Davidson County hears hours of public comment on $65M Sportsplex; commissioner asks staff to develop scaled-back alternative in parallel

At its Oct. 2, 2025 meeting, the Davidson County Board of Commissioners heard more than two hours of public comment on a proposed $65 million Sportsplex on county-owned land and a proposal from a commissioner to develop a scaled-back alternative concept in parallel with completion of the current design.

The project drew supporters who said a multi-sport complex would keep youth athletics local and bring visitor spending, and opponents who said the scale and location would harm nearby neighborhoods. Commission discussion touched on project scope, timelines, budget contingencies and next steps; no final policy decision was taken at the meeting.

What commissioners heard Tasha Lanier, founder of the Davidson County Youth Soccer Association, told commissioners that the county lacks enough fields and that a large complex would preserve existing community fields by hosting travel tournaments locally. “Soccer fields are more than playing space. They are long term investments in our youth and our community,” Lanier said.

Rocky Cabagnot, president of the Piedmont Soccer Club, said neighboring clubs would travel to Davidson County for a higher-quality facility. “If you build it, they will come,” he said, urging the commissioners to approve the plan.

Opponents said the project’s location is within or adjacent to long-established residential neighborhoods and questioned traffic, noise and water and sewer capacity. One resident, who presented a map, told the board the proposed footprint lies in the middle of an existing residential community and urged commissioners to “scale back the $65,000,000 project and make it a reasonable community park.” Paula Noonan, a realtor and resident, told the board she and many neighbors oppose placing a Sportsplex “in the middle of a community.”

Randy G. Holmes, chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission, defended the committee process and said the commission did not simply “rubber stamp” the proposal; he said the Parks and Rec board had deliberated for years before recommending the plan.

Commissioner Maizeo proposal Commissioner Maizeo said he remains opposed to the project in its current form but asked staff to continue progressing the existing design while also procuring a parallel, reduced alternative. He described the alternative as a scaled-back plan that would emphasize community recreation over a regional tournament destination, with fewer fields and a smaller aquatic footprint. “The main changes would be a reduction in the quantity of fields,” Maizeo said, and he proposed removing either the indoor or the outdoor aquatic element from the alternative to lower costs. He told colleagues an additional concept could add roughly $20,000 to $30,000 to the RFQ/design cost if the board chose to proceed with a parallel plan.

Design-team update and schedule County staff and the project architect reported the design team is well advanced. The architect and project manager said environmental consultations are largely complete; they have received state reviews including historical and wildlife clearances, and have submitted Clean Water Act materials and are awaiting final responses. The grading package is out to the county’s engineering reviewer and the team is preparing building plans for review by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. The design team estimated overall design completion at about 85 percent and said construction documents and permitting work remain.

Staff provided schedule and budget details: county staff said approximately $2,015,296 has been spent on design work to date, and the team said they were aiming for a phased public opening of certain amenities by Memorial Day 2027 (noting grass fields typically require additional grow-in time). The architect said the project remained within the board-authorized budget and that bulk purchasing (for example, for field turf and lighting) can lower per-field cost; the team noted a standalone turf field had an example price of about $1.2 million whereas doing multiple fields together reduced the effective per-field price to about $800,000.

What happened next Commissioners discussed next steps and possible amendments to the RFQ or scope to allow the parallel concept. No vote was taken to alter the RFQ at the Oct. 2 meeting. Commissioners directed staff to return with cost and scope options should the board want to explicitly require a reduced alternative alongside the existing design.

Votes at a glance - Adoption of meeting agenda — motion approved (mover/second not specified in the record). Outcome: approved. - Motion to excuse Commissioner McClure — motion approved (mover/second not specified in the record). Outcome: approved. - Adjourn meeting — motion approved. Outcome: approved.

Why this matters The Sportsplex has been discussed on and off in county planning and Parks and Recreation conversations since at least 2005; the most recent feasibility and master-planning work dates back several years and the commission voted earlier this year to acquire site property and move the project forward. Supporters say the complex would create visitor spending that benefits restaurants, hotels and small businesses and would give local youth more year-round places to play. Neighbors and some commissioners say such a concentrated regional facility may not fit the chosen site, could increase traffic and noise in adjacent neighborhoods, and could divert county resources from other priorities.

What’s next Staff and the design team will continue work on the current design and return to the board with options and costs for a scaled-back alternative, if requested. The board did not adopt a new RFQ or binding change to the scope at this meeting.

(End)