The Special Town Meeting on the Neary School roof and building project studies is just days away. And it appears that some members of the public are still confused about what they’re being asked to decide on Monday night.
There are also misconceptions about the setup for parents.
So here’s my updated overview.
Voters will be asked to approve replacing Neary School’s failing roof, under Article 4.
Before Town Meeting can vote on the roof replacement, they’ll also be asked to approve up to three Articles to fund studies (and documents) for potential school renovation projects. They don’t have to choose between them.
Skip down for more details on the Articles.
Town Meeting logistics
The meeting is scheduled to open at 6:00 pm on Monday, March 2nd at Trottier Middle School.
Town Clerk Jim Hegarty warns that with all the snow this winter, there may be much less parking available at Trottier than usual. Many voters may need to park at Neary School and walk up the hill. (So dress accordingly. And if that’s too much for you, target getting there early or carpooling with someone who can drop you off.)
Prior to voting on any of the Articles, the Select Board and Superintendent will give 12 minute presentation to give an overview of the situation and the Articles. Voters can then make comments and ask questions.
Then motions will be made to tackle one Article at a time.
You can read my post with more details on how Town Meeting works here. You can find the Town’s website here.
(Scroll down for updated details on the 3-room setup that night.)
The Warrant Articles
The studies in Articles 1–3 are each intended to help the Town during the subsequent phase of addressing school building issues. The data and documents (like building schematics) are necessary to get accurate estimates for potential renovation projects.
Funding all three projects would give voters data on a variety of school building projects to compare. After studies are completed, then officials and voters would need narrow down which school renovation(s) they want to pursue.
However, those studies and documents aren’t free. On Monday, voters will need to decide how much they are willing to spend now (impacting next year’s taxes) in order to have more choices down the road.
Passing all three Articles would cost up to $900K. The funding would reduce the “Free Cash” to offset the tax burdens in the next fiscal year. That impacts the budget voters will be asked to approve at Annual Town Meeting in April. (And the Town is currently facing a big tax increase. But stay tuned for a separate post on that.)
The majority of the Select Board (and the unanimous School Committee) are in favor of only funding Article 1, to study two potential renovation scenarios for Neary School (to continue as a two-grade school for another 15 or 30 years.) In both scenarios, the other three Southborough schools would also remain open (for at least another 15 years).
Because the Town already has a lot of data from prior recent studies, this Article is the least expensive — estimated as up to $175,000.
The 4-1 majority of the Select Board believes the Neary project options will offer the most viable scenarios. (And the quickest to get going.) The desire to avoid spending on unneeded studies, is why they don’t support Articles 2&3.
So why are they on the Warrant?
When the board asked voters to approve their prior majority-preferred school building project last spring, voters revolted. Opponents to the proposed “New Neary Project” loudly complained that the the Town hadn’t vetted enough options and given voters choices. (Note, that project was to build a brand new 4 grade school and close Finn School. That scenario is no longer being pursued as one of the possibilities.)
Articles 2 & 3 are offered to appease angry voters by giving them options to fund research into alternative projects.
And they are supported by one Select Board member. Tim Fling (the board’s representative on last summer’s PreK-8 School Building Research Committee) advocates that spending on the potential scenarios may lead to the best project for the long term.
Both of these options are to study scenarios that would result in Neary School eventually being closed. (The Town would still own the building, and have to consider using it for other municipal purposes.)
Article 2 would look at expanding both Trottier & Finn School to add one grade to each. That would cost up to $500K. (It’s possible that after spending up to $160K, the Town would learn that the project isn’t feasible, and the work would end without further spending.)
Article 3 would study a bigger renovation at Finn to add two grades. (Neary students would then move down to Woodward.) Because the study overlaps Article 2, the amount approved for this would depend on whether or not the prior Article is approved.
The Article asks for up to $324K. If Article 2 passes, the amount would be lowered to $244K. (This project could also be cutoff at an earlier phase with less spending if the project is found to not be feasible.)
[Note: My prior coverage goes into more detail on proposed studies under each Article. And you can read the full Warrant here.]
Neary Roof
There is no question that the roof at Neary School is failing and needs to be replaced. You can read more about that here. Under Article 4, the School Committee is asking for money to fund the roof (up to $4.5M).
But they are also tacking on $2M for work they believe will be triggered by replacing the roof. That add-on would be eliminated from the motion if Article 1 passes.
In that case, Article 1would cover research into the triggered requirements. (A future Town Meeting vote would address tackling those costs, potentially as part of a bigger picture renovation project.)
Last night, Select Board members again discussed the possibility that the expensive additional work won’t be automatically be required.
