How a Naperville, Illinois suburb converted a shuttered 9-hole municipal golf course into a community park anchored by a splash pad
A composite parks-conversion case study of a Naperville, Illinois suburb whose shuttered 9-hole municipal golf course — closed for water-cost and declining-rounds reasons — was repurposed into a 62-acre community park with a flagship splash pad as the central family-amenity anchor of the broader conversion plan.
Summary
A Naperville-area suburb closed its 1968-era 9-hole municipal golf course in 2022 after a six-year decline in rounds, a $480,000 annual irrigation-water bill, and a parks-board decision that the 62-acre footprint would generate substantively more community value as a naturalized community park than as a money-losing golf operation. The conversion plan, developed through a 14-month community-engagement process, anchored the new park around a $1.05M splash pad sited on the former clubhouse footprint, with the surrounding fairways converted to native-prairie meadow, two former water hazards reshaped into stormwater-treatment wetlands, and the cart paths repurposed as ADA-accessible loop trails. First-summer operations served roughly 71,000 splash-pad visits, and the broader park drew an estimated 340,000 total visits across the year — a 12x increase over the golf course's final-year round count of approximately 28,000. The conversion is now being studied by analogous suburban parks departments managing aging municipal-golf inventory.
Key metrics
Background: a 1968 municipal golf course, declining rounds, and a $480,000 annual water bill
Spring Brook Golf Course opened in 1968 as one of three municipal golf operations serving the broader Naperville suburb, anchoring a 62-acre footprint of former dairy farmland that had been annexed during the postwar suburban-growth period. By the mid-2010s the course was operating in structural decline, with annual rounds falling from a 1998 peak of approximately 52,000 to roughly 28,000 by 2021. The decline tracked the broader regional golf-participation contraction, but the local economics were sharper than the regional average: the course's irrigation system had been designed for an era of cheap water, and the local water utility's tiered volumetric rate had pushed the course's annual irrigation bill to roughly $480,000 by 2021 — over half the operation's gross revenue. The parks board commissioned a 2022 strategic-planning study that modeled three scenarios: continued operation with deferred capital reinvestment, a privatized operating-lease, and a full conversion to community park. The community-park scenario projected a one-time conversion cost of $3.8M, an annual operating-cost reduction of approximately $620,000 (water + chemicals + labor + capital reinvestment that the golf operation required), and a roughly 8-12x increase in annual visit counts based on analogous golf-course-to-park conversions in the regional inventory. The board approved the conversion in October 2022 by a 5-2 vote.
Community engagement: 14 months, 22 public meetings, and the splash-pad anchor decision
The conversion plan was developed through a 14-month community-engagement process that included 22 public meetings, three online survey waves with roughly 4,400 total respondents, and dedicated outreach to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, the local school district, and the disability-services advocacy community. The engagement process produced strong consensus around several program elements — naturalized native-prairie meadow on the former fairways, ADA-accessible loop trails on the former cart paths, a community garden on the former driving-range footprint — and a more contested debate around the central anchor amenity. Three competing anchor proposals attracted meaningful constituencies: a multi-purpose sport-court complex (basketball, pickleball, futsal), a destination playground with elevated nature-play features, and a flagship splash pad. The splash-pad proposal ultimately prevailed through a combination of survey-respondent priorities (splash pad ranked first across all three survey waves), the disability-services advocacy community's strong preference for a zero-depth, transfer-friendly anchor, and the parks board's recognition that the splash pad would draw the broadest demographic mix across the catchment area. The clubhouse-footprint siting was chosen to leverage existing utilities, parking infrastructure, and the central location within the broader park footprint.
Capital structure: parks levy, regional foundation, IDNR grant, and a small water-utility rebate
The $1.05M splash-pad construction cost was funded through a layered capital structure combining parks-levy capital appropriation, regional foundation funding, an Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) grant, and a modest water-utility rebate tied to the broader irrigation-water-elimination dimension of the conversion. Parks-levy capital appropriation provided approximately $480,000 supporting core construction infrastructure under the suburb's annual capital-priority process. Regional foundation funding contributed $300,000 specifically tied to the family-amenity programming dimension, with the foundation's program staff explicitly citing the project as a strong demonstration of suburban parks-department capacity for ambitious naturalized-conversion programming. IDNR OSLAD grant funding contributed $200,000 supporting the broader park-conversion context including the splash-pad anchor amenity. The water utility's irrigation-elimination rebate contributed $70,000, structured as a one-time payment tied to the verified elimination of the course's roughly 380 million gallons of annual irrigation withdrawal. The broader $3.8M park conversion was funded through additional parks-levy capital, additional IDNR grant funding, and a small slice of federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money administered through the state.
