Sugar Grove trustees debate transfer of Hannaford Farm park

SUGAR GROVE – The Sugar Village Board of Trustees continued to weigh its options for transferring the Hannaford Farm park to either the Sugar Grove Park District or the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association at its Sept. 3 meeting.

Years ago, the village of Sugar Grove acquired the 2.52-acre park property after the developer behind the Hannaford Farm subdivision defaulted on his obligations.

The Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association has been maintaining the park property for years at its own expense, but the village has never signed off on it.

The Sugar Grove Village Board has two options it is considering.

Scenario No. 1, which requires five affirmative votes, is to transfer the park property to an intergovernmental entity, which in this case is the Sugar Grove Park District.

Scenario No. 2, which requires six affirmative votes, is to transfer the park property to a private entity, which is the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association.

Officials said the park district takes issue with taking on the park because its requirements have not been met. Those include improvements to bring the playground and equipment up to current industry requirements, and documentation the playground facility complied with the manufacturer’s recommendations and standards.

Village Administrator Brent Eichelberger said the last inspection of the park’s playground shows there is a need for $15,000 in improvements.

If the park property were transferred to the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association, it would be expected to continue to maintain the park.

Trustee Jen Konen, who lives in the Hannaford Farm neighborhood, expressed concern last month at the idea of transferring the park property to the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association.

Konen wanted the village to look into amending all annexation agreements that include similar language restricting public access to parks. She also urged the village board to examine how fee-in-lieu-of development fees, which are typically assessed to developers as they build, are used.

Officials have said residents of the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association are taking up the cost for fee-in-lieu-of-developments because the developer defaulted.

Several residents spoke in support of the park property transfer to the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association.

The Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association would be required to go through the village’s bid process in order to acquire the park property.

However, if the park property were transferred to the park district, fee-in-lieu-of development fees would be used to cover the expenses incurred.

Trustee Rick Montalto said he could be on board with the park property transfer to Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association.

“I would vote yes for Hannaford Farm to take it over as long as there is a stipulation that it remains public access,” he said.

Some neighborhoods in town have annexation agreements restricting public access to parks, which Montalto said were bad decisions made in the past.

“That doesn’t mean we have to make bad decisions going forward,” he said.

The village board decided it’s best to send a letter to the Hannaford Farm Homeowner’s Association, seeking input about accepting the park property transfer, so long as public access is not restricted.

The village is responsible for maintenance and repair of public right-of-ways, such as the bike path, located near the park.

Board meeting recording discussed

Also at the meeting, Eichelberger presented the village’s options for board meeting recording.

The village has the equipment to make audio and video recordings possible, but the logistics still need to be ironed out. Eichelberger made mention of needing to clarify restrictions as to how long meeting recordings need to be made available on the village’s website at any one time.

Meeting recordings have been in talks since earlier this year, but resurfaced again last month when several residents noted concerns for the way meeting minutes are compiled. Many surrounding communities are already recording their meetings, whether it’s in the form of audio or video.

“This will not change the format in which I do minutes,” Village Clerk Cynthia Galbreath said, noting they are not meant to be verbatim.

The village is looking to agree upon a cost-effective option for meeting recordings.

Some trustees said they are in favor of audio over video.

Audio recordings have their advantages and disadvantages.

Alison Murphy, management analyst for the village, said acoustic issues come into play with audio recordings.

Trustee Heidi Lendi pointed out that video recordings offer the public a greater benefit of seeing what happens at board meetings rather than just hearing.

The village has a laptop equipped with a video camera at its disposal. However, if video recordings were made possible, the village would be limited as to what views the laptop could capture.

Officials made mention of the idea of purchasing additional equipment, such as microphones, and trying out video recording equipment at the village board’s next meeting.

Preliminary audit findings reviewed

In other developments, village staff provided a preliminary look at the village’s audit for fiscal year 2018-2019.

The findings show a $330,000 surplus, which brings the total general fund balance to $1.88 million, said Matt Anastasia, finance director for the village. The unrestricted fund balance, which includes all actual cash available for expenditures, amounts to $197,000.

The final audit numbers will be available to the village in the coming week, officials said.