2007 OSRMP Final Appendices · River Run Preserve North 8M 4343 Plainfield/Nap. Rd. S PA River Run Preserve South 8N 1715 Baybrook Lane S PA Rivercrest Estates Park 5R 11 S 087 Sheri

OSRMP 20

07

Open Space and Recreation Master Plan

FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District

320 W. Jackson Ave Naperville, IL 60540

APPENDICES

2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ======

3

FINAL DRAFT

Appendices Appendices have been consolidated into this separate document and can be found on our website or requested from the Planning Department.

Appendix A: List of Parks and Other Holdings , P 5

Appendix B:

Facilities/Buildings List, P 9

Appendix C: Park Amenities Maintenance Costs- 2006 Yearly Costs, P 10

Appendix D:

Service Area Maps , P 11

Appendix E: Staff, Futures Committee & Athletic Affiliates Interviews - Summary, P 23

Appendix F:

Park Board Workshop – Summary, P 31

Appendix G: Resources for Plan , P 38

Naperville Park District

4

FINAL DRAFT


5

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix A: List of Parks and Other Holdings 139 Parks

Neighborhood Parks

A. George Pradel Park 8K 4519 Pradel Drive S NP By School Arbor Way 5G 204 Cedarbrook Road C NP Bainbridge Greens 1F 1112 Bainbridge Drive N NP By School Brighton Ridge Park 5A 775 Torrington Drive C NP Brook Crossings 7F 1015 95th Street S NP Brush Hill Park 3A 203 N. Whispering Hills Rd N NP Burlington Square Park 4B 307 N. Ellsworth Street N NP Burr Oak 4E 432 Villa Avenue C NP Buttonwood Park 3D 803 Buttonwood Circle C NP Cantore Park 7G 2507 Warm Springs Lane S NP By School Carol Acres 3Y 787 Fort Hill Drive C NP Century Farms Park 1R 715 Sigmund Road N NP College Park 4G 147 N. Columbia Street N NP Columbia Commons 6C 1524 Oxford Lane C NP Columbia Estates Park 2C 968 Monticello Drive N NP Country Commons 4J 919 School Street N NP Cress Creek Park 1J 1311 Royal St. George Drive N NP Crestview Knoll 8J 3803 Falcon Drive S NP Eagle Park 6I 724 Bakewell Lane C NP East Greens 4H 249 White Oak Drive N NP Fairway Commons Park 1B 955 Fairway Drive N NP Farmington Park 6F 2331 Remington Drive C NP Fox Hill Greens 1E 1635 Brookdale Road N NP Harris Fawell Park 3T 1120 Fort Hill Drive C NP By School Heatherstone Park 7I 3536 Fairmount Ave. S NP High Meadow 8H 2419 High Meadow Road S NP By School Hobson Grove 4O 1152 Blue Larkspur Lane C NP Hunters Woods 6G 2007 Lakeview Court C NP Huntington Commons 4S 212 Devon Lane N NP Huntington Estates Park 4V 867 Rockbridge Drive C NP Huntington Ridge Park 4W 1523 Culpepper Drive C NP Kendall Park 1N 84 W. 5th Avenue N NP Kingshill Park 7B 4271 White Eagle Drive S NP Kroehler Park 2B 507 E. 5th Avenue N NP Mill Street Park 1L 1312 N. Mill Street N NP By School/co-op Monarch Park 7A 1585 White Eagle Drive S NP By School Nike Park 1Q 1567 Apache Drive N NP Oakridge Parkway 6B 478 E. 87th Street C NP Old Plank Park 2E 583 Milton Drive N NP Old Sawmill Park 5N 432 Massachusetts Ave S NP Old Sawmill Parkway 5M 435 Massachusetts Ave S NP Olesen Farm Park 4Q 1307 Green Trails Drive N NP Pembroke Commons 4X 1132 Kenilworth Circle C NP Pembroke Park 4P 28 Pembroke Road N NP


6

FINAL DRAFT

Prairie Park 4K 416 S. Charles Avenue N NP By School Queensbury Greens 1H 1520 Brookdale Road N NP Ranchview Park 6O 1727 Ranchview Drive C NP By School/co-op River Run Park 8I 4136 Clearwater Drive S NP Rose Hill Farms Park 8C 1235 Hamlet Road S NP Sally Benton Park 4C 104 N. Loomis Street N NP South Pointe Park 8R 5504 Switch Grass S NP Springbrook Crossings 7E 1211 Leverenz Road S NP Spring-Field Park 5F 2031 Springside Circle C NP Springhill Park 2F 703 Springhill Circle N NP Summerfield Lake 7H 2003 Skylane Dr. S NP Tallgrass Park 8Q South of 95th West of Rt 59 S NP By School Three Meadows 4Z 1320 Brittany Avenue C NP Timber Creek Park 5S Not yet assigned S NP University Heights Park 6L 1315 River Oak Drive C NP Walnut Ridge Park 6M 2304 Keim Drive C NP West Greens 3I 711 Stevens Street N NP Westglen Park 5C 1560 Westglen Drive C NP By School White Eagle Park 7C 3140 White Eagle Drive S NP Willow Bend West 1C Glenoban Dr & Paxton Dr N NP Willowgate Square 5L 408 Travelaire Avenue C NP Wil-O-Way Park 3B 1408 W. Jefferson Avenue N NP Yorkshire Manor Park 2H 1031 Buckingham Drive N NP

Community Parks

Arrowhead Park 2A 711 Iroquois Avenue N CP Ashbury Park 8D 1740 Conan Doyle Road S CP Burlington Park 3G 1003 Douglas Avenue N CP Country Lakes Park 1A 1835 North Aurora Road N CP Gartner Park 3Q 524 W. Gartner Road C CP May Watts Park 3C 804 S. Whispering Hills Dr C CP By School Meadow Glens 6K 1303 Muirhead Avenue C CP Old Farm Park 5I 195 Ring Road C CP Pioneer Park 3S 1212 S. Washington Street C CP Seager Park 2D 1163 Plank Road N CP Southwest Community Park 8S South of 95th, East of tracks S CP Tallgrass Lakes 8P 3320 Rollingridge Road S CP Weigand Riverfront Park 5J 2436 S. Washington Street C CP Wildflower Park 3U Aurora Ave and Azalea Ct C CP Wil-O-Way Commons 3F 1071 W. Jefferson Avenue N CP Winding Creek Park 5D 144 W. Bailey Road C CP

District Parks

Commissioners Park 8F 3704 111th Street S DP DuPage River Park East 6D 808 Royce Road S DP DuPage River Sports Complex 5Q 2807 S. Washington Street S DP Sports Complex Frontier Park 8E (Multiple) S DP Sports Complex Knoch Knolls 5P 336 Knoch Knolls Road S DP


7

FINAL DRAFT

Knoch Park 3K (Multiple) C DP Sports Complex Nike Sports Complex 1O 288 W. Diehl Road N DP Sports Complex Riverwalk Park 3H (Multiple) N DP

