Dunlap board authorizes up to $4 million more to expand training center; vote 3-2

The Dunlap CUSD 323 Board of Education on Oct. 11, 2025, voted 3-2 to authorize spending up to an additional $4 million to expand and potentially reorient the district’s planned training center, a move supporters say could add a 200-meter track and allow the facility to host meets and tournaments.

The question of whether to "flip" the building footprint — placing the building on the drive side rather than adjacent to Cedar Hills and moving parking to the other side — prompted a lengthy debate about cost, timing and long-term benefits. Administration staff recommended against the flip, citing steep construction costs and visual/engineering concerns, while several board members said the larger facility could produce revenue and better serve students and the community.

Board member Tom, who made the motion, said he had spent weeks gathering estimates and pushed for the option because it would allow "an additional basketball court" and a 200-meter track that could host events. "I feel better even about more like 12 than with the extra 4 just because there's an opportunity to to actually over time see some revenue from it," Tom said.

District administration, speaking through Doctor Dearman and Mr. McKenzie, advised against changing the building orientation. "We do not recommend the flip," Doctor Dearman said. He warned the reorientation would require "a 17 foot high retaining wall," create an "unsightly" elevation with a 28-foot building on top of that wall and raise construction costs sharply: "we're looking at ... $193 a square foot under current construction. We're going to $493 a square foot," he said.

Administration recommended continuing with the current plan, pursuing purchase of adjacent land south of Current Drive off Cedar Hills if the owner were willing to sell, and exploring alternative capital funding such as the county school facility sales tax rather than tapping district reserves. Doctor Dearman said acquiring additional land could reduce the extra cost by about $500,000 compared with flipping the building on the current parcel.

Board members who supported the expansion argued a larger facility would relieve pressure on other district spaces, serve more students and provide tournament and event revenue. "Every single person I talked to... said, hey, do it right. Do the 200 if you have the funds," one board member said, citing conversations with neighboring athletics programs. Board member Nick described examples from neighboring districts where 200-meter indoor facilities generated substantial event income on some weekends.

Several trustees urged the board to see a financial plan before proceeding. Board members requested a profit-and-loss estimate that included likely revenues, janitorial and security costs, utilities and maintenance. District staff provided a rough operating-cost estimate for the smaller original design: about $25,000 a year for utilities, which one administrator said might rise "maybe to 30" with a larger footprint. The board also noted that a naming-rights agreement with Fortress Bank had been discussed previously and was expected to cover annual utilities under earlier plans.

Concerns about the district's cash reserves were central to the discussion. Mr. McKenzie and administration briefed members on reserve projections; trustees discussed keeping a six-million-dollar reserve floor and the district's policy of roughly 180 days cash on hand. The board asked staff to provide clearer, written reserve projections and an updated five-year cash flow reflecting the proposed capital change.

The board voted by roll call: Feldman — aye; Paul — aye; Poehler — no; Kyra — aye; Wagenbach — no. The motion passed 3-2. Trustees also asked staff to investigate and report back on an allegation raised in the meeting that recent contacts about the project might raise an Open Meetings Act concern.

The vote directs district staff to pursue the site reorientation and expansion work and to continue working simultaneously on any feasible adjacent-land acquisition and alternative funding options. Several trustees said they would expect the administration to return with detailed cost estimates, revenue projections and any legal findings before the board commits funds beyond the authorization.