At its October 2025 meeting, the RSU 40 school board voted 8-0 to continue researching a capital-improvement plan for Medomak Valley High School and to approve outreach to towns and select boards to explain the proposal.

School leaders said the work is driven by long-running facility problems — asbestos in floor tile and duct insulation, aging boilers and electrical systems, water-quality concerns including arsenic, and bathrooms vulnerable to vandalism — and by pressure from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the regional accreditor.

"I have an incredible team of people. I love my school," Linda Pease, principal of Medomak Valley High School, told the board, describing both the school’s programs and its worn physical plant. Pease and other speakers repeatedly urged the board to pursue a measured renovation or replacement strategy rather than further piecemeal repairs.

Brian Reese, who presented the capital-improvement overview, told the board he was seeking approval to "keep moving forward" with concept development, town engagement and a priority list to bring back to the board in January. Reese said initial cost estimates range from about $15 million on the low end to $30 million–$40 million to address all identified items, and that a voter-approved bond would be required for major work.

Administrators said the high school was evaluated in the state’s school-assessment process and currently sits farther down the statewide replacement priority list than they would like; the district’s ranking moved from about 64 to 52 on the most recent list. Pease and others told the board that NEASC has flagged facility issues in recurring decennial reviews and that the accreditor expects the district to show progress on facility remedies.

The meeting included detailed examples of deficiencies. Pease said asbestos-containing tile covers roughly 60% of the building and that insulation in ductwork is also a concern. She described classroom electrical capacity as inadequate, with staff relying on power strips and temporary solutions. Reese said replacing boilers would free space to install a water-treatment system aimed at lowering arsenic and other contaminants to acceptable thresholds.

Board members, parents and the interim superintendent all urged the board to take accreditation warnings seriously. The interim superintendent warned bluntly that he "would not be the superintendent of the school district that does not have accreditation," and said the district’s condition had reached a level other districts had seen before losing accreditation.

Student representatives also spoke during the discussion. A student representative said, "The school is not in a shape to have students in it for a long period of time," and offered to host tours for board members who wanted to see classrooms and facilities firsthand.

Board discussion touched on additional constraints and next steps: complete a priority list by December, return to the board in January with a recommended scope, then begin town-level presentations with the goal of a possible June vote. Reese asked board members to start informing their respective towns of the work and said the district is pursuing state and other funding options while refining cost estimates.

The board’s unanimous motion to continue the MBHS capital improvement research and to approve the presentation for town and select-board engagement was made during the meeting and recorded as approved 8-0. The vote did not commit the district to a specific bond amount or final design; it authorized further study, public engagement and development of options to present to voters.

Board members and administrators emphasized the need for community outreach to explain the scope, alternatives and tax implications if a bond is proposed. Several members warned that cost and tax impacts will be central to voter decisions and urged careful communication and phased planning. The district also plans to pursue renovation loans and state construction funding where possible.

Next steps identified at the meeting include finishing the priority list in December, returning to the school board with a recommendation in January, developing town select-board presentations and continuing to refine cost estimates and funding strategies ahead of any voter referendum.