Above: Take advantage of the updated website and/or upcoming public events to learn more about the school building project Southborough voters will be asked to support. (images from website and flyer)
In just over six months, voters will be asked to support the construction of a new school building for 2nd-5th grade. It would be the most expensive building project the Town has ever funded.
In preparation, the Neary Building Committee is ramping up its outreach to voters over the next couple of weeks.
Four upcoming public events will seek to educate residents and answer questions. Plus, the NBC has issued updated FAQs and updated the details on its dedicated website.
Outreach Events
Principal’s Coffee
Friday, November 8, 9:30 -10:30 am
Parents with kids in the Southborough elementary schools have been invited to attend a joint Principal’s Coffee on the topic. The event will be held in the Finn School Cafeteria (60 Richards Road). “This session will cover project developments, timelines, and transition plans.” (I’m assuming this is limited to current students’ parents/caregivers since it takes place while school is in session. Parents can RSVP through their school’s Parent square announcement.)
Building Tour Open Houses
Tuesday, November 12, 6:30 – 8:30 pm and
Saturday, November 16, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm
During non-school hours, the general public is invited to two special open houses to tour the Neary School building. Attendees can “see the existing conditions”. And members of the Neary Building Committee will be there “to answer any questions about the proposed project.”
Presentation at the Senior Center
Monday, November 18, 1:00 pm
This presentation (geared to Southborough seniors) will feature Roger Challen, a member of the Southborough School Committee and the Neary Building Committee. He “will provide an update and answer any questions about the proposed new four grade Neary Elementary School”. (The event is free. But it as part of the Senior Center’s program lineup, it does require registration. Registration already opened for Nov-Dec events on Wednesday.)
High Level Project Overview
For those who haven’t been following the project. . .
Town and School officials have been studying a school building project for years. In August, the Neary Building Committee voted to submit to the state a proposal to tear down the current Neary School building (which houses grades 4 and 5) to build a new, larger, more modern school for grades 2-5.
After assumed grant funding from the state, Southborough’s project share is estimated at $85M. In an FAQ flyer that was in a September newsletter** from the Superintendent, the tax implication was described:
For the average home in Southborough ($900K assessed value), the current estimated tax impact once the full project is fully bonded (FY29) is an increase of $1,207 annually. As a point of comparison, for a $600K assessed value, the current estimated tax impact once the full project is fully bonded (FY29) is an increase of $811 annually. The estimated tax impact is for this project only.
But in the FAQs of the updated Neary Building Project website, the committee is now referring to tax impacts as “To be answered”.
For more details on the project, see the dedicated website with its FAQ section.
Impact to K-5 students and schools during (and after) construction
The construction would take place starting the summer of 2026 with a targeted completion date of August 2028. For the two school years in between, changes would be made in the two lower schools to accommodate:
- Finn School (currently PreK-1st Grade) would add Grade 2
- Woodward School (currently 2nd & 3rd Grade) would house Grades 3-5
Temporary modular classrooms would be added to both of those campuses to make it possible. (Officials discussed mainly using those for specialty classes, like art and music.)
Once the new Neary building opens, Finn School would be closed. Woodward would be used for PreK-1st grade going forward. (There are separate efforts to look at using Finn School for other Town needs, like a community center.)
In addition to improvements to the building and layout, the NSBORO administration has advocated that the project will improve the school system by reducing the number of school transitions for young students.
Again, for more details, including the touted benefits, see the dedicated website and its FAQ section.
When & how will voters decide?
Approval is a multi-step process with a high bar. First, the state (Mass School Building Authority) has to officially approve the grant funding on April 30th. (And if they either reject it or recommend a lower amount than officials are counting on, the whole project could be derailed.)
Southborough’s Special Town Meeting vote is scheduled for Saturday, May 10th, 9:00 am at Algonquin Regional High School. (At this point, the Select Board intends to fully dedicate that meeting to the topic.)* To pass to the next step, the borrowing Article needs 2/3 of votes cast at the meeting.
