Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.

Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Welcome! We hope that you enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in or create an account to continue reading.

Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in to your subscriber account or create an account and subscribe purchase a subscription to continue reading.

Thank you for signing in! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Checking back? Since you viewed this item previously you can read it again.

Areas of dense morning fog. Sun and clouds mixed. High 86F. Winds light and variable..

Partly cloudy skies early will give way to cloudy skies late. Low 61F. Winds light and variable.

MONTPELIER — The clock is ticking, and if school officials hope to break ground on new track at Montpelier High School next spring, they are running out of time.

That message was delivered on Wednesday — first to members of the school board’s facilities committee and then to the full board that will soon have decisions to make.

There are lingering questions and the answer to one — whether to install a synthetic turf field in the middle of the proposed rubberized track — could double the cost of a project for which the board earmarked $1.5 million in surplus money earlier this year.

The $1.5 million is a significant down payment but, committee members were told, won’t cover the cost of replacing and upgrading the high school’s aging asphalt track even if board members opt to stick with a natural grass field. Estimates suggest the base cost of the most economical version of the project will be $2 million.

That $2 million becomes $4 million if artificial turf is added to the mix, and would likely be closer to $6 million if the board wants to relocate the track on the high school campus in order to create a full eight-lane oval.

Though no formal decisions were made, committee members agreed moving the track wasn’t financially viable, and have focused on two options that essentially involve reconstructing the track in its current location — one with artificial turf and the other without.

Based on projected costs, the latter option is the likeliest bet, though both are in the running. The committee also has asked for an estimate for subsurface improvements that would accommodate the future addition of an artificial turf field.

Both options envision converting an existing maintenance garage into athletic storage and constructing a new garage on campus. The cost of that facility was reflected in each of the “order of magnitude” estimates Facilities Director Andrew LaRosa shared with the committee.

While members agreed a full eight-lane track would be nice, it wasn’t necessary and couldn’t be accommodated without incurring the extensive expense of relocating the track, other fields and potentially impacting other uses.

Leaving the track in its current location would allow the straightaways to be expanded to eight lanes — an upgrade that would expedite track meets — while necessarily narrowing to six lanes in both turns due to the tightness of the site.

Given the cost of the alternatives, committee members agreed that was a reasonable compromise.

They got no argument from track advocates, like Nathan Suter.

Though Suter had questions about the track configuration, he indicated the one that seemed to enjoy the committee’s support would be a welcome improvement.

Suter punted when it came to turf, though he wasn’t opposed to the idea.

“The political question is: ‘Do we have the public momentum right now to make this investment, and do this thing one time, and then we’re done and we’ll have terrific facilities that will last for decades?’” he asked.

It’s a question the committee wasn’t prepared to answer.

Though Athletic Director Matt Link was a proponent of synthetic turf — which he said would save wear and tear on fields in the fall; allow spring sports to move outdoors much earlier in the season; and make scheduling infinitely easier — LaRosa said safety and potentially environmental questions still needed to be answered.

“If we propose a (synthetic) turf field, then we’re going to have to do our homework and be well prepared to defend it,” he said.

The committee would have to squarely address anecdotal concerns that student-athletes may be more prone to injury when playing on synthetic turf, and definitively answer whether the proposed turf contains PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance. Concerns about the toxic chemicals dogged a similar project was rejected by voters in the Mount Anthony Union School District in Bennington last year.

Those questions aside, some committee members were skeptical of the projected price of adding a synthetic turf field to the project given concerns about the negative effect a looming change in the state’s education funding formula is expected to have on the Montpelier Roxbury Public School District.

School Director Jill Remick said while there could be some merit to a one-and-done approach described by Suter, she worried there also is risk.

“I don’t want to kill the track support by adding too much,” Remick said. “I want to make sure we get what we started asking for.”

School Director Emma Bay-Hansen said she was similarly wary of potentially doubling the cost of a project that estimates suggest already exceeds the $1.5 million the board committed.

“That felt like a big hurdle,” she said of the decision to earmark surplus funds for a track upgrade that enjoyed broad support.

Bay-Hansen said she was wondering where the rest of that money will come from, and was concerned adding a synthetic turf field would require a bond vote.

“It doesn’t feel like the right time,” she said.

Still, the committee wasn’t quite ready to take a synthetic turf field off the table, and requested more information about that option, as well as a variant that would essentially involve making subsurface improvements that would facilitate the future field upgrade.

LaRosa suggested the turf decision could be delayed without stalling the design and permitting associated with reconstructing the track in its current location.

Committee members were told that work would have to begin almost immediately if the district hopes to break ground on the track upgrade next spring, in hopes of completing the project in one construction season.

Given the nature of the work, and the need for the asphalt base to cure for 30 days before the rubberized surface is applied, waiting until summer to start work could lead to delays like the one experienced at nearby U-32 Middle and High School when it replaced its track three years ago.

Committee members were told the hitch in the U-32 project wasn’t unusual. It involved a specialized subcontractor’s refusal to warranty the rubberized surface because the weather-sensitive work, which had been slated in September, slid into October when temperatures had started to drop.

In order to avoid a similar problem, the committee was told it should shoot to start work no later than early summer and look to line up one of the short list of firms that install the track surfaces this November.

That time frame met with some skepticism when board members were briefed on the project status.

“Rushing decisions like this … is not good practice,” School Director Amanda Garces said amid questions about where the additional $500,000 that would be needed for the most economical version of the project would come from.

The committee is expected to conclude its review of the remaining options and present its findings to the board in coming weeks.

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Your comment has been submitted.

There was a problem reporting this.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.