Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Network topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs neighborhood network fee proposal, asks staff for usage and revenue data
Summary
Commissioners discussed a proposal to create a neighborhood network tier for nearby communities, requested counts and revenue from nonresident registrations, and raised concerns that widening eligibility could undercut resident-rate revenue or eliminate nonresident fees for frequent users.
Commissioners at the Villa Park Community Recreation Commission meeting discussed a proposed "neighborhood network" fee that would give discounted access to residents of adjacent villages and school-district partners.
The commission heard a public commenter who urged the panel to include Addison and other neighboring communities that share programs and facilities, and warned that grouping multiple villages under the new structure could remove nonresident fees for frequent users who are currently charged. "If you put all these villages under this new plan, who are the non-residents any longer," the commenter said, arguing that some regular users live outside Village limits but attend Villa Park programs through shared school districts.
Commissioners said they liked the idea of encouraging broader community participation but emphasized they need financial data before taking action. "I would be interested to see . . . how many non-residents have we had, what's been the revenue from non-residents?" one commissioner asked, requesting a calendar-year report on nonresident registrations and addresses.
Staff noted the registration system currently flags "non-resident" but not a neighbor-status tier and said it can examine addresses to produce a breakdown. Commissioners discussed options including (a) keeping resident rates intact, (b) raising nonresident rates, or (c) creating an intermediate neighborhood rate for defined adjacent communities. Several members said the neighborhood definition should be geographically explicit (for example, communities that share a physical border) and that any change should not undercut core resident revenues.
The commission did not act on the proposal but directed staff to gather data on nonresident counts and revenue and to report back at a future meeting so members can assess fiscal impacts before making recommendations.
