Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sports Complex topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge school board to pause athletic‑complex purchase, citing floodplain, transparency and process concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents told the Colman‑Egan School District 50‑5 board they feel sidelined on a proposed athletic complex purchase, raising floodplain, traffic and tax concerns and urging a community vote or further outreach before spending district funds.
Dozens of residents urged the Colman‑Egan School District 50‑5 board to slow or reconsider a recent land purchase for a proposed athletic complex, citing flooding risk, parking and process concerns.
Mary Swinney Klingler, who said she was speaking on behalf of Pat Entringer, said the parcel near a slough is “too wet and too low” for development and reminded the board that Entringer previously donated 15.5 acres for ball fields. Klingler said she was surprised to learn that 10 acres next to the slough had been considered for $178,400 (about $17,840 per acre) and that Pat would be willing to sell 12 acres for $200,000 (about $16,667 per acre). "It isn't too late to do the right thing to stop this right now," Klingler said.
Laura Zwart told the board she was "disappointed" and accused members of ignoring constituent input; she disputed the accuracy and timeliness of a 2023 survey the board cited and urged a motion to reconsider the East parcel purchase agreement. "So given this enlightening information, I think it's totally appropriate to reconsider the purchase that we've been lied to about," Zwart said.
Other speakers pressed the board on finances and process. Charlie Zwart asked whether the project would raise the mill levy and said the proposed $5,000,000 complex is a "want" not a need. Dan Schmidt called for more transparency and community engagement, saying repeated board statements that there were "no plans for the land" conflicted with residents' observations. Terry Stulkin, a long‑time principal who supports a complex in principle, said the board should produce a clear plan (scope, turf versus natural grass, restroom facilities) and be willing to submit a firm plan to a public vote.
Neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed site raised safety questions tied to past flooding and pedestrian cut‑throughs, and asked who would be liable if someone were injured. Tom Schmidt, citing prior project cost overruns elsewhere, urged the board to lay out long‑range finance and enrollment plans before committing further funds.
The board did not take a substantive vote on the project during public comment; multiple board members said staff would follow up with answers to questions raised by residents.
