Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present $56M–$69M plan for indoor sports complex at Dallas Park
Summary
Consultants told the Gaston County Board of Commissioners an eight‑court indoor facility at Dallas Park could draw tournaments, generate hotel room nights and produce modest operating revenue at maturity, but would require an initial operational subsidy and a multi‑million dollar capital investment. The board asked questions and heard community benefits and cost estimates.
Sports Facilities Companies presented findings to the Gaston County Board of Commissioners on June 23 that outline a multi‑purpose indoor recreation and sports facility concept for Dallas Park, estimating site needs, capital cost and long‑term operating performance.
The presentation, led by consultant Kaylee Hentschel and consultant Greg Wise Carver, proposed an eight‑court main floor that can be cross‑lined to 16 volleyball courts or 24 pickleball courts, plus indoor turf, a family entertainment area and a fitness center. The recommended program needs just over 13 acres and 766 parking spaces, the consultants said.
"This facility would be an eight‑court facility that has the capability to be cross‑lined with 16 volleyball courts, 24 pickleball courts," Hentschel said. "It gives you that capability for the sports tourism destination, along with the local programs for the camps, clinics, etc." Greg Wise Carver added that the study was scoped to balance economic impact and community access: "We're here to equip you with data and information that is the most accurate in the industry so you can make good decisions in the years to come."
Cost and financials
The consultants estimated an all‑in development cost between $56.5 million and $68.7 million, inclusive of site work, the building shell, equipment and soft costs. They modeled a third‑party operating partner and projected year‑five facility revenue at just over $4 million. The study showed an estimated operational subsidy of about $817,000 in year one, while year‑five EBITDA was modeled as modestly positive (the consultants reported an EBITDA of $4,642 at maturity in their baseline scenario).
Kaylee Hentschel described a staged market build‑up for tournaments and events, projecting 21 tournaments and events in year one growing to about 31 by year five and estimating more than 14,000 new room nights and roughly $9.6 million in economic impact at maturity.
Board questions and follow‑up
Commissioners asked about site size, access and local competition. The presenters said the 13‑acre footprint includes parking, setbacks and green space, and recommended further site evaluation to ensure access and scalability. They noted the capital figures are current‑day estimates and would need escalation and value‑engineering at the time of design.
The consultants recommended engaging a detailed business plan and market‑rate operator if the county pursues the project and emphasized that the facility is intentionally sized to attract tournaments even if that requires supplemental operating support early on.
What's next
County staff did not make a financing commitment during the meeting. Commissioners thanked the consultants for the work and indicated the study provides a basis for later discussions about funding, partnership models and phasing.
