Keystone flags base instability on Danville tennis courts; contractor offers three repair options and $39,000 full‑rebuild add‑on

Jeffrey Sellers of Keystone Sports Construction told the Danville Area School District Committee of the Whole that seven core samples taken across the high‑school tennis courts show inconsistent asphalt/base depths and evidence of surface failure that could compromise a straightforward mill‑and‑resurface job.

Lede: Keystone — the low bidder for the court work — reported that four of the seven cores, if the contractor mills 3 inches as in the current scope, would leave only about 1.5 to a little more than 2.25 inches of base course in some locations. Heavy paving equipment placed on that shallow base could further destabilize the surface and require additional base remediation, Sellers said.

Nut graf: Keystone offered three options: (1) proceed with the current milling/resurfacing contract but acknowledge a risk and address remediation as it occurs; (2) mill only 1.5 inches in areas to reduce risk and accept a contract deduct (approximately $50,000) though savings could be offset by local spot repairs; or (3) remove all existing material and rebuild the full pavement structure, an incremental cost of about $38,000–$39,000 (contractor figure) over the awarded bid. Sellers said full removal would eliminate the risk but increase the contract price to an estimated $237,000 total for the project — still below other bidders’ full‑replacement estimates.

Body: Sellers and district staff discussed the causes: the surface product used on the prior job may not have cured properly before surfacing and may be less suitable for freeze‑thaw climates; some placements showed “alligator” cracking and surface delamination. Sellers said the prior contract had not allowed the 30‑day cure period that paving industry practice typically requires before applying the color/resurfacing layers, and that contributed to early failures. The core report shows variable asphalt wearing‑course depths (about 4–5 inches) and aggregate base that appears inconsistent in depth. Keystone recommended core sampling before final decisions and reported the firm has a signed agreement pending solicitor review and countersignature.

Contract and procurement implications: Keystone is an awarded contractor; the recommended next step would be a change order if the board chooses the full‑replacement option. The district solicitor and business manager confirmed a change‑order path is legally and procedurally acceptable; the change order would come to the board for approval. Sellers said the contractor needs the 30‑day cure period between paving and color/resurfacing, and scheduling work to finish before fall athletics is important.

Grant opportunity: District staff said they are investigating a USTA grant program covering up to 50% of reconstruction costs, capped at about $40,000 per court; the district operates five courts and could potentially qualify for substantial grant support if the courts are publicly available and show community use.

Ending: Keystone asked the board to decide quickly which option it prefers so crews can be scheduled after school season; district staff said the board would likely see a change order and the contractor’s revised pricing at the next meeting. The contractor emphasized transparency: remediation may be needed in the field depending on how much viable base remains after milling, and the full‑rebuild option removes that contingency.