Special Use

Broeker Parkway 3O 11 Martin Avenue C SU Centennial Park 3X 500 W. Jackson Avenue N SU Central Park 4A 104 E. Benton Avenue N SU Community Garden Plots 3M 811 S. West Street C SU Sportsman's Park 3L 735 S. West Street C SU Veterans Park 4F 303 E. Gartner Road C SU

Greenways

Ashbury Greenway 8B 3475 Plainfield/Naper. Rd S GW Bailey Hobson Woods Park 4N 1184 Hobson Mill Drive C GW Campus Greens 6J 1532 Fender Road C GW Clow Creek Greenway 8L (Multiple) S GW Colfax Way 1D 1111 Bainbridge Drive N GW Huntington Estates Parkway 4U 828 Rockbridge Drive C GW Kingsley Prairie 5U 160 Ring Road C GW By School/co-op Knoch Knolls Greenway 5T 144 Settlers Drive S GW Lincoln Greenway 3R 1052 Edgewater Drive C GW Nike Greenway 1P 1567 Apache Drive N GW Old Farm Greenway 5H 75 W. 87th Street C GW Pioneer Greenway 4L 1095 Hobson Mill Drive C GW Rock Ridge Park 4R 1316 Green Trails Drive C GW Springhill Greenway 2G 780 Springhill Circle N GW Stanford Meadows 6H 1991 Stanford Drive C GW Tallgrass Greenway 8O South of 95th St along ComEd S GW

Preservation/conservation Areas

Baileywood Park 6P 1588 Oxford Lane C PA Brook Prairie 8G 1059 Thackery Lane S PA Farmington Commons 6E 2524 Barkdoll Road C PA Firemen's Memorial Park 3A1 1072 W. Jefferson Avenue N PA Forest View Park 1I 1147 Raymond Drive N PA Goodrich Woods 4Y 25 W 507 Hobson Road C PA Heritage Woods 1M 1067 W. 5th Avenue N PA Hobson West Park 3N 839 S. West Street C PA Hobson West Ponds 3E (Multiple) C PA Hobson Woods Park 4M 694 Lookout Court C PA Kings Park 4I 308 White Oak Drive N PA Knoch Knolls Commons 5K 323 Knoch Knolls Road S PA Lincoln Woods 4D 54 Golden Larch Court C PA Miledje Square 1K 635 Morningside Drive N PA Olesen Estates 4T 1415 Dunrobin Road N PA Redfield Commons 1G 1324 Redfield Road N PA


8

FINAL DRAFT

River Run Preserve North 8M 4343 Plainfield/Nap. Rd. S PA River Run Preserve South 8N 1715 Baybrook Lane S PA Rivercrest Estates Park 5R 11 S 087 Sheri Street S PA Riverview Farmstead 8V 111th St and Book S PA Riverwoods Park 6A 2283 Riverwoods Drive C PA Springbrook Parkway 5O (Multiple) S PA Walnut Ridge Woods 6N 1092 Augustana Court C PA West Branch Parkway 5E 135 E. Bailey Road C PA Westglen Commons 5B 467 Westglen Drive C PA William Friedrich Memorial Park 3P 720 S. Washington Street C PA

3 Structures

425 West Jackson 3W 425 W. Jackson Avenue N SU Building Alfred Rubin Riverwalk Community Center 3J 305 Jackson Avenue N SU Building North Maintenance Facility 3V 219 South Mill Street N SU Building

2 Golf Courses

Naperbrook Golf Course 8A 22204 W. 111th Street S SU Golf Springbrook Golf Course 7D 2220 83rd Street S SU Golf

2 Future Parks

Ashwood Park 9A Future Park in Area 8 S NP Future Creekside Park 9B Future Park in Area 8 S NP Future


9

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix B: Facilities/Buildings List Building Name SF Class SubClass Park Location P Knoch Knolls Wigwam 1,105 Indoor Programmed Knoch Knolls P The Barn 12,122 Indoor Programmed Knoch Park S Concession 8 733 Enclosed Accessory Knoch Park S Concession 9 225 Enclosed Accessory Knoch Park S Concession 13 462 Enclosed Accessory Knoch Park S Tennis Hut 192 Enclosed Accessory Knoch Park S The Shop 8,931 Indoor Institutional Knoch Park G Naperbrook Clubhouse 7,830 Indoor Institutional Naperbrook Golf Course G Maintenance 5,100 Enclosed Institutional Naperbrook Golf Course G Concession 1,200 Enclosed Accessory Nike Sports Complex P Admin 7,298 Indoor Institutional Riverwalk Park P Beach House 5,490 Indoor Institutional Riverwalk Park P Centennial Field #15 Conc 522 Enclosed Accessory Riverwalk Park S Garage at the Beach 494 Enclosed Institutional Riverwalk Park P Netzley House 2,533 Indoor Programmed Riverwalk Park P Paddle Boat Hut 174 Enclosed Institutional Riverwalk Park P RCC 21,105 Indoor Programmed Riverwalk Park P Riverwalk Eatery 1,574 Indoor Accessory Riverwalk Park P Studio One 1,425 Indoor Programmed Riverwalk Park P Seager Cabin 1 773 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Cabin 2 750 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Cabin 3 695 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Cabin 4 796 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Cabin 5 813 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Cabin 6 734 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager Detached Garage 1,155 Enclosed Institutional Seager Park P Seager House 2,919 Indoor Institutional Seager Park P Cold Storage 7,444 Enclosed Institutional Sportsmans Park P Sportsman's Club House 1,661 Indoor Programmed Sportsmans Park P Storage Shed 689 Enclosed Institutional Sportsmans Park G Range Room 1,201 Indoor Programmed Springbrook Golf Course G Springbrook Clubhouse 7,947 Indoor Institutional Springbrook Golf Course G Maintenance Shop 8,906 Enclosed Institutional Springbrook Golf Course P South Maintenance Building Indoor Institutional Frontier Park S Pre-fabricated Restroom Frontier Park P Park Support Building Frontier Park S Pre-fabricated Restroom Commissioners Park P Park Support Building Commissioners Park S Pre-fabricated Restroom Pioneer Park P 219 Mill 219 Mill P 425 W. Jackson 425 W. Jackson S Riverwalk Restroom-Jaycees Riverwalk P Park Support Building DuPage Sports Complex S Silo DuPage River Park S Press Box Frontier Park P=Primary S=Secondary G=Golf


10

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix C: Park Amenities Maintenance Costs- 2006 Yearly Costs (Derived from the Service Level Guidelines created by NPD Staff in 2006) Bridges & Piers $ 850.00 Restrooms $4,378-$5,681 (Pioneer to Park Support Style)

