Politics & Government
Plainfield Park Board Members Sound Off on Park Lease Debate
Board president Peter Hurtado and commissioner Mary Kay Ludemann posted opposing viewpoints to Plainfield Patch's "Speak Out" board.
Two Plainfield Park District board members are sounding off on an ongoing debate regarding the lease of park property from a Joliet-area church — and they're taking their cases directly to residents.
Board president Peter Hurtado and commissioner Mary Kay Ludemann each posted to Patch's "Speak Out" board over the weekend regarding a pact the park district has with St. John Lutheran Church. Under the deal, the park district leases land near Caton Farm and Drauden roads from the church for just $1 per year — but with the understanding that the park district will eventually build a park on the property.
The agreement also calls for the land to eventually be deeded to the park district by the church, although no timelines for the giveaway is specified.
Last month, the park board voted 3-2 against terminating the lease — but some park district officials would like to see the issue revisited. Hurtado and Steinys voted last month to kill the lease, while Janet Silosky ended up casting a no vote along with Ludemann and Larry Newton.
On Saturday, Hurtado posted a release titled, "Dear Park District residents," advocating terminating the lease and abandoning plans for a park, which he said could cost around $1 million — money he said could be better spent elsewhere.
"... during the time I have been involved with the project it has become evident that the conditions of the lease, and the scale of the development, are not in the best interests of the district," Hurtado said, in part, continuing, " ... As currently written, the lease requires that the Plainfield Park District bear half the cost for improvements made to certain Church property while the park infrastructure is being installed. This property includes the driveway and parking lot. It is my view that this portion of the lease provides the Church with excessive authority to allocate district funds to advance an essentially private interest. As written, the Church would have the authority to move forward on any improvements to these areas, billing the park district for half the cost without any need for prior consent. Though I understand the reasoning put forward by the St. John’s Church in favor of this provision, I do not believe it is an appropriate use of taxpayer’s dollars at this time. Though I understand the reasoning put forward by the St. John’s Church in favor of this provision, I do not believe it is an appropriate use of taxpayer’s dollars at this time."
Click to read Hurtado's full statement.
On Sunday, Ludemann responded, advocating for the continuance of the lease, saying the proposed park would benefit a currently underserved portion of the park district.
"This public-private partnership is a great way to get a park into an area of PTPD (Plainfield Township Park District) that has a need for more park space at a low cost," she said. "In this case the church is donating the land and the PTPD is only paying for the development of the park site," Ludemann continued, going on to outline the terms of the lease.
Ludemann said funding for the park is intended to come from grant funding:
"The cost to develop this park site is consistent with the features that are proposed which include 2 tennis courts, a rubber surface volleyball court, a sand volleyball court, an inline hockey rink and a picnic shelter," she wrote. " ... The plan includes application for grant funding in 2014 that will help to fund this park site, potentially up to half of the cost. In the event grant funding is denied the plan is to go forward with developing this site with fewer features."
Ludemann also refuted a claim that she did not disclose the fact that she is a member of St. John's.
"Additional comments have been made that I did not disclose my membership in St. John Lutheran Church regarding this project and that is not true," she wrote. "When this project first came up for discussion in closed session I consulted with our district attorney, I revealed my membership in this church and asked if it was ok for me to be involved in this discussion. And the attorney advised that since there is nothing for me to personally gain financially from this project that it was and is legal for me to be involved."
Click here to read Ludemann's full statement.
It's unclear whether the church lease will be up for another vote this week. As of Sunday night, the agenda for the Nov. 13 meeting was not yet posted to the park district website. The board meets at 6 p.m. in the lower level at the Heritage Professional Center, 24023 W. Lockport St.
Where do you stand on the issue? Should the park district terminate the lease, or is the park project a worthwhile investment?
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.
