Board revisits baseball-field lighting plan as Title IX complaint and costs complicate proposal

Board member Kirsten called a special meeting to reopen discussion about adding lights to the high‑school baseball field and raised questions about the contract deposit, alternative field-configurations and a Title IX complaint that the district’s legal counsel would not discuss in detail in open session.

Kirsten said she requested the meeting because she did not have answers to questions from voters and wanted the discussion to be transparent. "When we're talking about almost $300,000, we need to make sure we have all the facts before we make a decision," Kirsten said. She said she and other board members had asked staff for estimates about converting existing softball fields to baseball fields and that the district had not provided feasible options before the prior vote to approve new lights.

Doug, the construction manager the district engaged through Newkirk Novak for potential bond work, presented three costed options. He told the board the estimates are construction hard costs from Newkirk Novak: (1) reconfigure the existing Olive Street field as a dual‑use dirt‑and‑grass field — $1,021,119; (2) remove lights from an older field and reinstall them at the high school, including earthwork and upgraded foundations — approximately $1,189,530; and (3) build a full synthetic‑turf dual‑use field at Olive Street — about $5,496,697. Doug said the older poles (installed in 1997, fixtures updated in 2008) sit on concrete piers rather than being buried, which increases costs to relocate them.

At least one vendor quote that board members compiled independently was substantially lower: a SportsBeams estimate of about $179,000 for new lights was mentioned during discussion. Board members raised questions about whether bidding rules applied to the electrical work (the electrical portion was discussed at approximately $70,000) and about whether the district had sought multiple competing bids before approving the prior contract.

Board members also discussed a deposit the district paid to secure the lights. A board member said she learned, from social media and later email confirmation, that the deposit had been made and asked whether it was refundable; staff confirmed a deposit was taken but did not present contract language in open session.

The board confirmed that an official Title IX complaint has been filed about the lights; district legal counsel declined to discuss specifics in open session and told the board that whether a complaint is "founded" would require investigation. Legal counsel indicated that a finding could lead to remedies that do not necessarily require removing lights — such as other accommodations or funding — but would have to be determined through the complaint process.

Several board members said they had not seen contract numbers or the underlying legal opinion in time to make an informed vote at the earlier meeting that approved the lights. No new motion was made at this special meeting; the board took no additional formal action on the lights during the session.