Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Facilities Athletics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants flag aging tracks, tennis courts and limited indoor activity space in athletics facilities study
Summary
A consultant's athletics facilities study presented to the board identified tracks and tennis courts reaching end of life, disparities between high schools, a shortage of practice fields and on‑campus wrestling space for girls, and early cost estimates for potential projects; trustees asked for a comprehensive master planning approach.
Consultant Doug Loveland and a specialty sports landscape firm presented an athletics facilities study to the Lawrence Board of Education on Dec. 9 that inventories conditions and outlines priorities for further study. The study found aging outdoor surfaces (tracks and tennis courts) approaching end‑of‑life, a shortage of practice fields at the high school level, differences in equipment and donations between Free State and Lawrence High, and limited on‑campus wrestling facilities for girls, which currently require off‑campus rentals.
Loveland described a mixed method assessment including site visits, peer district comparisons (Shawnee Mission, Olathe, DeSoto, Gardner) and staff forums. He flagged several near‑term items: track surfacing where patching is no longer effective, tennis courts that require replacement rather than continued patching, maintenance needs in stadium grandstands, and a deteriorating press box at Free State. He also emphasized that some recommendations require more detailed site‑by‑site study because building and program configurations differ across campuses.
The presentation included high‑level budgetary ranges intended to give order‑of‑magnitude context: an auxiliary, storm‑hardened gym addition in peer districts bid in the $6.2M range (with full project costs potentially near $8M), track resurfacing surface‑only estimates near $375,000, and a six‑court tennis complex bid in the $640k–$700k range (with an expectation that an eight‑court setup is required to host regional tournaments). Loveland cautioned that soft costs, subsurface repairs and code requirements (storm‑hardened occupancy considerations) can substantially increase costs and affect project scope.
Trustees and staff discussed community use of facilities, supervision and staffing for rentals, the district’s five‑year capital outlay plan, and the need for proactive maintenance cycles. Board members suggested a master planning process to prioritize projects and to examine trade‑offs between urgent infrastructure repairs (roofs, HVAC) and cocurricular facility needs such as athletics and performing arts.
Loveland and district leaders said further study and community engagement will be necessary to develop detailed cost estimates and to sequence projects, and they recommended treating the athletics facilities review as part of a broader facilities master plan to align scope, funding and timelines.
