Board seeks full briefing before approving architect contract for proposed $4.1M stadium project

The Millersburg Area School District Board discussed next steps on a conceptual stadium redevelopment project, including a recommended contract with an external architect to complete formal design and permitting for the plan.

Eric (the board secretary) summarized a recent meeting with the district’s consultant, saying the consultant proposed a contract of roughly $170,000 to prepare full design documents, obtain permits and perform necessary testing but that taking that step "does not by moving ahead with that, it does not commit us to spend, you know, the 4,100,000.0 budget dollars that he gave us." Eric said permits would be valid for five years and would allow the district to phase construction if it later chooses to do so.

Dan Troutman, the grounds supervisor, cautioned the board that permitting — particularly stormwater management permits — can be expensive and time consuming, and that those costs were included in the consultant’s upfront estimate: "the permits are extremely expensive and time consuming." Several members asked for more detail about how the $170,000 was calculated and whether it would cover designs for both partial and full build options.

Board member Eggleston urged the district to consider two distinct design options, saying he would "like to see 2 designs in case our intent is never to do the field" so the district would have a plan tailored to either upgrading lights/grandstands or the entire field and track. Others argued that producing a single master plan and full permitting could reduce the need to repeat permitting in the future.

The board discussed whether to ‘‘future‑proof’’ light placement so poles would not have to be relocated if a track is added later. Administrators said the consultant told them lights could be re‑aimed later at modest cost (an example figure given by staff was $5,000–$7,000) but that there are trade‑offs in aesthetics and cost if the district installs components that are never used.

Several members said they do not feel they have enough information to approve even the design/permitting contract and asked administration to schedule a presentation by the consultant so all board members can ask questions directly. "I don't feel like I have enough information to make a decision," said board member Teneal, calling for a full‑board briefing before any commitment.

Administration said the next step is to arrange a meeting with the consultant (virtually or in person) for a full briefing and to provide a written contract and cost breakdown for the board’s review. The district emphasized that authorizing design and permitting work would not equate to approval of the full construction budget.

The board also discussed insurance coverage and whether the district’s replacement‑cost insurance would cover upgraded design and permitting; administration said insurers were working to return the district to whole and that a structural inspection of bleachers done last fall found them structurally sound, though liability insurers remain cautious. The board asked administration to seek clarity from the insurer and, if needed, a second opinion.

Next steps: administration will work to schedule a consultant presentation to the full board, provide a contract breakdown, and return to the board with more specific cost and permitting information before any vote on engaging the architect.