Above: A look at some of the comments and arguments raised in Town Meeting during the long debate on the big school building project. (images from video)
On Saturday morning, 1,178 voters checked into the just over 3 hour Special Town Meeting on the proposed new Neary School building project. They represented about 15.6% of Southborough’s registered voters.
The voters gathered to decice whether or not Southborough should borrow to fund a $108.5M school building project for a new school for grades 2-5. Southborough’s share would be over $68M. (Although, that doesn’t include the cost of interest for borrowing.)
Since the vote wasn’t close enough to require a count, I can’t report how many were present when the vote was finally taken.1 But it was still a fairly full forum when the vote failed by a large margin. (It is possible it received a majority approval, but nowhere near the super majority needed to approve borrowing funds.)
Prior to voting, voters considered the option for voting by “secret ballot”. That time consuming process was rejected by the majority. (The option for using clickers wasn’t available at this meeting.)
Presenters touted and defended the educational benefits of the expensive building project and the fiscal risks of not moving forward with the proposal that the state has agreed to partially reimburse the town for.
Supporters urged the need to invest in our schools. They argued about the danger of declining property values and a deteriorating educational system as we potentially begin losing teachers and have difficulty replacing them.
Some residents from the southside of town worried that the real property value risk for them would be a Yes Vote leading to closing the elementary school in walking distance from their home (Finn School).
Some opponents argued that the project cost was too high to ask taxpayers to shoulder, especially for those struggling to keep up Southborough’s already growing taxes. And one argued that tax impacts could be much worse than projected (though they could also be better).
Other residents worried that the Town’s testing and inspection plan might not be enough to mitigate the risk of building a new school downhill from an old landfill that could have toxic leaks in the future.
Some voters argued that the Town needs to go back to the drawing board to revaluate how existing school buildings could be better leveraged to meet the Town’s needs. (A “Plan B” was outlined as an example.)
In contrast supporters and officials worked to poke holes in Plan B and argued that a No vote would just “kick the can down the road”.
Below are more details on those presentations and debates.
Presentation and Counter-Presentation
The meeting began with the Moderator’s introduction to Town Meeting rules and how the meeting would be run. After the motion for funding the building was read, Neary Building Committee Chair Jason Malinowski gave an about ten minute presentation. (You can watch that here.)
Malinowski described the current Neary school building as one whose “useful life has come to an end”. He highlighted the building’s problems including an outdated and “undersized” electrical system, outdated HVAC for controlling the building “climate”, and the need to replace the roof and windows, ADA non-compliance, safety issues and lack of a fire suppression system. He also noted that working on the building would require asbestos abatement.
He outlined the work that had been done over the past five years leading to the proposed project. He also briefly discussed why Finn School wasn’t considered for the site of a new project and Trottier’s ability to hold 5th graders was ruled out. (Those issues were revisited later in the meeting.)
The new project was touted for modernized and enhanced safety and security, educational continuity, grade level wings/neighborhoods, “accessible and inclusive facilities”, “flexible future ready learning environments”, “intentionally designed spaces” for gym and music, and “maximization of resources”.
Malinowski stressed that the committee had worked to cut the cost by almost half since early figures last spring.
If the project was approved, construction would begin in the summer of 2026 and the new school open in fall of 2028. If rejected, “we would face continued questions around escalating construction costs that would likely far exceed any cost of borrowing today”. He closed by pointedly contrasting to opponents’ proposals, highlighting that the NBC’s proposal”
is a plan, not an idea. It sets forward the future of our Southboro public schools and is in the best interests of our student population. Renovating, expanding in any respect will end up costing us more both short-term and long-term. That would simply be kicking the can down the road.
(You can open a pdf of most of the presentation here and the final pages on impact of yes vs no votes here.)
Voter Gene Karmelek asked the moderator to make his own presentation using slides he had submitted. His presentation argued that the buildings don’t make schools great, the teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents do. He pointed to the fact that US News and World Report ranked Woodward #10 and Neary #13 out of 957 Massachusetts school.
Karmelek argued that the town needs to act with fiscal responsibility to make creative use of the school buildings we have. He highlighted that the new school is 30% smaller than Trottier, arguing that if that can hold 4 grades, so could Trottier. He argued for closing Neary and shifting grades to fit students in Finn, Woodward, and Trottier schools.
His presentation argued that when Northborough PreK leaves Finn, there will be room to add 2nd grade, which would allow keeping the elementary school on the southside of town open. Grades 3-4 would be at Woodward and Trottier would house 5-8. Rejecting arguments made by the administration, he stressed that four of the top ten middle schools in the state include grades 5-8.