Skate Parks $8,643.00 Playgrounds $2,507.00 (new playground) $1,500.00 Park Support Building $6,021.00 Bike Trail (Paved/Routine Maint) $4,496.00 (with 7yr. Seal coating included) $5,250.00 Parking Lots $ 345.00 Hard Court Surfaces $ 390.00 Cost Per Acre (cost changes dependent upon specific amenities within a park) Currently New Standards Community Parks $1,240.00 $1,865.00 Sports Complexes $1,737.00 $2,330.00 Neighborhood $ 893.00 $1,380.00 Best Practices (Cost Per Acre) $2,980.00 Operational Cost Increase $586,125.00 (Sports Complexes - $97,920) 2006 Park Swap (Reorganization of Maintenance Responsibilities) North +40 acres Central +65 acres South -105 acres (will obtain 20 in 2007 for net loss of 85)


11

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix D: Service Area Maps


12

FINAL DRAFT


13

FINAL DRAFT


14

FINAL DRAFT


15

FINAL DRAFT


16

FINAL DRAFT


17

FINAL DRAFT


18

FINAL DRAFT


19

FINAL DRAFT


20

FINAL DRAFT


21

FINAL DRAFT


22

FINAL DRAFT


23

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix E: Staff, Futures Committee and Athletic Affiliates Interviews - Summary Project: Naperville Park District Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Update Date: May 2, 2007 - 4:30 to 7:30 PM Location: 320 West Jackson, Naperville, Illinois 60540 Present: Selected Staff members and representatives from various Athletic Affiliates groups

invited by the Naperville Park District, Eric Shutes, Naperville Park District Planning Director and Peter Dyke and Bob Ahlberg from TD&A

Eric Shutes welcomed attendees and provided an introduction in each of the three interviews. He participated only in the Staff Interview. In the interest of promoting a free exchange of information, comments from attendees in each of the three interviews were generally not attributed to individual attendees. Staff Interview - 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Present: Eric Shutes, Mary Gardocki, Ed Dalton, Brad Wilson, Mindy Munn and Sue Omanson Eric provided background information on the Plan Update and indicated that a future meeting with Park Board of Commissioners will be held and a completed Plan due at the end of Summer/beginning of Fall. The new Plan will be an update of the 2001 Plan, not a new plan. The goal of the project is to develop a plan that can be a readily comprehensible document for the public and that communicates Plan content via abundant graphics. The 2006 Pros Recreation Plan and other recent planning documents will be “bundled into” the Plan Update. Peter added that the Naperville Park District is a fantastic park system that will be hard to improve. He suggested that the new plan should do a better job documenting conditions, policies and recommendations, as well as updating the CIP. Attendees were asked to introduce themselves. Brad Wilson is the Director of Recreation. He relies on 9 managers to run the Recreation activities of the District. The Recreation Division does all the programming. He reports to the Naperville Park District Director. Ed Dalton oversees all the parks as well as the infrastructure of each park. He supervises 35-40 staff plus an additional 60 seasonal workers each summer. They are now experiencing more seasonal turnover and are contracting for more services outside. Oversee the park police. Mindy Munn is acting Director overseeing Parks, Planning, Recreation and Golf and her “regular staff” in Business Services, Accounting, Human Resources and Technology. Peter indicated that during the preparation of the Plan Update, TD&A will generate as much factual support for Plan recommendations. He is very interested in the facilities provided and their impact on the programs that can be provided by Naperville Park District. He asked about the status of the Recreation Center. Gilfillan Callahan Architects has completed or nearly completed “80% construction drawings. It appears that the project has been placed “on hold” for three main reasons: concern over the building program, costs and its location. Estimated costs were not to exceed $35 Million. The project was approved with the requirement that the Recreation Center must be financially self-


24

FINAL DRAFT

sustaining from an operations and maintenance standpoint. Naperville Park District has cooperative agreements with six elementary schools allowing shared use of gyms but Naperville Park District only has use of these gyms 3-4 nights a week and they have carpeted floors which do not lend themselves well for programmed uses. There have been discussions between Naperville Park District and the City regarding how much parking was required at the Recreation Center. As a fitness facility or gym, the Zoning Ordinance required 10 spaces/1,000 s.f. but that doesn’t address the unique mix of uses contained in a Community Center. Naperville Park District hired Walker and Associates to recommend the amount of parking that should be provided. After compiling requirements, Walker recommended the provision of 4 to 4.5 spaces/1,000 s.f. of floor area. This recommended standard would require the construction of between 500 and 563 parking spaces while the City’s 10 spaces/1,000 s.f. standard would require the construction of 1,250 space and necessitates the construction of a parking deck. Walker’s recommendation would be exceeded if existing parking at the school adjacent to the Recreation Center could be used during off-peak hours. Another issue arose with the City regarding the maximum permissible height of the building. The City required that the building must be no higher than 35’ and the architect and engineer could not provide the building’s program in a building that had a maximum height of 35’. A change to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a greater height (text amendment) was suggested. The City would not render an opinion until the 80% drawings were submitted for review. With the project on hold, the Board has requested a new series of workshops before it will decide whether to go forward with the project. Existing Sports fields are documented in materials provided to TD&A. Staff anticipates that the various sports organizations will call for more efficient scheduling of sportsfields. The proposed Plan needs to better define Naperville Park District resources. It also needs to be better organized, have a better facility and park organization system and better define how facilities get programmed. For example, the facility classification system must identify which facilities will have restrooms and which will not. Several sports fields are located in neighborhoods. Presently, Neighborhood Parks are provided with porta-potties but due to vandalism, Naperville Park District has stopped enclosing them. Permanent restroom facilities must be maintained seven days a week. Sports camps and athletic uses may require that restrooms are maintained twice a day. In certain parks, temporary restrooms have been eliminated because of vandalism. Even glass block and porcelain have been vandalized. Other permanent structures have also been vandalized. The proposed Plan will also be used to inventory all park improvements. Naperville Park District recently discovered bridges and a pit toilet that was not listed in its facilities inventory. While the park manager was maintaining them, an updated and comprehensive inventory of park improvements in the Plan can provide information for programming maintenance. With respect to the classification of parks and amenities, it is hoped that the Plan’s standards can be used to guide decision making when various improvements are requested. These standards can also be used to address equity issues between various sections of the City. Over the years, various interest groups evolve, pressure for certain improvements grows, improvements are made and then interest wanes and obsolete facilities remain. Neighborhoods are not encouraged by Naperville Park District to program their own neighborhood parks to avoid that problem.


