At a meeting of the RSU 04 School Board, members discussed several possible State Revolving Renovation Fund (SRRF) projects for Libby Tozier School, including corridor ventilation, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restroom and sink modifications, and security upgrades, and reviewed an estimated cost for a full roof replacement.

Marco, who presented the options to the board, said the SRRF program prioritizes projects tied to air quality, ADA access and safety and that those items would be more likely to receive funding than a direct roof replacement. He said an architectural estimate for a roof replacement is about $850,000. “The cost of that is approximately $850,000,” Marco said.

The board reviewed line-item estimates provided in meeting materials: a ventilation/air-exchange project priced at about $1,120,000, an ADA compliance package with a listed estimate of $300,000, and the roughly $850,000 roof estimate. Marco told the board that ventilation, ADA work and some security improvements would more clearly meet SRRF eligibility; the roof was presented as a separate, likely ineligible item.

Board members raised several recurring concerns: whether Harriman (the architecture firm that prepared the estimates) must be the district’s general contractor, whether multiple bids would be required, whether projects could be submitted together or separately, and what the district’s cost share would be if approved. Marco said SRRF projects typically carry a long repayment term and that local shares vary; he referenced a commonly used arrangement in which districts pay a portion of project costs over time while the state covers the remainder.

Members also discussed non-SRRF options tied to the building’s age (the school was noted as built in 1985) and to prior site issues such as drainage and carpeting replacement. Board members asked for information about fire suppression (sprinkler) coverage and whether certain renovations would affect any existing grandfathered exemptions.

After extensive discussion and a list of follow-up questions, the board gave staff direction to pursue further information and cost clarification. The board authorized staff to ask Harriman to prepare SRRF application materials under the explicit conditions that (a) the district incur no upfront cost for preparing the application and (b) the district would not be obligated to proceed with awarded projects it chooses not to accept. Board members asked staff to confirm application fees, whether one fee could cover multiple project applications, and whether Harriman or another vendor could prepare applications.

Board members also requested documentation on prior assessments (security assessments, past air-quality or sprinkler checks) and asked for a timeline for the SRRF application deadline in October.

No binding vote was taken on moving forward with an SRRF application during the meeting; the board’s action was a conditional direction to staff to gather details and to proceed with Harriman only if there is no immediate cost or contractual obligation to the district.

What happens next: staff will compile answers about application fees and scope, clarify SRRF eligibility for each proposed project, identify whether the district would lose any grandfathered fire-suppression exemptions with certain renovations, and invite Harriman (or another architecture firm) to present at a future board meeting if needed.

The discussion highlighted competing priorities: immediate safety and accessibility needs, long-term capital upkeep such as the roof, and the district’s limited ability to pursue multiple large projects within SRRF’s five-year caps.