Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates overhaul of high‑school baseball and track; directs staff to study engineering, drainage and partnerships
Summary
Coaches and parents urged immediate fixes for unsafe baseball and track facilities. The board discussed including athletic work as alternates in the district's $87 million referendum project, and directed administrators to explore an engineering assessment, costs, drainage solutions and possible partnerships with the city.
Coaches, parents and administrators spent substantial time examining safety and long‑term planning for the high school athletic complex, with particular attention to the baseball field and the track.
"Our baseball field is viewed by many of the coaches in the MVC as unsafe and many times unplayable," Coach Nate Mitchell told the board during public input, describing persistent standing water in the infield after rain, deep uneven turf that causes ankle injuries, and a batting cage with dangerous holes that allowed balls to pass through and strike players.
Board members and staff described the larger capital project and the need to treat the site holistically. Administrators said the district's $87,000,000 project budget includes a prioritized list of alternates and contingency items; concrete and other on‑site work could reduce unit costs if bundled into the bid package. The board has already approved ADA sidewalk upgrades for Meadowview and the high‑school complex and has administrative priorities that could be added if funds remain.
Consultation with external contractors and vendors also informed the discussion. Representatives from Winona Nursery visited the site and told the team the baseball infield is roughly "50/50" — about half could be repaired and half might need full replacement. Winona staff raised drainage as a central concern and recommended an athletic‑field engineer to assess tile drainage, grading and whether a partial field redo would be effective without a comprehensive drainage solution. Several board members emphasized that pouring ADA dollars into a complex without a decision on the field's future risks wasting funds if a larger rebuild is later required.
Discussion covered a broad list of elements beyond turf work: new fencing, dugouts and seating, lighting, restrooms/concessions, parking and ADA access. Some board members suggested considering Memorial Field (a city‑owned venue near Perch Lake) as an alternative location for varsity games, noting Memorial already has concessions, bathrooms and lighting; administrators said they would explore partnerships with the city but cautioned that the district has not yet had those conversations in detail.
Outcome: The board did not vote to fund a specific construction package but directed administration to begin exploratory work. Administrators said they will:
- Seek an athletic‑field engineer to produce a comprehensive assessment of drainage, grading and estimated costs for repair versus full replacement; - Gather cost estimates for fencing, dugouts, bleachers, lighting and restroom/concession construction; - Explore a possible partnership with the city to relocate varsity games to Memorial Field and report on parking, ADA implications and logistics; and - Return to the board with estimates and recommendations before bid day (administrators noted bid day is in January and recommended starting engineering work now if the board wants these items bid as alternates).
Board members stressed the need to weigh short‑term safety improvements against long‑term strategic planning so decisions do not foreclose future options for fields or parking. Administrators will report back with engineering opinions, cost estimates and a recommended strategy for whether any athletic alternates should be included in the January bid package.
