Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and boosters urge turf as Quakertown committee narrows softball field options
Summary
Committee reviewed three field-location and construction options and heard several public commenters and boosters urge a turf varsity field to reduce lost play days; the committee asked staff for itemized options and plans to return the matter to the board with recommendations.
The facilities committee reviewed three options for girls' softball facilities and heard public testimony urging the district to prioritize playing time and reliability—many speakers encouraged turf for the varsity field.
A staff presenter (S3) laid out three proposals: renovating Veterans Park (off-campus) as a clay-infield/grass-outfield facility; building a natural-grass varsity field on high-school property; or adding a JV field on the high-school geothermal-field site. The packet included a la carte pricing (scoreboards, lighting, batting cages) and sample base figures (for example, a "Grama Field" figure listed as $2,249,000 and a varsity grass option near $3.7 million). The presenter noted engineering, permit and design costs are included in those bottoms-line figures.
Public commenters pressed for turf for reliability. Ray Fox (S2), who said he has been involved with the softball program for roughly 20 years, told the committee that campus fields suffer drainage problems and frequently force practices inside: "The turf drains. The water runs off. You can have a downpour and still play on a turf field within a half an hour." Christian Haberle (S9), a Booster Club member and RASA board member, said RASA's tournament timing differs from the high-school season and explained that scheduling priorities do not always align. Bill Koblenz (S8), president of the Richland Area Softball Association, said the "most important thing is playing the games" and argued a full-turf facility would reduce lost play days.
Committee members discussed whether to pursue two fields at the high school, which field(s) would be eligible for turf (the JV site sits over geothermal infrastructure that constrains some turf options) and which amenities to include. Several members expressed a preference to simplify the recommendation and return with a clearer set of alternates and itemized costs; staff were asked to provide a recommendation to carry to the board.
What happens next: the committee agreed to bring refined options, including detailed a la carte prices and a clear recommendation (for example, varsity turf with JV natural grass or alternatives) back to the facilities committee and ultimately to the school board for a decision. No final construction decision or board vote occurred at the committee meeting.
