University Park trustees debate draft agreement to put village parks under new Park District

Mayor and trustees met in a special workshop to review a draft intergovernmental agreement that would have the recently formed University Park Park District maintain and operate village parkland.

The mayor opened the meeting by describing properties the Park District would take on — including the Regal Farm complex, Pine Lake, Palmer Park and several tot lots — and said the district’s creation followed a referendum approved by voters. He told trustees the district’s levy would arrive soon and defended the proposal as a way to return parks and recreation services that the village has not provided since 2016.

“We’re paying $88,000 a month for insurance over these properties,” the mayor said during discussion of the draft, framing the transfer as one method to reduce the village’s operating burden while restoring programs for seniors and children. He also described the transfer language in the draft as negotiable, saying the document is a working agreement that both sides can change.

Several trustees pushed back on moving forward without more documentation. One trustee flagged an active lawsuit challenging how the Park District board was created and said the petition that led to the district’s formation did not include required language explaining how the initial board would be constituted, which could mean the district defaults to elected commissioners under state statute. “There is a current lawsuit that is filed in reference to how the Park District board is formed,” the trustee warned, urging the board not to transfer assets until legal questions are resolved.

Trustees also questioned the draft’s financial terms. Several members said the document should be edited to use leasing or licensing language rather than a sale or purchase-price phrasing. One trustee said the draft had asked the village to cover two years of insurance and legal costs on behalf of the Park District; trustees asked staff to confirm whether that request pertains to one or two years, to produce appraisals or current market valuations, and to provide maintenance-cost estimates for each property before committing to a long-term arrangement.

Attorney Mike Hayes, who identified himself at the meeting, told the board that transfers of parkland between governments often use symbolic consideration (for example, $1 or $10) when the land remains parkland and is used for the same public purpose. “The $1 is consideration. It’s something of value,” Hayes said, explaining that the statutory and procedural requirements differ when a municipality sells land to a private developer versus transferring parkland to another public entity.

Trustees suggested alternatives intended to protect village interests while allowing the Park District to begin operations: use a short-term license at first, pursue a phased transfer for selected properties (for instance, start with Regal Farm), or include a reversion clause specifying what happens if a transfer is later found legally invalid. Multiple trustees asked the attorneys to draft license and lease options with explicit liability and insurance language for the board to review.

Residents who addressed the trustees during the allotted public-comment period expressed mixed views. Some urged swift action to return recreation services and improve dilapidated facilities; others asked for clearer financial information, expressed fears about tax increases, questioned how many petition signatures came from homeowners versus renters, and asked for full packets and documentation before any transfer is approved.

The board concluded the workshop by asking trustees and staff to submit suggested edits to the draft IGA, seek documentation (appraisals, grant restrictions for Regal Farm, insurance and maintenance-cost estimates) and return the item to a future meeting agenda. No formal votes or motions were recorded on the draft during the session.