Henry Brunett of Hayes Large Architectures, Altoona was invited to Tuesday night’s Tyrone Area School Board Meeting to discuss the middle school renovation and addition project.
However, Brunett spent a good portion of his time at the work session discussing two product options the district had regarding the running track resurfacing and improvement project slated for this summer.
“The difference is not one of quality of product, but rather one of longevity,” said Brunett. “The alternate bid surface is less porous and does allow water to drain off of it a bit better. Upfront it’s a little more expensive. The base bid is more porous and drains through the track surface to the underground and it’s less expensive.”
He explained to the board the low bidder for the track project was Charles Construction Company of Jersey Shore. The base bid for the project was $305,602.75 for the track surface. He described it as paved in place base mat with a structural spray. The brand name is Relay 200 and Brunett distributed a piece of the surface for school officials including board members to examine. Brunett noted it has a permeable surface which increases the possibility of earlier base problems.
Other features, according to the manufacturer, are an eight to 10 year maintenance cycle before it can be resprayed and restriped. It’s estimated two resprays at a cost of $47,900 each will be needed before the track needs to be replaced again. It was also noted Relay 200 is the most widely used surface of its type. According to a chart distributed by Brunett, it’s estimated the surface would need to be replaced in the year 2031.
Also described in the chart was an alternate track surface known as Relay 300. It has a paved in base mat along with an encapsulated surface which is impermeable. Brunett noted the line paint lasts a little longer on the encapsulated surface. It has a 10 to 12 year maintenance cycle and can withstand three resprays at an estimated cost in of $47,900 each in 2004 dollars.
The surface would not have to be replaced until the year 2048 according to the estimate presented to the school board. The actual lifespan of either surface and when respraying would have to occur can vary due to a number of factors including weather conditions such as freeze/thaw cycles. The cost of the alternate surface is slightly higher than the bid for the Relay 200 product. The alternate bid was $329,191.75.
School board members debated the pluses and minuses of each surface during the work session of Tuesday’s meeting. In addition to examining both surfaces Physical Plant Manager Thomas R. Muir noted some of the schools which have installed new tracks over the last few years explaining they’ve had no problems with Relay 200. Muir said if estimates are at the low end for respraying Relay 200 and Relay 300 has to be resprayed even more quickly than the manufacturer claims there would still be a benefit for the district in choosing Relay 300.
By way of example, Muir noted if Relay 200 were resprayed every eight years it would need replaced in the year 2028. If Relay 300 were resprayed every nine years it would need replaced in the year 2040. This allows the district to wait an additional 12 years to replace the track because the Relay 300 surface can be resprayed three times versus twice for Relay 200.
The board acted on the matter at the regular meeting when they approved the alternate bid with the stipulation Muir should verify if other districts using Relay 300 have experienced any problems. The bid also including $3,200 for additional work at the track site for a total bid of $332,391.75.
In other business at the work session, the board heard information from Brunett regarding the middle school renovations and additions project which included various designs and including a three dimensional overview of the project. Brunett’s presentation came a little more than a week before the Act 34 hearing which is scheduled for Feb. 18 at 7 p.m. in the LGI at the elementary school.
No action was taken at the regular meeting regarding the renovation project although it was noted the district received notice last month the PlanCon Part A: Project Justification and PlanCon B: Schematic Design were reviewed and approved by the state Department of Education.
