[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 Karen Hanlon Shimkus.]
To the Editor and Southborough Taxpayers:
On all things NEARY, taxpayers may want to consider a vote for “D. NONE OF THE ABOVE” since it is difficult to assess further expenditures on the expired useful life of the NEARY School based on information to date and the following factors.
Are we throwing good money after bad? The town needs to prioritize practical solutions, financial responsibility, and the health and well-being of the community with objectivity.
- For reasons below, taxpayers should consider “holding” payment for the DPW budget line item that pays for the latest questionable PARE report on the former Parkerville dump. Also, from the taxpayers’ perspective, it would be appropriate to hold those responsible legally accountable (past and present) for lack of critical review and the lapses for the state law required testing. (See below for information on who is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.)
- For the latest January 14, 2026 PARE Report, please see the following link to [Select Board Agenda Packet for January 20, 2026]
(AND BTW, this is the same DPW contractor that was awarded the $1.5m no-bid contract for the “Lynbrook” project at last spring’s town meeting (under “Consent Agenda” items). As a resident of Lynbrook Road and after public records requests, this project has the dubious name “Lynbrook” project. Apparently, it involves a re-do of the water main from Northboro Road up to the TARA ROAD TOWER. It was approved at town meeting with no discussion under “Consent Agenda.” One and half million dollars, no discussion. (This is a Rhode Island founded firm and apparently no Massachusetts firms need apply or provide taxpayers with another bid.)
Also, readers should read one reader’s important observations about the tardiness / LATE landfill report submitted.
- If the author of the recent PARE Report bothered to hit the “GOOGLE” button, the author would learn that, contrary to the egregious errors in their “Background Information” section in their recent report, this is NOT just a landfill from the “1970’s and 1980’s” used for “household trash” (see “Background Information”), but per Mass.gov LIST OF INACTIVE LANDFILLS, originated in 1938 and CLOSED IN 1975 (active 1938 to 1970’s) – and per lifelong residents, during its use was a dumping ground for many things, not just “household trash.”
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/01/vt/inactlf.pdf
LOCATION
- On page 3 of the report, the author states that there are no public water supplies located downgradient of the landfill, or within at least one mile of the landfill in ANY DIRECTION. Yet, the Sudbury Reservoir / drinking water supply for Boston is located across Parkerville Road.
- Upon GOOGLING the distance: “the former Parkerville Road Landfill is located within one mile of the Sudbury Reservoir, which is an active part of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) water supply system.
- The Landfill: The capped landfill is situated on Parkerville Road and is currently the site of the John A. Lundblad Memorial soccer field. It is immediately adjacent to the Neary Elementary School
- The Reservoir: The Sudbury Reservoir is a major MWRA facility with shoreline access and trails that cross or border Parkerville Road.
- Distance: The landfill site on Parkerville Road is approximately 0.3 to 0.5 miles south of the nearest portion of the Sudbury Reservoir shoreline.”
As of January 2026, the Parkerville Road Landfill (located under Lundblad Field in Southborough, MA) is under increased scrutiny following a request from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for additional sampling and risk assessments.
Recent environmental monitoring has identified the following regarding Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and other contaminants:
Current Status & Recent Findings
- MassDEP Concerns (January 2026): MassDEP recently notified Southborough officials that environmental monitoring reports showed results for certain hazardous contaminants, including potential VOCs, above standard allowable limits in groundwater testing wells. WHAT IS A VOC? SEE BELOW.
- Well Testing Request: Due to these elevated readings, the state has requested additional testing to determine if there are impacts on the drinking water wells of nearby homeowners.
- Historical Context: The landfill was active from approximately 1938 to 1975. Previous reports, such as a 2023 inspection, had already noted the presence of VOCs at the site, though past testing had generally found levels within allowable limits until these recent developments.
- Public Health & Environmental Oversight
The town has conducted periodic testing for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals at this site and its surrounding waterways.
- Per a 2018 report (S. 3.6), 310 CMR 19.142 (S) – Post Closure Requirements
The Southborough Department of Public Works is responsible for the monitoring and maintenance of the landfill during the post-closure period. In this capacity, the DPW is the local authority responsible for taking corrective actions to address the conditions that might compromise the integrity of the final cover system or the environmental monitoring network. The DPW is also the contracting authority responsible for ensuring that Third Party Inspections are performed at the site.
