This week, the Southborough Select Board continued to discuss the plan to bring a building project forward. That included important upcoming meeting dates and next steps.
It also included the start of a debate around which options, and how many, should be presented to voters for potential study.
The discussion took place during Tuesday night’s Select Board meeting. It followed up on a joint discussion the board had with the School Committee and other officials on November 12th. (As I previously covered, the consensus was to bring voter choices for funding studies and schematics for multiple options. That would allow the town to get more accurate costs for “Apples to Apples” comparisons of projects. Voters would later be asked to decide which building design and construction project to further fund. You can read more about the plan, and the options that were proposed, here.)
The board will continue to hash out their positions at their December 2nd meeting. Chair Andrew Dennington’s hope is for the board to be better organized, before they hold the next joint meeting on the topic on Monday, December 8th. (That’s a day earlier than they had originally scheduled.)
Dennington said he understood that the board may not agree on “one view”. But he suggested they could find consensus on some aspects. That could be the number of options that voters should be given to choose from, or the number they are willing to fund.
On December 2nd, the board may also vote on the date for a dedicated Special Town Meeting. For now, they have “penciled in” Saturday, March 7th.
Below are more highlights from their discussion.
Adding Option/Plan “B2”
Dennington introduced the topic by asking members for their thoughts on which projects should be presented to voters.
Member Tim Fling advocated that the board urge for a project to be added “back” to the list that had been dropped off of the School Committee’s list — “Option B2”.
Fling had served on the PreK-8 School Building Committee. He explained that B2 was one of theirs studied options that the School Committee voted this summer to support. It was vetted as meeting the district’s Educational Standards. But, in the November 12th meeting, Superintendent Gregory Martineau didn’t list it among the projects the School Committee would support.
Fling assumed it was left off because it includes adding 5th graders to Trottier. Many on the School Committee (and in the administration) have publicly opposed the concept of 5th graders at a middle school. But given the sentiment voiced by voters this past spring, he said it needed to be considered.
Referring to organized voters who pushed for an option to save money by using existing space, Fling stressed that studying the option would be the only way to put “Plan B to rest”. Member Kathy Cook strongly agreed.
Cook is the former Chair of the Neary Building Committee’s Subcommittee. She had strenuously opposed the viability of “Plan B” when New Neary Project opponents raised it. The concept was proposed by voters advocated for finding a much lower cost solution to building problems than the expensive new 4-grade school. She argued that some advocates had inaccurately swayed voters that a plan could have zero costs.
Plan B entailed consolidating the PreK-8 students into existing spaces at Finn, Woodward, and Trottier schools without making any major renovation investments. Neary would then be closed.
This summer, that original Plan/Option B was officially ruled out by the School Committee as not able to meet Educational Standards. (You can read about that here.) But the B2 variant of the option didn’t have that issue. That version included renovations with small additions at Finn and Trottier to better enable fitting more grades in at the schools.
Worth noting: The option would also address two other reasons that some voters gave for opposing the New Neary Project. Finn area residents voiced upset about closing the school in their neighborhood. An a few outspoken residents raised worries about potential future problems on the Neary site due to it sitting downhill from a former, capped landfill.
Still the cost and viability of B2 are open questions. Cook and Fling agreed on the importance of getting real numbers to report back to voters. No one argued against the idea.
Opposition to revisiting New Neary
Dennington agreed with comments member Al Hamilton made in the prior meeting, against including one of the options that was on the Superintendent’s list. That was the new four grade school (the former “New Neary Project”).
Cook disagreed. She believed the New Neary Project could prove out to be the best fiscal option.
Dennington thought it would be “silly” to pursue a project that voters had rejected, but would now be much more expensive without the state grant. He followed that it would be a distraction, causing voters to accuse, “Oh look, they’re trying to bring it back.”
Cook responded she wasn’t prepared to take a position that night on which options to support. Based on consensus at the November 12th, she had thought the discussion about the potential choices would wait until the next joint meeting.
Since the Town already has the completed Feasibility Study, schematics, and cost estimates, it’s not clear why it would make sense to include on a list for potential further study. Once other options are studied, the old data could still be added to an updated matrix of options for voters to consider.
Process & Budget Debates
Board members also debated how many options they should present to voters to potentially study, how to narrow options down, and even how voters should vote.
The board worried about the potential cost (and budget impacts) of studying multiple options. Cook said that based on an estimate from the former Owners Project Manager for the New Neary Project, she believed it would cost about $750K – $1M to pay for the studies for three projects.
Dennington said he liked the idea that Fling had previously raised about surveying the public on what options they are interested in seeing studied. They both focused on the idea that the public response might be very different than what they would expect. Dennington said he wouldn’t want to be surprised at the Town Meeting.
Cook worried about how people could be expected to choose options without understanding the cost aspect. Dennington rebutted that they might hear from voters that some options they aren’t willing to consider, no matter what the cost is.
Member Marguerite Landry noted that when the cost comes back, one of the options that was originally less popular might turn out to be the best option. She worried about lopping it off from consideration because they don’t want to pay for the study at this stage.
Public commenter Tim Litt pointed out that the PreK-8 School Building Committee had acknowledged that some of the options may not be feasible. He reasoned that aspect should be determined early on. There would be no reason to spend money on further study/schematics if there isn’t land to make it work.
He also suggested the board first determine how much they are willing to spend on studies, then figure out how many options they could afford to study.
As the “Patron Saint of Bad Ideas” Hamilton asked if they should consider holding a special election on the options. He explained that they could list a number of options and pick the top three responses. There was some discussion of the concept and the costs. In the end, Dennington tabled that thought in order to get through the other details he believed needed to be discussed that night..
Special Town Meeting Schedule Debate
The board discussed holding a meeting about a month before the Annual Town Meeting, but after the start of basketball playoffs. (That appeared to be to avoid too many families with children being tied up with sports conflicts.)
They discussed the fact that the Costco turnout was successful on a Monday night. But they noted the need to attract families with children to this meeting. There was some debate over whether weekends (between sports) would be more successful.
Cook assumed a Saturday would be better for parents than a weeknight. As a working parent, Fling said he would have to get childcare either way if he wanted his wife to also be able to vote. So, he’d rather squeeze it into a weeknight than obligate a weekend to the meeting.
Fling said it would be different if the Town offered childcare for parents trying to participate while watching young children. But he followed that the challenge is getting families to participate, “without paying for some ungodly number per hour of child chare?”
Town Clerk Jim Hegarty cautioned against offering childcare. He opposed using “well-meaning” high school students for the option. Due to liability concerns and medical issues, he believed that professionals would need to be hired. He also wouldn’t want to cap the number of kids who can attend. He said that you don’t want voters to show up with kids and be told the option is full.
Hegarty also made his case against weeknights. He argued that (even with a noisy room for families), it is difficult for parents of young children. They can’t keep them there to 11:00 pm at night (even if the Town offered daycare at the meeting).
And if you cut off the meeting to continue it to a second night, it’s much more expensive than a long Saturday meeting. Plus, it’s more disruptive for the school. (The gym has to be utilized to allow for a big crowd. That would add an extra day of it being taken out of use.)
The Clerk also pointed out that weeknights are less welcoming to a lot of older voters who don’t like to drive at night.
Between the possibility that the Article might lead to a lengthy debate and Hegarty’s advice, the board tentatively settled on Saturday, March 4th. (They didn’t specify an opening time yet.)
