docAppendix C - NapervilleParks.org
download 
Report Transcription
Appendix C - NapervilleParks.org
APPENDICES 2007 OSRMP Open Space and Recreation Master Plan FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 320 W. Jackson Ave Naperville, IL 60540 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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 3 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 4 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Appendix A: List of Parks and Other Holdings 139 Parks A. George Pradel Park Arbor Way Bainbridge Greens Brighton Ridge Park Brook Crossings Brush Hill Park Burlington Square Park Burr Oak Buttonwood Park Cantore Park Carol Acres Century Farms Park College Park Columbia Commons Columbia Estates Park Country Commons Cress Creek Park Crestview Knoll Eagle Park East Greens Fairway Commons Park Farmington Park Fox Hill Greens Harris Fawell Park Heatherstone Park High Meadow Hobson Grove Hunters Woods Huntington Commons Huntington Estates Park Huntington Ridge Park Kendall Park Kingshill Park Kroehler Park Mill Street Park Monarch Park Nike Park Oakridge Parkway Old Plank Park Old Sawmill Park Old Sawmill Parkway Olesen Farm Park Pembroke Commons Pembroke Park Neighborhood Parks 8K 5G 1F 5A 7F 3A 4B 4E 3D 7G 3Y 1R 4G 6C 2C 4J 1J 8J 6I 4H 1B 6F 1E 3T 7I 8H 4O 6G 4S 4V 4W 1N 7B 2B 1L 7A 1Q 6B 2E 5N 5M 4Q 4X 4P 4519 Pradel Drive 204 Cedarbrook Road 1112 Bainbridge Drive 775 Torrington Drive 1015 95th Street 203 N. Whispering Hills Rd 307 N. Ellsworth Street 432 Villa Avenue 803 Buttonwood Circle 2507 Warm Springs Lane 787 Fort Hill Drive 715 Sigmund Road 147 N. Columbia Street 1524 Oxford Lane 968 Monticello Drive 919 School Street 1311 Royal St. George Drive 3803 Falcon Drive 724 Bakewell Lane 249 White Oak Drive 955 Fairway Drive 2331 Remington Drive 1635 Brookdale Road 1120 Fort Hill Drive 3536 Fairmount Ave. 2419 High Meadow Road 1152 Blue Larkspur Lane 2007 Lakeview Court 212 Devon Lane 867 Rockbridge Drive 1523 Culpepper Drive 84 W. 5th Avenue 4271 White Eagle Drive 507 E. 5th Avenue 1312 N. Mill Street 1585 White Eagle Drive 1567 Apache Drive 478 E. 87th Street 583 Milton Drive 432 Massachusetts Ave 435 Massachusetts Ave 1307 Green Trails Drive 1132 Kenilworth Circle 28 Pembroke Road S C N C S N N C C S C N N C N N N S C N N C N C S S C C N C C N S N N S N C N S S N C N NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP By School By School By School By School By School By School/co-op By School 5 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District Prairie Park Queensbury Greens Ranchview Park River Run Park Rose Hill Farms Park Sally Benton Park South Pointe Park Springbrook Crossings Spring-Field Park Springhill Park Summerfield Lake Tallgrass Park Three Meadows Timber Creek Park University Heights Park Walnut Ridge Park West Greens Westglen Park White Eagle Park Willow Bend West Willowgate Square Wil-O-Way Park Yorkshire Manor Park 4K 1H 6O 8I 8C 4C 8R 7E 5F 2F 7H 8Q 4Z 5S 6L 6M 3I 5C 7C 1C 5L 3B 2H 416 S. Charles Avenue 1520 Brookdale Road 1727 Ranchview Drive 4136 Clearwater Drive 1235 Hamlet Road 104 N. Loomis Street 5504 Switch Grass 1211 Leverenz Road 2031 Springside Circle 703 Springhill Circle 2003 Skylane Dr. South of 95th West of Rt 59 1320 Brittany Avenue Not yet assigned 1315 River Oak Drive 2304 Keim Drive 711 Stevens Street 1560 Westglen Drive 3140 White Eagle Drive Glenoban Dr & Paxton Dr 408 Travelaire Avenue 1408 W. Jefferson Avenue 1031 Buckingham Drive N N C S S N S S C N S S C S C C N C S N C N N NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP N S N N C C C C C N S S C C N C CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP S S S S S DP DP DP DP DP By School By School/co-op By School By School Community Parks Arrowhead Park Ashbury Park Burlington Park Country Lakes Park Gartner Park May Watts Park Meadow Glens Old Farm Park Pioneer Park Seager Park Southwest Community Park Tallgrass Lakes Weigand Riverfront Park Wildflower Park Wil-O-Way Commons Winding Creek Park 2A 8D 3G 1A 3Q 3C 6K 5I 3S 2D 8S 8P 5J 3U 3F 5D 711 Iroquois Avenue 1740 Conan Doyle Road 1003 Douglas Avenue 1835 North Aurora Road 524 W. Gartner Road 804 S. Whispering Hills Dr 1303 Muirhead Avenue 195 Ring Road 1212 S. Washington Street 1163 Plank Road South of 95th, East of tracks 3320 Rollingridge Road 2436 S. Washington Street Aurora Ave and Azalea Ct 1071 W. Jefferson Avenue 144 W. Bailey Road By School District Parks Commissioners Park DuPage