25

FINAL DRAFT

Naperville Park District has maintenance obligations for the many subdivision detention ponds throughout town. While they provide open space, they are essentially unusable for park or recreation uses and are difficult to maintain. Furthermore, resident expectations for such ponds are often at odds with their stormwater role or inconsistent with their design and available Naperville Park District budget. The possibility of surcharging neighborhoods for upgraded/more costly levels of maintenance should be investigated. The basic purpose of the Plan update is to better inform the public what Naperville Park District will be doing over the next 10 years. Naperville Park District has lots of existing data but it has not been effectively consolidated, simplified and communicated well to residents. Residents use the Naperville Park District website. This is the last year of lottery recreation registration. Next year, registration will include a combination of paper submittals and on-line registration. An electronic newsletter is emailed to 12,000 Naperville Park District residents included on its database, approximately 6 times a year. The Naperville Park District recreation program guide is sent out 4 times a year. Other similar providers in Naperville include: the Wheatland Athletic Association which has some overlap with Naperville Park District programs and is a collaborator. Wheatland supported the Recreation Center as evidenced by the submission of 8-900 signatures in support of its construction. The lack of Naperville Park District indoor recreation space has led to private initiatives. For example, a small private field house has been proposed by a private owner and construction is now underway. Many private fitness providers have arisen in town and have been active in opposing the Recreation Center because they perceive it as a competitor funded at public expense. Open space master planning is important to show both a need for facilities using objective standards and are also used in supporting grant initiatives such as OSLAD grants. The previous Plan had been based on 8 identified planning areas and the proposed Plan will stay with that. The new Plan will not use the existing Plan’s complex system of neighborhood subareas and will continue to classify parks similar to how they are now classified, e.g. neighborhood parks will be defined as being walkable, without pedestrian barriers etc. The Board’s new Futures Committee has three subcommittees and are assigned various Staff members for support. Brad staffs the Recreation Subcommittee, Ed staffs the Environmental Subcommittee and Eric staffs the Capital Subcommittee. The Board meets once a month as a committee of the whole. Additional comments on the Recreation Center have been invited via the Naperville Park District website and email. Attendees were encouraged to forward any additional comments to TD&A by email.


26

FINAL DRAFT

Futures Committee Members Interview - 5:00 to 6:00 PM Present: Barb Zigterman, Tammy Jones, Ron Biondo and Brian Gerber Eric provided an introduction and explained that the purpose of the project is to update the existing Plan, and incorporate the 2005 and 2006 Facility Updates and the 2006 Recreation Data. Peter added that the Plan update will also include qualitative data. Peter introduced himself and Bob Ahlberg. Attendees were asked to introduce themselves. Brian Gerber is a 10 year resident of Naperville and has lots of connections to Naperville Park District, particularly with golf and competitive swimming programs. Ron Biondo has experience with the swim programs and lots of other interests associated with Naperville Park District. Tammy Jones works with Harris Bank. She and her son were involved with advocating for the skate park. Barb Zigterman is a 20-year resident who wants to be involved in Naperville and the Park District offices were nearby and convenient. Her kids used Naperville Park District facilities, parks and programs. Now there isn’t enough space in programs for all of those residents wishing to participate, particularly those that are highly desired. She would like to see more efficient use of facilities. She lives by Gartner Park but it has no permanent facilities. The amount of vandalism in parks is shocking. She would like to see new buildings and improvements in parks but they need to be protected. The following comments were received: There is lots of open space but it is fragmented and much of it is not usable because it is a detention or retention pond or other or subdivision component that can not be used for recreation. There seems to be conflict between scarcity of desirable programs and the amount of land in the Naperville Park District system. The policy on land dedication has been successful but there is a system-wide shortage of programs. Observable changes have occurred over the last 10-15 years in the Naperville Park District system. There are now many more school kids and a shortage of schools and kids programs. Recently, there seems to be more conflict between lacrosse and soccer for field use. The system has to meet more diverse needs with a shortage of indoor space. Many use Wheatland for soccer programs. We haven’t had as big a problem with outdoor space. However, the lack of indoor space and lack of effort to provide it is a big problem. The Board and local newspaper haven’t handled the Recreation Center well. The biggest issue facing Naperville Park District is provision of indoor space. There has not been enough advocacy for the Recreation Center from those that would benefit. Older people and the Chamber have successfully opposed it. The Futures Committee is only an advisory committee, is “freelance” and new and therefore hasn’t been a strong advocate. The biggest supporter of the Recreation Center was the former director. All of the candidates running for the Board were “anti-Center.” Two of the Board members who retired were


27

FINAL DRAFT

pro-Center. The Committee must take up the Recreation Center as a cause even though it has not been in service for long or met as an entire group. Negative coverage of the Recreation Center issue in the press was very important. The press was not fair in its coverage, doesn’t think the Center is necessary and has never been an advocate of the Park District. Its focus has not been positive on the issue. Generally, Naperville is struggling as the community outgrows its infrastructure. Its hard to support needs with the way the community has evolved and the way the system has been designed. The role of the new director is not yet known. Former directors have had business and park orientations, but none have meshed with the Board. The search for a replacement began after the election. When the Board commissioned the architect to design the Recreation Center the vote was 6-1 in favor. Recently, a unanimous Board vote directed the architect to stop work. The reasons given were sufficient enough to result in a unanimous decision to halt work. Elections were on the horizon as well and one opponent from the start of the Recreation Center initiative is still on the Board and was joined by two new anti-Center advocates as a result of the election. The Futures Committee has one subcommittee looking at facilities, one looking at environmental issues and one addressing recreation programs. While only in existence for a short time, they are making progress in areas, learning a lot about Naperville Park District and discovering how the Committee can help improve the Naperville Park District. It is both interesting and fun and doing some interesting things as well. The Facilities Committee went on tour of Naperville Park District facilities during a spring snowstorm and did not cancel the tour because of the spirit of the group and all members ended up attending. Generally, the Futures Committee feels it is the one joint group that is moving in positive direction for Naperville Park District despite director and board changes. Members feel it is still a great system with great employees that do a great job. Naperville Park District gets along well with the City and the school district. Recent articles in Sun suggested that City should run the Park District. At the Jan. 4th Board meeting, a City councilman spoke against the Recreation Center along with the Chamber President. It is perceived that sportsfield programming could be more efficient. It is very unusual for a park district of this size not to have a community center. The fitness center component is probably the biggest impediment to the Center. It consists of about 10,000 s.f. and is about 8% of the Center’s total floor area. Lately, the biggest fear is the lack of support for the Center. The Y is packed and may be afraid of competition. It provides services to all age groups. Some recreation providers have policies prohibiting competition with private fitness providers. This project is getting underway as a new Board is being seated so the new Plan must be sensitive to the controversy. It is perceived that the Board is not necessarily opposed to the Center pre se, only some aspects which may be addressed with design or program changes. A referendum on the Center has been proposed. It is important for the project to have Board support. Many would like to see a 50-meter pool and another an indoor track for competition, particularly the high schools. However, providing competitive sports venues with spectator seating is not necessarily consistent with the purpose of the Recreation Center. The real need and purpose for such centers is to provide


