Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletic Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft athletic master plan; coaches prefer full‑size indoor turf over a smaller field
Summary
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.
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.
