unreliable at times, and it impacts folks’ lives in a real way. After even moderate rain events, these fields (that are often not level or maintained ideally with cut grass) are often left that makes them unsafe and unreasonable to play on. Huge puddles throughout the infield, on the pitcher’s mound, or a swamp at home base. Our league has gotten into a habit of having individual players who live nearer to these fields to go and assess field conditions early in the day in hopes of seeing anyone attempting to rake or otherwise make the fields playable. This means we have people taking time out of their work days to check if we’ll be able to play later that evening. This is all because there is no proactive communication from DPR or the associated conservancies as to the status of the fields to permit-holders, nor is there a clear point of contact to ask about the status of fields, and if someone does have a contact, there is not responsiveness.

    While doing whatever you can to ensure that people who sign up for permits get to use the fields is, of course, ideal, I know this isn’t always possible. I recognize that budget or staffing shortages may prevent this from happening, however, it seems reasonable that as part of the permitting process, there is some proactive, or at least reactive, communication about the status of the fields. We have many parents on our team who have to arrange childcare in order to play at all, and others who arrange their schedules to be at these games. Showing up to a field that is unplayable (which has happened at least once this season) is a huge inconvenience for everyone invovled.

    I ask that as you pursue more equitable access to permits, you also consider what happens after permits are issued and ensure there is proactive communication to permit-holders as to the realistic availability of the fields.

    Comment added July 16, 2024 9:22am
  • Ron Bello

    I am commenting on the proposed rule changes for Practice / Adult Recreation Pickup games not able to be renewed in the new updated rules.

    I am a small host who runs 1-2 weeks a game held with NYC Park Permits which I pay for. Our group of players adjust their schedules to join the games. Making them non-renewable would destroy the continuous nature of adult recreation. Further, my group runs at a bare minimum cost to players. Typically $3-$4 per game of 11v 11 players for 2 hours. Permits at a lighted field are $50.00 for 2 hours. The math being that I make $20.00 or so for ogranizing and hosting.We also host no more than 2 games at most per week.

    Small groups, with limited permits, and a fee structure to just cover the Pemit Fee should be given the option to renew their permits to keep their games going. Parks are to be used by the community. Small groups that charge minimally are what was originally meant to exist before greedy organizers started hogging the fields and charging astronomical fees to play soccer on a PUBLIC Park.

    Having small organizers be given different permits, every season, and keep fighting for them will just make them give up and let greedy organizers take their place. Small hosts should not face off in an arms race with greedy for profit organizers

    The revised guidelines should trend to protect small organizers who look to build a community at prices charged to simply cover the permit fee. Their must be a distinction for groups such as mine

    Comment added July 19, 2024 10:51am
  • MJ

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this new proposed rule.  

    We are a nonprofit sports organization serving a local community in Queens. We have struggled for the last 3 years to secure an adequate soccer field for our children’s program (which by the way, only meets once a week for 2 hours).  We struggled because each season, we had to tackle different locations and different fields since most of the field permits were already issued to other academies and private organizations who hold multiple permits.  While we want to see ALL children developing interest in soccer and sports, in general, we would like to be able to have fair access to the fields so that we can provide this experience for our small community as well.

    So we are very pleased to learn that DPR is proposing equal and fair access for programs like ours.  And we want to thank them for allowing us to operate and hopefully bring more benefit to our community at large.

    Comment added July 22, 2024 4:30pm
  • Lee Becker

    I’m concerned about the cost increase of permits from $8/hr to $20/hr. This has the potential to exclude organizations with a 2.5x increase. In any case where re-painting courts increases the number of permits needed (like Tompkins Square Park), this could go from $8 to $40 per hour, which is 5x and very prohibitive.

    Another thought is could there be an adult not-for-profit category?

    Comment added July 25, 2024 1:50pm
  • Lou Esposito

    We are a small soccer organization and currently utilize Fairview Park since it’s inception and also play a few games on the small sided field at Bloomingdale Park for our 9v9 teams.

    We understand and agree with the premise – “The proposed rules intend to address the dominance of for-profit organizations that have greater resources to obtain permitted space, and thus, ensure better equity and fair access for non-profit and local organizations”.

    1. Our opposition is being charged a fee when non-profits are not?
    We are a SMALL 8 soccer team “LOCAL” organization where many non-profits like Staten Island Soccer or Silver Lake are set up at 501C non-profits for tax purposes with many more teams and large revenue. They are the BIG guys which is not the premise. That is not fair to small “LOCAL” organizations if they are free and we are charged. Sure, we could transition to a 501C but not the idea of being small and servicing the local kids as that takes many thousands of dollars, time and legal fees.

