As the United States’ 250th birthday draws near, Kane County is mulling one part of its celebration: a planned commemorative garden featuring an elm tree donated by the local Daughters of the American Revolution and a plaque acknowledging several Revolutionary War patriots buried in the county.
The matter came to the county board’s Administration Committee meeting last week, at which board members debated the plans and proposed location for the tree and plaque.
This is not the first time Kane County has considered a similar idea for celebrating the upcoming anniversary of the nation’s founding.
In the fall, the board contemplated using money from its Grand Victoria Riverboat Fund to pay for a similar commemorative garden project. The Grand Victoria Riverboat Fund provides a portion of the annual net operating income of the Grand Victoria Riverboat in Elgin to the county, which the county then uses for both internal projects within the county and to fund projects by local organizations.
At the time, however, as the county stared down a multimillion-dollar budget deficit for 2026, the board ultimately opted to allocate the funds elsewhere, away from the garden and a couple other proposals.
Then, in November, the county accepted a historical marker and “Liberty Tree” from the Elias Kent Kane Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, meant to celebrate the country’s 250th anniversary.
Specifically, the donation is meant to honor several Revolutionary War veterans who settled in Kane County and who are buried within its borders: William Bennett, who’s buried in Campton Hills, John Gowdy, buried in Batavia, Abner Powers, buried in Lily Lake, Frederick Vaughn, buried in Aurora, and John Finley, who died in St. Charles but whose burial location is unknown.
When the donation was accepted by the county, the proposed location for the historical marker and tree — an American Elm which was grown from seed since last spring — was the Kane County Courthouse at 100 S. Third St. in Geneva.
Since then, the county has been determining where exactly the tree and plaque should be placed, a matter which generated some debate among board members at their recent committee meeting on March 11.
At last Wednesday’s Administration Committee meeting, Kane County Executive Director of Information Technologies and Buildings Management Roger Fahnestock said that the courthouse in downtown Geneva had been suggested because of the “permanency” of the property — the current building has been around since the 1890s.
Originally, the front portion of the property along Third Street was considered as the potential site, but Fahnestock said that there are too many trees in front of the property for it to be a suitable option.
So, the county began looking for a location that’s more sparsely planted, he said, and landed on a spot in the middle of the parking lot behind the courthouse. A central square would be made around the tree in that location, he explained, and the county is working with Wight & Company on a concept for the project.
Fahnestock noted that, with a planned celebration in July, the county has only a few months to make plans for the tree and plaque.
As for the fiscal constraints, Fahnestock noted that the county “(doesn’t) have an actual budget to do this,” so it is trying to do this with as “minimal county resources as possible.” Per the measure from when the tree and marker were accepted by the county, the local DAR chapter is covering the cost of the marker and tree, while the county is expected to pay for the site preparation and cement work needed for their installation.
As discussion began at the meeting, board member Leslie Juby took issue with the change in plans for the tree to sit behind the courthouse, and expressed a desire to send the matter back to the full board to determine if it wanted to move forward with it.
“When we authorized this … we were not told it was going to be in a square garden. We were not told it was going to require any other location,” Juby said. “Had I known that we were talking about digging up a … parking space, I would’ve voted no.”
Board member Michelle Gumz similarly said she was “concerned” that the tree would “disrupt that entire parking lot,” particularly as it grows.
To a question from board member Deborah Allan about how much the parking lot in question is used, Fahnestock said that the lot is generally less than half full Monday through Friday, aside from events.
Board member Chris Kious, however, noted that the mayor of Geneva saw no concerns with taking up part of the parking lot, nor did Geneva’s Chamber of Commerce. Kious suggested that the committee get more information on the proposal before sending it to the full board.
Gumz, too, said she didn’t want to send the matter back to the full board until her questions on the plans were answered, and, noting that other entities were consulted on the proposed plan, emphasized that the county board needs to have a conversation on it.
Amid the discussion, Fahnestock clarified that last Wednesday’s discussion was not intended to end in a vote on the proposed site.
Board member Alex Arroyo similarly noted that the tree was gifted to the county, and that nothing has been set in stone yet.
And the county’s historian, Ken Shepro, noted that, per the DAR, the approval of the plaque and tree is not likely to be approved at the national level before July 4 anyway.
County Board Chair Corinne Pierog clarified that while the tree is separate from the plaque, which commemorates Revolutionary War soldiers buried in Kane County, the DAR would like them to be placed near each other.
“The tree is not just a tree — it’s a symbol,” Pierog said at the meeting. “The symbol of a liberty tree is a gathering spot.”
As the board continued to debate the plans for the tree, board member Jon Gripe noted that, since the tree is currently planted in a pot, one solution could be to use and move the tree around amid the upcoming celebrations while the board continues to discuss where it will be planted permanently.
And Arroyo emphasized again that the board is not yet faced with a decision.
“We’re all getting worked up over something that we’re not voting on,” he said. “It’s just a presentation.”
Pierog pointed to the benefit of the proposed garden being at the courthouse, saying that building “will most likely be the one 50, 100 years from now that will be maintained,” and that other county properties may change during that time. She said the county has discussed things like soil conditions, snow removal and drainage, and that the proposed area would be “specially enhanced” for the health of the tree.
Pierog also noted that the parking lot already is used as a gathering spot for some local events.
But Gumz reiterated her concerns, saying she felt the parking lot is “just not a suitable spot.” She suggested that county staff could provide more information on why it’s the best spot, or could get the opinion of an arborist about the location and determine whether it’s desirable for it to be located within a parking lot — both for users of the garden and to the parking lot itself. And she requested more information on why the front lawn is not an option.
Fahnestock clarified that, given the size of the tree, if none of the other trees on the front lawn are removed, the tree would be “in full shade almost all the time” and would be difficult to grow. He also explained that many of the existing trees there already are commemorative and couldn’t be removed.
Board member Ted Penesis also asked about other possible locations for the tree, and said that it “seemed kind of odd having it in a parking lot.” He also expressed support for getting the Kane County Forest Preserve District involved.
Gripe volunteered to get in touch with the forest preserve and coordinate a presentation on things like possible locations and funding, but Pierog reiterated that the plaque and tree were meant to go together and that the DAR wanted the plaque placed at the courthouse, so the board would likely need to get permission from the DAR to change the planned site for it.
Following the discussion, the board’s committee landed on determining whether the front of the courthouse can be used and whether the tree must be planted on the courthouse’s property, and finalizing whether the parking lot would be a suitable spot.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com