Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Bleachers Track topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colton SD 53 board weighs $170,000 aluminum bleacher quote, debates repairing wooden stands and resurfacing track
Summary
Board members reviewed a verbal vendor estimate of about $170,000 for new aluminum bleachers (materials only), discussed repairing aging wooden seating covered by a prior $200,000 appropriation, and debated whether to pursue track resurfacing (estimated $150,000–$350,000); staff was directed to obtain detailed quotes and return at the next meeting.
Colton SD 53 board members spent a special meeting reviewing options for the high‑school stadium, including a verbal manufacturer estimate for new aluminum bleachers and whether to repair existing wooden stands or redirect funds to resurface the track.
The chair opened item 3 by asking staff for an update on the facilities work. A staff presenter relayed that bleacher manufacturers had been contacted and that he had received a rough, verbal estimate “around 170,000” for an aluminum bleacher kit that would meet ADA requirements but would cover materials only and not grading, footings or other site work. The presenter emphasized the figure was not yet in writing.
Board members noted the district had already appropriated about $200,000 for roof and structural repairs to the stadium. One member said that appropriation would address identified safety risks, including the crow's nest and some structural supports, but that the $200,000 did not cover full seating replacement or unrelated site work. A board member who reviewed vendor details said the quoted aluminum kit would include handrails and turnkey components; the presenter and members agreed additional excavation, foundations and bathroom work would add substantial costs beyond the materials quote.
Several directors argued for repairing the existing wooden bleachers where feasible. A staff speaker described widespread dry rot and recommended replacing rotted boards and any faulty structure identified during demolition—work that could consume contingency funds. One director responded that a full wood replacement could be substantially more expensive than board‑top replacement and might not be covered by the existing appropriation.
Members also debated whether the district should prioritize a track project. One director said resurfacing the track could increase community and student use; another cited commonly reported ranges that resurfacing an existing track runs roughly $150,000–$350,000 while building a new eight‑lane track can cost $500,000–$1,000,000. Several members said they wanted cost estimates for the track resurfacing to inform any reallocation decision.
On configuration and scope, the staff presenter provided site measurements for two areas where seating changes were proposed (a roughly 17‑by‑110 foot section and a 15‑by‑80 foot section with a 12‑foot elevation change) and described a possible plan to slide new bleachers forward and create storage behind them. Directors asked about enlarging the crow’s nest (press box) by about 10 feet to improve sight lines and space for clock, camera and announcer functions; staff said any enlargement would require structural re‑engineering and column work.
Given the range of possible costs and the number of unknown structural items that would only be revealed during demolition, the board agreed on a phased approach: proceed with the roof/structural work already authorized, ask the contractor (transcript names contractor alternately as "Wayland" and "Whelan") for additional, written pricing—specifically a quote to replace seating tops or to provide the aluminum kit—and return to the board for a funding decision once more complete estimates are available. Members discussed a target start date roughly the Monday after graduation, and asked staff to place the item on the board agenda for the next meeting (noted in the meeting as May 11) so preliminary quotes can be reviewed.
The meeting produced no formal motion or vote on a change in scope or budget; instead the board directed staff to gather written quotes (including pricing for repairing wood tops, replacing the system with aluminum, any foundation work, and the cost to enlarge the crow’s nest) and to report back at the next scheduled meeting. The chair then moved to item 4; there were no public commenters and the board adjourned at 7:09 p.m.
Quotes in this report come from board discussion and staff remarks during the facilities agenda item. Where the transcript alternates spellings for contractor names ("Wayland" and "Whelan"), the board asked staff to obtain firm, written contractor estimates before any budget action.
