[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 Select Board members Tim Fling and Al Hamilton. (For more context, see my prior coverage of the $15M proposal here.)]
To The Editor
A number of people have asked whether the proposed $15,000,000 budget target for extending the life of the Neary School for approximately 15 years (the “Neary 15-Year Plan,” or Deferred Maintenance–Only plan) is sufficient for this approach. This summary consolidates all available expert information into one snapshot. The Neary 15-Year Plan includes the following scope items:
Priority Goals
- Roof replacement
- ADA compliance upgrades
- Fire suppression (sprinkler system)
- Asbestos abatement
- Interior finishes (new ceilings and floors after asbestos abatement)
- HVAC repairs and replacements
- Masonry and exterior envelope repairs
Stretch Goals (if priority goals are achieved below budget)
- Kitchen equipment replacement
- Electrical system updates
- Site work: paving, sidewalks, drainage
1. Expert Data Available
Let’s look at the data that is available and was completed by experts.
The first is the Vertex Report, done in 2021 for the School Administration. This identified the issues with the Neary school and estimated the cost to address the issues. This includes all the items on the 15 year plan except for a fire suppression and hazmat survey.
The second core report is the SOCOTEC roof estimate that just became available in late January 2026. The updated estimates replace any Vertex estimates from 2021.
2. Consolidated Cost Components
The following sections present:
• SOCOTEC updated estimates (2026)
• Vertex estimates escalated from 2021 → 2025 → 2026
• Items requiring further study (TBD)
Vertex 2021 costs are shown as originally reported and then escalated to a comparable 2025 and 2026 planning basis using cost data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for Non-Residential Construction. This index measures the increase in construction costs between April 2021 and Nov 2025 (most recent) at 37.2%. Additionally, using an inflation estimate of 7% year-over-year, we can conservatively approximate the cost of the project in late 2026 when work likely would start. Where newer expert estimates exist (SOCOTEC roof and ADA), those values replace the older Vertex estimations.
Escalation method: Vertex 2021 → Nov 2025 (×1.372), then 2025 → 2026 (×1.07).
2A. SOCOTEC Updated Estimates (2026)
2B. Vertex Estimates – Escalated from 2021 → 2025 → 2026
(Vertex values shown as originally reported, then escalated.)
2C. Items Requiring Further Study
3.Total Costs
SOCOTEC roof and ADA figures shown above are “all-in” totals. They already include design contingency, construction contingency, contractor fees, general conditions, insurance, bond, permitting, and a 10% project-management/soft-cost allowance. These totals do not include hazardous-materials abatement, owner-side soft costs (legal, owner contingency, or FFE), or additional escalation beyond the SOCOTEC calculation date. Because SOCOTEC provides these as fully loaded project values, no additional soft cost or contingency is added in this roll-up.
The Vertex system-level estimates shown above originate from the 2021 Facilities Assessment and represent construction costs only (hard costs). These values were escalated to 2026 planning dollars using a 37.2% 2021→2025 increase and an additional 7% for 2026. Vertex figures do not include soft costs (design, engineering, permitting, OPM), nor do they include construction contingency or general conditions. Because these items are not embedded in the Vertex values, a 21.1% soft-cost allowance and a 25% contingency are applied to produce a fully loaded planning estimate for this category.
(Excludes hazardous materials abatement until a formal hazmat survey is completed.)
*Soft costs (design, engineering, permitting, OPM): 21.1% [This number is derived from recently completed MSBA projects]
4. Summary
The purpose of this exercise is not to produce a final construction budget—this must be completed by design professionals in the next funded phase (to be included as a part of Article 1). Instead, the goal is to determine whether the proposed $15,000,000 placeholder is within a reasonable planning range, to cover both the priority and stretch goals of a 15 year option, based on the best current information. With consideration of the consolidated estimates above, the $15,000,000 planning figure appears reasonable. As additional expert data becomes available, the placeholder should be updated accordingly.