Next, it would need to pass at the ballot box. Officials plan to include the ballot question in the Town Election that takes place three days later (Tuesday, May 13th). That would be for the proposition 2½ override (approving a “debt exclusion from the tax levy”).
*Town voters may add Citizen Petition Articles to the Warrant even if officials don’t sponsor any.
**The update flyers on the project were included in the Superintendent’s weekly newsletter on September 11th. (Frankly, they were a bit buried and without any fanfare. So, I missed them at the time and I wonder how many other parents did as well.)
As a community, we are responsible for all or some of 6 school buildings. A school building can go 30 to 50 years between major renovations. That means on average we will need to replace or renovate a school building every 5 to 8 years. The most recent renovations were the project at Assabet and the “Gonkplex”. There is really little to argue about the need to do something with Neary. About 15 years ago we did a minor renovation to Neary to buy us some time while we paid for Algonquin, Woodward and Trottier. The question is not should we do something about Neary, the answer is clearly yes, the question is “Is this very expensive program the right solution?” Here are a few questions that I think need to be answered.
1. The current estimate is that the tax impact of the project is a $1200 increase on a home valued at $900,000. This is about a 9% tax increase. If implemented today it would move the Town of Southborough from the 9th percentile in terms of top tax burdens to the 6th percentile. Why is there no information about the tax impact in the FAQ section? There is lots of information about why this is a great project why no information about how we are going to pay for it?
2. I assume that during the transition period where we operate a 3 school system (Finn, Woodward, Trottier) there will be no diminution in educational standards. Massachusetts has the fifth lowest birth rate in the country. The Donahue center at UMass projects continued declines in the overall school age populations for the foreseeable future. https://donahue.umass.edu/business-groups/economic-public-policy-research/massachusetts-population-estimates-program/population-projections . Even with 200+ additional rental units there is little evidence that our elementary school age populations will grow, quite the opposite. If we can operate a quality system with the buildings we have and there is no expectation of increased demand, why do we need this program at all?
3. The corollary to our low birth rates is that the fastest growing population in the state for the foreseeable future are people over 65 and particularly over 85. People in this age group often live on relatively fixed incomes. For many, the local property tax is the largest line item in their budgets. Will there be programs that provide a measure of tax relief for those hard pressed. If so who will have to carry the shifted tax burden. What assets might be sold to help finance this project? What programs that broaden the tax base might be instituted.
4. There are a number of other worthy projects that residents want including sidewalks, playing fields, library addition, community center, and others. Put together these programs add up to a significant fraction of the cost of the proposed Neary program. Of necessity, these will have to be put on a back burner until we digest the increases required fund this project. The voters and tax payers deserve to see the full menu of proposed projects and estimated costs as they weigh their preferences for how their tax dollars are distributed. Capital Budget and the Advisory committee should hold a series of public forums about our long term capital needs so as to educate the public. This should be done well before we vote on this very large capital project.
5. The Neary site is within a stone’s throw of an old unlined landfill and wetlands public attitudes about this sort of location have changed a lot since 1970 when Neary was planned and built. What testing had been done and what precautions are being put in place to assure the public that this is a safe place for our children to spend 4 years of their lives and the staff to have a career? Does this assurance extend to the playing field that lies between Neary and the old landfill?
6. What features or parts of the building exceed the standards required by the state? What do these features cost? Is there a breakdown of the costs?
At this point I, am on the fence. On the one hand is the clear need to do something about Neary. On the other is a price tag that will impose hardship on some portion of our community and put pressure on operating budgets. The building committee has a steep hill to climb. There is not a large natural constituency for this building. The set of people in town today that will benefit are those with children in first grade or younger. That is far from a majority. I would encourage the Building Committee to answer these questions, on the blog, in writing, and others that the voters have. 2/3 is a heavy lift. The “happy talk” that is on offer on the new web page is not treating the voters with the respect they deserve. A lot more information is necessary.
To follow up on Al’s comment about the proximity of the old town dump to the Neary school site, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. The link below points to an image from Google Earth showing the school and the dump’s location. The old dump site is highlighted in red. If you look closely you can see the slope going from the top of the dump to the school site.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0l3lgswln0aQpWH6x8OV6R0Y1jPPAKz/view?usp=sharing
I recommend you visit the dump site to understand the scale.
