Above: The newly created committee will study all “feasible configurations” for using the four existing schools and/or building new ones for Southborough Public Schools students, and impacts of any potential closures. (images from Google Maps)
On July 1st, the Select Board will consider appointing applicants for 3 “at large” members of a new ad-hoc “Pre-K to 8 School Building Committee”.
This week the board approved the charge on the “revised Neary Building Committee”. The ambitious goal is for it to issue a final report to the board and community by the end of August.
The committee will work this summer to pull together details for “apples to apples” comparisons of at least seven options for housing students in Southborough public schools. For each option, they’ll fill into a matrix 16 data related to costs, educational impacts, safety, and other “domino effects”.
A separate parallel effort overseen by the Select Board and School Committee will survey residents on their feelings about options, and specific issues they are concerned about. (Scroll down for more on the survey.)
The Charge
The committee’s core task is to compile a comparison matrix evaluating the following potential configurations of school buildings for Pre-K to 8th grade students:
- Trottier serves Grades 3-6, Woodward serves Grades 7-8
- Finn serves Pre-K to 2, Woodward serves 3-4, Trottier serves 5-8
- Minimal renovation of Neary (assumed “deferred maintenance” only)
- Finn expanded or renovated to serve four grades (Pre-K to 3)
- Full ADA/current code-compliant renovation of Neary
- New four-grade school at Neary
- New Pre-K to 5 school at a suitable location (including possible use of the Finn site)
The group can evaluate other “feasible configurations” that come up.
For each of the options, the committee will put together details on each of the following “criteria”:
- Estimated Capital Cost
- Summary of Major Cost Categories
- Estimated State/Federal Reimbursement (if available)
- Neary Site Demolition & Remediation Cost (if applicable)
- Operational Savings or Added Costs (e.g., busing, staffing, utilities)
- Operational Cost/Savings Summary
- Net Town Cost (after reimbursements and offsets)
- Expected Renovation or Construction Timeframe
- Life Expectancy (in years)
- Safety Considerations (e.g., egress, suppression, lead/asbestos)
- Educational Considerations (e.g., grade alignment, delivery model)
- Domino Effects (e.g., reuse or sale of other town properties, additional investment in other structures for modified use)
- Home Value Implication (e.g., proximity to a school changes)
- Other Pros & Cons
- Total Town Project Cost including domino effects and secondary investments
- Executive Summary of Option
In addition to the three at-large members, the committee will include representatives of the School Committee, Select Board, Advisory Committee, and Capital Improvement and Planning Committee.
For the three At Large seats, the board will give “strong preference” to “new participants who have not recently served on similar town committees”. Because of voiced concerns about the impact closing Finn School would have on property values in that area, the board encouraged concerned residents from the neighborhood/south side of town to apply.
The board is seeking for at least some of the 7 members to have “experience with construction of public buildings”.
You can view the full charge (from the draft in the meeting packet) that was approved on June 17th, here.
So far, the Town hasn’t advertised the opportunity. But you can apply for a seat on the committee here.
The Intent & Debate
The charge was put together by Chair Andrew Dennington and the newest member Tim Fling.
Upon questioning from the public, Fling assured that the August 31st deadline isn’t an effort to get to prepare for an upcoming Town Meeting. He explained that he wanted to capitalize on momentum and “strike while the iron’s hot”. He noted that they still have a little money left with their contracted consultant from the Neary Building project. And he is under the impression that most of the data has already been collected and is available.
He followed that if they can’t finish the work by the deadline, they can ask for an extension. But by that point:
at least have an idea of what ideas are rising up. And then we can decide. . . do we need more money to study those ideas further? Do we just pause all this and reenter MSBA in a couple years? I mean, we don’t know what we don’t know.
Member Al Hamilton was the sole member who voted against the charge. He continued to oppose including in the matrix the project that voters just rejected. He also opposed including members from the prior committee or any representation from the Advisory and Capital Committees.
Fling defended the inclusion of past NBC members, explaining that he wanted to leverage their knowledge of data already collected and analyzed to help fill in the matrix more rapidly. On the other hand, the committees are able to change which members represent them on the committee. Fling is replacing Kathy Cook as the Select Board’s rep.
A few residents objected to the “apples to apples” comparisons including the state’s promised reimbursement for the Neary Building Project that just failed. Fling explained that the other construction, renovation, and repair options would also show the potential reimbursement for other projects under a future MSBA application round, along with the projected inflation costs for waiting for a round. But Patricia Burns Fiore argued that it would unfairly favor the Neary Building Project by dangling the $35 million reimbursement without the inflation factor. She wanted everything to be looked at from “ground zero” on flat footing.
The board didn’t debate the point this week. But their vote on the charge and sentiment in prior meetings show that four of the members still believe that keeping the project approved by the MSBA on the table should be one of the options the public can compare.
In his letter updating the MSBA last month on the failed votes to support the Neary Building Project, NSBORO Schools Superintendent Gregory Martineau reported:
The Town of Southborough will use the remaining 120-day window to solicit feedback from citizens and decide whether or not to bring the article back to the citizens for reconsideration. It is our expectation that if the project is brought back for reconsideration that there will be a desire from the community to have a choice of what school project they want to support (e.g., renovation at another school, base repair of existing Neary, grade reconfiguration at other schools, etc).
Survey to be issued this summer
The board won’t wait for results from the new committee’s work to issue a public survey on the school options being studied. A member of the Select Board and of the School Committee will work on it with Town staff and the Chair of the Municipal Technology Committee. They’ll bring back a draft survey to those boards to approve before issuing them.
The concept floated by Dennington and Fling, would seek feedback on options people have heard about, and their concerns. Under the options, questions would include if any “conditions” would be a “stop point altogether” (like cost, building site, closing of a specific school, or grade configuration). This would help them understand with options there could be broad enough support for bringing forward in the future.
Hamilton volunteered to be the board’s representative for working on the survey. He stated that he had “substantial experience in survey research” and stressed the importance of careful wording to avoid “setting the table for. . . a predetermined set of answers”.
There was some debate about the survey focus and whether they should be looking back at why residents voted the way they did or focusing on looking forward, which might require residents to better understand the options and data the committee will have yet to release.
In the end, more details on the survey content was tabled. And the board agreed Hamilton would work with his counterpart on the School Committee.
As I wrote about last week, the survey isn’t the only effort that will run parallel to the new committee’s work. The School Committee will also be working this summer to pull together and report out information that is solely under their purview. That includes a safety assessment of the current Neary School. (Read more about that here.)
Updated (6/20/25 3:40 pm): After the story was posted for a few minutes earlier, I realized I missed some of the discussion about the survey. I took down the post to watch that, then replaced the text with a more accurate description of the board’s decision.
Updated (6/24/25 10:33 am): The Town posted the flyer right on the website this morning recruiting volunteers to apply.
