Oak Park residents question wording of indoor pool referendum

Oak Park residents will vote March 17 on a $40 million bond to fund a new indoor aquatic center, but the measure does not mention that the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool would be replaced.

“My biggest concern is the language and the referendum, because it leaves out the fact that they're going to close [the] Ridgeland outdoor pool to build this indoor pool,” said resident Dawn Brightfield. 

The Park District of Oak Park held three meetings to address residents’ questions about a referendum to construct an indoor aquatics facility at the Ridgeland Common Recreation Complex. The last of these meetings was held on Feb. 25, and residents filled the room, some returning from earlier meetings. 

“We are trying to make sure that we are answering everyone's questions, so that they know what they're, in essence, voting for,” said Park District Executive Director Jan Arnold. 

The referendum would replace the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool with a new indoor aquatic center, including a 25-meter lap and free swim pool. The Park District said that the facility would also include a warm-water therapy pool, a splash pad with slides, new locker rooms, an updated lobby, and a party room.

Arnold said that when she moved to Oak Park in 2010, residents had already been asking for an indoor pool, a demand reflected in surveys conducted by the Park District in 2019 and 2023. 

In the 2023 survey, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with several statements about the Park District’s services, including whether it “offers innovative programs and activities” and “meets my/our recreation and fitness needs.” The most common reason respondents gave for disagreeing with those statements was the lack of an indoor pool. One respondent wrote, “Community needs an affordable indoor pool; not happening here nor at the high school.”

The survey also found that 69% of respondents supported building an indoor pool, including 35% who said they strongly supported it, regardless of a tax increase. 14% strongly opposed the proposal.

Some residents, however, questioned whether the survey accurately reflected the broader community.

“The survey was for 550 people, and we have about 10,000 people in Oak Park, so it’s a small portion of what they represented,” said Belinda Avdek, who has lived in Oak Park for nine years. “And when they say [69%], of what? The survey didn’t mention demolishing Ridgeland in any of their questions. I think that was gross negligence on their part.”

Avdek, who attended with her daughter and grandson, said that the survey did not mention that the proposed aquatic center would replace the outdoor pool at Ridgeland Common.

The proposed project will cost approximately $40 million and would use funds from 20-year general obligation bonds, which are typically used to fund similar projects, like roads or parks, according to Investopedia. To cover repayment of these bonds, property taxes in Oak Park would increase, according to the Park District.

The Park District’s website includes a tax calculator showing how property taxes could change. The average Oak Park home value is about $438,000, according to Zillow. At that value, the district estimates homeowners would pay about $163.72 more per year. Several residents said their main concern was not the tax increase but the potential closure of the outdoor Ridgeland Common pool. 

The meeting erupted in ad-libs when a concern was raised: the referendum on the ballot does not mention that the indoor pool will replace the outdoor Ridgeland Common pool.

“The thing that I'm passionate about is that it's a calm setting,” Avdek said. “It's centralized, and being outside and outdoors is really healthy for kids, rather than being indoors all year round.”

Park District Attorney Caitlyn Culbertson said that the vote is simply about the $40 million in bonds to be used for an indoor aquatic center, not the specifics of the plan. In response to residents’ concerns that Ridgeland Common was not specifically mentioned, she referred to it as “the only feasible location” for the aquatic center.

Other questions from residents focused on the idea of a retractable roof, and whether or not this would give the “feel” of an outdoor pool. Making the roof retractable would cost an additional $3-6 million, Arnold said. Still, residents expressed their preference for an outdoor space. 

“Most of [the voters] would probably love to have an indoor pool, but they won't know when they go to vote that they're going to lose the outdoor pool at Ridgeland, and many of them have young children,” Brightfield said. 

Another outdoor pool in Oak Park is the Rehm Pool. Residents said they were concerned that, although this was an acceptable pool, without Ridgeland Common, Rehm would be overcrowded in the summertime. 

Residents also asked why the aquatic center had to be at Ridgeland Common. Arnold said that making it at the Community Recreation Center, where the meeting was held, might impact their ability to receive future grants. Additionally, if the referendum fails, the Ridgeland Common pool will require $10 million of maintenance by 2031 anyway. The Park District did not want to take any of the village’s green spaces, which Oak Park already lacks, for the project.

“I know the usage of the pools. I know the condition of the pools, and that helped make the decision or the recommendation for this location,” Arnold said.

After the 90-minute meeting, an hour of which addressed questions, some attendees lingered to discuss their concerns about the referendum. Some continued to share that voters were uninformed about the plan they would be voting for.

“A lot of people are going to be really surprised when the wrecking ball comes along,” resident Jane Driscoll said.

Oak Park voters will decide on the referendum in the March 17 election.