Building Inspector Mark Robideaux confirmed that Assessor Paul Cibelli believes the Neary School building valuation will be increased to $14M. That means that the Town would need to spend over $4.2M on the roof to trigger “full ADA compliance”. The roof contractor’s estimate was a cost of $3.7M. (The $4.5M request is to cover unforeseen costs.)
You can read more about the “trigger” situation in my past recap here.
The School Committee and School administration have posted a lot of materials and explanation’s on their website here. And you can read more coverage and letters to the editor about the meeting here.
Room Setup
During last night’s Select Board meeting, Hegarty sought to clear up a public misconceptions about the upcoming meeting.
He reiterated that voters will be able to fully participate, no matter which room they are in. They will hear and see the presentations, cast votes, and be able to make public comments (seen and heard in other rooms).
Three rooms will be setup. (I originally believed it was two.) The auditorium will be the main hall with overflow in the cafeteria. A separate room, the gym, is meant just for parents with children.
Once voters are sent to those rooms, they won’t be able to switch. (That’s because the “clickers” for electronic voting are assigned by room.)
The gym will have 300 chairs set out, plus some round tables in the back where kids can do homework and play. And families will be allowed to bring in food and eat in there.
Hegarty stressed that parents should not let kids run around unattended. He noted that while every voter is entitled to attend Town Meeting, they aren’t all people “you would trust your children with”.
Thank you, Beth, for your post as it provides real clarity. Just so you know, when I referred to “folks” in my previous post, I wasn’t referring to the Select Board Members or the School Committees, or their presentations, I was referring to my fellow taxpayers, especially those who have resided here for years and watched Neary deteriorate as it was not maintained.
I hear you. But my post wasn’t based on your comment alone. It was prompted by Tim Fling telling the Select Board that when he spoke to the Dull Men’s Group at the Senior Center recently, he learned that people were under the impression that they had to choose between the Articles.
I’m not surprised as they merely echoed my thoughts. Under no circumstances did I think you were replying to my comment!!!! I wrote my comment because of the repeated use of the word “angry” which is guaranteed to fire up some people who had justifiable issues with last year’s proposal, and may continue to have justifiable issues with this year’s articles, especially ignoring the dump/landfill issue. If you recall, I was one of the first people to suggest that the environmentalists were conflating the issues because if the environment by Neary is a problem, then Neary should be closed now.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
The current recommendations of the Select Board and Advisory to spend, spend, spend lack complete credibility and apparently is ignoring other important contexts. One year ago, they recommended a $120 million!! investment next to a degrading TOWN DUMP that has had insufficient required state testing. There’s no conflating as this is a required and intrinsic part of the picture and value. Does it make sense to spend $120m next to a town dump? Thank goodness the common sense of the town taxpayers prevailed with an overwhelming “NO” vote.
Part of the answer is STOP OVERSPENDING, on the overall budget and on faulty and/or unnecessary reports. Stop ignoring the wider context and common-sense items. Neary has expired and the photos reflect that.
· IMPORTANTLY, until the taxpayers get a full accounting of the environmental issues, they should not authorize any spending on rehabilitating or reconstruction of NEARY SCHOOL until the full impacts are fully known via RESPONSIBLE AND ACCURATE REPORTING ON THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS.
· STOP FEEDING THE ALLIGATOR. Many Costco projects don’t even begin to touch the outsized and continually growing overspending problem.
· BUDGET ANNUALLY AND SPEND BETTER: THE TOWN CAN’T AFFORD EVERYTHING, meaning the ridiculous slow drip of never-ending, tax base destabilizing, huge tax increase items.
· For now, this is precisely why voters should consider to NOT VOTE FOR ANY MORE INTERIM TAX INCREASES (via Special Town Meeting) and hit the PAUSE BUTTON to force better annual budgeting (like any business or home) and accountability on spending until better information is developed and presented on TOTAL CAPITAL SPENDING NEEDS for the foreseeable future.
· This includes ALL school and town building capital maintenance, roads, unfunded rarely if-ever discussed items, and the MASSIVE DPW wish list (parts of which are being approved with NO DISCUSSION at Town Meeting).
· NEARY’s useful life has expired. The photos show an expired use and poor maintenance and management of that maintenance. This voter is not taking any more advice from SB and Advisory as there is a commonsense gap. Also, it is LOCATED adjacent to and downgradient from a former TOWN DUMP that is DEGRADING, THAT HAS DEFICIENT REQUIRED STATE TESTING. This CANNOT be ignored. Those that do (past and present) should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
· Residents on water wells on Parkerville may wish to consider having their wells INDEPENDENTLY tested. Any catch basins or nearby “ponds” or accumulations of water should also be tested. It is not inconceivable that dogs or children would try to play near or in those areas, such as an instance that one reader pointed out.