River Park East DuPage River Sports Complex Frontier Park Knoch Knolls 8F 6D 5Q 8E 5P 3704 111th Street 808 Royce Road 2807 S. Washington Street (Multiple) 336 Knoch Knolls Road 6 FINAL DRAFT Sports Complex Sports Complex 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Knoch Park Nike Sports Complex Riverwalk Park 3K 1O 3H (Multiple) 288 W. Diehl Road (Multiple) C N N DP DP DP C N N C C C SU SU SU SU SU SU S C C S N C C S C N C C C N C S GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW C S C N N C N C C C N S C N N N PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA Sports Complex Sports Complex Special Use Broeker Parkway Centennial Park Central Park Community Garden Plots Sportsman's Park Veterans Park 3O 3X 4A 3M 3L 4F 11 Martin Avenue 500 W. Jackson Avenue 104 E. Benton Avenue 811 S. West Street 735 S. West Street 303 E. Gartner Road Greenways Ashbury Greenway Bailey Hobson Woods Park Campus Greens Clow Creek Greenway Colfax Way Huntington Estates Parkway Kingsley Prairie Knoch Knolls Greenway Lincoln Greenway Nike Greenway Old Farm Greenway Pioneer Greenway Rock Ridge Park Springhill Greenway Stanford Meadows Tallgrass Greenway 8B 4N 6J 8L 1D 4U 5U 5T 3R 1P 5H 4L 4R 2G 6H 8O 3475 Plainfield/Naper. Rd 1184 Hobson Mill Drive 1532 Fender Road (Multiple) 1111 Bainbridge Drive 828 Rockbridge Drive 160 Ring Road 144 Settlers Drive 1052 Edgewater Drive 1567 Apache Drive 75 W. 87th Street 1095 Hobson Mill Drive 1316 Green Trails Drive 780 Springhill Circle 1991 Stanford Drive South of 95th St along ComEd By School/co-op Preservation/conservation Areas Baileywood Park Brook Prairie Farmington Commons Firemen's Memorial Park Forest View Park Goodrich Woods Heritage Woods Hobson West Park Hobson West Ponds Hobson Woods Park Kings Park Knoch Knolls Commons Lincoln Woods Miledje Square Olesen Estates Redfield Commons 6P 8G 6E 3A1 1I 4Y 1M 3N 3E 4M 4I 5K 4D 1K 4T 1G 1588 Oxford Lane 1059 Thackery Lane 2524 Barkdoll Road 1072 W. Jefferson Avenue 1147 Raymond Drive 25 W 507 Hobson Road 1067 W. 5th Avenue 839 S. West Street (Multiple) 694 Lookout Court 308 White Oak Drive 323 Knoch Knolls Road 54 Golden Larch Court 635 Morningside Drive 1415 Dunrobin Road 1324 Redfield Road 7 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District River Run Preserve North River Run Preserve South Rivercrest Estates Park Riverview Farmstead Riverwoods Park Springbrook Parkway Walnut Ridge Woods West Branch Parkway Westglen Commons William Friedrich Memorial Park 8M 8N 5R 8V 6A 5O 6N 5E 5B 3P 4343 Plainfield/Nap. Rd. 1715 Baybrook Lane 11 S 087 Sheri Street 111th St and Book 2283 Riverwoods Drive (Multiple) 1092 Augustana Court 135 E. Bailey Road 467 Westglen Drive 720 S. Washington Street S S S S C S C C C C PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 3 Structures 425 West Jackson Alfred Rubin Riverwalk Community Center North Maintenance Facility 3W 425 W. Jackson Avenue N SU Building 3J 3V 305 Jackson Avenue 219 South Mill Street N N SU SU Building Building S S SU SU Golf Golf S S NP NP Future Future 2 Golf Courses Naperbrook Golf Course Springbrook Golf Course 8A 7D 22204 W. 111th Street 2220 83rd Street 2 Future Parks Ashwood Park Creekside Park 9A 9B Future Park in Area 8 Future Park in Area 8 8 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Appendix B: Facilities/Buildings List P P S S S S S G G G P P P S P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P G G G P S P S P S P P S P S S Building Name SF Class SubClass Park Location Knoch Knolls Wigwam The Barn Concession 8 Concession 9 Concession 13 Tennis Hut The Shop Naperbrook Clubhouse Maintenance Concession Admin Beach House Centennial Field #15 Conc Garage at the Beach Netzley House Paddle Boat Hut RCC Riverwalk Eatery Studio One Seager Cabin 1 Seager Cabin 2 Seager Cabin 3 Seager Cabin 4 Seager Cabin 5 Seager Cabin 6 Seager Detached Garage Seager House Cold Storage Sportsman's Club House Storage Shed Range Room Springbrook Clubhouse Maintenance Shop South Maintenance Building Pre-fabricated Restroom Park Support Building Pre-fabricated Restroom Park Support Building Pre-fabricated Restroom 219 Mill 425 W. Jackson Riverwalk Restroom-Jaycees Park Support Building Silo Press Box 1,105 12,122 733 225 462 192 8,931 7,830 5,100 1,200 7,298 5,490 522 494 2,533 174 21,105 1,574 1,425 773 750 695 796 813 734 1,155 2,919 7,444 1,661 689 1,201 7,947 8,906 Indoor Indoor Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Indoor Indoor Enclosed Enclosed Indoor