[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from a group of 20 Southborough residents.]
To the Editor:
The proposal for building a new Neary school is one of the most important financial decisions Southborough has ever had to make. The NBC proposes demolishing the current two grade school to build a new four-grade school for second through fourth grades. There are more fiscally responsible alternatives that won’t burden tax payers or risk pricing out residents, especially seniors.
The Neary Building Committee (NBC) proposed new school plan is the only option currently before the Massachusetts School Building Authority — and it’s the only one being presented at the Special Town Meeting on May 10. (The current estimate is $108,517.025 with an anticipated 30.45% state reimbursement.) The NBC has no backup plan, insisting the only choices are either building a new school or do nothing and restart the process.
In addition, ongoing concerns have been noted about the proximity of the proposed new school site to an old capped unlined landfill on Parkerville Rd. and the risks of disturbing this potentially contaminated area.
But there are viable alternatives. The decision to build a $108.5 million school at this time is not fiscally responsible, nor is it necessary. According to information and documents used by the NBC, Southborough currently has enough school space to accommodate all students without utilizing an outdated Neary or spending millions on a new school.
We propose Plan B that requires little, if any, renovation, no new construction, and sufficient space for all students, teachers, and staff. Let’s think creatively and make use of what we already have!
Brent Trottier Middle School, the largest school in Southborough is 130,000 square feet and is underutilized with just three grades. Even in the proposed new school configuration, Trottier would remain a three-grade school. The proposedfour gradeNeary replacement is 99,564 square feet – 30% smaller than the three grade Trottier. Why build a new, smaller four-grade school when Trottier could easily accommodate the same needs without the enormous price tag?
Here’s how Plan B could work seamlessly:
- Finn: Without Northborough’s PreK (which is returning to Northborough), Southborough’s PreK program is projected to serve 60 students. With fewer classrooms needed for Northborough, Finn could be repurposed for PreK, Kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades.
- Woodward: As the smallest school, Woodward could comfortably serve 3rd and 4th grades.
- Trottier: As the largest school, Trottier could easily accommodate four grades – the upper school (grades 7 and 8) on the second level and the lower school (grades 5 and 6) on the first level, or a similar scenario.
With potential minimal adjustments, these schools can meet the needs of all students. Southborough has ample classroom space to accommodate projected enrollments; without using Neary and without building a new $108.5 million school.
If we move forward with the proposed new building, the town ends up with 99,564 square feet of extra school space — which will need to be heated, cooled, and maintained.
Southborough deserves a solution that is fiscally responsible while ensuring our children have the schools and resources needed to support our recognized high level of quality education. After all, it is not the buildings but the faculty, staff, community resources and support that make our education system exemplary. Let’s choose a path that maximizes our existing assets and provides a sustainable, affordable future for our town.
QUESTIONS? Email to SouthboroughConcerned@gmail.com
Patrica Burns Fiore
Gene and Nancy Karmelek
Erik Glaser
Bob and Renee Maiorana
Michael and Marilyn Sheff
Karen and Lew Capobianco
Sally Watters
Eileen Samberg
James Eastland
Nancy and Herb Kolk
Joanne Pearson
Peter LaPine
Beth El-Massih
Mike Farkas
Deborah Cantor
Allan Bezanson here, 66-year resident, adding support to Plan B.
When i graduated from Northboro High School grades 1-4 were housed in one school and 5-12 in another. It all seemed to work out.
Here’s a link to a New York Times article by Mark Medoff, “In Praise of Teachers.” I was, BTW, acquainted with Doctor-Doctor Robert Hively mentioned in the article. Here’s the link _
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/09/magazine/in-praise-of-teachers.html
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Trottier and Woodward are both underutilized. Let’s not build another sprawling castle that will cost big money and be underutilized.
Thanks for sharing this proposal—having more information is always helpful, and I appreciate the effort that went into putting it together.
Personally, I’m still unsure of what the best course of action is. Cost is clearly a major factor—likely the biggest one—and the potential tax impact is significant for many families in town. But cost isn’t the only consideration, and it’s hard to evaluate any option without access to the full set of data.