    We ask only that small local organizations should be treated like non-profits who are simply set up that way for tax purposes.

    2. How can we be expected to pay and then allow others to use our field time??

    Today we always allow flag football, individuals working out, other soccer teams to use small slices of the field during practice times during the week as long as we can which is as often as we can.

    Usually we ask them to politely just move to a corner which they do but there are always some who say this is a public park and do not care if we have permits being difficult or at times worse. This will become more contentious when we have parents chip in for field time and now others will be pushing their way onto the field for free.

    Maybe there is a compromise on this as games have a fee on weekends but practices will not?? A suggestion.

    3. When it comes to soccer the non-profits are getting the field time and for free as the big guys not the local organizations.

    For example, No one can request Owl Hollow when it is often free? Other soccer fields are shared with Flag which limits everyone’s time.

    Our local organization started when SI United was sold to a large business Cedar Star and many couldn’t afford the tripling of dues yet still wanted to play soccer.

    In conclusion, we just ask the playing field be fair and excitable for all.

    Comment added July 26, 2024 1:07pm
  • David Zarnitzky

    If I am reading the rules correctly, the new rules limit permit hours an organization can renew to 32hrs/week — even if it is a Non-profit, Youth Sports organization. We run a youth baseball/softball league in the North Bronx and have been the primer users of permits for a couple of fields for … literally … decades. If this rule change goes into effect and we are unable to renew those permits every year as we have been for decades, it will decimate a league that has served hundreds and hundreds of kids in our neighborhood since 1954.

    The purpose of these rules was to “claw back” over-permitting by FOR PROFIT organization. There should be a carve-out to that 32hr/week rule for non-profit, Youth sports organization.

    This is pretty terrible.

    Comment added July 29, 2024 2:07pm
  • Jeff W.

    This creates undue financial burden on leagues that are no-for-profit and only gather people for a casual past time.
    This only benefits insurance companies which are already making record profits, and hurts regular people who are only out in the park for fun. Also, the logistic of raising money, and also choosing insurance plans for these special type of events are very difficult.

    Comment added July 30, 2024 10:04am
  • Kathleen

    I recommend that those with permits allow kids to play pickup games in unused (but reserved) space. My kid has been booted out of a basketball court during a pickup game and not allowed to even finish, and when he did so the court remained empty for another half hour. Also, there should always be free access to at least half the space. We’ve been ejected from the turf at the PS 282 playground which is a really popular place for everyone to sit – so that a for-profit kiddie soccer league can hold practice. Thanks.

    Comment added August 4, 2024 10:05am
  • Paul Kontonis

    As president of the Cosmopolitan Junior Soccer League, the oldest competitive youth soccer league in the country, and as a non-profit organization, our focus is on helping as many children as possible play soccer in our New York City parks. We represent over 360 teams, serving our diverse communities in the five boroughs with accessible youth soccer programs all year round.

    Differentiating between game and practice permits is a major detriment to the operations of our clubs. Our clubs already cannot pre-plan programs due to the current permit process, making any guaranteed activity scheduling nearly impossible. While we applaud the prioritization of youth and non-profits, penalizing a club for running a game on a practice permit or a practice on a game permit is unnecessary and punitive to our programs.

    Our clubs are always looking to maximize their limited permits, and we must have the ability to determine the use of practice or game permits as we see fit to ensure full usage of our limited allocations. As the largest soccer league partner for the Parks Department, we are here to collaborate on solutions.

    Comment added August 5, 2024 5:16pm
  • Ajith Bhaskar

    The Commonwealth Cricket League has been operating for over four decades, serving as a vital platform for more than 80 cricket clubs. Our league’s annual renewal process is crucial for the smooth functioning of our operations and the timely organization of seasonal games. Any limitations on the renewal process could significantly impede our ability to effectively manage the league and meet the expectations of our member teams. Therefore, the Commonwealth Cricket League strongly opposes any restrictions on the renewal hours, as it would potentially disrupt our long-standing traditions and the competitive structure we have carefully cultivated over the years

    Comment added August 6, 2024 3:11pm
  • Colin McLear

    Given the pressures on field space, Parks could work with established adult groups to allow bringing in portable lights.

    When we (NY Coed Soccer) had lights at Lions Gate Field during the Fall, we made them available to all youth groups through to 7pm, free of charge. This created additional time for youth and adult.

