Jan Arnold, executive director of the Park District of Oak Park, says no one should be surprised about a March tax hike referendum which, if approved by voters, would fund a $40 million indoor pool to replace an outdoor pool at Ridgeland Common. Arnold said such a project has been discussed for years and was included in a strategic plan adopted by the park board in February 2025.
In an interview with Wednesday Journal, Arnold said, “In our plan that was approved in February of 2025 it states in there that we would be looking at a referendum in 2026,” Arnold said.
But Arnold conceded that the plan to replace the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool had not been discussed in public meetings other than at a board retreat last summer and then again at the December meeting when the referendum was approved.
“When we talked to the board in June we talked about going to referendum and that when we looked at our capital project this would be the location we would recommend,” Arnold said. “They had asked me in the June meeting to prepare information so that it could be presented to them at their meeting in December.”
The minutes of the June 17 meeting, when the idea was discussed, are sparse and vague and make no specific mention of a referendum, much less of the idea of replacing the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool with an indoor aquatics facility.
One reason to consider this step now, Arnold said, was that the shell of the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool, which dates from 1962, is nearing the end of its useful life which makes this a good time to consider replacing the outdoor pool with an indoor facility.
“We’re going to need to spend, in about five years, about $10 million, on the Ridgeland Common pool as it is today,” Arnold said.
Responding to some critics on social media who have asked what happened to earlier district plans to add an indoor pool at the park district’s Community Recreation Center on Madison Street, she said that is no longer possible because the CRC is a designated net zero emissions building, a designation that earned the park district a $1.9 million grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation.
“You really can’t make a pool net zero based on the energy that’s needed for an indoor pool,” Arnold said.
Park district leaders say the referendum will determine if replacing the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool with an indoor aquatics facility, which would feature a six to eight lane 25 yard long lap swimming pool and a warm water pool for therapy, swim instruction and exercise as well as an indoor splash pad with slides, is something that the community wants and is willing to pay to build.
“This is an important community decision and one that the community needs to make,” said Arnold.
Park officials point to a 2023 citizen survey which indicated there is support for building an indoor swimming pool even if it means higher taxes. However, the survey only asked about an indoor pool in the abstract and did not ask whether respondents supported replacing the existing Ridgeland Common outdoor pool with an indoor aquatics facility.
Arnold said the conceptual plan for the proposed indoor aquatic facility, which would also include an indoor room suitable for birthday parties, new locker rooms and a lobby area, could accommodate 891 people compared to the approximately 550-person capacity of the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool. However final plans for the indoor aquatics facility have not been developed and would only be developed if the referendum passes.
Arnold and park board president Kassie Porreca disputed the suggestion that the park district sprung the referendum on the community at the last minute to avoid public discussion of the issue. Arnold said the park district is diligently going about educating the community about all aspects of the proposal by sending postcards to every household in Oak Park, holding three community meetings, on Jan 22, Feb. 4 and Feb. 25 all to begin at 7 p.m. at the CRC. The park district’s website also has extensive information about the referendum and plans if it is approved.
“Our intent at this point is to make sure that all the residents are aware of what’s being asked and that they are aware of the facts of the project and that they feel educated when they go to make the vote,” Arnold said. “This is something we are definitely are making sure that we are getting information out. We’ve put banners in our parks, we’re put fliers on our playgrounds giving information. We want people to understand what the project is.”
Some have wondered if the language that will be on the March 17 primary ballot is misleading since it merely asks whether the park district should issue $40 million in bonds to build an indoor aquatics facility and does not mention that the indoor facility would replace the Ridgeland Common outdoor pool.
“That question was given to us by bond counsel,” Arnold said. “There was no intention to be vague at all.”
Arnold said that the park district has paid the noted architectural firm on Perkins&Will approximately $25,000 to $28,000 for work thus far on the plans for the indoor aquatics facility. There was no specific vote by the park board to authorize that spending since it is below the $30,000 threshold that requires a board vote.
“It was in the 2025 budget that was approved in 2024 and because it was under $30,000 that’s within my spending authority so I signed off on that,” Arnold said.
Porreca said it is up to the community to decide what it wants.
“The park district is completely agnostic on the outcome of a referendum,” Porreca said. “My hope is that voters will become really informed and vote according to what they think is appropriate and that we have a great voter turnout so that we can be confident, and everybody else can be confident, that whatever happens is truly the desire of as big a part of the community as possible and what voters decide is what will happen and I will be happy either way.”