(You can open a pdf of the slides here.)
Arguments about educational benefits and 5th grade at Trottier
The presentation and commenters on behalf of the committee touted the benefits of the improved school as a learning environment. Others pointed to the teachers and community as the important factor and argued for spending money on students/staff, not buildings.
During the debates, Assistant Superintendent Stefanie Reinhorn argued that the 5th-8th grade schools that the “No presentation” referred to included schools that had K-8 and a school that was split into two buildings. (Karmelek sought to readdress that point, but given the number of speakers and the length of the meeting, the Moderator didn’t allow commenters a second time at the microphone.)
Later Reinhorn provided more detail on why the administration believed 5th graders don’t belong at Trottier. Among her arguments was that being on buses with the 6-12th graders and in bathrooms with 6-8th graders would “prematurely” expose them to “teenage experience and topics”.
Earlier in the meeting, Emily Haranas told the hall that a third of sexual abuse cases in the state are youth-on-youth crime. She raised the worry of unsupervised children in bathrooms. She also asked to hear what teachers had to say about the project.
Woodward Principal Steve Mucci read a letter aloud from the Teachers Association president. (You can read that here.) It included:
we recognize that the final decision rests with the residents of Southborough. As educators, we are deeply grateful for the support we consistently receive from this community. . .
However, we feel compelled to address a recurring sentiment in the conversation: that our teachers are capable of teaching in any condition. . .
we believe it’s important to clarify that resilience should not be mistaken for ideal working conditions. Our ability to adapt doesn’t mean that substandard learning environments are acceptable.
Teachers and students deserve a building with integrity because the learning environment directly affects educational outcomes. A facility that is safe, structurally sound, and well-maintained demonstrates respect for those who spend their days there.
Costs and Financial Risks
Answering questions from voters, Malinowski assured that the project includes contingencies for unforeseen costs, and is capped so that it can’t exceed the budget. If the materials costs go up, the committee will have to work to keep the project under budget. He also clarified that the Yes vote financial projections include the costs for making changes at Finn to accommodate moving in Town departments. And the Town has a plan for continuing to pay for the upkeep of buildings.
Select Board member Al Hamilton argued that the financial analysis provided to taxpayers doesn’t highlight the “asymmetrical risk” he sees for the project costing taxpayers much more than projected. He noted that just a 1% higher interest rate on the debt service could cost the extra taxpayer an additional $500 per year. (A lower rate would conversely save us money.) He also worried about the cost impact if Republican legislators who are pushing to eliminate the tax deductions for municipal bonds succeed.
Some residents like Joanne Pearson spoke about the lasting impact of approving a project with such high cost to taxpayers that it would drive some residents out of town and prohibit some families from being able to move in. Claire Reynolds was upset about the project adding to an already unsustainable tax rate. She pointed to one of the arguments under the single No vote in the Advisory report to Town Meeting.
(Advisory was split 3-1-2. Two members abstained, opining voters should make up their mind. The Chair wasn’t part of the vote since he was part of the Neary Building Committee.)
Kelsey Carvel was among the residents who pushed the importance of investing in our schools. She said that the difference between a yes and no vote was a “negligible” cost and that Southborough will start to sink in the rankings and lose property values if we neglect schools.
Later, Jessical Levinson who organizes the Free Community Fridge to support residents who need it noted her upset that officials and community members using “highly reductive” language like “negligible” and “immaterial” about the costs that are significant to many households. “You’re asking people to give up food that they need to eat.”
As for property values, residents like Ann Atamian worried about a Yes vote being worse for their property values. Atamian said that the community is comprised of “micro market neighborhoods”. Her neighborhood is “very dependent on Finn School”, where she sees people having nice moments with their kids as they walk them to school.
The Project Site
For a number of residents, the idea of closing Finn was a sticking point for them. And that overlapped with residents who worried about the chosen site downhill from a landfill.
Bonnie Phaneuf outlined her concerns about the location and potential toxins. Mark Davis reiterated that the stream and wetlands serve as a buffer between the site and Neary. The site is continually tested and if anything concerning turns up there are “engineering controls” that can be put in place that aren’t currently needed.
Phaneuf’s concerns were echoed by others who echoed her request for a statement from the Board of Health. BOH member Liz Zulick said that they had looked into the issue multiple times, and the Town is working under the oversight of MassDEP. She said the board would continue to ensure that safe environmental protections are followed closely.
