[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6187218,"mediaKeyId","5071388-ac0bbaf7821053a69e88cd431096a457","parentId",5071388,"title","Board reviews draft athletic master plan; coaches prefer full‑size indoor turf over a smaller field","audioSeconds",440,"startMs",2473000,"endMs",2913000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5071388-ac0bbaf7821053a69e88cd431096a457&start=2473&end=2913","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5071388-ac0bbaf7821053a69e88cd431096a457/thumbnail_2473000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6187218/Wisconsin/Board-reviews-draft-athletic-master-plan-coaches-prefer-fullsize-indoor-turf-over-a-smaller-field","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187218-7c06a4024b96d975edef729fdddddab4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773665797&Signature=Rd3uNVn1YKCXZH0ZqDdVBFAYUL~0UB9FlCYX0zJbYXGj4f9bILX0aWo0PB-SfLCRdjuzktXNFlpXic-EzBJ9xAwcjNB3QJhTB2VrrMLAd8TpaPf2FI70LvGAKLNiSJb1nAtAA7boLVkrBPpWjwD04392fq4qGXxZMHnfoDIfVd9AMMId2WxxDqorC~e80467PTrrNuE0BBEoeX30RLO4LLzhoCg9hGAlJKeb7lHtvEFeTttBsnxkGhUcCuXbf1SM24yZ3DWOkMwmKxoShP0zcm2nMWb6aFL4RyaXhZ2Sgm8sufhukxI0h0YRw-WODd51hf6wCZltwAJ6iPuntjJOJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Waunakee Community School District, WI","date","2025-06-25T20:44:51.517Z","article","District staff and consultants presented a draft athletic master plan that lays out potential long‑term improvements across the high‑school athletic complex, including an indoor multipurpose facility, relocated or improved fields, team rooms, press boxes and upgrades to locker and support spaces.

Robin, staff member, described the athletic master plan as a long‑range vision that can be built in phases or as a single project. The draft shows an indoor facility sized to include a 100‑yard turf area plus a 300‑meter track and multiple practice fields; presenters said the indoor facility as shown would displace some existing outdoor practice areas and require reconfiguration of adjacent fields and site work (retaining wall and fire lane) to meet code and circulation needs.

Staff said coaches and athletic leaders were consulted and reported that smaller indoor options (for example, a 60‑yard field) would likely not meet their needs; several coaches told planners they would prefer full‑size indoor space for inclement‑weather practice or else continue to use outdoor fields. The district also discussed new team centers/locker space for baseball, softball and soccer, turf replacements for varsity fields and additional amenities such as a competition gym and expanded weight/fitness areas.

Consultants reported they will provide total‑project cost estimates (construction plus soft costs and escalation) for indoor and associated site work; staff cautioned such estimates are preliminary, will vary by structural system and phasing, and may duplicate scope already shown in the campus options. Presenters said some athletic projects could be funded by boosters or through district capital planning, and noted the district has a history of fundraising for turf and related projects.

Board members asked how the indoor facility suggestion originated (coaches and a community member flagged it) and whether a facility of the size shown is a realistic or equitable use of district resources. Staff said the draft is a \"wish list\" to spur community conversation and that none of the projects are finalized; the board asked staff to prioritize needs and present funding/phasing options and potential duplication with the campus options.

Next steps: staff will return with detailed cost estimates, a prioritized list of athletic needs, and clearer delineation of which items are candidate booster‑funded projects versus district capital projects. No funding decisions were made at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","WCSD BOE June 23, 2025 Special Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","District staff presented an athletic master plan that includes a large indoor multipurpose facility (100‑yard turf and 300‑meter track) plus team rooms, turf replacements and other upgrades; coaches told planners a 60‑yard indoor field would not meet team needs.","taxTitle","Waunakee Community School District, School Districts, Wisconsin","taxId",58058,"location","Wisconsin","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6187223,"Waunakee board reviews four high‑school campus options with wide cost ranges",1960,56000,2016000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5071388-ac0bbaf7821053a69e88cd431096a457&start=56&end=2016","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5071388-ac0bbaf7821053a69e88cd431096a457/thumbnail_56000.jpg","/articles/6187223/Wisconsin/Waunakee-board-reviews-four-highschool-campus-options-with-wide-cost-ranges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6187223-be03b6f929920e10102e1c1671c53f05/orig.mp4?Expires=1773665797&Signature=L3zeuLWuFZ2XWvp5I38ABAwkVF3uflOiSQlNG-pY27bdpSXu8iXEtk-LsbdK790K~GfwHzQKmhAygYuoVWP59GzgO3tvWjy1bnSlcQsaI1HMYyOFfVq137mpxiqF2NQtYSAg5Bn8qbEteXmui~39mU-0pfdacpgoUFqfuZcRrVx9O3YNOiBFxh-4DarUXmMrpGX4vQCQI3Rg4fjFk5ZPkvTSKb1DlVwpUokTE3cNslXerCzVtg6BafdDGbqVsY4j15iIds0dtdHytSMjJshK-4qud2CTVGDF1wjjb2r72RIHsRg1Dr3IThJlTS3qGlScZbWVa260CziLwfO6DUM3OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Waunakee Community School District convened a special board meeting to continue planning for the high‑school campus and hear preliminary conceptual options and cost estimates from district staff and consultants.

