Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletic Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates roughly $1 million turf proposal; members urge drainage engineering first
Summary
Board members discussed an Astroturf proposal quoted "just under $1,000,000" (about $1,050,000 including engineering) to turf two fields, raised Title IX and injury concerns, and directed staff to seek civil-engineering review of drainage across the athletic complex before committing funds.
A proposal to resurface the district’s athletic fields with artificial turf drew extended discussion at the Montoursville Area School District board meeting on Feb. 24, as members questioned drainage, Title IX implications and timing.
A board member presenting the vendor materials said the Astroturf proposal totalled “just under $1,000,000,” and that including engineering brought the estimate to about $1,050,000 to turf both baseball and softball fields. The presenter said the vendor’s engineering estimate ranged from $80,000 to $100,000 but that the district needed clearer scope information from the vendor.
Several board members warned that installing turf only on certain fields could create Title IX problems and that piecemeal fixes might leave the soccer field or other areas with worsening drainage. “If we’re going to do one, we should do both,” the presenter said, urging the board to avoid situations where girls’ teams would have to do extra work after rain and the district could face equity claims.
Members pressed technical questions about where runoff would be routed, whether proposed drains tie into the borough stormwater system and whether vendor-supplied engineering would fully address system-wide drainage. One member recommended hiring civil engineers already familiar with the district rather than relying solely on the turf vendor’s package; the presenter said the district will seek a proposal from Livicone to look at drainage across the whole complex.
Board members also discussed funding options and timing. A member said the district had transferred “700 plus to capital” and could earmark those funds and pursue fundraising; members cautioned that permitting timelines and borough approvals might make completion before the fall season unrealistic.
Views differed on turf for the soccer field: several members and commenters favored keeping soccer as grass over injury and usage concerns. The board did not vote to approve the turf purchase at the meeting; instead it directed staff to obtain civil-engineering proposals and additional scope and cost details before any procurement decision.
The next procedural step is for staff to solicit engineering proposals and return with refined scope, cost estimates and permitting implications for board consideration.
