Park Board Seeks Grant for $14,786 Walton Park Fountain Replacement

Article Summary: The Litchfield Park District Board of Commissioners voted Aug. 5 to apply for Duff Trust grant funds to offset the roughly $14,786 cost of replacing the failed Walton Park water fountain, choosing that project over a proposed sidewalk addition at Brubaker Park.

Walton Park Fountain Key Points:

The fountain stopped working after approximately 12 years, beyond its expected eight- to 10-year lifespan.

Replacement was suggested at an approximate cost of $14,786, a figure that excludes wiring from the shoreline, which the record says would require a local hire.

The board voted on a motion by Commissioner Jennifer Cearlock, seconded by Commissioner Katie Cross, to apply for Duff Trust grant funds to offset the replacement cost. The minutes record only that the motion carried; no vote tally was taken down.

The replacement timeline targets a spring completion. The size of the trust award, the application deadline and the district’s share of the cost are not recorded.

LITCHFIELD — The Litchfield Park District Board of Commissioners on Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2026, voted to apply for Duff Trust grant funds to offset the cost of replacing the Walton Park water fountain, which the board’s park maintenance committee reported is no longer working after roughly 12 years in service.

Commissioner Jennifer Cearlock, who chairs park maintenance, delivered the report at the board’s regular monthly meeting at 1100 South State St. The fountain’s expected lifespan is eight to 10 years, according to her report, and the company consulted about the failure suggested replacement at an approximate cost of $14,786.

That figure is not the full cost of the job. It does not include the wiring from the shoreline, which the minutes state would need to be completed by a local hire. No cost was recorded for that portion of the work, and the record does not indicate whether the district has sought an estimate for it.

The replacement timeline targets a spring completion. Cross suggested the exploration of other options.

Two Ideas, One Application

The fountain returned to the table later in the meeting under old business, when the board took up what to submit for the Duff Trust.

Commissioners discussed potential project ideas for the submission. Cross suggested a sidewalk addition at Brubaker Park. Executive Director Steven C. Bryant suggested applying for the replacement of the Walton Park fountain.

Cearlock moved to apply for the Duff Trust grant funds to offset the replacement cost of the Walton Park fountain. Cross seconded the motion, and it carried. The Brubaker Park sidewalk idea received no motion and was not acted on.

The vote came with two of the board’s seven seats empty for the evening. Commissioners Sherry Bergschneider and Christopher Bates were both recorded absent at roll call, leaving President Jeff Heyen, Cross, Commissioner Brian Kulick, Commissioner Jaylynn Taylor and Cearlock present. Heyen presented the ball parks and pool committee reports in the two absent commissioners’ places.

The minutes record every motion of the evening the same way — “Motion carried” — with no roll call, no ayes-and-nays count and no indication of any dissent. The record therefore does not support describing the fountain vote as unanimous, only as carried.

What the Record Does Not Say

The district’s only source materials for this meeting are the posted agenda and the approved minutes. No agenda packet, staff memo, quote, grant application or trust document accompanies them, and several of the questions a reader would ask about a $14,786 purchase are unanswered on the face of the record.

The minutes do not name the company that suggested the replacement, do not indicate whether its figure is a written quote or a verbal estimate, and do not state whether the $14,786 covers a like-for-like unit or an upgraded one. They do not identify the Duff Trust, state how much money the district is seeking, give an application deadline, or describe what the trust’s funds may be used for. The word “offset” implies a district share, but no share is quantified anywhere in the record.

Nor does the record say what spring is being targeted, or whether the fountain will remain out of service through the fall and winter in the interim.

The Duff Trust submission appeared on the agenda under old business, indicating the board had taken the matter up at least once before. The substance of any prior discussion is not part of this meeting’s record.