Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northern Lebanon board approves full renovation of aging tennis courts, draws two dissenting votes
Summary
The Northern Lebanon School District board approved a lowest-bid total reconstruction of its high‑school tennis courts, funding the work from the district's capital projects fund; the motion carried despite two 'no' votes after board discussion about timing, cost and community use.
The Northern Lebanon School District Board of Directors voted April 14 to approve the lowest bid to fully reconstruct the high‑school tennis courts, moving forward with a capital project the administration says is already budgeted in the 2025–26 capital projects fund.
Board president Nam and a facilities consultant told members the existing courts — last renovated around 2005 — have exceeded their usable life and show pervasive cracking and perimeter‑fencing corrosion. Brian Bingham of Track and Court, the consultant, told the board a full removal and rebuild is recommended rather than a surface-only resurfacing because "you'll just continue to see the cracks" and a reconstructed court should last "30 plus years." The board received three comparable bids and the administration recommended awarding the reconstruction contract to the lowest bidder with one accessibility alternate included.
The administration said the project was included in this year's capital budget and that work would be scheduled to finish over the summer so courts are available in the fall. Board members discussed funding sources and timing: the project will draw on the district's capital projects fund (funds set aside during prior construction projects and intended for long‑life asset replacement) and will not change the district's operating budget for next year, according to the presentation.
Several board members emphasized community use and physical‑education benefits in supporting the reconstruction; one member urged caution about rising costs and suggested waiting to see how much contingency remains after other projects. The motion to approve the bid carried after voice votes were tallied; two board members recorded dissenting votes.
The administration said the bid amounts exceeded a previously used estimate of approximately $314,000 and that alternate pricing and construction‑market movement contributed to higher numbers; the board approved only the reconstruction option recommended by the administration and consultant. The district plans to return to the board with a construction schedule and contract details to implement the work.
The board's action authorizes award of the reconstruction bid; final contract execution and project mobilization were described as the next steps.