28

FINAL DRAFT

recreation space for residents but not necessarily a fitness center. Centers almost always include necessary meeting rooms, gymnasiums, an indoor batting, a dance studio, etc. The existing Barn is now used for yoga. Neuqua Valley High School has an “L” shaped pool with separate warm-up pool. All of the high schools are seeking new pools. Attendees were encouraged to forward any additional comments to TD&A by email. Athletic Affiliate Organizations Interview - 6:30 to 7:00 PM Present: Dick Strang, Lynn Mullany, Dagmar Kauffman, Jeff Bradley, Kelle Bieschke and Judy McCormick Eric welcomed attendees and provided and introduction on the purpose of the Plan Update. The Recreation Plan was completed a year ago. The Plan Update will include the Recreation Plan, the CIP matrix and “fold it all together.” Attendees introduced themselves and the following comments were received: Baseball for kids 8-12 years old is provided by Naperville Baseball Association. Additional 90’ fields are needed for older kids and adults because there are only a couple in town. There appears to be enough 60’ fields that are going to be improved. Fences are provided at half of 24 fields. Naperville Park District blesses use by affiliate organizations. The Association performs some maintenance on four fields entirely and Naperville Park District sends a bill for preparing fields each year that is approximately$35,000 each year or $45,000 each year if “fall ball” is included. Lighting a field is billed at the rate of $35/hour. Some fields used are skinned fields that really need to be improved with grass infields. Only one field is irrigated. In the past, some fields have been improved by the Association and some by Naperville Park District. The Association has a good relationship with Naperville Park District. There are no ballfields in southwest portion of town. There were supposed to be new fields provided at Frontier Park but the land for the fields were traded to a developer in return for land elsewhere. Welch is a new field that was constructed in the last several years. It would be very nice to have more fields with scoreboards, lights and nice dugouts. Baseball players and parents seem to want fields in their own neighborhoods rather than in other neighborhoods. Travel teams tend to be willing to play anywhere. Recreational fields want local fields. Construction of South Pointe Park may include some new fields. Ajax has 15 soccer teams but don’t have enough lighted fields. DuPage River Sports Complex is used for practice but is frequently flooded and it would be better to try to move these fields elsewhere. Generally, there is a need for more practice fields and lighted fields, particularly for use in the Fall. Naperville Park District keeps a certain number of fields closed each year to let the turf rest. This requires the need to rotate usage to avoid overuse of open fields. The cost to acquire and construct new fields is prohibitive. Because of the shortage of available fields and overlapping seasons, soccer teams are competing with


29

FINAL DRAFT

lacrosse teams. A shortage of high school fields adds to the competition. The two soccer fields at Nike can also be used for lacrosse. However, per Naperville Park District policy, lined fields can’t be used for practice. Rotation makes it difficult to keep leagues going and is tough. While DuPage is lighted, it is very low ground and floods. When it floods, it can’t be used for long periods until it completely dries out. There is an immediate and strong need for indoor practice and play space. Available indoor space is now being fought over. If residents look at what is offered in neighboring towns, they would be disappointed with what is available in Naperville. There is a need for Naperville to provide competitive facilities. The proposed Recreation Center had three gyms but no play or practice fields. There is a tremendous need for recreation facilities in the south portion of Naperville. One of the factors in Naperville’s shortage is its rotation policy. This policy may be due to a lack of budget and staff to actively maintain fields in appropriate condition, so the solution has been to limit usage. Everyone would love nice fields but they will be very difficult and expensive to maintain. Fields that are in rotation for overuse are roped off for the year. The high schools seem to be able to do a better job of maintaining their fields even though they are used year-round. The popular baseball fields used to be aerated but a seeding machine is no longer available. Smaller areas need to be maintained too. Naperville Park District admits it doesn’t have resources. Roped off fields could be avoided if an aggressive maintenance program were adopted. Bare spots on ball fields are not being re-seeded. Organizations like Wheatland are active partners with Naperville Park District. While Wheatland supported the proposed Recreation Center, it is “toast now.” Vocal people in the North sections of town are opposed to construction of the Center in the south portion of Naperville. Residents in the south with young kids are too busy to actively advocate for the Center. The need for additional 90’ fields is huge and some 60’ fields are in need of improvement. Baseball involves 15,000 kids each year, and the organizations have offered to help develop Naperville Park District land with facilities. However, there are not enough fields to improve. Some use of high school district properties has been authorized but they have to be maintained too. The Frontier Park Recreation Center was a great facility and would have been located in south Naperville where the greatest need exists. The politics of Naperville killed it. Former Village officials opposed the Center but were not adequately informed on existing needs. The vacant Menards on Ogden could be acquired and developed for additional athletic fields. Many residents of Naperville think that the private sector has all of the additional facility needs covered. The competitive swimming community abandoned support of the Recreation Center because it was not the facility they wanted but then came back asking for any type of facility. The Chamber of Commerce killed the Center by contracting for a study by an organization that has a history of lobbying against public recreation facilities. Naperville Park District didn’t do a good job “selling” the Center and what selling it did do, it didn’t do well. If Naperville Park District had undertaken an extensive PR program earlier, and gotten the Chamber “on board” earlier, the Center would have been approved. In retrospect, it looks as if the refusal to have a referendum on the Center killed it. Soccer organizations only have one large soccer field in the north part of Naperville at Nike Park. There used to be two large soccer fields but now lacrosse competes for the same fields. Nike Park is “L” shaped and bordered by Diehl and Mill. There is an opportunity to acquire additional land near


30

FINAL DRAFT

Nike Park but that acquisition must be accomplished very quickly or the land will go to other uses. This land is required to for both outdoor uses and to provide locations for indoor facilities. That property is located east of Mill and its acquisition now is essential. There is a need to look “longer term” now and acquire land for the future. Need for facilities must be determined now based on present need as projected into the future. Fields can be designed for multiple uses and shared. However, the land must be acquired first, before arguing over whether the fields should be lighted. In various meetings with Naperville Park District, sports organizations and others have told Naperville Park District it needs to acquire additional land. This acquisition is not necessarily a “North-South” issue. Football organizations also need fields. Football involves 90 teams and 2,000 kids. Parking is an issue particularly for games on fields that are located in neighborhoods. There are lighted fields in the south, but we need fields in central sections of town and in the north, particularly lighted fields. Football, soccer and lacrosse can and do share fields. To keep fields in playing condition it has been necessary to call landscapers to do maintenance and Naperville Park District has reimbursed organizations for such work. But many fields are in pretty bad shape. Maintenance of fields is difficult because they are scattered throughout town and it takes a long time to get tractors and other equipment to and between fields. There are three football fields including the field at Commissioners for games. Parking is a problem there too but there are no other fields available. An enlargement of Nike Park could enable Naperville Park District to provide a similar playfield facility in the north. However, there is also a need for more practice space. While synthetic fields can alleviate some of the field overuse, they get very hot during summer months. They do not result in more injuries compared to natural turf. Existing synthetic turf can survive for 7-9 years under heavy use, but the carpet can be replaced. Central High School has priced this replacement at $1M. Lacrosse is growing in popularity and adds to existing shortages. The lacrosse program at North is a club sport and can’t be hosted at the school so it must compete for Naperville Park District fields. Knoch Park is located on land that is held in trust for “educational recreational use” only. The high school is talking about building a new building across the street and using the field. This will facilitate bringing the whole corridor into the development there. Vacant property adjacent to this site is going to be consumed soon and should be acquired. That entire area including the soccer field High School campus, Sportsman’s Park Gun Club and Scout Camp should be looked at comprehensively. Attendees were encouraged to forward any additional comments to TD&A by email. Minutes prepared by Bob Ahlberg, TD&A. (5/24/07, revised 6/19/07)