Indoor Enclosed Enclosed Indoor Enclosed Indoor Indoor Indoor Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Enclosed Indoor Enclosed Indoor Enclosed Indoor Indoor Enclosed Indoor Programmed Programmed Accessory Accessory Accessory Accessory Institutional Institutional Institutional Accessory Institutional Institutional Accessory Institutional Programmed Institutional Programmed Accessory Programmed Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Institutional Programmed Institutional Programmed Institutional Institutional Institutional Knoch Knolls Knoch Park Knoch Park Knoch Park Knoch Park Knoch Park Knoch Park Naperbrook Golf Course Naperbrook Golf Course Nike Sports Complex Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Riverwalk Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Seager Park Sportsmans Park Sportsmans Park Sportsmans Park Springbrook Golf Course Springbrook Golf Course Springbrook Golf Course Frontier Park Frontier Park Frontier Park Commissioners Park Commissioners Park Pioneer Park 219 Mill 425 W. Jackson Riverwalk DuPage Sports Complex DuPage River Park Frontier Park P=Primary S=Secondary G=Golf 9 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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) Operational Cost Increase $2,980.00 $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) 10 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Appendix D: Service Area Maps 11 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 12 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 13 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 14 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 15 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 16 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 17 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 18 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 19 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 20 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 21 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 22 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Appendix E: Staff, Futures Committee and Athletic Affiliates Interviews - Summary Project: Date: Location: Present: Naperville Park District Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Update May 2, 2007 - 4:30 to 7:30 PM 320 West Jackson, Naperville, Illinois 60540 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- 23 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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. 24 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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. 25 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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 26 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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 27 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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 28 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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 29 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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) 30 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== Appendix F: Park Board Workshop – Summary Project: Date: Issued: Location: Present: Naperville Park District Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Update June 26, 2007 – 6:00 to 7:30 PM July 6, 2007 Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, 55 South Main Street, Suite 351, Naperville, Illinois 60540 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: 31 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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 32 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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. 33 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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. 34 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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 35 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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 36 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 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. 37 FINAL DRAFT Naperville Park District 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 38 FINAL DRAFT 2007 Open Space and Recreation Master Plan ====== 39 FINAL DRAFT
