Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee directs staff to study seasonal athletic domes after Minnetonka example cited
Summary
A committee member urged District 86 to explore inflatable seasonal domes for winter practice and community rentals; administration was asked to develop a business case (capital, operating and zoning scenarios) and present findings to the full board in August.
HINSDALE, Ill. — At its June 8 meeting the District 86 finance and facilities committee discussed a proposal to explore seasonal athletic domes (inflatable practice domes) as a way to expand winter practice space and generate community rental revenue.
A committee member who requested the agenda item described multiple Minnetonka, Minn., area domes that public districts and universities use over the winter and said those facilities are often fully booked. The member presented a range of financial observations from peer districts and local operators, telling the committee the dome concept could “easily generate 600–700 grand a year” depending on how the district tiers rental access between students and outside users, but cautioned that cited figures from peer districts typically exclude capital amortization.
Speakers warned of significant hurdles: capital cost (the presenter referenced a roughly $3 million example), village zoning and permitting, Illinois limits on maximum up‑time for some domes (meeting discussion cited code constraints that typically limit occupancy to six months), and the need to preserve student access while pursuing rentals. Committee members asked whether domes could be installed at one campus or both, and whether doubling capacity would undercut external revenue by increasing supply.
The committee asked administration (Chip and Josh were named as points of contact in the discussion) to contact Minnetonka and other districts, develop a business‑case range (best/worst case financials), address zoning and operational policy questions (student scheduling, rental tiers, takedown/installation windows), and return to the board with a recommendation. Committee members suggested August as the earliest feasible full‑board briefing if staff’s preliminary analysis supports further study.
Why it matters: The proposal addresses space constraints that committee members linked to participation declines and team cuts; the district would need to weigh student access, capital allocation and zoning risk against potential community benefit and revenue.
What’s next: Administration will assemble peer‑district data, draft financing options and present pros/cons and timeline to the committee and then the full board.
