There were 5 letters received and read as part of public comment in addition to thirteen visitors who provided comments to the Park Board. To view a transcript of these letters and comments please click on the Complete Meeting Minutes below.
Unfinished Business – Stormwater Management Discussion
Commissioner Spaeth made a motion that the Board of Park Commissioners maintains its current position in regard to the use of York Commons Park for stormwater as communicated in writing to the City of Elmhurst on October 29, 2014. Commissioner Kies seconded the motion.
Commissioner Howard stated the use of the east lobe of York Commons Park is the right thing to do as 8 inches of stormwater is a huge difference for a home threatened by flooding. Commissioner Kubiesa said the large homes built in the City should never have been allowed as they have contributed to the stormwater issue; improved infrastructure is the solution. Commissioner Kubiesa made a motion that the Park Board of Commissioners authorizes the Executive Director to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Elmhurst that is consistent with the general terms 1 and 2 but that is contingent upon conditions A and B as listed. (1) Usage of the east lobe of York Commons Park for no more than 12 acre feet of water retention; consistent with the Board's current 3-part standard (2) such other terms and conditions as the Executive Director deem reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this motion; and the conditions are (A) The City of Elmhurst shall seek voter approval with a referendum which approves the issuance of General Obligation Bonds or issue bonds through their home rule authority to finance stormwater infrastructure improvements for the entire City of Elmhurst system; and (B) The people/residents of Elmhurst shall approve a referendum question which asks whether any future Elmhurst parks should be permanently modified to assist the City with stormwater retention. Commissioner Morissette-Moll seconded the motion.
Commissioner Spaeth stated that all decisions made by the Park Board were based on data collected from Burke Engineering’s reports and analyzed by V3. The York Commons Park west lobe proposes to provide relief for 38 homes while the east lobe provides a small benefit to that area; whereas improved infrastructure could provide relief for 222 homes. The cost of the project over the course of 7 years is approximately $22 million. The park district is not causing the City’s expenditures to escalate, that was the cost from the beginning. The City should not delay on seeking approvals for infrastructure improvements. The improvements will increase EAV and property values.
Commissioner Moll spoke in support of improved infrastructure. Commissioner Howard stated that the Board owes it to residents to pose the question through a referendum. Originally, the detention basins were described as pilot projects. The west lobe is a good and legitimate pilot area to see how the detention functions. The Park District can ask the City to go to referendum but that is something that the City needs to determine for themselves as that is their core responsibility. Board President Ubriaco requested Commissioner Spaeth provide a clear explanation/comparison as to the impact of the infrastructure costs to the detention basin. Commissioner Spaeth explained that the Stormwater Subcommittee requested the City provide an estimate of additional costs incurred should the east lobe not be used for stormwater detention. The information was peer reviewed by V3 Engineering. V3's peer review revealed that the east lobe provided very little benefit to homes in that area to compel the Park Board to allow use of the east lobe. V3 engineer Greg Wolterstorff stated that the east lobe's 8 inch lowering would remove 14 homes out of the flood plain but with the potential of 7 to 8 feet of water still in the basement. The difference is a matter of how much rain falls over a given period of time.
Commissioner Howard stated that the east lobe was not thoroughly discussed by the Board. Commissioner Pelosi stated that he stands by his vote. Commissioner Kubiesa said that the Board never voted on the east lobe.
Board President Ubriaco called to question Commissioner Kubiesa's motion by roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioners Howard, Kubiesa, Morissette-Moll, and Ubriaco. Nays: Commissioners Pelosi, Spaeth, and Kies. Motion passed to vote on Commissioner Kubiesa motion as stated that the Board of Park Commissioners authorizes the Executive Director to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Elmhurst that is consistent with the general terms 1 and 2 but that is contingent upon conditions A and B as listed. (1) Usage of the east lobe of York Commons Park for no more than 12 acre feet of water retention; consistent with the Board's current 3-part standard (2) such other terms and conditions as the Executive Director deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this motion; and the conditions are (A) The City of Elmhurst shall seek voter approval with a referendum which approves the issuance of General Obligation Bonds or issue bonds through their home rule authority to finance stormwater infrastructure improvements for the entire City of Elmhurst system; and (B) The people/residents of Elmhurst shall approve a referendum question which asks whether any future Elmhurst parks should be permanently modified to assist the City with stormwater retention. Ayes: Commissioners Howard, Kubiesa, and Morissette-Moll. Nays: Commissioners Spaeth, Kies, Pelosi, and Ubriaco. Motion failed with 4 nays and 3 ayes.
Commissioner Spaeth called to question his motion. Commissioner Kies seconded the call to vote. The Board was polled for the call to question. Ayes: Commissioners Spaeth, Howard, Kies, Kubiesa, Morissette-Moll, Pelosi, and Ubriaco. Nays: None. Motion passed to call to question Commissioner Spaeth’s motion that the Board of Park Commissioners maintains its current position in regard to the use of York Commons Park for stormwater as communicated in writing to the City of Elmhurst on October 29, 2014. The Board was polled. Ayes: Commissioners Pelosi, Spaeth, Kies, and Ubriaco. Nays: Commissioners Howard, Kubiesa, and Morissette-Moll. The motion carried with 4 ayes and 3 nays.
Commissioner Kubiesa added that she would like the Park Board to seek assurance in writing from the City that infrastructure improvements will be completed. Commissioner Kies stated that it is not within the Park Board's realm to seek assurance from the City. Commissioner Morissette-Moll stated that she would not want the Park Board to continue to relinquish precious parkland unless the City has presented a referendum to remediate completing infrastructure improvements. Executive Director Rogers reminded the Board that the letter sent to the City on October 29, 2014 requested a commitment from the City to improve infrastructure; the challenge is that the Park Board does not have authority over the City. Commissioner Kubiesa suggested that the Park Board eliminate the City's portion of her proposed request because, in good faith, the Park Board has not received a response from the City yet, but would like the Park Board to address the idea of a referendum that would be under control of the park district pertaining to use of park district land.
