The Park Ridge Historic Preservation Commission addressed next month's referendum on the park district possibly buying a former youth campus by agreeing not to address it.

The referendum was listed as a discussion item on the commission's monthly meeting agenda last week. But Chairwoman Judy Barclay told fellow commissioners she'd recently spoken to City Attorney Everette Hill and was told it would be improper for the commission or its members to take a position on the referendum.

"I had a long conversation with the city attorney, and as a commission, we cannot come out for a candidate or a referendum," Barclay said. "We can as individuals, but if we do, we cannot identify ourselves as commission members.

"The city really has nothing to do with the park district. We (commissioners) are the city, and the referendum is about the park district."

The referendum, set for a citywide vote April 9, asks voters whether the park district should issue bonds to buy the 11-acre site at 733 N. Prospect Ave. If the referendum fails, park district officials have said it is likely a developer will buy the site.

While the Historic Preservation Commission has no stake in the outcome, a couple of its members asked Barclay about taking a position.

"Is there anything we can do as a commission, anything we can say about it?" John Mackin asked.

Barclay responded: "I can only relay what (Hill) told me."

Commissioner Barbara Christopher reiterated Mackin's sentiment, saying, "I almost feel that being silent isn't something we should do."

Ald. Rich DiPietro, who acts as commission liaison, said: "It's up for a vote April 9, and until that time, I think we should be silent."

While the Historic Preservation Commission said it would follow Hill's advice and take no position, Commissioner Paul Adlaf, who is also president of the Park Ridge Historical Society, said that group soon would come out in favor of the referendum.

Asked why one group could take a position and the other could not, Adlaf said he was unsure but assumed it was because "the Historical Society is a private group and the Preservation Commission is a government entity. That might be the answer. We have to be very careful not to endanger our 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, but we have a good legal opinion about how much we can spend. We're going to engage in some direct lobbying."

In February, park district public relations manager Kathie Hahn told the Tribune that if the referendum passed, some of the buildings on the youth campus would remain, including the Solomon Cottage, which is on the National Register of Historic Places and is used as the Historical Society's home base.

Adlaf said the Historical Society had yet to confirm an agreement on the continued use of the cottage.

"It's no secret that we want to remain at the Solomon Cottage," Adlaf said. "If the property is lost to a developer, that's it.

"We still need an agreement with the park district. That's why (taking a position) is gutsy. We haven't ironed out an agreement and received assurance to a long-term agreement. We're presuming good faith on the park district's part to resume the dialogue once the referendum passes."

triblocaltips@tribune.com