Design choices: clubhouse footprint, naturalized meadow integration, and stormwater wetlands
The pad was sited directly on the former clubhouse footprint, which delivered three meaningful design advantages. First, existing water-and-sewer service to the clubhouse footprint reduced the splash-pad mechanical-building tie-in cost by an estimated $80,000. Second, the existing 90-spot clubhouse parking lot was retained and modestly expanded to 130 spots, eliminating the need for a separate pad-parking infrastructure investment. Third, the central location within the broader 62-acre park footprint produced strong wayfinding clarity for visitors arriving from any of the four perimeter park entrances. The pad itself was designed at 4,800 square feet with 28 features, a 30-gallon tipping bucket calibrated to the design lessons from analogous regional pads, and zero-depth surfaces with full mobility-device access throughout. The pad's stormwater discharge was integrated with two of the former golf-course water hazards, which were reshaped into naturalized stormwater-treatment wetlands supporting both pad-stormwater management and broader park ecological programming. The naturalized native-prairie meadow on the former fairways was seeded with a regionally appropriate native-seed mix and now serves as both ecological-restoration programming and a visually distinctive park-context backdrop for the central pad amenity.
First-summer operations: 71,000 visits, lessons on parking surge, and the 'where did all the people come from' moment
First-summer pad operations served roughly 71,000 visits across the Memorial Day to Labor Day operating season, with peak weekend attendance regularly exceeding 1,200 visits per day during the July heat events. The broader park drew an estimated 340,000 total visits across the year, anchored by the pad but also drawing meaningful traffic from the loop-trail network, the community-garden programming, and the naturalized prairie-meadow ecological-programming events. Three operational lessons emerged from the first season. First, the 130-spot expanded parking lot was undersized during peak weekends — the parks department added a temporary overflow lot on a portion of the former driving-range footprint and is planning a permanent 60-spot expansion for year two. Second, the two reshaped stormwater wetlands required more active vegetation-management programming than initial designs anticipated, with cattail encroachment requiring three rounds of management programming in the first season. Third, the broader park's 'where did all the people come from' moment — when the parks board recognized that visit counts had exceeded modeling projections by approximately 25% — produced strong board support for accelerating a planned year-three nature-play feature and a year-four community-pavilion development.
Replicability across other suburban-municipal golf-course conversion contexts
The Naperville model is replicable across suburban-municipal golf-course conversion contexts where declining rounds, escalating irrigation water costs, and substantive surrounding-neighborhood family-amenity demand converge with parks-department capital-funding capacity and community-engagement infrastructure. Several conditions affect replication success. First, declining rounds and escalating irrigation costs are substantively asymmetric across regional contexts — courses in water-stressed Sun Belt and arid-West contexts face stronger water-cost economics, while courses in water-abundant contexts may face weaker primary economic drivers for closure. Second, surrounding-neighborhood family-amenity demand is uneven — courses surrounded by family-formation residential corridors face stronger primary drivers for splash-pad anchor amenity development, while courses surrounded by retiree or aging-empty-nester residential corridors face weaker primary drivers and may favor different anchor amenities. Third, parks-department community-engagement infrastructure supporting 12-18-month engagement processes is essential — fragmented engagement processes produce weaker community-consensus outcomes that undermine post-conversion park-programming success. Fourth, parks-levy capital-funding capacity is uneven across municipalities, with some markets having substantial capital-funding capacity while others face thinner pathways requiring more aggressive grant-writing programming. Fifth, naturalized-conversion ecological-programming infrastructure is uneven, with some parks departments having substantial ecological-programming capacity while others face thinner capacity requiring partnership programming with regional ecological-restoration nonprofits. Where these conditions converge, the suburban-municipal golf-course conversion pattern produces uniquely strong combined ecological-restoration and family-amenity outcomes that conventional golf-course-only or generic-park-development approaches cannot match.
Voices from the project
“The water bill alone made the closure decision unavoidable. We were spending $480,000 a year on irrigation to support 28,000 rounds, and the rounds had been falling for six years. The conversion-to-community-park scenario produced 12x the visit count at a fraction of the operating cost — and the community got an amenity that serves the whole demographic mix, not just the golfers.”