Hello Al and Carl,
Thank you for discussing this important issue that will affect the taxes of the residents. Now that the former dump on Parkerville has gained attention, my question is: what do we do? If the effects of the dump are the concern, then should Neary be closed down? Neary houses only 2 grades, 4 and 5, and maybe they can be subsumed into another school or schools? Since the former dump has become public knowledge, and several people have expressed concerns about it, what can be done? Perhaps a scientific investigation into whether it poses a danger is warranted?
It seems like two issues are being conflated: the proposed new school and the dump.
With regards to the proposed new school, would it not ultimately save our Town money in electricity, in maintenance, in staffing, and provide additional security by having three schools instead of four? And let’s not forget the ongoing busing issues that exist.
Right now I am undecided but originally I was in favor of the new school because the logistics of having two elementary-aged children attend 4 different schools in Southborough were challenging. In thinking of the future of Southborough and its residents, it may make sense to reduce the number of elementary schools. Perhaps new questions need to be raised and a discussion of alternative options.
–Diane Romm
On the topic of the landfill, from my coverage of project costs earlier this summer:
Diane
Beth has provided some information regarding the old landfill. As for cost savings, yes there is a good case to be made that it will be more efficient from a school perspective. But some of the “savings” are a bit of a shell game. We will still own and have to maintain the same number of buildings. Indeed we would now be responsible for far more square feet of buildings.
In theory, Finn would no longer be a school but a community center and would still have to be heated and cooled and maintained. It would also need a substantial renovation that would likely be in the 8 figure range.
There would be a benefit if as part of the program we sold off some other buildings like Cordaville Hall, 21 Highland, and the old Station 2.
It is a shame that the NBC is not using this and other forums to educate the electorate about the benefits and costs of this important program.
Beth and Al,
Thank you for filling me in on some of the details. We have a radon mitigation systen in our home and it sounds like what is required for Neary and any new building is something similar and very doable. Hence, perhaps that issue should be set aside so that we can focus on what it would mean to the current tax payers to have a new 4 grade building on the Neary site. What benefit would current residents acquire? How will it make the Town better, that is, be a benefit to all of its residents? Why not make Neary the recreation center for the Town? It is certainly more central; has tennis courts; concerts are held there; and residents use the landfill area to walk their dogs. Upgrade Finn?
–Diane R.
And I know that I am not aware of all the details, etc. so I am hoping to have a discussion, to generate ideas, and to hear from more residents. We just built the Gonkplex! Perhaps we should focus more on the quality of the education of the students rather than buildings and amenities.
After reading the report provided by a link in Al Hamilton’s post,
[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EtDJvh91Wb5p0yM9QHUo9tLBkHY4Y34e (See page 2 item III)]
I learned that gas is not the primary issue, and radon (which I mentioned in my post) is a gas; rather, heavy metals are the concern, and prolonged exposure (via drinking water, for example), can lead to serious health issues…. As pointed out, Neary has been there for about 50 years, presumably without reported environmental contamination issues.(?)
Is there anyone who does not understand physically coupling a 100+ million dollar school with a closed dump is going to be a danger for decades into the future ?
Hi Carl,
There’s a school next to the former dump, a/k/a landfill, right now and it’s been there for years. Is that not a problem? What does the price of the new school have to do with the safety of Neary and its current students? As I said in my first post, if contamination is the problem, then close Neary down and forget the site for any proposed building!
Is there something I’m missing here?
Thanks,
Diane
Is there any evidence at all that the old dump poses a health risk to Neary students and staff? Southborough has 50+ years of experience with the adjoining sites.
Kelly
Is there any evidence that the old dump is not a health risk? I went back to the July 22 report by Pare, our engineering firm. They reported that there did not appear to be significant gas (eg methane) problems but were less sanguine about heavy metal groundwater contamination. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EtDJvh91Wb5p0yM9QHUo9tLBkHY4Y34e (See page 2 item III)
Thanks, Al.