There are a lot of important metrics that go into a decision like this:
Student-teacher ratios; average class sizes; projected impacts to educational outcomes; cumulative hours or days of instruction lost to disruptions, or gained through improved efficiency; access to arts, languages, and physical education; cost per student going forward; maintenance costs/capital expenditures going forward
Some of this data is available on the Neary Building Committee site if you dig deep enough—but not all of it, and certainly not in a format that makes it easy to compare across different options.
If this information is available elsewhere, I’d genuinely appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction. It is certainly possible that I, and many others, have just missed it.
All decisions involve tradeoffs. But without clarity on what those tradeoffs are, its hard for me to form a well-supported opinion in either direction.
Your level-headed approach to the proposed new school is very much appreciated. Thank you for sharing your perspective. A lack of information is certainly part of the problem. It seems as though the idea of a new school was whipped up, packaged, and is now being sold to the community. But there isn’t enough information to make an informed decision on whether to support the proposed new school or not.
I would like to point out that on February 25th, the following was posted on MySouthborough:
“The May 13th ballot will ask voters to support the borrowing and proposition 2½ override to allow the Neary School Building project.2 Even if voters at the Special Town Meeting on May 10th reject the Article, a majority approval on the May 13th ballot would keep the project alive.
Cook, the current Select Board Chair and member of the Neary Building Committee has publicly stated that if the the Town doesn’t get the 2/3 approval needed at the meeting, they might pursue approval through a second Special Town Meeting in the fall. (And NBC Chair Jason Malinowski has said the Town can also pursue a second ballot question if that fails.)”
Tell me, does that sound like anyone on the NBC is listening to the Community?
–Diane Romm
We need to have a NO vote on both to get the point across. Please urge your friends and neighbors to be well informed on this issue and vote accordingly.
Plan B does not change any teacher/student ratios. We worked with the same numbers as provided by the NBC in their enrollment projections, relocation plan and schematic report, all found on nearybuilding.com. Staffing requirements from the “Integrated2023-2026SouthboroughUnitACBA” (Teachers Assoc.) say the ratios will adhere to the School Committee’s Class Size policy when feasible: Grades K, 1, 2 (16-20); Grades 3, 4, 5 (16-22); Grades 6, 7, 8 (18-22).
When estimating class size for a reconfiguration of grades, when needed, we chose to go with a maximum class of 18 (in the middle or low end of “when feasible” recommendations).
You are correct – there is a great deal of information available from NBC is you dig deep enough or are able to find it. (BTW, we all give them enormous credit for the time and effort each person on those committees have put into this. We just disagree with an acceptable solution.) Perhaps communications has not been their strong suit.
On the website, under documents, look for “NBC Preferred Schematic Report.” This is the 875 page document filed with MSBA. I will save you a bit of time and suggest you look at pages 33-about 50 (use the folio number on the page – it does not line up with the page in the pdf and is not linked from the TofC). This is where the original options are discussed and (most) discarded. These were all addition/renovation or new build options. None considered using the remaining three schools.
Also on the website see “Southborough-School-Administration-Space-Needs-Study-based-on-RLS-Demography-Report-December-2021-PDF (2)” which provides the enrollment projections and school breakdowns that we considered.
If you have further questions, please feel free to email southboroughconcerned@gmail.com.
I agree 100% with the Plan B proposal ! If you look at the facts it makes great sense and will save many homeowners hard earned income. My wife has been a resident for over 69 years and 42 years myself. Now being fully retired it is getting tougher to continue to reside in this great town. also relying on the State funding his a huge mistake. At the rate they are going now funding crazy projects and funding migrants as Jack Barron stated. Starting to look like I had stated before they are driving out middle class and upper middle class with ridiculous tax rates. Also the stated cost to do the new building of $108 million will undoubtedly be much higher in the end. Every project whether town or state always comes in much higher. I like Plan B and it should be an alternative!