31

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix F: Park Board Workshop – Summary Project: Naperville Park District Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Update Date: June 26, 2007 – 6:00 to 7:30 PM Issued: July 6, 2007 Location: Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, 55 South Main Street, Suite 351, Naperville,

Illinois 60540 Present: Park Board Members: Kristen Jungles, Ronald Ory, Andrew Schaffner, Marie Todd and

Mary Wright, Naperville Park District Staff: Mindy Munn, Eric Shutes, Mary Gardocki, Ed Provow, Ed Dalton, Brad Wilson, Sue Omanson, Nancy Thompson. TD&A Bob Ahlberg and Lindsey Fahey from TD&A

Introduction Eric Shutes introduced the project and gave some background information on why the update is taking place. He then introduced TD&A. He gave an overview of May affiliate interviews and their outcome. He then explained the need for feedback from the Park Board. Eric went on to say the goal of this meeting is to gather feedback, and he doesn’t see it as a prolonged discussion. TD&A will tabulate, and meet again, and also share resident’s input from before. Bob Ahlberg of TD&A thanked the Board for the opportunity to interview them. He indicated he is not going to present anything new and wants only to obtain input on some key issues relating to the 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. He provided a quick overview of the firm’s credentials in park and recreation planning. TD&A was involved with Centennial Beach entryway improvements. It utilizes an interdisciplinary approach calling on RLA, LEED, and AICP certified staff. He briefly summarized Peter Dyke’s and Lindsey Fahey’s credentials as well as his own. He then provided some context for the 2007 Open Space Master Plan update. It must be based on existing policies, plans and information that will support its findings and recommendations. The District is well along the way to preparing the Plan Update with the following information and supporting documentation:

The 2006 Recreation Master Plan The District’s 2001 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan The 2001 Indoor Facility Master Plan The 2002 and 2005 Community Interest and Opinion Surveys The 2006 Asset Inventory and Assessment 2006 Revised GIS Park Data The 2007 Ten Year Capital Forecast (draft)

TD&A’s charge is to synthesize these documents to create the 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. The Board interview is intended to confirm the continuing validity of the existing studies. In the event that the Board no longer believes the findings and conclusions of these plans and information valid, in conjunction with the District, we will have to determine what the best way is to proceed with the project.

However, the assignment is not just repackaging these existing plans and information. As part of the plan preparation process in conjunction with Naperville Park District staff we will also be:


32

FINAL DRAFT

Analyzing standards for acreage and facilities to determine needs on both a system-wide and area

basis. Comparing standards to Naperville Park District goals and present results graphically. Reviewing standards previously adopted by the Naperville Park District and together with the

Board and Staff, determine whether amendments are necessary down to a planning area level. Applying adopted facility standards to the system’s facilities inventory and identifying shortages

and potential locations. Analyzing the 2002 and 2005 survey data, and along with our interviews of the Board, Future

Committee members, affiliate groups and Staff, ascertain additional system needs. Evaluating Naperville Park District within a peer group and in terms of best practices and facilities.

The goals for the Plan Update include:

To integrate the 2006 Recreation Master Plan into a comprehensive planning document with an

updated analysis of open space needs. To integrate the Ten-year Capital overview into the final document. To project for a five to ten year period clear and concise recommendations that include open space

requirements, recreational amenities, and maintenance needs for strategic implementation. To evaluate and incorporate possible funding strategies. Develop a land acquisition plan if necessary.

The anticipated project schedule is to have a first draft completed the end of August - beginning of September. TD&A will prepare detailed notes from tonight’s meeting and analyze discrepancies in feedback. The Board and TD&A will meet again to clarify direction.

Input from the Board Question 1 – Are the Naperville Park District Mission and Vision Statements still appropriate?

Andrew Schaffner – Presented handout with definitions of mission vision and value statements. He believes that Naperville Park District’s vision statement and mission statement could be improved. A vision statement is defined as some form of achievement or success. The present vision statement needs to be “spruced up.” He suggested that the Board work backwards from supply to demand and go about it in a “business-like” way, meeting current demand and put themselves in a position to meet future demand. He suggested the use of more demand driven, measurable, testable and empirical goals related to resident satisfaction.

Ronald Ory – A key word was dropped from one of the District’s previous statements. This word is “leader.” He believes we need to be a leader in the field and the word should be restored in the District’s mission statement. The community needs an idea of where we want to be in the future and the statements don’t provide that clarity now. He believes the Board would have to spend some time creating a more meaningful statement.

Marie Todd – Suggested that everyone agreed on the present statement not so long ago. The statements don’t have to be complex. She prefers brevity, and wording that is to the point. She questioned whether we need to redo the statements every 2 years? She doesn’t understand why some examples are not provided.

Mary Wright – Suggested that in an ideal world, the Board and the new executive director, when selected, would develop new statements together. To be practical, it could take months or years. She believes it is appropriate to utilize the present statements but to “tweak” them. She questioned why the Board would throw out everything that has been done? She believes that Andrew is correct, the present statements are not perfect. She believes that the District is not


33

FINAL DRAFT

going to be leader in everything, but instead should provide basic services. If we reinsert the word “leader,” we have to fulfill that charge. We have essentially what we need now, and she is happy to continue with it.

Kristen Jungles – Stated that the Board does not provide staff consistent direction if the mission and vision statements are constantly changed. She suggested we really just need to embrace the present statements. Realtors market property in Naperville by pointing to great parks and schools. The Board needs to uphold the vision statement. There needs to be continuity and it is not appropriate to revise the statements every time Board membership changes. Constant revisions do not allow for long term strategic planning. The District can’t operate like a business if its mission keeps changing.

Ron Ory – All five Board members present would have different opinions on the wording of the vision and mission statement. He suggested that Andrew take a crack at tweaking the present mission and vision statements and bring back for consideration by the Board.

Kristen Jungles – Supports Mr. Ory’s suggestion but wants to make sure that any revisions are also provided to staff. She suggested that when we get an opportunity to sit down with a new executive director, when selected, we can revisit this discussion.

Andrew Shaffner – He believes the mission and vision statements just need some additional substance. It does not mean it is necessary to “reinvent the wheel.”

Marie Todd – She disagreed with Andrew, they do not have to be measurable, and provide a vision. They are much broader than the narrow definition provided.

Question 2 – What would you describe as Naperville Park District’s strengths, i.e. what does it do best?

Mary Wright – Naperville Park District has a very professional staff and great fiscal assets Ron Ory – Naperville Park District is part of a community that is both rich in dollars, as well as

volunteers who step forward to make us succeed. Naperville Park District operates for the community and not in a vacuum. It has strong relationships with the public and the private sector. Its agreements with school districts are nationally renown and a great way to do more with less. Naperville Park District has a good working relationship with the City as evidenced by its Riverwalk agreement and leasing of land with the school districts. Naperville Park District has great beneficial partnerships.