Like many others, I can’t prove a negative. However, I’d say there are strong indications that the old dump is not a risk to Neary’s population. (It may well pose other risks via the groundwater.) Those indications are:
Heavy metals are a concern in the wider environment. I changed the chocolate I eat most because of lead and cadmium content in my old favorite. Neary’s staff and students are not drinking or swimming in the groundwater.
Since I’ve moved to Westborough after 39 years as a Southborough resident, my opinion of the proposals about Neary doesn’t matter. But maybe my analysis does.
As I see it, the dump shouldn’t drive Southborough’s decision. There are still other arguments against new Neary if that’s where people wind up.
Hi Kelly,
I think your question needed to be asked of Carl Guyer who wrote: “Is there anyone who does not understand physically coupling a 100+ million dollar school with a closed dump is going to be a danger for decades into the future ?”
My point was simply that if the landfill has not posed a risk for the past 50 years to the Neary School, and if the proposal for the new school actually contains mitigating measures for any future concerns, then what exactly is the issue at hand?
Al Hamilton may have answered your question more directly.
And, Al, I very much appreciate the information you provided.
Again, I think lot more questions need to be addressed before I will be in favor of a new 4-grade building (which represents a change in my original position). Why not subsume the 2 grades into the other schools and use the Neary site for a centralized town amenity, like a community and/or recreation center?
–Diane R.
I attended Monday’s Neary Building Information Session at the Senior Center and listened and learned a great deal. Roger Challen and Superintendent Martineau provided a lot of information and left with a laundry list of questions. Here is what I took away:
1. I was under the impression that there was little cost difference between a new 4 grade Neary and a 2 grade renovation of the existing Neary. I was wrong. Please note that the following cost estimates are still works in progress.
The current total cost of a new 4 grade Neary is about $113 million with taxpayers needing to provide about $84 million and the Commonwealth the difference.
The current total cost of a 2 grade existing Neary renovation would be about $60 million with taxpayers needing to provide a contribution in the $40+ million range. This estimate is far less refined than the 4 grade Neary estimate.
2. It was reported that the tax impact would be felt as a ramp with the full impact arriving in Fiscal 28 as the full project was bonded. The most recent estimate from our Treasurer was that the impact on the average home in FY 28 would be about $1,115.
3. The transition plan would involve putting 2 portable classrooms at both Woodward and Finn. The Pre-K program would revert to Southborough only the Northborough kids returning to their community.
4. Concern by residents was expressed about the proximity to the old Parkerville Landfill. I went back to the July 22 report by Pare, our engineering firm. They reported that there did not appear to be significant gas (eg methane) problems but were less sanguine about heavy metal groundwater contamination. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EtDJvh91Wb5p0yM9QHUo9tLBkHY4Y34e (See page 2 item III)
5. The Superintendent confirmed that our enrollment projects for the next 10-12 years are expected to be flat at about 1200 students K-8. Our current enrollment based on 23/24 data for grades 2-5 is about 530 students. The new 4 grade Neary would be designed for a max population of 610.
6. Concern was expressed that we had no visibility to the follow-on consequences of building a 4 school Neary. In particular, concern was expressed that the community will have to make significant investments as the use of Finn changes. Current, very, very rough, estimates vary widely based on the ultimate use of Finn and run from $14.7 million to $48.9 million. https://www.southboroughma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02062024-5371
7. Similar to 6 above, concern was expressed that the voters do not good visibility to the total large capital project picture for the foreseeable future. This would include other school projects, playing fields, library addition, sidewalks, community center and others. There was a desire to see in some easy to digest format the cost, timing, and tax impact of all the major capital programs under discussion. This is not the responsibility of the Neary committee but rather Advisory, Capital Budget and the Select Board. This should be a priority for these boards. Providing the tax payers with the big picture regarding large capital projects is important to helping make an informed decision on this major project.
8. Finally, the question was asked if there were things that could be done to partially offset the cost of this project. This again is not the responsibility of the Neary Building Committee but Advisory, Select Board and School Committees.