At a couple of the info sharing meetings, the NBC or its representatives had no crisp answer to the question, what happens if the town doesn’t approve the Neary replacement OR the prop 2 1/2 override? There is no “drop dead” date after which Neary simply becomes unusable. If we keep using Neary, then, over time, it would need some improvements, such as roof repairs or replacement, and eventually the costs of such improvements will add up and trigger a requirement that the entire structure must be brought up to current codes. But, when that would actually happen is unknown.
“Plan B” is the realistic fall back approach that we should take when the Neary proposal fails. With a bit of preparation, Plan B is simple enough to be implemented during a summer vacation. It wouldn’t be “free”, but it also wouldn’t be a new building project that needs a contribution from the state. Minimal disruption to the classes and minimal impact to our taxes.
This town has a lot of projects that need funds, and we absolutely should not be spending money on a project that’s no longer needed.
Dianne you are absolutely correct about the board holding special town meetings to get their agendas past. It has occurred on numerous issues in the past. From the marijuana store on Route 9 and on the RECC. In both cases it was initially voted NO but later voted in special meeting . This has to stop occurring.In. both cases there was enough people to be considered a quorum.
What do Foxborough, Groton-Dunstable, Leicester, Lynnfield, Medway, Mendon-Upton, Natick, Rockland, Stoneham, Swampscott, Wakefield, and Webster have in common? They all operate “middle schools” with grades 5-8.
I spent a few hours going through the state database looking at middle and high school configurations. I focused on non-urban, non-economically disadvantaged districts. This was a first pass and lacks full scientific rigor but it is instructive.
1. The clear leader in configurations is a 6-8 grade middle school followed by a 9-12 High School.
2. I was able to identify 50 schools that did not follow the above pattern. There are a number of alternative configurations that abound in the Commonwealth.
3. The grade 5-8 appears to be the most common alternative “middle school” configuration.
4. A second alternative configuration involves a 2 school configuration of Grades 5-6 and 7-8. This effective “Upper Middle School, Lower Middle School” configuration is found in Chelmsford, Shrewsbury, and Tewksbury.
5. I found a variety of age ranges in the same building. This includes mixing grades 6-12 and 7-12 in the same building.
The clear facts belie the case that we cannot house 5th graders in the same building with 8th graders. It is being done commonly in the Commonwealth and there are alternative grade configurations that appear to work in other quality school districts. There may be other reasons to build a new Neary but this argument is intellectually bankrupt.
Braintree and Belmont also have 5-8 middle schools. And, btw, Winthrop L Chenery Middle School in Belmont is ranked #6 for Massachusetts middle schools by US News & World Report.
I completely support Plan B! I want to be able to continue to live in Southborough.
I’m glad there is such a keen interest in this overwhelming issue to everyone living in Southborough.
Everyone will be effected by tax increases making it tough on a large percentage of residents in Southborough.
May I make a point that this
Hundred Million Plus ridiculous project is brought to you by same people that virtually gave away town property and spent an estimated million plus dollars of taxpayer money on a “Park”.
Don’t forget also the over $400,000 dollars that was stolen from School funds / budget because someone had a drug addiction.
I for one of many say, It’s time to be more fiscally responsible with our Money !
I am a product of the Southborough school system. I have gone through Finn, Neary, Woodard as my classmates did.
Finn was kindergarten through fourth, Neary was first through sixth and Woodward was sixth through eighth grade.
There was no Trottier at that time.
I can also recall a recent history that there were portable classrooms at Neary.
Upon reviewing past postings from Select board member, he was saying we need a new school but then again we don’t.?
I don’t understand the need for major new school with a price tag that is unattainable. The costs are likely underestimated based on this same group’s apparent inability to estimate accurately (including operating costs that will add to more taxes).
We had at least twenty kids in our classrooms then why is that so hard to handle today ? It is incredible that this committee didn’t even recognize or consider that the puzzle pieces might fit in a lower cost alternative to taxpayers. This accountability lies with the voters We all need to consider voting for change in the upcoming election.
I also am for Plan B. There are alternatives to Spending.
While I appreciate the thoughtful consideration that went into crafting this “Plan B” – in reality, this is not a practical option. To oppose the current proposal would mean restarting the entire process, which would lead to additional costs, and quite possibly – the same conclusion. Meanwhile, there are young, growing humans forced to deal with an unsafe building, one that hinders their educational experience.
