Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 67 board hears update as vestibule bid jumps to $540,000; staff pursuing revised scope and state loan
Summary
Board members were told a single contractor returned a $540,000 proposal for a secure school vestibule; staff said the district had budgeted a $471,000 award (netting about $416,000 after earmarks) and are negotiating scope with the bidder while using a state revolving renovation loan to finance the work. Exact local repayment share was described inconsistently and was not resolved in the meeting.
The RSU 67 School Board heard an update on the planned vestibule and office reconfiguration project, with staff reporting that a contractor’s most recent proposal came in at about $540,000 and that only one bidder submitted a response. Chair (speaking throughout the update) said bids were opened Friday morning and that the district had earlier considered bids in the $316,000–$334,000 range in prior cycles.
The district had listed an award amount of $471,000 in its package but, after earmarking roughly $25,000 for electrical and security work, about $19,000 for engineering (Haley Ward) and another roughly $10,000 for referendum and advertising costs, staff said the amount actually available to pay a general contractor would be about $416,000. “The award was 471,000… that brings that number down to around 416,000,” the Chair said.
Board members were told the scope expanded this year to include interior office reconfigurations—separating guidance and principal offices and consolidating security controls—and that the project is now subject to state wage minimums because of state involvement, factors that have raised bids. Staff said Haley Ward is working with the contractor to strip added scopes so the parties can compare “apples to apples” and see whether the contractor can lower its price toward the district’s available funds.
Financing: staff described the state-backed revolving renovation loan program as the funding vehicle. At different points in the discussion the Chair described the district’s repayment exposure in different ways: at one point saying the district “only has to pay about 50% back” and later saying the district is “only on the hook for the 37% of it when the time comes and that’s spread over the 5 years.” The meeting did not resolve the inconsistent figures; the exact local share and repayment schedule were not clarified in the transcript.
The district’s timeline remains flexible: the contract package allows roughly 20 months from award for project completion (award recorded at the end of January), and staff said they will pursue a quicker schedule if the contractor can reach a workable price, but a pre-winter finish is now uncertain. The Chair said the contractor already working on nearby bridge work may be able to mobilize crews locally if the price and scope are agreed.
No formal contract award vote occurred at the meeting. Staff said signatures and the funding account setup for the revolving renovation loan are progressing and that board action for related fund transfers appears on the agenda later in the meeting package. The Chair said staff will return with scope revisions and updated pricing; the board will be updated when staff have a final proposal or revised bid to consider.
Ending: staff will continue negotiations with the contractor and Haley Ward to refine the scope and cost; the Chair said she expects further information in the coming week and will provide follow-up to the board.
