Above: After hearing how the community responded to a survey related to the Neary Building Project, the Select Board unanimously moved to let go of the state’s partial funding of the project. (images from packet and video)
Last night, the Southborough Select Board unanimously voted against requesting an extension on the state grant for the Neary Building Project.
That kills any remaining hope that project supporters had for building a new 4-grade school at Neary to open for the school year 2028-2029. But this doesn’t mean the end of the Towns’ efforts to pursue a school building project of some kind.
As I previously wrote, to take advantage of the state funding to support the school building project, the Town would have had to certify to the MSBA (Mass School Building Authority) by tomorrow that the required ballot and Town Meeting votes had both passed. However, the Select Board could have filed a request for the MSBA to consider extending the deadline while officials continued to pursue the approvals.
Before discussion their votes, the Select Board heard member Al Hamilton ran through his summary of data he analyzed from the public survey on the school buildings. (His analysis was an updated version with more slides than I shared in Monday’s post. You can view it here.)
He summed up by highlighting the issues that survey respondents who opposed the project identified as key factors. Those were mainly the cost, interest in exploring alternatives, and opposition to closing Finn School.
Members and public commenters agreed that the data showed that overcoming opposition to the project would be a massive PR hurdle.
Select Board member Kathy Cook acknowledged that her vote last night may have been a surprise to some. As a former member of the Neary Building Committee who had strongly advocated for the building project that she had worked on for years, she said voting against an extension was “very, very difficult”. She followed:
I will always believe that the project that was brought forth was the best project for the town as a whole. Yes, it was costly. But over time, I believe that it would have turned out to be an excellent school for our children that would have lasted more than 50 years, kept Southboro as the attraction it has historically been for those parents looking for a superior school system, and provided a facility designed for the educational needs of students today, including those that need extra help whose numbers. . . continue to increase. That part, I think, was totally, totally overlooked. However, given the voting margins for both votes and the ugliness and the misinformation both on the cost and the site that was used to defeat the project, I do not see a viable path forward, and know that the MSBA has many other projects that the $35 million could be used for. So, delaying the inevitable does not seem appropriate to me.
During public comment, resident Michael Nute, who had publicly supported the project acknowledged that survey data showed that he was in a very small minority for believing the proposal was “the most cost-effective option”. He didn’t believe that even 12 months was realistically enough time to convince voters to support the original project.
Chair Andrew Dennington said he had been willing “entertain” requesting the extension. But they would have had to specify a 6 month or 12 month extension and detailed a viable plan for gaining the 2/3 approval needed at a Town Meeting for the exact same project. He agreed that it would be “delaying the inevitable” and believed it would create a “distraction”.
His distraction comment may have been a reference to concerns raised when the Select Board created the PreK-8 School Building Committee (PSBC). The committee was charged with pulling together data to allow officials and residents to compare options for school building projects.
The majority of the board had supported including the option that residents had already voted down. Cook argued that the public might discover that it is the most cost-effective option. But some residents warned that the perception the board was continuing to push a project voters didn’t want would taint whatever findings that committee reports.
Prior to last night’s vote, member Tim Fling, who represents the Select Board on the PSBC, indicated it was making good progress and would be presenting “good options” of alternative paths for consideration and comparison “that are considerably less expensive and could meet a 40-year 50-year timeline.”
Another PSBC member agreed. Beth Wittcoff supported the Select Board’s decision, stating that pursuing a grant extension “would have driven a further wedge into an issue and concern that the townspeople have already expressed at town meeting and as well as the ballot box”. And she opined that the committee would coming out with “very viable alternatives that can be made to work beautifully and in the best interests of the students of Southborough”.
That committee was scheduled to meet at 7:00 pm last night. (I didn’t attend and the video has yet to be posted. So, stay tuned for an update.)
During the board’s discussion, Cook thanked colleagues on the Neary Building Committee and subcommittees, plus most Select Board members, for their hard work. But she had a pointed comment for one member. Referring to Hamilton’s public opposition to the project, she stated:
Lastly, I do wish Mr. Hamilton had respected the work done by the committee and his subcommittees and acted as a colleague instead of pursuing his own agenda. It would probably have made a big difference.
Hamilton didn’t publicly respond to the criticism in the meeting.
