The City of Great Bend has asked the Great Bend Recreation Commission and Great Bend USD 428 if they will agree to share the cost to add artificial turf at the Great Bend Sports Complex. Before the city council votes to approve the $1.4 million project on March 1, city officials hoped the school board and rec commission would agree to a cost-sharing partnership.

The school board met Thursday and the item was added to its agenda, but the board voted 4-3 to table the question until its March 8 meeting. Some members who voted to wait said they support the idea while others were uncertain. Either way, the majority wanted to allow time for the public to weigh in.

Superintendent Khris Thexton said the plan is to work with the other entities to add artificial turf at the five fields of the Sports Complex. The City of Great Bend would pay 60% of the cost, or $920,000, while USD 428 and GBRC would each pay 20%. 

The school district would pay $280,000, while Great Bend Rec’s share would be $200,000 plus annual maintenance.

The project wasn’t on last Tuesday’s city council agenda, but it was discussed in a study session held immediately after the meeting. It was then added to Thursday’s school board agenda and board President Chris Umphres, who is also assistant director of the Great Bend Recreation Commission, said the GBRC board will hold a special meeting on Friday, Feb. 19, to vote on the proposal. That meeting is set for 12:15 p.m. at the Rec Center, 1214 Stone St.

It was the consensus of the City Council to approve the project at its March 1 meeting if it had positive votes from the school board and rec commission board before then, Umphres told the school board.

Umphres also said the project needs to be approved quickly if the partners want to see the work done by March of 2022. 

Thexton said the school district uses the complex during its baseball and softball seasons, but more games could be played with artificial turf, because fewer games would be rained out. Other school districts help share the cost of ball diamonds, he added.

“This is an opportunity for us to partner with the city and with the rec. We do a lot of that,” he said. Most recently, the district helped with the cost of resurfacing the tennis courts. He added that the city does not charge the district rent to use the Sports Complex.

Board member Don Williams said he’d “rather pay rent than pay $280,000.”

Thexton said the city estimates the project would last 12-15 years. “This isn’t the first time that the district’s helped out with the Sports Complex,” he added. In 2010, the board helped the city pay $615,000 for lighting at the facility.

Board member Deanna Essmiller said that since the City Council hasn’t talked about the project publicly before now, she would not feel comfortable voting on the issue before it’s out there in front of the city patrons.

Umphres said the public has now heard about the idea. He added that the board should look at this as a community project. 

Board member Lori Reneau agreed. “My kids have played since they were little, and there were many times that games got canceled due to weather but we could go play somewhere else that had nice facilities and turf to play on.”

Board member Jacquie Disque said, “I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that any of you have said. However, I do think that there’s going to be a perception from the community (that sports get priority treatment).” 

From new lights at the football stadium to paying $10,000 a year to swim at the Barton Community College pool, “we do all of these things. I don’t see any new band uniforms. I think we have to be super careful about how we do this, because we’re not seeing anything other than athletics really coming to the forefront and being talked about and having money spent on them,” Disque said.

Disque added that it’s a matter of public perception, because the board does spend a lot of money on textbooks and other things. “I just think the perception may be there from lots of people that we’ve spent a whole lot of money on a lot of athletic stuff and (people don’t necessarily) see the amount of money we spent on other things.”

Thexton mentioned some non-athletic upgrades approved by the board, such as improvements to the auditorium’s sound and light systems.

“I think we just have to be very transparent with the public and make sure they remember those things,” Disque said.

Essmiller said for her it was a question of priorities. She recalled the bond election that was put on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic. “We spent a whole year (studying) priorities,” she said. The board found needs like a new bus barn and central kitchen, “and $280,000 is a lot of money that could go toward those things.” She added that the future of local businesses and taxes are uncertain because of the COVID-19 pandemic. “So I’m feeling like this was pretty quick. I wish I had more input from the community. ... I don’t like the timing at all.” 

Thexton said the district has many priorities and they have not been ignored. The recent decision to start a Little Panther Preschool is a good example. “As for the bus barn and maintenance and the central kitchen and all that, we’re still trying to figure out something. We’re working on this too.”

Umphres said supporting the sports complex would help bring tournaments to town, which would help economic development and bring people to restaurants and gas stations as well. “We need something positive in this town.”

Assistant Superintendent John Popp added, “if we had to build and maintain our own sports complex for tennis or swimming, baseball or softball, the cost would be significantly more. So, when we talk about the partnership, the partnership does exist and works very well. If we had to do it on our own, the cost would be so much more than anything we’ve had to pay so far.”

“I think the percentage that they’re asking us to put forth is definitely reasonable,” Disque said. “I just want to make sure that we highlight some of those other things that we have done. And believe me, I’m the first one to go to a sporting event if I get a choice.”

Board member Susan Young wondered if the district could do a quick survey and board member Aaron Emerson said he supports the partnership with the city, although he was fine with waiting until the March 8 meeting to make that happen.

Young moved, and Williams seconded her motion, to return to this topic at the March 8 meeting. Those voting in favor of waiting until then were Young, Essmiller, Williams and Disque. Those voting against waiting until then to support the partnership were Emerson, Umphres and Reneau.

Thexton said without all three entities agreeing to the partnership, “it’ll die for the time being.”

Popp said that may not be the case. “I believe the city is saying that they’re ready to move forward. They just want to know if there’s support from the Rec and the schools. They haven’t formally passed it, but they’ve declared that they’re want to move forward if they can get support.”

Thexton said that was indeed the consensus at the City Council work session. “They were just going to wait and see if the partnership was there for them to proceed.”