Here’s what’s new at the Elmhurst Park District…
By Chris Fox
For The Elmhurst Independent
The Elmhurst Park District Board held a regular meeting on September 11 at the district’s administrative office at 375 W. First Street. Commissioner Patricia Morissette-Moll was absent from the meeting.
There were no public comments.
Discussion of indoor sports facility
The majority of the meeting featured discussion of the district’s exploration of building an indoor sports facility. Earlier this year, the board approved the Vision 2020 comprehensive and strategic plan. At that time, the board agreed to begin holding workshops at each board meeting to discuss implementation of the plan. One of the findings of the Vision 2020 plan stated that the community desires an indoor sports and recreation facility.
In 2016, the park district joined with the City of Elmhurst to hire a consulting firm to conduct a market analysis and feasibility study to assess the viability of building an indoor sports facility with aquatics, court space, sports turf and ice. The findings of the analysis and feasibility study suggested there was a market for court space, sports turf and ice, but not aquatics. The cost to build such a facility reportedly ranged from $22.8 million to $32.2 million.
Community input, potential partners considered
Community input during the development of the Vision 2020 plan indicated that the preferred strategy regarding a new indoor sports facility would be to construct the facility at a park site in Elmhurst, but not Berens Park, or acquire land for the building.
Elmhurst Park District Executive Director Jim Rogers told the board during the Sept. 11 meeting that the district needs to investigate potential partners for an indoor sports facility, as well as sizes and sites for the facility.
According to information provided by the district, the district’s potential partners in an indoor sports facility could include the City of Elmhurst, Elmhurst College, Edward-Elmhurst Health, Immaculate Conception School, and local sports organizations. Partners could provide funding in several ways, including naming rights and donations of capital or land. According to the district, private sector participation may be a necessary component of a successful project, given the potential costs for construction and the annual costs to operate a facility.
Without taking a formal vote, the board directed park district staff to initiate discussions with potential partners, develop possible funding strategies and examine prospective sites for an indoor sports facility.
Rogers noted that community input indicated that residents of the district are willing to pay more money for improvements to the district that could include an indoor sports facility. He referred to a survey question directed to residents asking about their support of a potential referendum related to improving the district. The question featured four possible answers. Rogers said that over 40 percent of the respondents stated they would vote in favor of a referendum, while 30 percent said they might vote in favor; 20 percent of respondents said they weren’t sure how they would vote, while about 9 percent said they would vote against the referendum. He stated those responses are indicators that the district should research the potential of developing a new indoor sports facility.
The park district board will hold its next meeting on Sept. 25.
