2010-09-15 fort sheridan advisory committee meeting

Fort Sheridan Update September 15, 2010

Fort Sheridan

Forest Preserve

Master Plan

Advisory Group

September 15, 2010


Agenda

1.Call to Order

2.Welcome and Introductions

3.Minutes of June 9, 2010

4.Facilitator Process Update and Meeting Objective

5.Review of Public Open House

6.Review of Public Comments

7.Update on Conceptual Designs

8.Discussion on Level of Consensus

9.Review Next Steps


Advisory Group’s Charter

“The Committee will prepare, approve and forward a final report to the Forest Preserve Board of Commissioners, consisting of a recommended program and conceptual master plan of preferred future public uses for Fort Sheridan Forest Preserve, including a summary of options, analysis, opinions of probable construction costs, analysis of projected operating costs and revenues, and public input considered during the planning process.”


Advisory Group representatives

Lake County Forest Preserve District Commissioners

Chair, Carol Calabresa, Board District 15 Anne Flanigan Bassi, Board District 23 Michelle Feldman, Board District 22 Susan Loving Gravenhorst, Board District 13

Municipal and Park District Representatives

Park District of Highland Park City of Highland Park Lake Bluff Park District City of Lake Forest City of Highwood Town of Fort Sheridan Master Homeowners Association

Ex-Officio Members: (Invited)

Mark Steven Kirk - United States Representative - 10th DistrictWilliam Brawner - U.S. Department of the Army


Activities to dateDate Event Objective

January Gather information

• Create timeline and approach

February 2nd meeting • Understand everyone’s point of view• Identify all possible scenarios• Identify the core set of objectives across

the Group

April 3rd meeting • Explore a compromise scenario for further, in-depth exploration

June 4th meeting • Review conceptual designs for a compromise scenario; land use, golf experience and market presentations

August Public Open House

• Gather public input

Advisory Committee Members and LCFPD staff have spent at least 20 hours in formal meetings, and many more in

preparation.


Objectives for Sept 15 meeting• Review information gathered since last meeting

• Public Open House

• Public comments

• Conceptual designs

• Test for consensus

• Desired outcome: decide on Group’s recommendation to the Forest Preserve Board


Public Open House

•Held on August 26, 2010 from 5 – 8 PM at the Gorton Community Center, Lake Forest•Estimated 150 – 160 people attended, plus Advisory Group members and LCFPD staff and consultants •All three blended concept designs (1, 2A, 2B) were on display with a designated person to answer questions•Ample opportunities for public comment – during and after the open house


Public Comment SummaryOver 300 public comments submitted between Jan. 2009 – Sept. 2010 – and they are still coming in

• About 25% of all comments were received in 2009• About 15% of all comments were received from Jan –

May 2010• About 70% from June 2010 – Aug 2010• Many people submitted multiple comments over time

Note that the public comment data is NOT a statistically representative sample of the opinions of the people in the affected communities or in Lake County. It is a summary of the responses by people who chose to submit a public comment.

The information is useful to understand the public concerns and arguments both for and against a golf solution on the site, but should not be considered a public “vote.”


Total households FOR golf 155 47.0%

Total households AGAINST golf (for Traditional forest preserve) 175 53.0%

DATA ON ALL COMMENTS TO DATE AS OF 9-12-2010

Over half of the FOR GOLF responses indicated they

might be willing to consider a 9-hole course


Themes – concerns and arguments from FOR GOLF public comments (as of 9/15/2010)

In order of the frequency of how often the themes was mentioned:1.Must honor legal obligation/ promise2.Prefer 18 hole to a blended solution3.Feel insulted, disappointed by Country's treatment, stalling last 10 yrs4.Site is beautiful, and unique for golf5.There is County revenue opportunity - clubhouse, draw of the course, other6.Protect property value, Fort Sheridan owner value7.County made mistake to close original course8.There are already enough trails / open space ; current trails underused9.Potential for litigation if LCFPD does not act10.Not enough golf options in the area


Themes – concerns and arguments from AGAINST GOLF( for Traditional Forest Preserve) public comments (as of 9/15/2010)

Of the FOR GOLF respondents 60 (57% of all FOR GOLF respondents) were open to a compromise of a blended solution of golf and natural areas/trails (as of Sept 5 comments)

In order of the frequency of how often the themes was mentioned:1.Fiscal concerns 2.There is enough/too much golf already; golf is declining3.Site is a treasure, unique opportunity, think of 100 yr. legacy4.Want full public access to lake; access /benefit to county as a whole5.Want more open, natural space6.Site is important for birds7.Concerns about environment, impact8.Past mistakes should not dictate current decisions9.LCFPD mission is about preserves10.Concern about safety of hikers


Project Cost EstimateBased on Option 2-B. Other 9-hole options similar.

