Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletic Complex Site Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to halt east‑site plans for athletic complex, citing flood, traffic and transparency concerns
Summary
Multiple residents told the Colman‑Egan School Board they support a new athletic complex but oppose the proposed East site, raising floodplain, mosquito, parking, trespass and transparency concerns and presenting a 125‑signature petition calling for a public vote.
Several residents urged the Colman‑Egan School Board to reconsider plans to site a proposed athletic complex on a parcel east of the school, arguing the location is partially in a floodplain and would worsen parking, trespass and public‑safety risks for nearby homeowners.
"There's simply not enough room for an athletic complex at that location," Mary Sweeney Gengler told the board during the public comment period, citing flooding, a high mosquito population near a slough and overflow parking that she said would send people across the lawns of 11 adjacent homes. "Property values will be negatively affected," she added.
Dan Schmidt, who identified himself as a lifelong resident, said he was not opposed to a new complex in principle but opposed the East location. "What I am against is building this in the proposed East location," Schmidt said, listing limited access, potential landlocked parcels and a lack of transparent outreach. He said the district should "listen to the voice of the entire community, not just a select few" and suggested a community vote on the location.
Other speakers echoed those concerns. One attendee who described the district's survey as "skewed and misleading" said the questionnaire offered only a yes/no option and a $4–5 million cost band, and that homeowners near the assumed site were not contacted.
Coach and new resident Sean Geigley urged the board to consider the benefits of a modern facility for athlete safety and program growth, while still acknowledging that location and process matter. "I hope the board considers both sites," Geigley said.
The petition accompanying public comment contains 125 signatures the cover letter says represent about 11% of registered voters in the district and calls on the board to allow a vote on a roughly $4.5 million project. Board members responded that some site selection and geotechnical steps have already been taken but emphasized that the final project scope and capital issuance would determine whether an election is required.
The board took no immediate action to reverse site selection; subsequent agenda items included the reading of an attorney opinion and motions on procurement and a land purchase agreement, discussed elsewhere on the agenda.
