Park, school districts looking to ease garden plot tensions

Naperville Unit District 203 officials say they're disappointed in the latest setback to plans to create athletic fields on garden plot land near Naperville Central High School.

Naperville Park District commissioners' rejection of the plan has put not only school officials but gardeners, parents of athletes and south-side residents on edge wondering what will come of the matter most thought had been settled.

But District 203 hasn't given up on park district officials quite yet, though the situation could cause both tension and project delays.

"We had an agreement and just like we would live up to our end we would expect the park district to live up to their end," school board President Mike Jaensch said Thursday.

Park commissioners last week rejected a construction contract that would create 155 garden plots at DuPage River Park on the city's south side.

The new plots are part of a plan that would allow District 203 to build athletic fields on part of the existing garden plot land on West Street across from Naperville Central.

After months of discussions and public meetings, the plan was approved last winter and spring by the school district, park district and city council.

But since then, residents near DuPage River Park have jumped into the fray with concerns about issues such as traffic, the cost of the plots and their appearance.

Staff presented a revised plan to the park board it hoped would address some of the concerns and called for a phased-in approach - creating 155 garden plots with the option to expand instead of building all 332 at once. The price, however, remains $250,000 for the first phase even though it only creates half the plots.

But some commissioners last week said they feel they need more details and they, too, are concerned about the cost. They rejected a construction contract in a 4-3 vote.

Executive Director Ray McGury said he is disappointed and has been fielding calls from all factions as well as city and school officials. He said he and his staff will work to get commissioners the information they need and there could be another vote Oct. 22.

At least one of the "no" votes will likely become a "yes."

Vice President Gerry Heide, who voted in favor of the plan when it was before the board in January, says he has always been supportive of putting athletic fields at West Street but isn't convinced DuPage River Park is the right place for garden plots, especially after hearing concerns from neighbors.

"We were so focused on West Street (during the January vote) I think that a lot of the details, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone, a lot of the details relative to DuPage River Park weren't examined as thoroughly as they should have been," he said Thursday.

But while he hopes to get more details and answer residents' lingering questions, he says he doesn't want it to get to the point of delaying the projects and he will ultimately honor the commitment he made in January.

The original plan was to have the new plots ready by April 2010, then start the athletic fields that fall and have them ready in late spring or early summer 2011.

McGury said if the project is approved, the original timeline may still be possible even with a delayed start.

If the proposal fails once again, Jaensch said District 203 will reexamine its options for building or leasing fields at other parks, although those plans initially drew concerns from some due to their distance from Naperville Central and their affect on other youth sports programs that need field space.

The park district will have an additional problem of its own if it doesn't build the plots and fields as planned. Its lease agreement with the city stipulates that it build athletic fields on the West Street site.

In addition, the ordinances and agreements in place prohibit it from building the athletic fields without creating the new garden plots and vice versa.

Legalities aside, both park and school officials say they hope the situation doesn't sour their relationship since they partner for a number of projects and programs. They have been in touch in recent days to discuss the situation.

"It is such an important relationship that I would hate for something like this to damage the multitude of things we partner on," Jaensch said. "I'm sure the park district board takes that into account also."