Andrew Shaffner – Naperville Park District has an excellent bond rating, a land/population surplus in four of eight planning areas and the private sector fulfills indoor recreation space needs. For example, LA Fitness, at Naperville and Diehl, will provide 45,000 sq. ft. of indoor recreation space that adds to the stock of indoor spaces available for Naperville Park District programming.

Kristen Jungles – Naperville Park District has multiple opportunities for partnerships. There also is lots of support available from area legislators.

Marie Todd - Although Naperville Park District doesn’t own all the land, the Riverwalk is a huge local asset.

Questions 3 – What would you describe as Naperville Park District’s weaknesses, i.e. what could it do better?

Ron Ory – The Lack of experience of Naperville Park District’s planning staff is the reason consultants have been retained to complete the Plan Update.

Kristen Jungles – Stated she disagrees with Ron’s statement. She noted that a plan provides a snapshot of current conditions, which can only be obtained with outside perspective. A consultant is required to provide an objective perspective.

Mary Wright – Naperville Park District is weakened as a result of disagreement among Board members. Many opinions held by members are not flexible.


34

FINAL DRAFT

Marie Todd – Naperville Park District suffers from a lack of indoor programming space. Much of the indoor space utilized is space Naperville Park District doesn’t control. The District is at the mercy of other organizations that make this space available and their needs for the space are increasing. As a result, Naperville Park District does not service the area in a cost-effective manner, because not everyone can afford private indoor opportunities.

Andrew Shaffner – The community’s perception of the Park District is a weakness. There is a general lack of community trust since many think we were fiscally irresponsible in decisions regarding the recreation center. He believes that elected officials are in a sense, “on probation.” There is a significant land/population deficiency in four of eight planning areas. Solutions to these deficiencies are difficult since competition for land is great and little vacant land remains available.

Ron Ory – Indicated that in some instances the Board doesn’t have enough information to make some decisions.

Mary Wright – Disagreed, with the previous statement. She believes the Board is provided plenty of information. Staff bent over backwards in providing information for the “audit?”

Ron Ory – Stated that the architectural contract for the recreation center was written in a way that once it was signed, the Board was out of picture. Cost and design issues were never brought to the Board for resolution. Several million dollars were spent without appropriate checks and balances.

Kristen Jungles – Board communication and cooperation is clearly a weakness. She suggested it was imperative that the Board works together. She hopes there will be a forum where we the Board can discuss how it can be more effective. Another weakness is the Board’s limited resources, 50% of its revenue source is “capped.”

Question 4 – Are there any threats from other program providers that will make it difficult for Naperville Park District to accomplish its mission?

Andrew Shaffner – Exists in the form of competition for open space from developers. Ron Ory – Suggested stimulating cooperation with other providers through subsidies or program

scholarships. Kristen Jungles – Suggested the need to do a better job of knowing where we are going. Another

threat involves the potential elimination of OSLAD grant funding. Each year, such funding accounts for approximately $400,000 for each grant obtained.

Ron Ory - A substantial threat to the District is the potential for housing values to decline with a corresponding decline in EAV/property tax revenue.

Question 5 – Are you confident that the results of the 2005 Survey paint an accurate picture of residents’ needs?

Ron Ory – The survey was written and used to rationalize construction of certain facilities. It did not include data on unstructured, non-programmed use of facilities such as playing in use of playgrounds. There was no regression analysis to relate the 2002 survey results to the 2005 survey results.

Andrew Shaffner – Believes the results are not accurate because the sample size was too small and there were ambiguous questions and answers.

Marie Todd – Believes the results provided accurate responses for the time it was administered. She accepts that the survey instrument was valid, although some of the questions led to answers that were not what we are tried to measure. However, overall is an accurate representation of resident needs.

Kristen Jungles – Feels the survey answered some demand questions, but we should keep up an ongoing effort of identifying resident needs.

Andrew Shaffner – The survey results reflect a great job of reaching out to some in focus groups.


35

FINAL DRAFT

However, he believes it did not reach busy moms who didn’t have time to respond or who couldn’t make a meeting. He suggested the need to measure residents needs on a quarterly basis. He noted that tennis programs are two to three times overbooked. In general, we need to do an overall better job of surveying.

Brad Wilson – Clarified that tennis is not overbooked to that extent. Over the last two or three years, there have consistently been 1,200 tennis participants registered and 70 on waitlist.

Charlie Brown – Kristen indicated that Charlie had responded that the District needs to make sure we take caution with how we react to the results.

Question 6 – Do you believe that the “pie chart” allocating $100 of Naperville Park District funds contained in the 2005 Survey results is reflective of current Naperville Park District needs?

Kristen Jungles – Doesn’t believe it is accurate. She suggested more emphasis on taking care of what we have first. This could include bringing parks up to established standards before adding more. A higher priority should also be assigned to land acquisition since open space is becoming scarcer.

Ron Ory – The Pie Chart results are ambiguous. The results may have been different if needs were better understood particularly in an environment of limited resources.

Andrew Shaffner – Indicated he does not believe it is representative and questioned if the chart depicted dollars or percentages as indicated. Regardless, he believes we are loosing the race for available open space.

Mary Wright – Indicated that some of the results can be achieved without expenditure of Naperville Park District funds if other jurisdictions make certain improvements such as trails.

Marie Todd – Believes that a majority of people who answered are Naperville Park District system users. It reflects the needs if those users and perhaps not the general community of casual system users. While she generally believes the results are valid, we may want to consider rephrasing the question in any future survey so that needs are identified and responses will be based on identified needs.

Questions 7 – The 2006 Recreation Plan contains various recommendations. Are there any recommendations that you believe are no longer valid and which should not be included in the Plan Revision?

Brad Wilson – Explained that the District and its consultant based recommendations on several analyses, the results of several public forums, survey results, compiled information from staff and data on program participation. It took all of that information and developed a strategic plan and recommendations. The recommendations are a “balanced approach” that recommends trails, maintenance of best in class amenities and included a facility matrix. The matrix included an analysis of needs based on NRPA national standards and, taking into account feedback from Naperville Park District, standards specific to Naperville.

Ron Ory – The District has embarked on only limited implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. The lack of support for the proposed recreation center caused everything else to fall by the wayside, namely implementation of other recommendations in the Plan. Costs were never provided. He believes the District needs to achieve excellence in recreation, not balance or “averaging out” what we are doing. He suggested a bias towards providing open space, not meeting recreation needs from the attitude and interest survey. The Board needs to come to agreement on what it needs for to meet indoor recreation needs and come to a consensus on how to achieve that goal. While we may want to achieve everything, it is impossible. He believes we need to further explore what indoor space is now available in Naperville. How to implement the recommendations will require lots of consideration by the Board.

Mary Wright and Marie Todd – Both considered the recommendations as still being are valid. The


36

FINAL DRAFT

District needs a strategic plan to begin addressing those specific issues. Kristen Jungles – Believes that some of the recommendations are valid. With new private facilities

being constructed the District and Board need to decide if each Recreation Plan recommendation makes sense. That is particularly true with other program providers and available funding? For example, what roll will the District play in providing a trail system? Should it be limited only to maintenance once it is developed? Although it is not necessarily a high priority, the average user would think that the District would be responsible for the entire cost of providing such trails, even though they are not always a District responsibility.

