The Board voted unanimously last night to place Board Packets online 48 hours before all meetings and to place the Glen Ellyn Park District governing ordinances online.
Staff has also put the 2005 survey results and additional budget information online since the last board meeting.
The Board also discussed putting monthly voucher lists online. Legal council will review this.
Staff was not able to prepare recommendations for putting audio/video recordings of all board meetings online. This report will be available for the August workshop meeting.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Board Votes to Apply for Churchill Park Grant
The Glen Ellyn Park District Board voted 4-3 to proceed with the grant authorization for the Churchill Park project. Aubrey, Dallman, Hess and Minogue voted yes, Creech, Kinzler, and Nephew voted no.
Below is the statement I made at the meeting. In my statement I refer to a letter from the community tree advocate at the Morton Arboretum. That letter is available on line here.
I strongly support this project’s primary goals of restoring Churchill Park and providing outdoor education programs. In assessing this project, I am looking at several criteria: whether the community had input into and supports the plan, whether the project is fiscally responsible, and whether the project is environmentally responsible. This point is particularly important for our nature center.
In regards to community support, we have not yet received the results of the new community survey to gauge public support for this project and this project was not even included as a project in the 2005 survey. We should pursue the projects that the residents make a priority.
At the public meeting there were many concerns expressed and questions asked about this project that went unanswered. It looked to me that the purpose of the meeting was to tell the community what we have decided to do rather than to seek input on the project. The write-up of the meeting focuses on the presentations and not the questions and responses. I think that there is potential here for people to be excited about this project and involved in it. Real community input would make this a stronger project.
Regarding the project budget, over half of the money in this grant is for concrete and buildings. I think the focus for our nature park should be on the programming, restoration and education. I am concerned about wasting a resource we already have- the existing house at Churchill park. In our previous meeting staff said that this was not feasible because the bids were $800,000 to $900,000. However, the bid documents show that this was for a renovated building with a large room, storage, and bathrooms - like the proposed prefab building - but also with a kitchen, sun room, office and finished basement. It was a beautiful plan with cathedral ceilings, exposed beams and eight skylights. We need to look at a low-cost plan for the house that is comparable to the prefab building in scale. It is irresponsible to move forward on this project without determining whether it would be more affordable to renovate the existing house.
And lastly, regarding the environmental aspect, I think that the presentation that Jill and Renee gave at the special meeting last Wednesday was wonderful. I agreed with everything they said and look forward to supporting our outdoor education programs and our natural areas at Churchill Park and throughout the park district.
In the two presentations that Mr. Vann has given he has recommended that black cherry, black walnut, apple, white ash, green ash, box elder, silver maple and cottonwood be removed from the park. He has talked extensively about removing the tree overstory, and removing the garbage trees from the park.
I was concerned about these statements, so I contacted the Morton Arboretum and was able to walk Churchill Park with one of their arborists. She thought the park was wonderful and was especially impressed with 150-year-old Hills Oak in front of the house. Her observations are included in our board packet. She agreed that the buckthorn problem was severe and a few Siberian elms and Tree-of-Heaven trees should be removed. However, she strongly disagreed with Mr. Vann’s assessment. The trees present are representative of a native bottomland forest, and can withstand the periodic flooding that we have seen this spring. They are healthy, native and entirely appropriate for our nature center. Sure, you might not plant a cottonwood tree next to your house, but here it serves its purpose.
The purpose of this park is for outdoor education. By leaving the apple trees we can teach our children that early settlers of this area commonly planted orchards in order to harvest the fruit. As the decades have passed the woods have grown up around the apple trees but they continue to provide food and habitat for animals in the woods. By leaving the cottonwood, elm, ash and box elder trees we can teach our children about native bottomland forests and the tough, quick-growing trees that thrive there.
I cannot vote for a project that calls for the unjustified tree removal that Mr. Vann recommends. We need an experienced restoration ecologist to evaluate these woods and make recommendations on how to best protect and restore them. Additionally, it is our duty as board members to ensure that our community truly supports this project and that it is a good use of taxpayer dollars. This project has good intentions but is flawed in implementation. I will be voting no on the motion to approve authorization for this grant.
Below is the statement I made at the meeting. In my statement I refer to a letter from the community tree advocate at the Morton Arboretum. That letter is available on line here.
I strongly support this project’s primary goals of restoring Churchill Park and providing outdoor education programs. In assessing this project, I am looking at several criteria: whether the community had input into and supports the plan, whether the project is fiscally responsible, and whether the project is environmentally responsible. This point is particularly important for our nature center.
In regards to community support, we have not yet received the results of the new community survey to gauge public support for this project and this project was not even included as a project in the 2005 survey. We should pursue the projects that the residents make a priority.
At the public meeting there were many concerns expressed and questions asked about this project that went unanswered. It looked to me that the purpose of the meeting was to tell the community what we have decided to do rather than to seek input on the project. The write-up of the meeting focuses on the presentations and not the questions and responses. I think that there is potential here for people to be excited about this project and involved in it. Real community input would make this a stronger project.