Given that ages of my children, I will likely see no benefit of this new building (unless by some miracle, construction is completed a year ahead of schedule). But community is about making the best decision for all of our residents, not only my personal stake in the outcome. Do I want to see an increase in my taxes? Of course not, but this is what is required of us if we want to give our youngest and most vulnerable citizens the quality education experience that they deserve.
I am still doing my research and I am undecided about the Neary Building Committee proposal. But I do want to add some (new?) facts to the discussion.
The NBC website has been updated, and there is now an FAQ question that specifically addresses why moving 5th grade to Trottier is not on the table:
https://www.nearybuilding.com/faq-main/faq-alternate-options/
Also, all the options the NBC considered and eliminated are now listed out.
Finally, I emailed a couple NBC members some questions and two things in a reply I got jumped out at me:
1) The option of renovating/expanding Neary would have been more expensive.
2) All other solutions considered would still cost a significant amount of money and not deliver as many benefits.
Food for thought…
Is the reasoning to not move 5th graders to Trottier sufficient cause to justify a 100+ million dollar project?
You’ll have to decide that for yourself. The explanation under the Alternative Options section of the FAQs includes:
You made me laugh when you quoted the “carefully planned transitions…” Where were they when our kids were moved from Finn to Woodward to Neary to Trottier? The transition from Finn to Woodward probably was and is the most difficult for the little ones. Having the students not transition so many times is actually one reason for pushing the new Neary School. The question becomes whether the other proposals here, like making Woodward house 7th and 8th grades, would suffice.
Has anyone watched the latest NBC meeting (from just a couple of days ago)? If not, I would encourage everyone to take a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR3s11uq8W8
The State is apparently going to provide even more money, thus reducing the burden on the taxpayers. No doubt this will be a marketing pitch for the NBC.
Regarding what will happen if the voters don’t pass the Propsition 2 1/2 override, well, It may play out like this, according to a previous post
“… the board hold[s] special town meetings to get their agendas past. It has occurred on numerous issues in the past. From the marijuana store on Route 9 and on the RECC. In both cases it was initially voted NO but later voted in special meeting .?
If you listen to the latest meeting, it sounds like the NBC is convinced that there will be a new 4-grade Neary School.
Thank you to all who are contributing to this important discussion. But I don’t think we should be forced to defend our point of view; rather, the NBC needs to convince us that they indeed have explored all options and that they are proposing the best one for all the citizens of Southborough.
I think that’s a good question and one to ask to the Neary Building Committee.
Has anyone who has put forth “Neary Plan B” presented it to the Neary Building Committee and received feedback?
Jessia
Good question but I would frame it differently. Town meeting gave the NBC close to $1,000,000 to sort out the “Neary” issue. The questions I would ask:
The question is, did you do an exhaustive study of the Trottier 4 grade option?
Did the committee for example meet with any of the more than a dozen quality suburban school systems in the Commonwealth that operate a grade 5-8 middle school to understand what is required to make provide a quality education in a grade 5-8 configuration?
Did the committee really do an exhaustive analysis of a grade 5-8 option or was it just dismissed out of hand?
The consultants we hired are experts in construction. When all you know how to do is use a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Did we really think they were ever going to recommend a non-construction answer?
Are the squishy “edu-speak” reasons Beth Milo found really the only reason that we have to risk taxing seniors out of town in order to add close to 100,000 square feet of school buildings that we otherwise don’t appear to need?
We appear to have sufficient space in 3 schools to house all of our current or expected student populations, are we not able to manage something slightly different from what we are doing now?
Do we really have to pay over $4,000,000 per year in Debt Service (about $858 on a 900k house) for 30 years because we can’t manage change?
Perhaps we don’t need a new school, we need new management.
These reasons, that you are dismissing as “squishy,” are anything but superficial. The middle school educator license is generally tailored to specific content areas, covering grades six through eight, while the elementary educator license is designed for grades one through five.
