Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Sports Complex topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Colman‑Egan board to reconsider East‑parcel athletic complex purchase

Colman‑Egan School District 50-5 Board of Education · January 16, 2026

Summary

Multiple residents told the Colman‑Egan School District board the east parcel is unsuitable for a sports complex, citing floodplain concerns, contested land‑price figures and insufficient community outreach—and asked the board to pause the purchase or put a full plan to a public vote.

A string of residents told the Colman‑Egan School District board they want the district to reconsider a recent land purchase for a proposed athletic complex on the east parcel, arguing the site is too wet, would divide the neighborhood and has not been vetted with sufficient community engagement.

Mary Swinney Klingler, speaking on behalf of landowner Pat Entringer, said the slough‑adjacent site remains "too wet and too low" and that Entringer had already donated 15.5 acres for ball fields. Klingler said Entringer had discussed price and volunteered that she would sell 12 acres for $200,000—quoted in the meeting as roughly $16,667 per acre—contradicting a figure of $17,840 per acre mentioned at a prior board meeting. "It isn't too late to do the right thing to stop this this right now," Klingler said.

Other neighbors echoed concerns about flooding, liability and traffic. A nearby resident who identified herself as Lisa said the parcel had flooded in the past and asked who would be liable if children wandered into the slough. "It's a flood plain," she said, asking whether extra mitigation costs had been included in budget estimates.

Several speakers also challenged the district's outreach and data. Laura Zwart asserted that the most recent survey showing 56% approval is outdated or insufficient and called for the board to "pump the brakes" and pursue more public input or a community vote before proceeding. Charlie Zwart asked for clarity on whether capital outlay funds would increase local levies and described the proposed project as a "$5,000,000 want, not a $5,000,000 need."

The board did not reverse its approved closing on the parcel at the meeting, but the chair said staff would follow up individually with people who raised questions and consider providing written answers to the group.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source