Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dixon administrators present Phase 1 facilities plan for DHS: turf, track and a $1 million capital campaign

Dixon Community Unit School District 170 Board of Education · February 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff presented a Phase 1 facilities proposal to replace the track and install turf at Dixon High School, plus press‑box and amenity upgrades. Proposed financing relies on county facility sales tax earmarks and a $1,000,000 community capital campaign for extras.

District administrators presented a Phase 1 facilities plan for Dixon High School at the Feb. 18 board meeting, describing substantial wear to the track and field, safety concerns, and a two‑part financing approach that pairs county facility sales tax funds with a community capital campaign for nonessential amenities.

Administrators and athletic staff showed photos and assessments that the rubberized track is past its useful life and that the grass field is thinning and difficult to maintain; they said everyday academic and extracurricular uses (PE, marching band, soccer, football) are affected. The district described procurement through Vernon Jones via the Omnia Partners cooperative and displayed preliminary renderings for a new turf field, track resurfacing and upgraded support facilities (press box, concessions and restrooms).

On financing, staff outlined a multi‑year plan that would use county facility sales tax dollars (which the district said are restricted to “brick and mortar” expenditures) and apply an initial earmark of reserves (described in the meeting as approximately $500,000), followed by planned allocations in subsequent years (amounts discussed in the presentation included $850,000 in a first project year). Administrators presented an estimated total project cost in materials shown to the board as about $2,200,000 for core track and turf work; they said a district‑led capital campaign targeting $1,000,000 would be solicited to cover amenities such as a video board, improved press box and enhanced concessions.

District staff stressed that county facility sales tax is not the Education Fund and cannot be used for salaries or benefits. Board members and administrators discussed timing and commitment: if the district signs a letter of intent and commits those earmarks, the plan reduces flexibility for other projects; administrators proposed bringing formal approvals to the board as soon as March or April with a tentative construction start in March 2028 and completion by July 2028.

Board members asked about operational details, including impacts on shot put/discus, whistle‑stop crowding, and the interface with existing health life safety projects; staff said some events (discus) would remain at relocated sites and emphasized staged decision steps so nonessential amenities would be scaled back if fundraising fell short. The presentation referenced Lena Winslow as an example of a small district that raised funds quickly through a community campaign.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will provide additional cost estimates, procurement details and communication materials and will bring more detailed proposals to the board at the March meeting for review before any formal vote.