Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sports Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses tennis‑court perimeter failure; opts for perimeter repair and power wash
Summary
District staff presented three repair options after perimeter rolling and delamination were reported; board members agreed to proceed with the mid‑level repair (seal and power wash) to make the courts playable before fall practices and capital plan review will determine longer-term replacement.
District staff reviewed damage to the high‑school tennis courts and presented three repair alternatives after staff reported the court perimeter had lifted in March. The district said the surface was originally installed in 2016 and that perimeter failure has caused the coating to roll up at the edges.
A staff member described the recommended option as sealing and repairing the outside perimeter, power‑washing the entire court surface, re‑gluing edges and repainting lines where needed. "To me, it makes the most sense, and that one would be they're gonna repair the outside perimeter, plus they're gonna power wash the core," that staff member said.
Board members asked about the original warranty and whether the company that installed the surface would cover repairs. Staff said the original contract included a one‑year installation warranty; a separate 10‑year component did not cover the current perimeter issue. The vendor that installed the court is based in Maryland and would need to be involved for the edge repairs, staff said.
Members weighed whether to make a short‑term repair or wait for a capital improvement project that could replace the courts. One board member noted practices begin Aug. 4 and emphasized the need to have a playable surface for student athletes. After discussion, the board signaled support for the mid‑level repair option (seal/glue edges and power wash) to make courts usable for fall sports while the capital improvement plan is finalized.
No formal vote was recorded; staff said they will contact the vendor and pursue scheduling so work can be completed before fall practice. The solicitor’s office previously reviewed the original installation contract for warranty language, staff said, and indicated only the one‑year installation warranty was present for the initial work.
The board asked staff to confirm whether any warranty will be offered with the repair and to confirm scheduling so the repairs can occur before practices start.