Dr. Brown, staff member, opened the presentation and framed the meeting as informational: \"Decisions, we are not looking for decisions tonight,\" she said, adding the district seeks board feedback to guide next steps.

Consultants presented four high‑school campus concepts. Mike Schwanhammer, design architect with DUA, described the options as preliminary and exploratory and said they reflect enrollment planning assumptions (1,610 students by 2040). Jay Thompson, cost estimator with Boulder Brothers Billing Company, provided high‑level project scopes and inclusive cost ranges (construction plus soft costs). At the presentation level the ranges shown were:
- Option A: mostly minimal work to re‑use the existing middle school space for high‑school use — preliminary range cited for the work needed at the middle‑school building was about $2 million to $3.5 million.
- Option B: renovation‑focused approach with no new major construction — preliminary total project range about $100 million to $125 million.
- Option C: mix of new construction and renovation — preliminary total project range about $180 million to $220 million.
- Option D: larger new‑construction approach (demolition of the middle‑school building and new construction) — preliminary total project range about $190 million to $230 million.

Presenters emphasized these are high‑level estimates that include construction and soft costs and that final numbers will change with detailed design, escalation assumptions and phasing. Thompson said the team applied escalation to a mid‑point of an assumed 2027–2029 construction window and used recent district projects (Heritage Elementary and the new middle school work) as cost comparators.

Board members pressed for clearer distinctions among options and for evidence that programmatic needs (science labs, music spaces, culinary, natural daylight and other academic priorities) are met in each scenario. Several board members said they want a clearer mapping of \"needs versus wants\" — what is required to meet educational goals versus desirable amenities. Staff agreed to summarize stakeholder input collected through interviews and to show how specific academic requests would be addressed across options.

Board members also discussed whether the existing middle‑school building should be repurposed for long‑term high‑school instructional use. Some members expressed concern that the middle‑school corridors and room sizes were not designed for high‑school programs and questioned the value of heavy renovation there; others noted substantial capital maintenance investments already made and asked staff to model alternative uses of the middle‑school facility (wellness clinic, administrative or specialty program space) if the board prefers new construction for the high school.

The district noted the board workshop scheduled for Aug. 18 as the next formal step to refine priorities and requested additional financial context, including updated enrollment projections (to be updated after the fall pupil count) and the evolving state budget, which could affect local property tax capacity and referendum timing. Staff said village planning staff indicated a possible path to amend local code to allow a third story on the north section of the high school, and the district can pursue that ordinance conversation before final design decisions.

No formal decision or referendum authorization occurred at the meeting. Board members asked staff and the consultant team to return with: (1) a summary of stakeholder requests categorized by academic need versus amenity, (2) side‑by‑side descriptions of how each option would meet key instructional priorities (science, music, tech ed, daylighting), (3) updated enrollment projections and (4) an affordability/tax levy analysis tied to the state budget outlook.

Votes at a glance: The meeting included procedural motions (approval of the agenda and adjournment) that were approved by voice vote; no policy or capital actions were taken on the campus options.

The board scheduled further review and public engagement as the team refines phasing, costs and priorities.","District staff and consultants reviewed four conceptual campus options (A–D), preliminary cost ranges and next steps; the board asked for more detail on academic needs, phasing and tax impacts and made no decision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board reviews draft athletic master plan; coaches prefer full‑size indoor turf over a smaller field

Waunakee board reviews four high‑school campus options with wide cost ranges