Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Track Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables decision on middle school track after debate over overlay vs. full rebuild
Summary
Board discussed two cost approaches for the middle school track — a cheaper overlay and a full rebuild with engineered fill — and voted to table the agreement with Bros Engineering pending facilities committee review and additional cost details.
The Spearfish School District 40-2 board discussed options for the middle school track on March 10, weighing a lower-cost overlay against a full reconstruction that includes excavation and engineered fill. Board members expressed safety concerns and uncertainty about long-term durability before voting to table the agreement with Bros Engineering for further study.
The board considered two cost estimates. One option would be a simpler overlay; another estimate — described during the meeting as closer to $900,000 — covered tearing out the existing track, removing about 2 feet of subsoil, bringing in engineered fill and rebuilding the surface. One board member characterized the overlay as likely to show reflective cracking in later years and said it “would not last terribly long.” Concern was raised that heavy equipment driving on the site during paving could further damage the underlying surface.
Discussion covered procurement approaches. Board members debated whether to proceed with a design–bid–build approach or to seek a construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) or turnkey vendor such as Mammoth or Renner (contractors referenced in the meeting) that could provide in-house engineering and oversee the project end-to-end. The board also asked staff to collect cost estimates for additional field features — long jump pits, high jump, pole vault and sprinkler system specifications — noting that the two estimates provided did not include a new sprinkler system.
Several board members emphasized safety and urged action sooner rather than later; one said the board had “passed the point” of trying to schedule the project for the coming summer and recommended planning for next summer while finalizing procurement. After discussion, a board member amended a motion to table the agreement with Bros Engineering for further discussion and directed the facilities committee to meet and return a recommendation; the motion to table passed on a voice vote.
No final contract was approved at the March 10 meeting. The board asked staff to obtain additional cost details, consult with Mammoth/contractor representatives and confer with athletic and facilities staff before a decision is returned to the board.