- Residents have expressed concerns over water testing that have allegedly shown carcinogenic VOCs, arsenic, and other materials that allegedly has already leached into surrounding groundwater, requiring the town to fund testing for hazardous elements and gases IN PERPETUITY. IT’S AN UNLINED DEGRADING DUMP located next to private wells and the Sudbury Reservoir. The following is information from the US EPA website:
What are volatile organic compounds (VOCs)? | US EPA
- What are volatile organic compounds (VOCs)?
- Volatile organic compounds are compounds that have a high vapor pressure and low water solubility. Many VOCs are human-made chemicals that are used and produced in the manufacture of paints, pharmaceuticals, and refrigerants. VOCs typically are industrial solvents, such as trichloroethylene; fuel oxygenates, such as methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE); or by-products produced by chlorination in water treatment, such as chloroform. VOCs are often components of petroleum fuels, hydraulic fluids, paint thinners, and dry cleaning agents. VOCs are common ground-water contaminants.
- Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short- and long-term adverse health effects. Concentrations of many VOCs are consistently higher indoors (up to ten times higher) than outdoors. VOCs are emitted by a wide array of products numbering in the thousands. Examples include: paints and lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials and furnishings, office equipment such as copiers and printers, correction fluids and carbonless copy paper, graphics and craft materials including glues and adhesives, permanent markers, and photographic solutions.
Also, the Boston Globe recently reported “Mass. public school enrollment drops to its lowest level in 30 years / What’s behind the decline / The state’s nine largest districts all lost students from 2024 to 2025.” These demographics need to be thoroughly understood as well.
The town just had a ridiculous 7.7 percent TAX INCREASE. This is hefty. The current budget increases are unsustainable. Now here comes overuse of Special Town Meeting format to extract MORE taxes over that increase.
In summary, part of the answer is STOP OVER SPENDING, on the overall budget and on faulty and/or unnecessary reports. Most municipalities are NOT spending more but are looking to re-assess overall budgets and restore their communities to sound financial footing first. More and better reporting is needed before making any financial decisions – and possibly throwing good taxpayer money after bad. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen Hanlon Shimkus
8 Lynbrook Road
With the roof needing repairs even to get it through this summer (see the previous article addressing roof conditions) — if we don’t move forward with anything, where exactly are our 4th and 5th grades supposed to go to school next year?
Wow-all that information at no charge to the taxpayers. I hope you can convince the town government that a complete review of the land and its perimeters need a second company to come in and do a review based on your findings. We should be looking at Mobile classrooms till a proper investigation of the land safety is concluded and can determine if repairs are needed for Neary or a demolition permit needs to be issued and voted on for the money to fund the demolition, removal and land decontamination as well as new landscaping. Those elected officials who enjoy construction projects may find demolition interesting as well.
Jack
This is an interesting idea. If I understand this correctly you are suggesting housing the current Neary population (about 250 students+ staff) in a different location in portable classrooms while we sort of the site issues and long term housing issues. Do I have this correct? This is worth a discussion and some preliminary assessment of issues.
These are some of the most basic questions. Do you have any insight as to these items?
A community member who spends so much time on researching and drafting a letter on behalf of the community deserves a “THANK YOU” for all your time and energy.
A little story: Maybe 5 or 6 years ago my dog got off leash and went into that swamp-like/pond area, near the tennis courts, and just north of the soccer field/former landfill. On the way home I noticed she reeked of holy hell….I didn’t think much of it at the time, but definitely registered the experience and remembered it. (There was also a beautiful heron adjacent to the swamp/pond area that I was observing. One can only wonder whether the heron was potentially harmed….)
After reading your letter I was also reminded of the designs for the proposed, expensive new Neary school and everything else that was packaged so nicely and presented to the public. Part of the package included a proposal to house the students in temporary buildings adjacent to the other schools while the new school was being built……
Now look at where we are! Perhaps someone has suggested this already, but the community probably needs to hire a third-party agency to audit what is happening and to provide guidance.
Tim and Al, thank you for at least trying to move the ball down the field.
The OVERUSE of Special Town Meeting format is bad for the town and taxpayers. The town just had a 7.7% increase in taxes. STM is just another way to pick the taxpayers pocket in between meetings, and it needs to stop with sensible budgeting and limits on spending. Couple basic questions: