Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Repairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews tennis-court bids as resurfacing versus full milling debate intensifies
Summary
District staff reported four bids for milling-and-repave and three for resurfacing; timeline constraints and warranty expectations mean the board must act by April to meet summer start dates.
The Danville Area School District received multiple bids this week to repair its high-school tennis courts and asked the board for direction on whether to pursue milling-and-repaving or a resurfacing-only approach.
Lance Ryan, speaking for buildings and grounds, told the board that four bids arrived for milling-and-resurfacing and three for resurfacing, and that the milling option requires removing fence fabric and more material work. He noted concern that one bidder, Keystone Sports, submitted a milling bid only about $7,000 higher than its resurfacing figure and said he was “skeptical that that it will hold up to scrutiny.”
Why it matters: contractors told staff both options typically yield a 10–15 year useful life when properly done; milling is more invasive and costly but is traditionally seen as more thorough. Ryan stressed that specifications required a virgin asphalt mix, proper cure time before painting and a three-year warranty.
Ryan said the district’s specification requires a virgin asphalt mix and adherence to “the manufacturer's suggested timeline for how long the asphalt… needs to sit prior to painting occurring.” He added that all bids include painting as part of the package and that painting would be subcontracted.
Staff said timing is critical: contractors must be able to start no later than June 16 for the district’s preferred completion date of July 28 so teams can practice before the fall season. Buildings-and-grounds staff recommended staff verify Keystone’s milling bid and the bidders’ subcontractor experience with tennis-court epoxy systems before returning a recommendation.
Board members emphasized the desire to do the work correctly and “not to revisit this in a year or 2 or 3.” One board member summarized: “We want it done right.”
Next steps: staff will verify bids, check references and — if the low-cost milling bid is confirmed as properly spec’d — may place the item on the next meeting agenda; otherwise staff said the board should be prepared to act in April to ensure contractors meet the summer schedule.
Ending: staff will return with a bid evaluation and recommendation after verifying subcontractor experience, warranty bonds and material specifications.