The notion of “it was good enough in my day” is no longer viable. I attended a school that housed grades five through twelve under one roof, and although it was effective in its context, I would be horrified if such a situation were presented as an option for my children today. Children are maturing too quickly and are excessively (and increasingly) influenced by their older peers. What may seem like trivial concerns have significant, real-world ramifications for these students.
The point of Plan B is to offer an alternative to the questionable decision to build a $109 million new school when we have considerable unused space in our current schools (Especially Trottier). Instead of putting the pocketbook always first, let’s use our brains to rethink how best to use the school space we already have in place without Neary. There are a number of schools in this state where 5th grade is in the same building as 8th and considered a success.
We need to use Trottier (again, already 30% larger than the 4-grade school planning to be built) as a four grade school and fully take advantage of what we have already built. If you are still opposed to 5-8 together, let’s make Trottier 2-5, and put 7-8 at Woodward. If I remember correctly, Woodward was 7-8 before it’s renovation. These plans would not seek money from MSBA (no addition/new build) so were never considered. It is a very logical solution to a very expensive problem.
U.S. News & World Report ranks the current decrepit, broken down, unsafe, obsolete Margaret A. Neary School NUMBER 13 in the state for 2025 (of 900+ schools). Woodward is #10, btw. What does this say to me? It is the Teachers, School Administration, staff, resources and community that make a great school, not just the building. Read the article.)
Moving forward Southborough is going to have a number of very expensive projects to consider. Roads, sidewalks, police staffing, renovations/maintenance for other buildings will be in the pipeline soon. There is a committee examining ways to provide waste water treatment to various parts of town to help improve our commercial tax base, which is desperately needed. Joining a RECC has its own issues.
It’s like being house poor: You may have a beautiful shiny new large house, but if you can’t afford the electricity to keep the lights on, what’s the point?
If Trottier is 2-5 and Woodward is 7-8, what with students do for 6th grade?
Apologies… Finn sticks with original Pre-K to 2, Trottier could be 3-6 (4 grades), and Woodward 7-8.
Do we know with any basis in fact that Finn could even accommodate 3 grades once the contract with Northborough expires? My understanding is that reduction (which includes half-day students) would not be enough to house an entire grade at Finn.
On the NBC, I found this document, that outlines your exact proposed configuration (referred to as Scenario 3 in the document).
The option was considered & the assessment indicated that this was not a viable option given the occupancy permits as well as septic capacity. (Screenshot from the above linked document attached for reference.)
[Edited at User’s Request]:
In the document you refer to, two of the scenarios include “Decommission Neary” and one of them refers to “Decommission Woodward.”
Would someone please explain how we went from decommissioning a school to the proposal of a new 4-grade school? None of the scenarios presented mention anything about a new 4-grade school. The 4th scenario does mention having grades 5 through 8, presumably at Trottier, as someone else suggested (2 grades on one floor and 2 on another)?
Look, quite frankly, I’m leaning against a new school but if you can convince me otherwise, go for it. We don’t plan on residing in Southborough indefinitely so the taxes may not affect us personally but may affect us when we try to sell our house.
I’m not opining right or wrong decision making in my comment below — just a recap of the history.
The plan to potentially pursue a new 4 grade school has been publicly discussed since before the $950K Feasibility Study was approved by Annual Town Meeting in 2022. I believe the key issue is that the estimated cost and the tax burdens that come with it are higher than voters expected. And the “sticker shock” is coming at a time when many voters are concerned about Southborough’s taxes in general and the economic outlook going forward. Plus, there are many residents who just hadn’t been paying attention to what the proposed project was until they realized what the Town was going to ask to be approved at Town Meeting this May. After all, only 230 residents attended that 2022 meeting.
Early on, the recommendation from the research committee was to look into consolidating schools, which would likely mean the need to renovate and expand Neary. (I started writing about that in 2021.) Along the way, the caveat was added that a new building might be less expensive then renovating the old building with asbestos in the walls and ADA compliance issues.
At the 2022 ATM, Jason Malinowski explained the plan when pursuing approval to fund a $950K Feasibility Study into a renovation/building project. The study would look at other possibilities than just the 4 grade building at Neary, but the presumed focus seemed pretty clear.
