[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:
- 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. See the summary end of this letter.
- 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).
Nothing has changed to convince this reader to vote for ANY of the Neary options presented. It is alarming how the big picture may be in the process of being ignored, including environmental factors, which CANNOT be ignored (more on this later). Please see the following link:
Importantly, thanks to Select Board member, Mr. Hamilton, for his service and for coming the closest to transparency by revealing on this blog that NO ONE IS DRIVING THE BUS apparently when it comes to having a firm grip over the town’s overall $65m budget. Mr. Hamilton points to “competing fiefdoms” for taxpayer dollars. This is a stunning revelation which prompts a strong response: NO MORE.
- He writes: “It is a network of competing fiefdoms, each grasping for their share of the taxpayer’s pocketbook. The Select Board has no authority or responsibility with respect to the schools.”
This taxpayer does not agree with the latter statement to some degree.
- The Select Board influences and advises taxpayers at town meetings in a major way: it RECOMMENDS, yea or nay. While SB may not have DIRECT “authority or responsibility,” it is not quite right to disavow itself completely as it certainly does have its own recommendations, right or wrong. There does need to be better oversight, influence, controls and authorities (including over DPW and schools as possible) over budgeting and spending.
As for taxpayer control, taxpayers should send a message that this is all you are getting annually and that’s it: while the wildly disproportionate overall school system budget (and now capital needs) drain the overall taxpayer pool dry – it is time to fully reject this whole haphazard budget and payment system until ALL competing future capital needs are assessed, fully understood, and fully accounted for at ANNUAL town meeting, not the Special Town Meeting super-highway by-pass to the taxpayer wallet. This is for pure solvency reasons. Continually overspending is unsustainable.
As previously noted: It is alarming that the big picture considerations are being ignored. 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.
- 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]
Also, readers should read one blogger’s important observations about the tardiness / LATE landfill report submitted. We should not pay for this report and consider replacing this contractor.
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.
- Importantly, ALL RESIDENTS ON WELL WATER ON PARKERVILLE may wish to consider having their wells independently tested for a full panel of possible hazardous elements, not just the two homes and two hazardous elements mentioned on this blog previously. Also, the “swampy pond area” referenced on this blog by another reader, and any nearby catch basins, should be tested as well.
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 state is also losing population with net out migration. This is the larger demographic context; please see the following link.
Massachusetts Outmigration Continues: New Study Reveals the Move to Other States – Boston Newsroom
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. Stop ignoring the wider context and common sense items.
- 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, including the abutting former dump.
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
You truly cannot make this up. Just weeks before Town Meeting is poised to commit millions of dollars to the Neary School project, the former town dump resurfaces as an unresolved liability. This time it arrives in the form of a letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, documenting that groundwater near the capped landfill is contaminated with arsenic and 1,4-dioxane.
The letter further notes deficiencies in required monitoring and testing, and makes clear that the Town cannot simply continue under its current approach without securing a formal waiver.
At minimum, this introduces regulatory uncertainty. At worst, it signals ongoing environmental exposure that could carry financial, legal, and reputational consequences. Either way, it presents Southborough with a serious dilemma: proceed with major capital commitments while a legacy environmental issue remains unsettled, or pause and fully resolve the risks before moving forward.
My comment got downvoted the last time that I asked this, but I am going to ask again –
With the roof at Neary in a state of total failure – stated by an independent consultant evaluation – where are our town’s 4th and 5th graders supposed to go to school next year?
Respectfully, feasibility work is how the town gets “better information”: real options, credible cost ranges, and transparent tradeoffs.
For residents with genuine environmental concerns, the responsible response is documented, independent due diligence with clear decision triggers, not paralysis.
And for those who believe Neary’s environmental context is disqualifying, the most consistent advocacy is to support funding the studies that evaluate solutions that could move students entirely off that property, rather than trying to defund the very process that would produce and validate those alternatives (Articles 2/3).
Finally, urging residents to vote against all articles does not change the operational reality: students still need a safe, functional building, and urgent failures do not pause for markets or rhetoric.
We should absolutely be critical of spending, line by line, at our regular Annual Town Meeting. If we have a spending problem, that is the venue to confront it directly with scrutiny and accountability.
But the Neary issue is not going away. Voting down everything does not eliminate the underlying facilities and safety problem. It only delays solutions while risks and costs continue to grow.
The “responsible response is documented, independent due diligence. . .” that you reference is replete with material errors and lacks professionalism and credibility. The report referenced misstates critical state record about the site, its proximity to drinking water, and key relevant facts.
The town taxpayers should consider not paying for this report, firing this contractor and a re-do by an experienced, credible, careful contractor. There’s no paralysis here. There is a vacuum of credible, reliable, and complete information and environmental reporting that is required by state law. Even so, there are lapses and deficiencies cited in current reporting with required monitoring and reporting.
· You state: “For residents with genuine environmental concerns, the responsible response is documented, independent due diligence with clear decision triggers, not paralysis.”