This option would live alongside the other pathways for the town to consider as voters determine what level of investment they have an appetite for. The most urgent and unavoidable capital issues — including the failing roof, fire suppression system, hazardous-materials abatement and ADA compliance items are fully addressed within this scope. However, as outlined in the district’s assessment of Option C2 from the Pre-K to 8 School Building Committee work, this package does not modernize educational or instructional spaces and several areas continue to ‘meet with trade-offs’ in terms of grade-level organization, collaboration spaces and long-term instructional flexibility.
In short, this deferred-maintenance option resolves the most egregious building deficiencies and extends the functional life of Neary, but it does not eliminate all of the structural or educational compromises identified by the district. It would exist as a fiscally lower-impact alternative, allowing voters to weigh the balance between cost, risk reduction and the level of educational modernization they believe is appropriate for Southborough.
Tim Fling (18 Main St)
Al Hamilton (35 Pine Hill Rd)
Footnotes
*Interior finishes include VAT/VCT replacement materials but not abatement. Abatement requires an AHERA‑compliant hazmat survey and professional estimate.
- ADA total project cost includes SOCOTEC’s design and construction allowances plus project management/soft-cost allowance; it excludes abatement and escalation, and excludes certain owner-side soft costs/FFE/owner contingency.
Reference documents:
- 2.02_PK8_Research_Committee__Matrix_V4
- 4.20_PK-8 Building Research Committee, Educational Considerations & Implications, Oct 2025
- 5.01_Vertex-Facilities-Assessment-Neary-School-April-2021-PDF
- 5.02_240311_Code Red_Southborough Neary Code Memo
- 5.05_Neary — Roof Replacement – A104
- 5.06_DC – Neary ES ADA ROM Budget 1-23-26
- 5.07_Neary Elementary School Preliminary Cost Estimates 1-23-26
Clearly a great deal of thought, time, and energy was poured into analyzing the data and numbers conveyed in this explanation and I appreciate that we are all trying to find options that feel right for Southborough. That said, I have a few simple concerns that I would like to share with MySouthborough readers regarding the information and opinions put forth by Mr. Fling and Mr. Hamilton.
I believe it is premature and a disservice to our community to be publicizing dollar amounts or caps that have not been newly vetted and agreed upon by multiple committees (Select Board, School Committee, and Advisory). I watched the zoom meeting last week at which SOCOTEC shared their roofing estimates and expertise with the School Committee and theirs are the only numbers that should be considered viable at this time. The remaining proposed dollar amounts addressed in this letter are already sewing confusion. In spite of the best efforts of the letter’s authors, I for one am skeptical that their costs/cost component escalations are accurate. I appreciate their attempts at clarity, however at this phase I think our community deserves to hear updated numbers generated by third party sources and to know that there is a recent consensus about the accuracy of those numbers from our Select Board and School Committee.
Mr. Fling and Mr. Hamilton are current members of the Select Board. I believe it would be a violation of Open Meeting laws if any other members of the Select Board were to comment on their post as that could be considered discussion or deliberation. Their publishing of this letter, before the Select Board has had a chance to discuss its contents at tonight’s meeting, makes me uncomfortable. Their arguments will not be countered here because they effectively have muted their fellow Select Board members by publishing in this forum. That is unfair and counterproductive.
And finally, I want to thank Mr. Fling and Mr. Hamilton for their caveat that “this package does not modernize educational or instructional spaces and several areas continue to ‘meet with trade-offs’ in terms of grade-level organization, collaboration spaces and long-term instructional flexibility.” We have big decisions to make as a town. For all of our citizens – our children included. And at some point it would be wonderful if we also could prioritize the educational components of this entire school building dilemma. If we were discussing a generic municipal building that would be one thing. But we are talking about a school – a place of academic, social, and emotional learning and what should be a point of community pride. I’m glad the authors of this letter are finally recognizing the need for updated fire suppression systems (likely sprinklers). At some point it would be refreshing to hear a full throated, robust endorsement of our educational values and how to mirror those – however modestly – in a building, too.
*Apologies for the typo – it should read “sowing” confusion.