In that meeting, voters were aware (and concerned about) the estimate that it could lead to a $65M building project. To clarify – that was the total figure, before getting an estimated about $11M back from MSBA. That means, at that point, voters were aware the project could cost Southborough around $54M.
Since then, not only did the project costs go up (although the MSBA’s % share also went up), but the tax situation is different than was described. Malinowski had noted that given the bonding coming off the books for past projects. He acknowledged that he didn’t know what other bondable projects might be coming in the future, but opined that for a future school construction project “the net cost should not be significant”.
The reason that a renovation and expansion wasn’t pursued was the numbers for that were even worse. (That was estimated to cost $113,664,431.) That meant the only real options the NBC was left with were the “simple repair” a two grade building (which wouldn’t meet the NSBORO administration and School Committee’s educational goals) or the originally discussed 4 grade project at a higher cost than initially expected.
The NBC was initially split on what to support. When new figures came in showing that there were “significant economies of scale” for the 4 grade school compared to a 2 grade school, the committee unanimously adopted that approach. One factor behind their thinking was the belief that if they pursued a 2 grade school they would then also need to pursue another project to improve Finn School in about 10 years.
Thank you for providing the history of the project. I do note that a decade prior to 2022, according to the Metrowest Daily News, the School Committee was investigating consolidating into three schools. You can find this information very simply by searching on Neary and Metrowest Daily News. They cite decreased enrollment as one of the reasons, along with fewer transitions for the students. Now let me be clear, that was back in the 2011-2012 timeframe. It’s like we are going around in circles….
I forgot to clarify that the Feasibility Study’s total cost was $950K, but voters were told the MSBA would cover a portion of that cost. (I misplaced my note on that figure – but I believe they are covering about 47% of that cost.)
Thank you for your informative post. You are providing much needed information that will help the citizens of Southborough to make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for a new school.
In support of your position, I would like to point out that back in 2012 (!), the Metrowest Daily News reported that enrollment had gone down from 1600 to 1400 and was projected to go to 1200.
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/education/2012/10/10/many-moving-targets-in-southborough/41143412007/
The current projection from the District is that enrollment will be basically flat from 2024 (1199) to 2025 (1187).
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1711046091/nsborok12maus/jintstii2ulm8e4k3km2/LinkedFY25SouthboroughBudgetBookOnlineVersionRecommended2024_02_09.pdf
If the 4 current schools housed 1600 students, clearly there is room to decommission one of the schools.
Last year, there was an incident regarding race at the Neary School that garnered a lot of attention in the media and had a negative impact on the students and families involved. Initiatives were purportedly implemented to raise awareness so that such situations would not reoccur.
How does building a new school, raising taxes, etc., address issues like the one(s) that occurred just last year? If affordable housing opportunities existed in Southborough, or are planned for Southborough, then maybe the community would indeed become more diverse. But if there is limited single-unit housing available, along with higher taxes, it seems as though the community is not helping itself to become more diverse. In addition, house values in Southborough are very high right now and there is not a lot of movement in the housing market according to several experts.
Again, it seems like not enough citizens were involved in the cost-benefit analysis of building a new school and here we are…
With the proposed new Neary School, the plan would be to decommission Finn as a school and then repurpose it for other uses, is that right? If that is correct, this is a snowball effect for town resources. Where will the money come to repurpose Finn as a community center, move the senior center down there, etc.
The Senior Center won’t be relocated there. The Council on Aging voted to stay at Cordaville Hall even if Neary is decommissioned. Instead, some Town offices currently at Cordaville would move to Finn. That does come with some costs that aren’t included in the Neary Project Budget. In Monday night’s presentation by the Financial Subcommittee that was projected as $3M. It is in the pipeline of projects that was included in the financial forecast.
I haven’t had a chance to write up an overview of that presentation yet. I have been having conversations with the Chair Kathy Cook who has been working to get me some more details and answers to some questions I had. I should have the rest of the answers I need by the end of today — but I don’t know when I’ll find the time to write it up! But you can watch the meeting here.