· Can you please explain your support for the above conclusion? Please explain relevant experience in reading and interpreting environmental reporting? Who and what are your sources of information to support your stated conclusion above? If your conclusion means that MORE, better, accurate reporting is necessary, that is absolutely the way to go.
· You are incorrect on another note. No one is advocating for zero analysis, just common sense, professional, credible and COMPLETE analysis based on logical SEQUENTIAL order — and based on what taxpayers want to do — And NOT expensive unnecessary analysis that puts the cart before the horse, as well articulated by another reader. A $120 million investment next to a dump is ill-advised. This option was endorsed by SB and Advisory – but overwhelmingly voted down by taxpayers. The decisions and end result have to be fully informed, affordable, and make sense.
· All of these capital spending matters should be baked into a professional management plan, properly addressed in advance and AT TOWN MEETING, not Special Town Meeting.
· Special Town Meeting format should not be used to request these ill-prepared, ill-managed capital costs, not misdirecting taxpayers to lemming jump off the fiscal cliff, without knowing the complete and responsible picture of the health of the property and its environs – or the “fit” of any expenses against other important capital needs. It is NOT POSSIBLE to make an informed decision yet since the big picture is not laid out completely, correctly, or properly via current environmental reports viewed to date. Nor in light of huge important competing capital needs.
· The temporary decisions made at last night’s STM are probably the best that can be made at this point in time. Don’t forget: These are votes for increased taxes at every turn – atop of a hefty 7.7% increase – with more big competing expenses to come. Thank you.
Responding only to the final sentence in your comment — a 7.7% tax increase. I’m assuming you are referring to an earlier draft of the FY27 budget. Early drafts are always much higher than the actual budget.
The Select Board and Advisory Committee are continuing to work towards a final version. But they are both trying to avoid the need to deal with an override vote and have not been looking at a tax increase that large. (Though it is still much larger than most voters will be happy with.)
The latest draft version of the budget I’ve seen shows a projected 4.9% average tax increase for FY27. That draft was based on figures that assumed the votes would go the way that they did end up going last night. (Yes on Articles 1 & 4, No on Articles 2 & 3).
In tonight’s meeting, the Select Board will continue to talk about the budget, and we’ll get a better idea of how likely it is that will be the number they present to voters or whether they’ll make further cuts (or add in some expenses that the draft doesn’t include.)
No, I am referring to the most recent actual increase that we are already paying right now voted in last spring, explained in the My SB article below, which is crazily high and compounded / increasing every year.
The vote at yesterday’s 3-2-26 STM adds MORE taxes within the same calendar / fiscal year to (7.7%, revised not much down to 7.5% actual) adding to the MOST RECENT actual escalation, resulting in an actual percentage ABOVE 7.5%.
It may not be how town government reports it, but it certainly is how the taxpayer looks at it: it’s MORE taxes layered upon an already huge actual increase.
To your point that draft doesn’t equate to actual, agreed – but as evident this past spring, the actual closely approximated the draft. Now that number is actually higher; it’s not 7.5% due to last night’s increase.
BTW, the overspending has to stop. These compounding increases and unrestrained checks to overspending on what Mr. Hamilton’s aptly described competing “fiefdoms” is UNSUSTAINABLE. There are many informational, management, and reporting gaps between Advisory’s function, and actual spending / accountability on many fronts. Can’t have “fiefdoms.” That must be fully rejected by voters and not be teed up that way by Advisory and Select Board in the first instance. This whole process must fundamentally change for improved business solvency and performance.
Please see the link.
Town Meeting to ask for 7.7% 7.5% increase for 2026 taxes (Updated- Again) – My Southborough
Town Meeting to ask for 7.7% 7.5% increase for 2026 taxes (Updated- Again)
A look at this year’s budget drivers: public safety staffing, employee health insurance, and school budgets.
Thank you.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Actually the number ended up being 7.6%. But last night’s vote didn’t increase that. The money comes from the funds collected that turned out to be beyond what was needed. The use of Free Cash, approved last night, doesn’t increase the amount taxed for this year. But it does impact the taxes for the next fiscal year.
Understood. I think we are looking at the same situation through two different prisms, two different perspectives.
Yes, technically, last night’s vote to spend tax dollars (already collected) seemingly didn’t increase last spring’s most recent 7.6% increase officially.
However, those tax dollars were extracted and paid from the same taxpayer wallets. It effectively turns out to be a percentage that is higher than 7.6%, regardless of which pocket it comes from. It is all extracted from taxpayers.
It may not be spent in the same fiscal year, but it is determined and levied, a tax burden obligation put on taxpayers within the same 12 month period. In other words, the 7.6% was voted in late last March at last year’s spring town meeting. Not a full 12 months later, this additional tax expense obligation to taxpayers (no matter which pocket it comes from) increases that 7.6% to some higher amount.
It’s all ridiculous and unsustainable from a budget / business / spending perspective. Thank you.