Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses Musselman High tennis courts; district to gather more technical and cost information
Summary
Construction staff presented a proposal to replace failing Musselman High tennis courts with post‑tension concrete at a cost estimate of about $711,300 (court‑only) or higher with spectator walkway; board asked staff to verify geotechnical risks, warranty terms and alternative temporary solutions and to return with further information.
The board discussed a construction proposal for Musselman High School tennis courts after staff described extensive cracking and surface displacement at the existing asphalt courts.
A staff presenter (Tyson Vaughn, construction update presenter) summarized a Hellas Construction proposal to remove the existing asphalt, prepare a subbase, install post‑tensioned concrete for four courts, and replace fencing. The proposal included an option to add a concrete spectator walkway; the court‑only price shown in the meeting materials was $711,300. The presenter recommended post‑tension concrete because it is designed to better tolerate ground movement and becoming an industry standard for courts in areas with subsurface issues.
Board members asked about geotechnical contingencies, topographic surveys and warranty length. The presenter said a geotechnical report (estimated $5,000–$8,000) and a topographic survey (approx. $500) would be recommended if the board approves design work; those items could lead to change orders if subsurface conditions require deeper foundations or remediation. The current proposal included a one‑year warranty for the work as written; board members pressed staff to clarify why the warranty term was short given the price and to seek longer warranty language if feasible.
Several board members suggested tabling the item for additional due diligence. The district noted temporary options exist — for example, converting a different campus surface or older courts to accommodate matches for the coming season — so a short delay would not prevent play. The presenter agreed to return to the board with additional information on warranty terms, whether moving the courts to a different site is practical, and the cost of a lower‑cost asphalt repair option (the district had an asphalt‑over option estimated at roughly $58,000).
No binding procurement decision was made at the meeting; staff will return with additional technical information and pricing to enable a later decision.
