Do you have questions about the big school building project headed to a Special Town Meeting this spring? Or do you have an issue you’d like to raise or discuss with members of the committee overseeing the proposal?
This Friday morning, the Neary Building Committee (NBC) is giving you the chance.
The committee will hold “office hours” to talk about the project with any members of the public. The “hours” are actually just one hour this week, from 9:00 – 10:00 am on January 10th. They’ll take place at the Public Safety Building, in the Training Room. (That’s at 32 Cordaville Road.)
If the time doesn’t work for you, don’t worry. The committee will be promoting future opportunities to engage with them as they seek to secure support for the big vote. (In fact, I just posted yesterday about another upcoming option for seniors.)*
The flyer promises that more hours will be posted on weekends and evenings over the coming months.
The committee also has regular meetings which allow public comment. But the office hours format may be more comfortable for people who don’t like public speaking. Plus, it allows more back and forth and longer conversations.
*This winter’s Senior Center activities include a Coffee with Select Board Chair Kathy Cook on February 11th at 1:00 pm. The newsletter notes that as a member of the NBC, she’s also willing to talk about that project. Read more about that and other senior programs here.
Al Hamilton posted the following information, I believe it was back in November:
Al Hamilton
1 month ago
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.
It might be helpful to keep all these concerns in mind if anyone plans to go to the Neary Building Committee office hours!
Again, I will reiterate my thoughts: Why not make a proposal to subsume the two grades into the other schools before committing to build a new 4-year school building on that particular site, since there are citizens who are objecting to it. Move pre-school out of Finn, for example. Add a wing….
Why not make the Town’s future Recreation or Community Center reside at the much more central location, at the Neary School? So many of the Town’s events (Summer nights, Gobble Wobble, the Seniors’ walks) all take place in that area. Where is a proposal for doing something like that? Couldn’t part of the building be used for Pre-school, like they do now for after school?
Will there be an increase in home-schooling in the future that will potentially lower projected enrollment figures?
There are too many unanswered questions for me to vote yes for a new school.
Diane, thank you for the update. I don’t typically reply on the blog, but I feel strongly about this issue and the broader capital budget/tax impact on the residents. I attended the Dec 17th SB meeting and saw other residents who were visibly distraught over the real and likely risk of being priced out of their homes due to the estimated tax increases from the proposed 4-grade Neary school.
Anyone who follows the NEBC process should look at the YouTube minutes from last night’s SB meeting and the other proposed capital projects including $12 million for a library remodel and several additional million $$ for road work improvements. Further, Al Hamilton commented that there is potentially $100 million of future road/infrastructure maintenance costs.
I’ve not heard anyone say we don’t need to do something about Neary but spending more than $80 million on a new 4-grade school on top of everything else heading our way for future capital needs is in my humble opinion not the right thing to do and places a real risk on residents who can’t absorb higher property taxes.
Erik
I want to clarify my position regarding the $100 million you mentioned. As we contemplate the 4 grade Neary project I believe it is critical that we assess the associated debt with all the other claims on our debt capacity. It is clear that all the things that people want to do that would require debt financing exceed the prudent use of said debt. Like any family budget our list of wants exceeds our available means so we need to prioritize.
We currently enjoy a AAA Standard and Poor’s rating which allows us to borrow at the most attractive rates. A cornerstone of our debt priority assessment should be to maintain this rating as it offers the taxpayer the greatest “bang for the buck”. We have 2 broad classes of debt financing needs, Capital Infrastructure Maintenance and New Programs.
Capital Infrastructure Maintenance incudes a variety of things. We know for example that roughly every 5 years we will need to do a major roof project that will run 7 figures borrowing for each of these project is perfectly reasonable if we have the debt capacity to do so. Schools need major refurbishment every 30-40 years as mechanical systems age and things wear out. We have a lot of invisible infrastructure, water lines, culverts and drainage systems. My very, very rough estimate is that if we had to replace these systems today it would cost in the neighborhood of $0.25 Billion. The good news is that these systems have lives measured in decades and sometimes centuries. We know that every year we are going to have to replace water pipes, drain lines and culverts (new state rules make culvert replacement much more expensive) we may not know the specific project but we have enough of these assets to know that it will be a regular ongoing claim on our borrowing capacity.
Another Category that requires regular finacing is heavy equipment. In particular fire apparatus and to some extent DPW equipment. Rough guidelines suggest that a threshold for financing of heavy equipment is for a piece of equipment to cost more than $200,000. Finally, as any driver knows, we have underinvested in our roads. There may be a need to float a “Road Maintenance Catch Up Bond” to address the lengthy list of deferred road maintenance.
New Projects that will require debt financing include the Neary School, Library Expansion, Community Center, Fields, Wastewater Treatment Facility, and OPEB (Our unfunded pension liabilities).
The list of wants can seem daunting. It can be managed but not every one is going to get what they want. The first step is to develop a 30-year projection of debt and debt service which includes things we know we have to do regardless of whether we have a specific project or not. This needs to be compared to be compared to financing guidelines provided by the Commonwealth and our Finace Team. It should also include disposition of unproductive assets and a review of programs to lessen the impact of the financing on the most vulnerable.
This is a tall order; it must be done before we take on any new major debt. A number of residents have wisely asked that we make the “big picture” clear and this is a central part of that picture. It is the prudent and fiscally responsible thing to do.
I agree with Al Hamilton that it is essential to look at the big picture financially and he, as far as I can see, has begun that very process. In addition to looking at future needs, I think the community should also look at recent projects that taxpayers signed on for, like the necessary renovation of the athletic complex at ARHS. For me the question becomes, is a 4-year school necessary? Is that site necessary? Are there any other options?
Of course, it would be wonderful to have a new school for the children and to consolidate into fewer schools. However, what are the priorities? While I respect the financial perspective, there is another perspective: quality of life and the overall fabric of Southborough. The Neary site is a prime location for a community center or a rec center.
Although I hate to bring this up, let’s also not forget what recently happened at Neary regarding several staff members and racial insensitivity. As a taxpayer, I’d rather see my money go into the education of the students, and professional development of the staff, rather than a new building to house them.
I believe we need other options on the table for discussion. It seems like the cart has been put ahead of the horse and it’s careening down the road. Only 2 grades would have to be relocated. I find it hard to believe that that is not even a possibility.
I think when the State offers a program to assist with paying for something, like a new school, our Town tends to jump on the opportunity and views it as saving dollars. Al Hamilton’s use of a family budget as an example seems very appropriate. While it would be nice to install solar panels on one’s house because there is a financial incentive to do so, the kitchen needs to be renovated first! Or at least a discussion needs to take place about the necessity of replacing the appliances before considering solar panels.
And, Mike, you wrote a provocative statement, “It almost seems like certain folks are trying to make it unaffordable for middle class and even upper middle class folks to continue to reside in this great town!” That’s an interesting perspective….
I agree with Erik 100% that if these projects continue to be implemented the tax rate is going to to be out of touch for many citizens! My wife and I have resided in Southborough for 42 years and have enjoyed the town immensely. But now being a retired senior citizen with basically a fixed income we are getting to the point paying the ever increasing tax rate is becoming a real issue! We need to reign in this constant flow of projects and look at more feasible results.It almost seems like certain folks are trying to make it unaffordable for middle class and even upper middle class folks to continue to reside in this great town! Many towns that were once affordable are now out of reach to many families!
Hi Dianne, I don’t consider it a provocative comment but a true fact. I have talked with many folks and they share the same view. This occurred in many towns unfortunately .