    We suggest similar schemes.

    Comment added August 7, 2024 12:22pm
  • Colin McLear

    On the issue of for-profit adult leagues, I think it’s worth noting what they do bring to the community.

    From our (NY Coed Soccer) experience, a couple of examples:

    – For the past 20 years, our t-shirts have been printed by Works in Progress NYC, a non-profit on the LES (https://www.worksinprogressnyc.org/). We are one of their largest clients.

    – We pay excellent hourly rates (over double the minimum wage) to our referees and field reps.

    – Over the course of an evening, many players are brought to a local neighborhood and use bars, restaurants and grocery stores.

    I’ve no argument against hourly rates being increased for for-profits. I do, though, with the contention that we’re somehow a negative for the community and should be sidelined in these proposal changes.

    Comment added August 7, 2024 12:51pm
  • dimitrie draguca

    Please see attached document and thank you.

    Comment attachment
    DUSC-letter-to-NYC-Parks.pdf
    Comment added August 7, 2024 1:35pm
  • Steve Reiser

    Is there a new rule as to what constitutes a nonprofit youth organization? Should a nonprofit youth sports organization that is a part of the Catholic Diocese (but is not a 5013c) be concerned that it will no longer be considered a nonprofit? We do have a tax id.

    Comment added August 7, 2024 3:23pm
  • Giovanni Marcantoni

    In May 2023, Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released a report highlighting the growing concern about loneliness and its impact on public health. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting surge in remote work, has intensified feelings of disconnection, as traditional friend groups and support networks become increasingly fragmented.

    Volo Sports (formerly NYC Social) has been operating in NYC parks for over 15 years with the goal of building community and fostering genuine human connections. With our 12 sport offerings at the core, we provide opportunities for adults of all ages to get active and social in NYC spaces in three diverse communities across Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. With nearly 70k registrations across those boroughs in 2023, our players have shown their commitment to the Volo community with a 39% player retention rate across our programs from the previous year.

    The impact of Volo goes beyond just our work with NYC adults. Volo Sports partners with Volo Kids, a nonprofit organization, to run free kids programming throughout NYC. We donate profits and leverage infrastructure from the for-profit company to create free opportunities for organized play for kids who may not otherwise be able to afford it. Since its launch in NYC, Volo Kids has registered 7,235 kids for free sports programs and has engaged over 1,640 volunteers. The offerings of Volo Kids have continued to grow exponentially year over year as our footprint with Volo adults has grown.

    While Volo shares in the City’s goal of increasing access of nonprofit and community organizations to park spaces, the blanket limitation of 32 hours a week of renewable permits would put at risk countless sports programs that NYC residents have been enjoying for years. The limitation would disproportionately impact organizations who operate across multiple sports. For example, a tennis court permit that serves only 6 players per hour would be counted the same toward the weekly hour limit for renewals as an hour on a softball field that can accommodate 30 players. Similarly, organizations that operate programs across multiple boroughs are being capped to the same number of renewable hours as those organizations who only operate in one.

    We would like to propose several options that will meet the City’s goal of equity while reducing the displacement of existing sports communities:

    – Limit Renewals by Percentage
    Under this model, organizations would be limited to renewing 75% of their permits from the previous year. The other 25% of permits would be released back into the City’s inventory freeing up time for new users and giving smaller organizations opportunities to utilize space.

    – Apply the Weekly Renewal Limit by Field / Court Type
    As described in the Tennis / Softball example above, program offerings and player capacity vary greatly by the type of space. Applying the 32 hours per week to a field / court type would ensure that one type of space isn’t over utilized by a single organization.

    – Apply the Weekly Renewal Limit by Borough
    We believe that the large majority of community organizations and nonprofits are operating within one borough. Limiting the number of permit hours per week an organization can renew in each borough would ensure that spaces are not monopolized by a single organization.

    Along with these recommendations, we urge the City to make investments to expand the usable time on Recreation and Park spaces by investing to improve field lighting to accommodate the increasing demand for outdoor sports. Each fall, the lack of lighting significantly reduces the available playtime, particularly affecting adult leagues. We recognize this request involves budgetary considerations and may take time to implement and would be happy to partner with the City to provide light towers at key spaces.

    We appreciate the NYC Department of Parks and Recreations work to facilitate this public process and we look forward to continuing to work with you and other organizations throughout the City toward an equitable solution.