Golf Course Construction Costs

Bob Lohmann

President and Principal Architect

Lohmann Golf Designs, Inc.

Public Access and Other Site Costs

Mike Fenelon

Director of Planning, Conservation and Development

Lake County Forest Preserve District


Project Cost EstimateProject Element Direct Golf Cost General Public

Benefit CostTotal Cost

9-hole Golf Course $6,768,000 $100,000 $6,868,000

Buildings & Utilities $1,614,000 $1,058,000 $2,672,000

Site Work & General Public Access

$1,824,000 $2,677,000 $4,501,000

Subtotal 9-hole Golf Course

$10,206,000 $3,835,000 $14,041,000

Junior Course $170,000 $112,000 $282,000

Total 9-hole Golf Course with Junior Course

$10,376,000 $3,947,000 $14,323,000




9-hole Golf Course $6,768,000 $100,000 $6,868,000

Includes:•Golf course construction•1.5% insurance and bonds•10% contingency and escalation•Golf architect design services•Golf and site equipment•Golf course specialty accessories•Engineering and irrigation design services•ComEd electrical design service for irrigation pumps•Pre-opening grow-in period




Buildings and utilities

$1,614,000 $1,058,000 $2,672,000

Includes:

•Natural resource and maintenance center•Pre-engineered building (9,000 square feet) and storage bins

•Utility service and fuel storage; landscaping and fencing

•Clubhouse•Prefabricated building, deck, furnishings and equipment

•Utility service and connection fees

•Golf cart area(secured outdoor); and evaporator restroom

•10% contingency and escalation

•Architect redesign fees




Site work/general public access

$1,824,000 $2,677,000 $4,501,000

Includes:•Trails (2.2 miles), bridges and overlooks construction•Road, parking and storm drainage•Electrical installation and Cliff Road repair•Clubhouse/entrance road site work and landscaping•Split rail fencing along Sheridan Road•Engineering fees for site•Permits and other owner costs•10% contingency and escalation




Junior course $170,000 $112,000 $282,000

Includes:•Course construction•10% contingency and escalation




9-hole Golf Course $6,768,000 $100,000 $6,868,000

Buildings & Utilities $1,614,000 $1,058,000 $2,672,000

Site Work & General Public Access

$1,824,000 $2,677,000 $4,501,000

Subtotal 9-hole Golf Course

$10,206,000 $3,835,000 $14,041,000

Junior Course $170,000 $112,000 $282,000

Total 9-hole Golf Course with Junior Course

$10,376,000 $3,947,000 $14,323,000


Exploring Level of ConsensusThe Advisory Group’s definition of “consensus”

Consensus means getting to a maximum point of agreement so that action can follow

• Usually involves compromise, give and take

• Each party must be able to “live with it” and support the group’s decision

• Even with consensus, each party may have a different level of support for the decision


Balancing objectives for the site

The following objectives were identified as very important by various members of the group. Coming to consensus meant finding scenarios that could achieve most or all of these objectives:

•Meets the deed restriction for golf

•Maintains open space and scenic lake views

•Provides public access to the bluffs and shoreline

•Protects and sustains the environment

•Provides a variety of recreation, consistent with other Lake County Forest Preserves (such as hiking, biking, bird watching)

•Is fiscally responsible for the taxpayers

•Provides long-term benefit for both the constituents of the original agreement as well as all Lake County residents


Exploring the Level of Consensus – Question #1: Which option do you prefer?

•18-hole golf course

• Blended site – with a 9- or 12-hole or executive course integrated with natural areas and trails

• Typical forest preserve, incorporating natural areas, trails and public access

• Wait and see


Exploring the Level of Consensus – Question #2: Can you accept a blended golf and open space option?

5) Block“I veto this”

2) Agreement with Reservations or minor point of contention“I can live with it”

3) Stand Aside“I don’t like this but don’t want to hold up the group so will go along”

1) Endorsement“I like it”

4) Formal Disagreement but willing to go along with the majority .“I won’t block it but want my disagreement noted and don’t want to be involved in implementing it

1 2 3 4 5


Our Consensus Exercise


Next Steps

2010-09-15 fort sheridan advisory committee meeting

Education