Regarding the project budget, over half of the money in this grant is for concrete and buildings. I think the focus for our nature park should be on the programming, restoration and education. I am concerned about wasting a resource we already have- the existing house at Churchill park. In our previous meeting staff said that this was not feasible because the bids were $800,000 to $900,000. However, the bid documents show that this was for a renovated building with a large room, storage, and bathrooms - like the proposed prefab building - but also with a kitchen, sun room, office and finished basement. It was a beautiful plan with cathedral ceilings, exposed beams and eight skylights. We need to look at a low-cost plan for the house that is comparable to the prefab building in scale. It is irresponsible to move forward on this project without determining whether it would be more affordable to renovate the existing house.
And lastly, regarding the environmental aspect, I think that the presentation that Jill and Renee gave at the special meeting last Wednesday was wonderful. I agreed with everything they said and look forward to supporting our outdoor education programs and our natural areas at Churchill Park and throughout the park district.
In the two presentations that Mr. Vann has given he has recommended that black cherry, black walnut, apple, white ash, green ash, box elder, silver maple and cottonwood be removed from the park. He has talked extensively about removing the tree overstory, and removing the garbage trees from the park.
I was concerned about these statements, so I contacted the Morton Arboretum and was able to walk Churchill Park with one of their arborists. She thought the park was wonderful and was especially impressed with 150-year-old Hills Oak in front of the house. Her observations are included in our board packet. She agreed that the buckthorn problem was severe and a few Siberian elms and Tree-of-Heaven trees should be removed. However, she strongly disagreed with Mr. Vann’s assessment. The trees present are representative of a native bottomland forest, and can withstand the periodic flooding that we have seen this spring. They are healthy, native and entirely appropriate for our nature center. Sure, you might not plant a cottonwood tree next to your house, but here it serves its purpose.
The purpose of this park is for outdoor education. By leaving the apple trees we can teach our children that early settlers of this area commonly planted orchards in order to harvest the fruit. As the decades have passed the woods have grown up around the apple trees but they continue to provide food and habitat for animals in the woods. By leaving the cottonwood, elm, ash and box elder trees we can teach our children about native bottomland forests and the tough, quick-growing trees that thrive there.
I cannot vote for a project that calls for the unjustified tree removal that Mr. Vann recommends. We need an experienced restoration ecologist to evaluate these woods and make recommendations on how to best protect and restore them. Additionally, it is our duty as board members to ensure that our community truly supports this project and that it is a good use of taxpayer dollars. This project has good intentions but is flawed in implementation. I will be voting no on the motion to approve authorization for this grant.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Regular Board Meeting June 16, 2009
The agenda for the Glen Ellyn Park District Board Meeting is online.
The Board will vote on item VII.A, Resolution 09-04, Resolution of Authorization IDNR/OSLAD Grant Application at the meeting on Tuesday. Please see my post from May 31 about the Churchill Park grant for more details. There is also a plan and letter about the project posted on the GEPD web site.
John Vann, landscape architect for the plan, presented information about the project at the June 2 board meeting and at the June 10 special meeting. He said that 75% of the trees are no good and many of the trees in the park are garbage trees. That project will remove any invasive or non-native plants.
The area has a very serious buckthorn problem and removing the buckthorn is a priority. Staff is already working on this problem. Invasives such as honeysuckle, mulitflora rose, garlic mustard weed and burdock will also be removed. The project includes funds for invasive removal and replanting natives.
Some of the tree species that Mr. Vann recommended for removal include: black cherry, black walnut, cotton wood, apple, white ash, green ash, silver maple, and box elder. The plans will create new wetlands to address the excessive water problem at the park. In some areas the tree overstory will be removed to make way for wetlands. Mr. Vann will consult the tree survey of the park to confirm if there are any trees worth saving in the woods.
Over half of the $600,000 project is dedicated to building a new nature center. This will be used for programming, public washrooms and storage. The existing building would be demolished.
The Board will vote on item VII.A, Resolution 09-04, Resolution of Authorization IDNR/OSLAD Grant Application at the meeting on Tuesday. Please see my post from May 31 about the Churchill Park grant for more details. There is also a plan and letter about the project posted on the GEPD web site.
John Vann, landscape architect for the plan, presented information about the project at the June 2 board meeting and at the June 10 special meeting. He said that 75% of the trees are no good and many of the trees in the park are garbage trees. That project will remove any invasive or non-native plants.
The area has a very serious buckthorn problem and removing the buckthorn is a priority. Staff is already working on this problem. Invasives such as honeysuckle, mulitflora rose, garlic mustard weed and burdock will also be removed. The project includes funds for invasive removal and replanting natives.
Some of the tree species that Mr. Vann recommended for removal include: black cherry, black walnut, cotton wood, apple, white ash, green ash, silver maple, and box elder. The plans will create new wetlands to address the excessive water problem at the park. In some areas the tree overstory will be removed to make way for wetlands. Mr. Vann will consult the tree survey of the park to confirm if there are any trees worth saving in the woods.
Over half of the $600,000 project is dedicated to building a new nature center. This will be used for programming, public washrooms and storage. The existing building would be demolished.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Public Meeting on Churchill Park
There will be a public meeting on the proposed Churchill Park project on Wednesday, June 10 at 7 p.m. The meeting will be held in the board room at Spring Avenue Recreation Center.
This meeting is your opportunity to learn more about the proposed project and give your feedback. Your input will be taken into account when we decide whether to proceed with the project and if any changes are needed.
I plan on attending- hope to see you there!
This meeting is your opportunity to learn more about the proposed project and give your feedback. Your input will be taken into account when we decide whether to proceed with the project and if any changes are needed.
I plan on attending- hope to see you there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