Bob Ahlberg – One of the goals of the Plan Update is to pull all of the existing plans and recommendations together into one easily understandable document accompanied by a strategic implementation section.

Kristen Jungles – Questioned whether a draft of the plan is still possible by the end of August? Bob replied that the end of August is the target date.

Question 8 – The 2006 Recreation Plan establishes park/open space to population ratio of 16-18 acres of Naperville Park District Land/1,000 residents. TD&A believes that this range is reasonable for a community with Naperville’s characteristics and ample supply of open space now provided by other jurisdictions. However based on Naperville’s projected population, the 16-18 acre range now established represents potential difference of almost 300 acres and introduces uncertainty into the planning process. TD&A suggests that a more specific standard should be established for Naperville that falls in the middle of the present range, i.e. 17 acres of Naperville Park District land/1,000 residents. Is this 17 acres of Naperville Park District land/1,000 residents standard acceptable to the Board?

Marie Todd – Suggested we develop a standard that does not include other jurisdictions (schools, county, etc.) that would skew our data. The standard should be based only on the land owned by the District.

Mary Wright – Explained where the recommended standard came from. As population increases, the District needs to add land to its system so that the land/population ratio is maintained at an acceptable level and not reduced. This must be accomplished by buying land or leasing more land. The District must balance the need to maintain existing facilities with the feasibility of obtaining additional land.

Ron Ory – Questioned why land acquisition plans are not based directly on need? He believes that the standard should also take into account the land necessary for provision of various recreation facilities. By relating land acquisition to facility needs (for example the land required to provide additional ballfields required to meet needs), residents will better understand acquisition proposals. In other words, we need a needs assessment for recreation facilities. Specifics would better provide support for any land acquisition referendum.

Brad Wilson – Indicated that we already have an analysis of need base on facility standards. He asked what additional information would be required.

Ron Ory – Questioned how our standard was derived. Is it based on your knowledge of community and based on program/facility waitlists. We need to convert need into acquisition acreage requirements. This type of analysis may lead to some neighborhood parkland purchases. He believes the existing 16-18 acre standard is arbitrary. We need to quantify the District’s total need for space and translate that need into the acreage required.

Kristen Jungles – We can add another column to the present facilities chart in the Recreation Plan for acreage. While it hasn’t been converted into a specific acreage need, the chart clearly shows we are lacking by a percentage of the amenities that we lack.

Bob Ahlberg – Board responses have intermingled responses from questions seven and eight. We can use the facility recommendations in the Recreation Plan to help shape the standard used in the Plan. Typically such standards do not include land owned by other entities (unless they are


37

FINAL DRAFT

secured by lease) simply because the District can’t really control land it doesn’t own. Andrew Shaffner – Part of the traffic problem in Naperville is attributable to a lack of athletic

fields on the north side of town. Kids participating in sports must be driven to larger fields elsewhere in Naperville because such fields are not located where they happen to live. In addition, the start of Ribfest causes baseball in Naperville to come to grinding halt since it is located on baseball fields. Also, we rest fields, which takes them out of commission and resident demand must be met by fields that are not being rested. The policy of resting fields suggests we need more fields than a national standard might require.

Kristen Jungles – Clarified that the schedule for Ribfest may fall when baseball is usually in a mid season break but has required baseball to start in early spring.

Ron Ory – Suggested that the District should try to decide if a public gathering space like a fairground might be necessary.

Question 9 – Should the Plan Revision include a policy that encourages the acquisition of additional land in Subareas that already contain sufficient Naperville Park District land to meet or exceed adopted land/population ratios (assume sufficient money is available for such purchase)?

Kristen Jungles – Agreed provided money is available and the land is priced at FMV. Marie Todd – Questioned why the District would buy additional land in the south where surpluses

now exist? She did not support such acquisition as long as there is a deficiency in the north. The policy should be to meet the need to address deficiencies first and buy additional land in areas with surpluses only if we have sufficient money and needs are met.

Ron Ory – Questioned why the District should buy land it doesn’t need? Acquisition might make sense if it is swapped for land to meet deficiencies. The District’s fundamental strategy should be to meet land needs in all areas.

Questions 10 - What is the appropriate planning horizon for the Plan Revision (i.e. the time period for implementing recommendations in the Plan Revision)? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years?

- Kristen Jungles - Indicated that the five-year horizon is not realistic. Andrew Shaffner – Suggested that the Plan should establish goals for five, ten, fifteen and twenty

year periods. Recommendations should be based on measurable, testable goals. Goals may change in five to six years and demand may arise based on a huge resident demand for something not now provided. There needs to be sufficient flexibility in the plan so that it can address such needs.

Ron Ory – If the District uses bonds it has to know exactly when it will need the money. However, the projected “picture” in the 20th year will be a lot less clear. We must spread out our large capital expenditures.

Marie Todd - Will need to reevaluate the Plan’s recommendations every five to ten years. Projecting 20 years down the road can get pretty “fuzzy.” We need to focus on five to ten years and continually update.

Kristen Jungles – The Plan must be a working document. Bob Ahlberg – One way to handle this uncertainty is have yearly items to be achieved for the first

ten years, and then place longer term recommendations in broader categories for years ten to twenty.

Conclusion - Kristen Jungles – Asked when the Board will have dialogue with staff? She suggested the need

to discuss the Plan with staff in August. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM.


38

FINAL DRAFT

Appendix G: Resources for Plan Name Date Author Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. 1990 Lancaster, R.A. (Ed.). Facility Plan/Inventory 2000 NPD Staff Indoor Facilities Master Plan 2001 Williams Architects Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 2001 NPD Staff Community Interest and Opinion Surveys 2002 Leisure Vision A Planners Dictionary 2004 M. Davidson and F. Dolnick Community Interest and Opinion Surveys 2005 Leisure Vision Recreation Master Plan 2006 Pros Consulting Knoch Park Meeting Minutes 2006 Hitchcock Design Park and Facility Design Standards 2006 NPD Staff Naperville Population Projections 2006 City of Naperville GIS Park Data Base 2007 NPD Staff Ten Year Capital Overview 2007 NPD Staff Park Assets 2007 NPD Staff Open Space Needs 2007 NPD Staff Maintenance Costs 2007 NPD Staff Park Maintenance Costs 2006 NPD Staff Service Level Guidelines for Park Maintenance 2006 NPD Staff Land Holdings Summary 2007 NPD Staff Strategic Plan 2006 - 08 NPD Staff Park District Agreements Various NPD Staff Guidelines for Developing Public Recreation Facility Standards No Date Ministry of Culture and Recreation


39

FINAL DRAFT

Documents

2007 OSRMP Final Appendices · River Run Preserve North 8M 4343 Plainfield/Nap. Rd. S PA River Run Preserve South 8N 1715 Baybrook Lane S PA Rivercrest Estates Park 5R 11 S 087 Sheri