“The 14-month engagement process was the most important investment in the entire conversion. Twenty-two public meetings, three survey waves, dedicated disability-services outreach — the splash-pad anchor decision came out of substantive consensus, not from a top-down parks-department imposition. Other suburbs evaluating analogous golf-course conversions should center community engagement from the first board vote.”
“Reshaping the former water hazards into stormwater-treatment wetlands was the most ecologically interesting design move in the conversion. The pad's stormwater discharge feeds the wetland system, the wetlands treat the discharge, and the broader park gets a habitat-restoration programming dimension that supplements the prairie-meadow conversion. Other golf-course-to-park projects should center stormwater-and-water-feature integration from pre-design.”
Lessons learned
- Center community engagement across a 12-18-month process with multiple meeting waves and survey rounds before finalizing the central anchor amenity — top-down anchor decisions produce weaker post-conversion programming outcomes than substantively consensus-driven anchor decisions.
- Site the splash-pad anchor on the former clubhouse footprint to leverage existing utilities, parking infrastructure, and central wayfinding clarity within the broader converted park footprint — peripheral siting produces weaker anchor-amenity utilization patterns.
- Stack capital funding across parks-levy capital appropriation, regional foundation funding, state open-space-grant funding (OSLAD or analogous programs), and water-utility irrigation-elimination rebates — single-source funding rarely supports comprehensive golf-course-to-park conversion capital structures.
- Reshape former golf-course water hazards into stormwater-treatment wetlands integrated with pad stormwater discharge — wetland-and-pad integration produces meaningful ecological-restoration programming alongside core stormwater-management performance.
- Convert former fairways to native-prairie meadow with regionally appropriate native-seed mixes through partnership programming with regional ecological-restoration nonprofits — generic turf-replacement programming produces weaker ecological outcomes than substantive native-prairie restoration.
- Plan parking infrastructure for 30-50% above pre-conversion modeling projections to accommodate the 8-12x post-conversion visit-count increase typical of golf-course-to-park conversions — undersized parking infrastructure produces meaningful post-opening operational challenges.
- Coordinate naturalized-conversion vegetation-management programming through dedicated post-conversion ecological-management staffing — fragmented vegetation management produces invasive-encroachment risks that undermine ecological-restoration programming integrity.
FAQ
Why close a municipal golf course rather than privatize the operating lease or absorb the deficit through general-fund subsidy?
The parks board's 2022 strategic-planning study modeled three scenarios — continued operation with deferred capital reinvestment, privatized operating-lease, and full community-park conversion — and the conversion scenario produced the strongest combined community-value outcome. Continued operation required substantial capital reinvestment that the declining rounds could not justify. Privatized operating-lease modeling produced thin operator interest and required substantial public-fee or use-restriction concessions that conflicted with the broader public-access framework. Conversion produced a roughly 8-12x increase in annual visit counts at a fraction of the operating cost, with the splash-pad anchor amenity serving a substantively broader demographic mix than the golf operation served in its final years.
How did the conversion handle the affected golf-community constituency, including longtime league players and the small-but-vocal opposition to the closure?
The 14-month engagement process included dedicated outreach to the affected golf-community constituency, with parks-department staff hosting two dedicated golf-community listening sessions and the parks board allocating roughly $40,000 of one-time funding to support league-program transitions to two of the suburb's other municipal golf operations. The conversion's 5-2 board vote reflected the genuine constituency split, with the dissenting board members representing the affected golf-community concerns substantively. Post-conversion engagement programming has continued through the broader park-programming portfolio, with several former golf-community members now participating in the loop-trail walking-program programming and the community-garden programming dimensions.
Are there water-quality coordination considerations between the pad's recirculating water-treatment system and the wetlands receiving the pad's stormwater discharge?
Pad water-treatment programming operates with explicit coordination supporting the wetland-receiving infrastructure, with chlorination-and-treatment specifications calibrated to support both standard pool-operations water-quality protection and downstream wetland water-quality protection. Pad stormwater discharge passes through a dedicated dechlorination treatment stage before entering the receiving wetland infrastructure, with the dechlorination programming supporting both wetland water-quality protection and broader downstream watershed protection. The integrated water-quality programming has been cited by the regional watershed-protection nonprofit as a meaningful demonstration of pad-and-wetland integrated water-quality programming and as a model for analogous golf-course-to-park conversion projects considering similar integration.
Related reports & data
Pair this case study with our original-data reports for citation and benchmarking.