· A necessary change-up in class / grade locations doesn’t fit? Make it fit. The demographics statewide show decreasing grade school populations and overall net negative population growth.
Also, importantly, 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 management and reporting is needed before making any financial decisions – and possibly throwing good taxpayer money after bad. Thank you for your consideration.
Can you confirm Neary’s current assessed valuation on the town’s books (FY2026), and the date of that valuation? Based on what I have been able to find the valuation of Neary is grouped with Trottier because it’s a shared plot. Also, what is the basis for the statement that it will be increased to $14M (revaluation, correction, capital improvements, comparable sales methodology, etc.)?
From discussion in Tuesday night’s Select Board Meeting between member Kathy Cook and Building Commissioner Mark Robidoux about the opinion from the Town Assessor Paul Cibelli:
Kathy Cook: you may want to have a chat with Paul Cibelli before Monday. He has not valued properties as 1/1/26 yet. That’s what he’s working on and it takes him several months to get that done. So, it won’t be done probably before September/October. But he is comfortable, given the lack of movement in the value of Neary over the last few years, that the value will increase so that we comfortably fit the 4.5 inside the 30%. But you may want to hear that from him directly not from me.
Mark Robidoux: Okay. I will have a conversation with him. What I will tell you is, I have an email that that I have printed out here from Paul. We’ve discussed this a little bit. And the full and fair cash value has a definition, and it has to do with the equalized assessed value set by the DOER. So when you factor that into the value that he has, it brings it up to about 14 million. So that would allow an approximate expenditure of 4,200,000. Above that would trigger, you know, full accessibility.
Ad valorum tax values (assessments) are set for any given property as of the first of January (e.g. for FY 2026, the value is set as of January 1, 2025). The “fair cash value” of the property is set on that date as a “snapshot” in time, reflecting value as of that date. The environmental status of any given property is INTRINSIC to the value conclusion and CANNOT be ignored in the valuation, as the status can impact value greatly or even possibly make the value of a property negative.
Please see the following link, which provides a fairly good comprehensive commentary (which pertains to rental properties, but is general enough in concept to explain how valuation and impacts work. The appraisal professional relies on accurate environmental reporting (and costs) to determine value impacts. Just because construction / costs are spent on improvements, DOES NOT TRANSLATE AUTOMATICALLY to an increase in value.
Environmental Impact on Real Estate Values – HAR.com
Environmental Issues and Property Value
a. Contamination and Property Value
The harmful elements in substances like soil, water, or air are called contamination. Contamination found on or near a property can negatively impact its value. Buyers are often reluctant to invest in contaminated properties due to potential health risks, legal liabilities, and remediation costs. The type and severity of contamination, such as chemical spills, oil leaks, or industrial pollution, play a crucial role in determining the extent of the impact on property value.
b. Hazardous Waste and Property Value
The substance that has its chemical or any other potential for contamination causes a risk to the environment and human health, referred to as hazardous waste. Properties near dangerous waste sites, such as landfills or industrial facilities, face potential devaluation. The proximity to these sites raises concerns about pollution, odors, health risks, and possible legal obligations. Buyers often perceive such properties as undesirable, leading to reduced demand and lower market value.
Environmental Issues Affecting Property Appraisal
a. Regulatory Compliance
Environmental regulations play a vital role in assessing the value of a property. Environmental law violations may result in fines, penalties, or expensive repair work. Appraisers consider the property’s compliance history, permits, and ongoing or potential violations. Failure to meet regulatory requirements can significantly impact property value.
b. Remediation Costs
The cost of environmental cleanup and remediation is a critical consideration for property appraisal. Appraisers evaluate the potential expenses associated with cleaning up contamination or hazardous waste. The extent of remediation required, including excavation, containment, and disposal, influences the property’s value. Higher remediation costs can result in a decrease in appraised value.
c. Market Perception and Demand
Buyer perception and demand also factor into property appraisal. Environmental issues can create a negative stigma around a property, affecting its desirability in the market. Properties with a history of contamination or located in environmentally sensitive areas may face challenges in attracting potential buyers. Appraisers consider market trends, buyer preferences, and the impact of environmental issues on demand when assessing property value.”
Thank for the information Beth & Karen! I’m unfamiliar with the process so just wanted some more information.
The town government needs to deliver a clear statement about the Neary school property and the health of the land. Does the land need remediation? Is there hazardous waste or leakage of damaging chemicals or solvents on or in the land? I have not read anything indicating the selectman have answered these questions. If they won’t answer them because the town attorney has advised them not to answer, we need to know that too.