Park Board Talks Rosewood Redesign Costs
With the vote only a week away, the board continues to solicit feedback from residents and information from park district staff about the proposed redesign of Highland Park's sole swimming beach.
The Park District Board of Commissioners is likely to vote on the Rosewood Beach redesign at next Thursday's meeting. In the meantime, board members continue to solicit feedback from residents as well as cost information about the plan from park district staff.
At its July 12 workshop meeting, the park board heard specifics about the proposed redesign's cost, both for its construction and for maintenance going forward.
Read more: See all of Patch's Rosewood Beach coverage here.
The project's construction is estimated to cost $4,661,372. $850,000 of that will come from grants awarded to the park district, $971,000 will come from money set aside by the park district and the remaining $2,840,371 will come from the park district's reserve fund. No additional taxes would be levied on residents for the improvements, according to the park district.
The Highland Park News has an informative breakdown of the project's costs. The article points out that the most expensive piece of the project is the wooden planks for the proposed boardwalk, which is estimated to cost $890,000. The controversial interpretive center is estimated to cost between $579,000 and $630,000. The proposed other buildings, which include a guardhouse, concession stand and restrooms, are estimated to cost $276,000.
Residents voice support, opposition to plan
But at last week's meetings, residents were less concerned about the cost of the project than they were the design itself. Members of two community groups in favor of and opposed to the redesign spoke primarily to voice their support or opposition for the plan.
"Not everyone in Ravinia concurs that this is not a good idea," said Peggy Miller, a Ravinia Neighbors Association (RNA) member who has deviated from her group's opposition to the plan. "Some of us think this is a very good idea."
RNA Publicity Director Doug Purington said that his group favors the plan except for the interpretive center, and asked the board to consider approving the plan without the building and revisiting it later.
"Why can't the interpretive center be taken out of the plan and voted on 60 days later?" he asked.
Richard Heineman, a member of Friends of Rosewood (FOR) voiced his support for the plan, including the interpretive center.
"If you build this I may actually start using [the beach]," Heineman said.
RNA member and Patch blogger Amy Lohmolder advised the board against making the vote all-or-nothing.
"Residents have waited way too long for just the very basic thing of bathrooms for it to be all or nothing," she said. "The interpretive center is really a ridiculous thing to put on this beach.
President defends up or down vote
After the meeting, Park Board president Scott Meyers reiterated why the vote would be up or down for the entire plan.
"What [the task force] brought us is an integrated holistic vision for the beach," Meyers said. "It would not be appropriate for us to start lopping things off."
The park board will discuss the beach at next Thursday's meeting. If the board feels ready to vote, Meyers says he will call for one. If the plan fails, Meyers added, the board will get to work on revising it.
"The fact that it's up or down doesn't mean if it fails we're not going to build anything on the beach," Meyers said. "We will definitely do something on Rosewood."
Stakes and flags have been placed at Rosewood Beach to mark the location and size of each of the four buildings recommended by the Rosewood Beach Task Force. The Park Board encourages residents to view the footprint on the beach and provide feedback.
"We're going out of our way to make sure we're making an informed decision," Meyers said. "That doesn't necessarily mean we agree with all the comments that come in, but that doesn't mean we won't take them into consideration and evaluate them as part of the process."
For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
Jeanne Vella
8:24 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Less is More.
Despite how much money is poured into the lRosewood project, I dont think the majority of HP residents will use the facilities. During the 1-2 month period when the water is actually tolerable, only the hardiest of souls venture past the blazing sands and biting flies to actually swim in the lake. And that's only if the waves aren't causing riptides or it's not closed for bacteria. A sturdy changing house and restroom, is all that's needed for those 40(?) days. I think we should save the reserves so we don't get taxed for future projects.
Bryce Robertson
11:22 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Let's see. This summer, our first beach-worthy temps were reached in late April/early May. I made it out to the beach on a Saturday in late May, when the temp was about 80, and had I not been driving a small car, may have had trouble parking. The lake was filled with younger children and their parents playing. Plenty of teenagers and adults were littered about the beach reading or eating. That's a common sight at Rosewood on a nice day. So far, our beach season has lasted nearly three months, and will probably continue for another month and a half based on current forecasts, maybe more. Rosewood is not often closed for bacteria levels (which isn't some bureaucratic nonsense, as you seem to imply), nor do we experience severe rip currents here - and the improvements to the breakwater structures will lessen the effects of riptides even more.
So, your 40 days lends itself more or less to 120+ - a good 40% of the year! To a point - the biggest complaint that I personally hear about Rosewood is that there is no good place to walk or seek shelter. The boardwalk, bathroom facility, and IC will change that, and make Rosewood a better place for all.
David Greenberg
12:57 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Weather patterns are somewhat cyclical, so we're going to have periods where the weather gets hot early and stays that way, and we're going to have weather where we wonder why we didn't get a "summer" because it stays cold. That's the beauty and risk of the beach.
Besides the weather, you also have lake levels and action. Water levels go up and down - a few years ago, they were high enough that we had waves up in the parking lot. And during the winter, you'll often see ice dams pushing up on the beach all the way to the bluff. Putting an IC on the beach right were it can be flooded out, damaged by ice, or just outright destroyed is a bad idea.
We don't need an IC, and we certainly don't need one on Rosewood Beach. In fact, we don't need any houses on Rosewood beach. We need some permanent toilets, and a small concession stand - I'd locate them outside of the reach of the high water and ice...
Michelle Kramer
5:07 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
According to the Park District, at the present time “on summer weekend days, the lower and upper parking lots are both full.” (http://www.pdhp.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=607). Before any improvements, parking is already an issue. A party rental at the Interpretive Center could take a significant share of the estimated 97 parking spaces (53 in lower lot/44 in upper lot). Where will beach goers and staff park? Doubling the area of the sandy beach and making other beach improvements will guarantee more visitors and will require additional staff. The beach is not walking distance for most residents, myself included. I hope that the Park Board does not vote to build an expensive, unessential building (IC) which could preclude residents from using our city’s only swimming beach for its intended purpose.
Richard Heineman
7:10 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Please read the information on the park districts website. (the Beach house (sic)) will be available for community use and rentals during off-hours and seasons. (room capacity 35-50 people, restrooms, utility sink). http://www.pdhp.org/index.aspx?page=516
David Greenberg
9:46 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
The problem with the concept of renting out the IC for parties is that it may violate the restrictions in one or more of the Grants being touted as contributing funds. Those grants come with significant restrictions, and could end up affecting fees we charge across the Park District. We ought to decline to accept the grant money, and we ought not to build the IC. We don't need it.
Doug Purington
7:51 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Don't believe everything you read on the Park District website. A natural slant toward influencing the residents to believe that an Interpretive Center will be good for them and with no impact on the serenity of the beach. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Rosewood Beach is for swimming, recreation and the pure enjoyment of being outdoors and experiencing the lake affect that all of the residents of Highland Park are so blessed to have....nothing more, nothing less!