Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boosters pitch district-owned indoor baseball/softball training facility; board gives conceptual blessing
Summary
Coatesville booster clubs proposed a booster-funded, district-owned indoor training building to replace batting cages; boosters said they will raise the $100,000–$200,000 cost and requested the board's conceptual approval before investing in designs and permits. The board asked for formal plans, cost breakdowns, and clarifications on insurance and maintenance before a final vote.
Booster-club leaders asked the Coatesville Area School District to signal support for a booster-funded indoor baseball and softball training facility that they say would replace the existing batting cages and allow year‑round practice.
"Our intention is to not incur any or ask for any funds for it. We intend to handle all of that," said John Monahan of the baseball boosters. Meghan Wimmer, president of the softball booster club, said the clubs have contacted contractors and architects and estimate the building cost at "somewhere around $100,000 to $200,000," and that they will solicit donors and sponsors to cover construction and furnishings.
The proposal calls for a roughly 50-by-125-foot building sited where current batting cages stand, with retractable nets and basic lighting and heat to enable winter training. Presenters said Cowan Township has reviewed initial plans and raised no immediate objections; boosters asked for the board's endorsement so they will not spend further on design and permit fees without district support.
Board members and staff pressed for clearer details before any formal commitment. Questions included who would own and insure the facility (presenters said the district would own it and boosters would donate the asset), whether utilities or ongoing maintenance costs would fall to the district, whether permits and stormwater/runoff issues were resolved, and whether the district would require a formal agreement to protect future boards from unexpected obligations.
Michelle (district staff) and operations staff advised that the boosters return with sign‑and‑seal plans, cost estimates, permits and a proposed maintenance/insurance agreement. Several committee members said they were supportive in principle and suggested a formal motion or expedited approval once those details are available.
Next steps: boosters will continue engineering and permitting work, return with a detailed proposal and budget, and seek formal board approval once the district has documentation on insurance, utilities, maintenance obligations and a definitive funding plan.
