The Park District of Oak Park is exploring the idea of opening an indoor pool, something 69% of community survey respondents said they are willing to pay a property tax increase for. It could be included as part of the PDOP’s five-year master plan.
The new master plan for 2025-2029 will be adopted by the PDOP board end of 2024, said Jan Arnold, executive director of the PDOP. But that doesn’t mean an indoor pool is right around the corner, even if it is included as a project to review in the plan.
Where did this idea come from?
Community members have expressed an interest in having an indoor pool, Arnold said. Some regular lap swimmers use the outdoor pool from Memorial Day until Labor Day, she said, and would appreciate the opportunity to swim year-round.
So, it’s the Park District’s job to ask, she said, whether those desires are widespread.
The survey question read: “Oak Park residents have asked for an indoor community pool with amenities including open swim sessions, swimming lessons, 25-yard lap lanes, and a separate warm-water therapy pool. The cost to add this pool (and amenities) would require a voter-approved property tax increase of (on average) about $90 per year for a median-valued home of about $400,000. Knowing it would result in higher property taxes, would you oppose or support this property tax referendum to pay for an indoor pool?”
According to PDOP’s data, 35% of respondents said they strongly supported this survey question and 34% supported it, but not strongly. Only 13% said they opposed it strongly, compared with 17% who said they opposed it, but not strongly.
“I actually expected the answer to be no,” Arnold said. “We were really kind of shocked.”
But the survey was only the first step. Next steps include having focus group meetings and a community workshop where residents can share their thoughts. A feasibility study would be required, too, Arnold said.
“If, in fact, a pool is still something that people are talking about, then that will be one of the items that are put in our comprehensive master plan to review over the next five years,” she said.
Eventually, every taxpayer would get a chance to vote on the indoor pool. If the community expresses a strong interest in an indoor pool, the PDOP board would place a referendum question on a future ballot. If the community voted in favor of an indoor pool, next would come the planning process, designs and finally construction.
The survey question explained that an indoor pool could result in a property tax increase, Arnold said, because pools are expensive to operate. There’s not only the cost of building it, but to fund maintenance, utilities and staff to sustain it.
The property tax increase would not cover all the costs, Arnold said. Like some other PDOP programs, there would likely need to be a membership fee or other revenue generated to help sustain an indoor pool.
How was the survey conducted?
The survey was conducted by aQity Research & Insights, Inc. The company also conducted the PDOP’s 2019 community survey, said Ann Marie Buczek, communication and community engagement manager at the PDOP.
The survey questions were designed with input from PDOP staff and its board, said Jeff Andreasen, president of aQity Research. Some questions were similar to previous surveys, to see how residents’ opinions may have changed. But most were new.
The surveys were administered both by mail, through postcard invitations, and by email, he said. A third option was to complete the survey over the phone.
Andreasen said the surveys were sent to random residential addresses across the Oak Park community to ensure regional representation. After results are collected, aQity Research used the demographic information respondents report to weigh results to match U.S. Census data for Oak Park.
“We weight our results to match census data so that we know that our results are reflective of the entire community both demographically and regionally,” he said. “There aren’t any segments within those demographic groups, nor are there any regions within Oak Park, that are drastically underrepresented or overrepresented in the survey results.”
Survey invitations were sent to about 15,000 to 18,000 households, including apartments, Andreasen said. That includes about 8,000 postcards, 2,000 questionnaires and numerous emails.
aQity Research and the PDOP were looking for a minimum of 500 respondents, Andreasen said, to have an accurate sample size. By the end of the roughly six-week survey response period, 558 responses were received.
“The margin of error on a sample of that size is about plus or minus 4%,” he said. “It’s a reliable sample size for a community the size of Oak Park.”
The close-ended questions were counted by software, Andreasen said. Open-ended questions were analyzed individually by aQity Research staff.
Since more residents wanted to share their thoughts and maybe didn’t receive the random survey, the PDOP allowed them to provide feedback through a separate, “non-random” survey on their website.
These open results, which included 132 responses, were not combined with the random survey data conducted by aQity Research. Those results could include responses from non-residents, or multiple responses from the same people, Andreasen said.
But even in this non-random survey, 68% of respondents said they would support paying a property tax increase for an indoor pool.
Are other options under consideration?
Yes. The PDOP is considering sharing pool responsibilities with the Oak Park and River Forest High School once a new pool is constructed, Arnold said, if the PDOP moves forward with this project. The PDOP already uses the current pool to do some swim lessons, she said.
“We have been in contact with D200 and had numerous conversations about sharing pool access,” Arnold said. “If there’s a way to make it work, both Greg [Johnson, superintendent at OPRF,] and I are committed to making that happen.”
Johnson confirmed OPRF will continue to collaborate with the PDOP to see if shared usage of their indoor pool is possible once it opens in 2026.
If the PDOP were to build a new pool, Arnold said there are two options. One is to expand the Community Recreation Center. The other would be to construct a new indoor pool at Ridgeland Common Recreation Complex.
“We want to hear from all of our residents,” she said. “Our job is to hear what the community is saying, and then try to be as responsive as possible.”
The Park District has taken on big projects before, including building the Community Recreation Center at 229 Madison St.
There will be a community meeting at 6:30 p.m. May 15 at Elizabeth F Cheney Mansion for residents to give the PDOP feedback about the master plan.
