Schererville reviews up to $77 million concept for Ileana Motor Speedway site, asks staff for scaled, phased estimates

Schererville Town Council and the Park Board on Tuesday reviewed four concept plans for converting the 65‑acre Ileana Motor Speedway site into a multi‑use park and asked staff to return with scaled, phased cost estimates and alternative options for several major amenities.

The meeting focused on a “high‑intensity” concept whose line‑item estimate totaled $76,990,000. That version includes site preparation and demolition, a 23,400‑square‑foot recreation center, an amphitheater, a pavilion/flex event space, multipurpose sports fields, an ice rink, parking and a maintenance building. Town staff presented lower‑cost and medium‑cost concept variants and a breakdown showing the town could prepare the site (no amenities) for roughly $33.7 million and about $38.4 million if landscaping is included.

Why it matters: the estimates exceed the town’s near‑term bonding capacity and shaped the board’s consensus that the project must be scaled and phased if it moves forward. Town officials said the town might be able to bond roughly $30 million to start, and that outside donations and grant support would be necessary to build larger components.

Key cost and scope figures presented at the meeting included: temporary erosion control $900,000; site prep/demolition line items totaling about $3,110,000 on the high‑intensity plan (including asphalt $640,000 and concrete/gravel $1,010,000); site improvements roughly $36,000,000 for the high plan; site lighting and utilities combined about $4,280,000; landscape improvements about $4,730,000; and additional project costs (design, engineering, permitting, contingency, bonds) shown at $28,870,000 in the high plan. Staff said they used a 15% design/engineering assumption and a 25% contingency in that additional‑cost line.

Board discussion centered on which amenities to prioritize, how to reduce capital and operating costs, and how to phase construction. Members repeatedly urged focusing on a smaller initial footprint of core amenities (parking, restroom/concession, amphitheater/pavilion, trails and some multipurpose fields) rather than building every element at once. Several members recommended replacing a large fixed amphitheater — which includes built‑in seating and higher maintenance responsibilities — with a larger covered pavilion or flexible event space plus a grass “lawn” area for seating, citing Bulldog Park and other regional examples as comparisons.

Recreation center: the high‑intensity concept includes a 23,400‑square‑foot rec center; presenters said that is larger than the town’s existing community center (about 12,500 square feet) and smaller than some regional facilities (the presenter noted Lincoln Center’s entire building is about 90,000 square feet). Board members asked staff to return with a smaller “field house/gymnasium” estimate and with two prices: (1) a stand‑alone maintenance building plus rec center and (2) a combined structure that merges maintenance functions into a scaled rec center to quantify potential savings. Staff agreed to price both options.

Amphitheater, pavilion and flex space: the plans show multiple approaches: a built‑in amphitheater with tiered seating (13,100 square feet cited for one amphitheater), a smaller pavilion/band shell combination like Bulldog Park, and a large covered “flex event” pavilion (one plan shows about 26,000 square feet). Board members generally favored a flexible covered pavilion plus lawn seating over the large permanent amphitheater, citing lower up‑front cost and reduced maintenance/security concerns.

Ice rink: the plans include an ice rink in some concepts. The board debated the rink’s value and operating cost; some members supported keeping the rink as a future phase to provide winter programming, while others suggested deferring or removing it because of ongoing refrigeration and maintenance costs. Staff agreed to return with operational cost estimates for an ice rink and options for later installation.

Fields and surfacing: the concept shows multipurpose rectangular fields for soccer/football and other sports; participants discussed natural turf versus artificial turf. Staff flagged that turf fields raise upfront cost and require fenced and programmed (often revenue) operations, while natural turf lowers capital cost but may limit playability during wet weather. Board members suggested evaluating the cost and maintenance tradeoffs and considered the possibility of partnering with existing nearby fields rather than duplicating facilities.

Parking, phasing and site issues: presenters emphasized that prepping the entire 65 acres — including temporary erosion control, utilities, stormwater retention and intersection improvements at US‑30 — drives much of the base cost. Staff noted wetlands on the site could trigger Army Corps permitting and wetland mitigation, which would add scope, time and cost and represents a substantive implementation risk. Several board members suggested reducing the initial developed footprint (for example, concentrating high‑use amenities on 20–25 acres and leaving the remainder as green space to be phased later) and exploring lower‑cost overflow parking (grass, gravel, or geogrid systems) for festivals.

Next steps and direction: staff said they will produce revised cost estimates and comparisons, including: a reduced‑scale rec‑center/field‑house option and a combined maintenance building price; cost/operational estimates for an ice rink; comparisons of pavilion/flex event space versus amphitheater configurations; and turf versus natural field costs. Staff also agreed to price site preparation with and without major amenities (the town presented both figures during the meeting) and to return to the boards with updated numbers for a follow‑up study session.

The meeting did not include a final vote or a formal commitment to construct any element; board members repeatedly described the process as exploratory and emphasized phasing, seeking donations and narrowing the amenity list before advancing to design and bonding.