    Comment added August 7, 2024 5:01pm
  • Eban Singer

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the rules that govern how athletic field permits are distributed. I support the stated intent of the rule change – equity and fair access, limiting unused fields, improved guidance and customer service, etc.

    However, as the applicant on behalf of a small local baseball organization, I am concerned that the proposed rules may have the unintended consequence of making it actually more difficult for my organization to get and keep our permits. To that end, I would like additional clarity on a few of the proposed rules:

    1. The definition of “Game”. The new rules stipulate that only “Games” will be eligible for a renewable permit, and to be a game it must be “scheduled, organized, structured” and “officiated and results recorded.” Can you clarify what is required to meet these thresholds? Are published game rosters required? Must umpires be hired from a service and paid? Must game scores be published and publicly available?

    2. Field-hour limits for insurance. The new rules stipulate that any permit with over 50 hours in a season will require insurance. The baseball field permits are distributed as Spring/Summer on a single permit. Is Spring/Summer a single season or two seasons?

    3. Preference and non-profits. Will adult returning applicants be given preference to use the same dates and times allotted in the previous season over new youth applicants? Will DPR consider whether the applicant is a not-for-profit when considering adult game applicants? And will 501c7 organizations (non-commercial clubs) be considered not-for-profits or only 501c3 organizations?

    Thank you,
    Eban Singer

    Comment added August 7, 2024 11:11pm
  • Tarek Pertew

    Thank you for all of the hard work that has gone into understanding so many disparate groups and organizations and proposing changes that can create a more seamless and transparent experience for permit holders.

    Thank you for considering our need and perspectives over the years, which I know has informed some of these changes.

    I want to emphasize that we support the majority of the proposed changes, including the price increases.

    However, we would like to highlight a few concerns with the proposal and proposed adjustments that I hope you’ll consider as you gather feedback from other members of the community:

    1. Revision of the 32 Hour Renewal Hours. Capping all permit holders at any number suggests all permit holders are “the same” in both their representation of their community, their contributions to New Yorkers and the quality of their programming. Renewals are so critical to the functional operation of our programs and 32 renewal hours is not nearly enough time for adult leagues to reliably service their community with a professional, predictable offering that allows New Yorkers to know, season in and season out, that they have a place to play. We believe that a %TTL of permits as renewals is a more equitable way to ensure high quality programs can service the demand for their offering whilst ensuring there remains opportunities for others. I know balancing the needs of everyone whilst not hurting well run programs is a challenge, but non-renewal permits make it difficult for the communities those parks service to have any certainty around their ability to secure a spot for consistent recreation. Thus, the % of total permit hours is a reasonable solution, where a minority % of permit hours are returned across all permit holders to be made available to others.

    2. Investment in Field Lighting: The city currently cannot service the number of adult New Yorkers that play outdoor sports, particularly in the fall and winter seasons. Having availability to parks is critical for New Yorkers to find consistency in their recreational outlets. With so few fields having lights, the majority of available field space is unusable from mid-October through March for adult leagues. To fulfill the demand and, more importantly, the needs of New Yorkers (a desperately growing need in light of the loneliness issues facing city dwellers), investment in the lighting of fields, even temporary lighting which has found great success across popular fields (Chelsea Park, Tanahey Park, Nike Field and, previously, Lion’s Gate), can ensure that tens of thousands of New Yorkers are able to continue exercising and socializing in a safe and healthy manner throughout the year. Lit fields will also ensure there is little to no conflict between youth and adult programming.

    3. Revision of fee-paying permit holders. We believe that the only leagues that should be excused from paying permit fees are groups that truly require the grant to run their programs (achieved, perhaps, by way of an application for free permitting). IOW, large or major nonprofits that operate significant P&Ls should be paying for their permits in some capacity. This will also help discourage the holding onto permits that are unused (which mostly affects other youth leagues that cannot access permit time). This doesn’t impact adult leagues so much, but I believe it’s a change based on fairness and can drive more revenue for the city, which hopefully translates into less budget cuts in the Parks Department.

    4. Adjustment of priority permit windows. We support the current priority structure. We do, however, strongly believe that priority groups should have well defined application windows where they can leverage their priority, whilst leaving enough time for first come first serve (lower priority) permit applicants to receive a positive (or negative) confirmation on an application with enough time to organize leagues. By way of example, this season, adult permit applicants for youth-priority fields will not know if they are approved until the first day of the permit window, making it virtually impossible to organize. We know that the new proposed rules are helping trend further in this direction and, for that, we are grateful.

