Board discusses $2.6 million Parkland track proposal, flags floodplain and parking concerns

District staff outlined a proposal July 22 to build an eight‑lane track at Parkland with associated field events and site work, and estimated total costs of about $2.6 million when fencing, striping and soil contingency are included.

The district said a previous soil removal at McKenrick Middle School (MMS) and excavation from Duker’s parking work could provide much of the fill needed at Parkland, reducing the project’s cost by roughly $1,020,000. The recommended footprint would include straightaways and curved layout adjusted to fit the existing plain fields; the project also includes detention work to address floodplain issues at the site.

Why it matters: The proposal would add another full‑sized track on the district’s east side to mirror work at MMS, supporting equity of facilities across the district. The project would also change site drainage and use more impervious surface in a portion of Parkland, which raised neighborhood and technical questions.

Staff described the estimated cost components and site plan during the facilities/finance discussion and said the engineering firm completed topographic surveys and initial stormwater work. The presenter said the initial estimate to construct the track alone was about $2.3 million, but with fencing, striping and soil contingency the recommended figure is nearer $2.6 million.

Board members raised questions about stormwater: staff said the consultant used a 100‑year flood scenario in the study and recommended added detention and elevating soil in places so the track surface would sit above the base flood elevation. Board members asked that district engineers and the consultant appear at a future meeting to explain the stormwater calculations and any potential impacts to neighboring properties; staff agreed to arrange that appearance.

Members also asked about parking and lighting. Staff said the current proposal does not include new lighting or an audio system; the district would install conduit to accommodate future scoreboard or irrigation needs but said it did not include conduit sized specifically for stadium lighting. On parking, staff noted Parkland’s current enrollment has declined in recent years (staff cited an example change from as high as roughly 850–900 students down to about 625), and that maintenance areas and hard‑surfaced playgrounds have been used for overflow parking during events; the board requested the administration consider parking and neighborhood impacts in final design work.

Ending: The board did not vote on the Parkland proposal July 22. Staff indicated they plan to return with engineer presentations and refined cost and stormwater details at a future meeting before bringing a formal recommendation.