I forgot to include that Finn would also house Town Recreation.
Yes, I think a more recent plan floated around to decommission Finn. Again, the report that was posted did not mention the Finn School, so I’d be interested in hearing about how the proposals went from potentially decommissioning Neary, decommissioning Woodward, to decommissioning Finn, to now asking voters for buy-in for a new, expensive 4-grade school.
Others have posted the necessity for several committees to get together and to take a much wider perspective on how money is being spent in our Town; the proposed new community center certainly is another project that needs to be considered in the big picture of future expenditure.
Given the document that was posted, can anything be done to upgrade any of the schools to consolidate into three schools (a proposal out there in 2011-2012) that already exist? Can the septic at Trottier be upgraded or is that too expensive? Can a wing be built on one of the schools? If Finn needed to be upgraded to accommodate older students, is that an option?
I think like many others, there are too many questions that still need to be answered.
And now with the stock market plunge, individuals about to retire may have additional concerns about how their money is being spent.
It sometimes seems like the folks who are pushing these spending agendas are out of touch with very many people who live in this town.
Some key factors and discussions I’ve picked up from the previous few weeks of meetings.
1) The original 12 options were developed by MSBA, the state agency that contributes funding to school projects. It should be to no one’s surprise that all of those options were expensive enough to be eligible for receiving the state’s funding. It was mentioned that, early in the decision process, Southborough wanted to consider another option that would have involved improving Finn to host another grade. But that approach was discarded because our application to the state was for improving grades 2-5, and thus the changes to Finn would not be eligible for a contribution of state funds. It appears to me that the NBC was focused on selecting from the MSBA’s options to the exclusion of options that may have been significantly less expensive even without funds from the state.
2) The Neary proposal being voted on includes $500,000 of funds to improve Woodward to make it more acceptable for the younger grades that will be moved there from Finn. Since these changes do not directly involve the removal and rebuilding of Neary, they are not co-funded by the MSBA. So, the quick rebuttal that changes to Finn shouldn’t be considered simply because they wouldn’t get state funding is not so valid.
3) The NBC has noted that there are several VERY large funding requests being considered by the MSBA for other communities, such as multiple requests for $1 billion high schools. This may mean that the MSBA’s funds will be largely committed in the next few years. Pending the MSBA’s April 30th vote on the current Neary proposal, the funding from the state for the Neary project will be locked in, regardless of their commitments to future projects in other towns. But, if we vote No on the Neary project (and No again at anticipated additional Special Town Meetings this summer), then our commitment from the MSBA will expire and we would need to restart the application process again, if we want state funds.
4) Our town income is currently funded 85% from residential taxes and 15% from commercial businesses. About 30% of the residences are seniors. The large tax increase being presented at the May 7th Town Meeting has nothing to do with the Neary proposal that will be covered at a Special Town Meeting on May 10th, 9am at Algonquin.
As you monitor the discussion about Neary in the coming weeks, think about what you hear and look beyond what is said. For example,
– the NBC has stated that Finn is aging and would need major updates in just 10 years. Yet, their plan is to continue using Finn for offices and possibly a community gym, so the town would still need to perform those upgrades as long as the building is in use.
– The Neary proposal includes about $2 million per year to install temporary classrooms at Finn to hold additional students while Neary is being rebuilt. For all of us residential taxpayers who have recognized that it’s better to own than to rent, shouldn’t we be using those funds to make permanent upgrades to Finn in support of Plan B?
There’s no question in my mind that we should stop using the existing Neary building as soon as possible. We should not wait another 5-7 years to go through the MSBA’s process, especially if we also believe the likelihood that state funds will be less available in the future.
In short, your vote on the Neary proposal means the following:
Yes – Build a new school on the Neary site and increase the town’s budget by about $4 million per year for the next 30 years to pay off the construction bond.
No – Implement something along the lines of Plan B and make the best use of the remaining 3 buildings that are already sized to hold our town’s student population. The cost would be paid without a contribution from the MSBA, but would be MUCH less than building a new facility and could still be spread out over a 30-year bond, if needed.