    5. Please consider leveraging technology that the city and New Yorkers can leverage to see field availability live. Live feed services with built in blur technology (to protect the privacy of NYers – can not only help New Yorkers know if a field is available to play at, but it can save countless hours and create extraordinary efficiencies for the Parks Department to know when permit holders are not properly using their permits. Rather than randomly selecting a field for someone to check on, members of the staff can log into the feed of Baruch Playground (for example), and know whether or not someone should be sent down to check on the permit holder. Check out ParkView out of Florida as an example.

    I think the later is a fairly cost effective tool that can help with the auditing of field use, which has been communicated as a significant challenge based on the available resources of the department (especially in the face of the recent budget cuts).

    6. Audit and reward well run, honest permit holders. When permit holders can increase the size of their community, they can strengthen the localized community bonds that happen within micro-communities centralized around a particular park. Additionally, organizations can hire, train and develop community members to work within said micro-communities, which only further strengthens the community bond.

    Thank you so much for allowing me to share this feedback.

    Please don’t allow this feedback obscure just how grateful we are to the Parks Department for allowing us to grow our wonderful community of New Yorkers around a sport we love. The hard work and effort of the team has translated to tens of thousands of New Yorkers who rely so heavily on organized rec soccer for physical and mental wellness and meeting new people in a lonely world. Your detailed proposal exemplifies your commitment to always improving. Thank you again.

    Cheers,

    Tarek

    Comment added August 7, 2024 11:35pm
  • Andrew So

    New York City should be protecting recreational activities and programs that reach substantial numbers of underserved, low-income youth rather than making it harder for these programs to secure and retain permits. The proposed changes involving hours caps (if this affects multi-field permits) and the differentiation between practice (including youth recreation) and games would in fact negatively affect access for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vulnerable children and youth like the ones we serve in the South Bronx.

    Programs that serve large numbers of youth and programs in low-income communities are both more likely to be deemed as Youth Recreation and therefore as “Practice”. This is often because formal games and leagues require increased financial, organizational, transportation, and family resources. Furthermore, by their very rules, games limit the number of players on a field thus limiting the number of children who can access the activity at a time. For example, our recreational soccer program can serve up to 128 children, ages 5-10 on a full-size soccer field at one time, by dividing the field into 8 mini-fields with sport activities and mini-games (with or without referees). For many of these children, this is the only athletic activity they get over the weekend. Would this lose priority to formal games? In contrast, a formal game (youth or adult) would only reach 22 individuals at one time on the same field.

    Comment attachment
    SBU-Letter-2024-Parks-Rules-Change.pdf
    Comment added August 8, 2024 12:46am
  • Jennifer Popack

    We are writing in to ask for there to be exceptions for the insurance coverage based on the number of requested permit hours. Our group is not a not-for-profit or corporate organization and we are not backed with unlimited funds. We have created an opportunity to have organized scrimmages that welcome anyone from the city who’s interested in learning how to play hockey at a very low price for entry which allows us to have adults from all ages and socio-economic backgrounds get involved in the sport.

    If we were to increase permit cost AND have to purchase insurance it would essentially make it impossible for us to run these scrimmages at a cost-effective price, crippling the opportunity for us to keep this with a super low barrier for entry for all sorts of people who otherwise would not be able to learn and enjoy the sport.

    We strongly recommend not requiring ALL permit holders above 50 hours to require the insurance. In cases like ours you will be having the exact opposite effect of what you’ve intended, trying to allow more people to enjoy the space at a reasonable price. This decision would potentially have the effect to completely squash our ability to run these scrimmages.

    Comment added August 8, 2024 10:41am
  • Jerry Katzke - Parade Ground League/Bonnie Boys Club

    See File below!

    Comment attachment
    NYC-Parks-Department-Rule-Change-Comments-2024.docx
    Comment added August 8, 2024 1:31pm
  • Michael James McCarthy

    Please see attached my comments

    Comment attachment
    Parks-Department-Statement.pdf
    Comment added August 8, 2024 1:59pm
  • Ron Bello

    Regarding the 50 hour per year insurance requirement.
    I run a small group with 2-4 hours per week of park time use. Since we hold weekly permits, consider it times 50 weeks.
    At 2 hours per week; it’s 100 hours. At 4 hours per week it’s 200 hours.
    I would request the cutoff to be 200 hours a calendar year. For a small group such as as mine insurance will be astronomical.

    Comment added August 8, 2024 4:37pm