Board OKs $630K for sta­dium project

The Mercury (Pottstown, PA) - - FRONT PAGE - By Evan Brandt [email protected]­tu­ry­ @PottstownNews on Twit­ter

BOYERTOWN >> The Boyertown Area School Board has moved for­ward on the $5.4 mil­lion sta­dium project au­tho­riz­ing two con­tracts for its de­sign, as well as sev­eral other cap­i­tal projects re­lated to ath­let­ics worth as much as $630,000.

The first is with KCBA Ar­chi­tects at an amount not to ex­ceed $337,549. Board mem­bers Chris­tine Neiman, Ruth Dierolf and Clay Breece voted no.

Un­der the terms of the con­tract, the ar­chi­tects will ar­range for the de­mo­li­tion of the ex­ist­ing grand­stand and de­sign a new one, as well as de­sign a field house with toliet rooms, two con­ces­sion stands, three ticket booths, stor­age a plat­form for dis­abled vis­i­tors on the vis­i­tor side, new fenc­ing and top-dress­ing the field.

The ar­chi­tects con­tract also in­cludes de­sign­ing a full-ser­vice kitchen at the home-side con­ces­sion stand, with a con­struc­tion cost cap of $100,000 as well as up­grades to the soft­ball com­pe­ti­tion field, in­clud­ing dug-outs, stor­age, light­ing and con­ces­sions; and a 6,000 square-foot main­te­nance build­ing.

A sec­ond con­tract is with the en­gi­neer­ing form of Barry Islett and As­so­ciates in an amount not to ex­ceed $293,000. They are costs re­lated to re­lated to the hand­i­capped ac­cess, Ti­tle IX, and ath­letic and main­te­nance mod­ern­iza­tion projects, ac­cord­ing to the agenda of the Dec. 18 meet­ing were both votes oc­curred.

Both con­tracts were rec­om­mended at the Dec. 11 meet­ing of the board’s fa­cil­i­ties and finance com­mit­tees, said School Board Pres­i­dent Steve Elsier.

The Islett con­tract is for $273,000 with an ad­di­tional $20,000 if the dis­trict pro­ceeds with bid and con­struc­tion phases of the team room build­ing, grounds build­ing and two aux­il­iary turf fields.

Elsier ex­plained that early in 2018 the board was “thrown a curve ball with the is­sues at the

multi-use sta­dium.”

The re­port by Islett found se­vere struc­tural de­te­ri­o­ra­tion in the 33-yearold sta­dium due pri­mar­ily to water pen­e­tra­tion into the struc­ture. The board ul­ti­mately de­cided to knock down the sta­dium and build a new one, but also took it one step fur­ther, said Elsier.

“Af­ter a lot of work, we landed in a good place with a mas­ter plan” for fu­ture cap­i­tal projects re­lated to the ath­letic fa­cil­i­ties, he said. Both con­tracts ad­dress de­sign­ing some of the ad­di­tional work in or­der to have it ready to go “if and when fu­ture boards de­cide to move for­ward with it.”

As a re­sult, the ar­chi­tect’s con­tract also in­cludes in­struc­tions to “de­sign and se­cure land de­vel­op­ment per­mits and ap­provals so that the a team room, stor­age build­ing, 2,400-square­foot grounds keep­ing build­ing and two aux­il­iary ar­ti­fi­cial turf fields” are ready to con­struct.

How­ever the ar­chi­tects are to “omit bid­ding and con­struc­tion phases.”

The turf fields project will in­clude “light­ing, fenc­ing, util­i­ties, storm water de­sign, ball nets, and sound sys­tem,” ac­cord­ing to the vote.

De­sign­ing those fields “is a waste of tax­payer dol­lars,” said Neiman. “If this project does not hap­pen for five or 10 years down the line, we will have to re-do stuff, guar­an­teed. We’re spend­ing money we don’t have.”

She and Dierolf also ques­tioned whether the kitchen plans will in­clude the re-use of any of the ex­ist­ing equip­ment, with Dierolf adding she could not vote for the con­tracts with­out that in­for­ma­tion.

“We’re pay­ing for de­sign,” said board mem­ber David Lewis. “To quib­ble over the re-use of kitchen equip­ment should be in any­way hold­ing up this as­pect of the project. We need out de­sign­ers to get work­ing on the whole plan.”

“Where does every­body think all this money is com­ing from?” Neiman said when the board be­gan dis­cussing the Islett con­tract.

“We’re look­ing at the project wholis­ti­cally,” said Elsier. “When we put it in the plan, it sets the tone for fu­ture boards, whether they choose to do the project or not.”

Later in the meet­ing, af­ter the vote, Breece said full, open dis­cus­sions are be­ing con­strained by the board’s use of Roberts Rules of Or­der.

“I would love to have a full dis­cus­sion with board mem­bers,” said Breece.

“Talk to me about why build­ing a new sta­dium is a good idea, but we can’t do it when we’re danc­ing around Robert’s Rules all the time.”

In Novem­ber, the board voted to spend more than $1 mil­lion for new grand­stands, sav­ing $100,000 by tak­ing ad­van­tage of the con­trac­tor’s slow sea­son.

But be­cause the fi­nanc­ing for the project is not yet in place, the board used money from its cap­i­tal projects fund, with the idea that once fi­nanc­ing is in place, the fund would be re­im­bursed.

At the Dec. 18 meet­ing, the board also adopted a for­mal res­o­lu­tion to re­im­burse that fund once the fi­nanc­ing is se­cured. Breece joined the other six board mem­bers in vot­ing in fa­vor of that res­o­lu­tion.


The Boyertown Area School Dis­trict plans to tear down the dam­aged high school sta­dium and build a new one.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.