The Oak Park Village Hall, 123 Madison St., acts as a warming center on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (Steve Schering / Pioneer Press)

A proposal to provide a public bathroom in downtown Oak Park sparked heated words between several Oak Park village trustees at their May 2 meeting.

Despite the rancor, however, trustees ultimately voted unanimously to proceed with seeking Community Development Block Grant funding for a portable restroom, which would cost anywhere between $150,000 and $180,000, based on quotes supplied to the village.

The dearth of public restrooms in the downtown was created when the Visit Oak Park visitors bureau, which operated the only public restrooms in downtown Oak Park, shut down its visitors center at the onset of the pandemic. The Oak Park Homeless Coalition soon raised funds for portable toilets that were placed next to the Metra station. Those facilities then were removed after several problems occurred, including them being used for illegal drug use and one unit catching fire, village officials said.

Currently, those seeking public restrooms either must trek to Austin Gardens, which is a good distance from downtown, or visit private businesses in the central business district, some of which require a customer to purchase something to use their restrooms. And now, some business owners are barring non-customers from using their restrooms altogether, citing the fact that their lavatories have been used for illegal drug activity, officials said.

In response, village staff members have proposed a permanent solution — reconfiguring the portion of the Metra commuter train station that the village rents to create restrooms that would be available 24 hours a day — but that option is several years from coming to fruition. In the meantime, village staff members sought and received quotes from two providers for portable restrooms to be placed somewhere in downtown Oak Park — most likely near the police department substation — at a cost of between $150,000 and a little over $180.000.

On Monday, trustees discussed whether to use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the portable restrooms, or whether to apply for a federal Community Development Block Grant to pay for them. Village staff initially had suggested using ARPA funds, but soon concluded that with numerous agencies in town seeking ARPA funding, a federal Community Development Block Grant could make more sense, as the pandemic meant the village has a significant buildup of federal Community Development Block Grant dollars due to performing fewer infrastructure projects during the pandemic.

In addition, downtown Oak Park is a census tract that qualifies for such funding, as more than 51 percent of its population is considered low-income by the federal government, Development Customer Services Director Tammie Grossman told trustees.

Trustees sparred, however, over several aspects of a proposed portable restroom, including about maintenance costs, about where it will be located and about the potential for unlawful activity in them.

Trustee Lucia Robinson said she is concerned about the risk of increased criminal activity around a portable restroom, including if one is placed near multifamily housing close to downtown.

“It’s helpful and reassuring for me to know that the police were on board for this,” Robinson said. “But having this open 24 hours is something that’s concerning to me, and we need to think about increased police patrols for something that’s open for a 24-hour period. During overnight hours, some cities are finding these to be a convenient area for illegal drug use or other types of illicit activity during those nighttime hours — in general for sure, but in particular during those nighttime hours.”

[  Everybody needs access to bathrooms. Chicago doesn’t provide nearly enough of them. ]

And Trustee Ravi Parakkat expressed concern over the added budget costs for maintaining the portable restroom — costs that effectively would be shouldered by all village residents and not by federal funding. Parakkat also wondered about finding a revenue offset — such as allowing advertising on the side of a portable restroom — and questioned village staff on how success would be measured with this project.

“I see all the advantages — I see the ways in which it enables our society and the economy, but there are definite costs associated with it,” he said.

Robinson and Parakkat’s comments prompted a heated response from Trustee Arti Walker-Peddakotla.

“I don’t know what the success metrics for this are — how many people go pee in a bathroom?” she asked. “Is that how we’re measuring the success of this? How many people utilize a public restroom? That’s just a wild question to me. This is honestly about the dignity of human life — at its basic core level, this is what this issue is about. And the thing is, to say we need more cops watching people pee. No, we don’t. We don’t, actually. If this is going in downtown Oak Park, that’s one of the most heavily policed areas in Oak Park.”

Walker-Peddakotla added that the lack of public restroom facilities is an issue that disproportionately affects the homeless and others who require accessibility.

“There are no success metrics to this — it’s just the right thing to do,” she said. “The success metrics are, do we have options for people to do their business? That’s it.”

Robinson dismissed the criticism, saying that “no one is suggesting that we have increased patrols to watch people pee.”

“If we’re going to be spending upwards of a quarter of a million dollars, it is appropriate to thoroughly vet this issue and ask questions,” she said. “And if that’s problematic, then I think there are deeper issues than this particular agenda item... That to me is being a leader for the community and spending federal funds in a way that’s responsible and appropriate.”

Trustee Susan Buchanan then pressed Robinson, noting that “you did ask for increased patrols.”

Robinson agreed, insisting that “I’m not backing down from that at all. I’m explaining why it’s important and why I raised the issue.”

Robinson added that she didn’t see increased patrols necessarily resulting in more harm or trauma to the homeless, calling that “a leap.” Instead, she noted the financial risk of spending money on public restrooms only to need to remove them later.

“There are cities that already have documented instances of increased criminal activity and they’ve had to remove these structures. I don’t want that to be Oak Park,” Robinson said.

Walker-Peddakotla, however, accused Robinson of “cherry-picking” data that suggest that such public facilities draw more criminal activity. She also angrily dismissed Robinson’s suggestion that greater police scrutiny would not result in trauma and harassment of the homeless.

“There’s also so many cities where homelessness has been criminalized, where people that need public services have been actually criminalized,” Walker-Peddakotla said. “So don’t say, oh no, that doesn’t happen — it absolutely happens.”

Robinson and Walker-Peddakotla’s debate swiftly came to a close when Village President Vicki Scaman banged her gavel four times.

Village staff now will prepare the necessary documents to access Community Development Block Grant funds for a portable restroom, and after that, the Village Board will vote on making such a purchase. By that point, village staff will identify a proposed location as well.

Goldsborough is a freelance reporter.