The Select Board is still working out their specific asks for voters at the March 2nd Special Town Meeting. Voters will directly decide whether or not to pay to fix Neary School’s failing roof and proposed steps to addressing the future of Southborough public school buildings.
The Town Meeting is part of a multi-stage plan for short and long term solutions to dealing with the aging Neary building. Tuesday night, board members continued to clash on some details as they hash out their approach for this next big step.
The Select Board hopes to finalize language in the Warrant at their next regular meeting on February 3rd.
A main point of contention was a proposal by member Al Hamilton. As Hamilton wrote in a letter to the editor on this blog, he wants to include an option to study spending only up to $15M on a project that would tackle only the “must haves” for improving Neary School to continue operating for only 15 years. In Tuesday’s meeting, he referred to the list as the “Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” plan.
The figure proposed by Hamilton was one he admitted was a “political” dollar figure he believed would be palatable to voters. It was not based on real estimates for what could be done, although he appeared to believe it was possible.
Upon questioning from Vice Chair Marguerite Landry, he confirmed that he was including about $5M for the roof replacement and $10M for the additional building work.
Positions on Neary Study
While the Select Board members’ positions remain similar to the debate I covered in mid-December, there were some developments. Hamilton specified a list of needed improvements for Neary continuing operating. That included installation of a fire suppression system.
In their December 16th meeting, Hamilton had advocated for a plan to avoid triggering updates to meet modern building codes, including sprinkler systems. He asserted that evacuation plans save lives while sprinklers are for saving buildings. That statement prompted backlash. In a community Facebook group, some argued that sprinklers slow the spread of fire and reduce danger of smoke inhalation for occupants who aren’t able to be quickly evacuated.
The most notable response was a public comment made by Southborough’s Fire Chief Andrew Puntini at the board’s January 6th meeting. His rebuttal of Hamilton’s assertion included:
While this may have reflected the original intent of the earliest sprinkler systems, modern fire sprinkler systems have evolved significantly and are now recognized as a primary life safety feature.
This week, upon questioning from School Committee member Roger Challen, Hamilton acknowledged that as a “politician”, he knew he had lost that fight.
Hamilton has argued that he believes school enrollments will decline in about 15 years. (He outlined his rationale for that belief and his experience in studying demographics in a comment this blog here.) He also believes the timing would line up for when a project to renovate/replace Finn School would make sense.
Select Board member Kathy Cook, who served on past committees related to the New Neary Building project and potential consolidation of schools, disagreed with his enrollment assumption. She argued that demographers will tell you that trying to make projections beyond 10 years doesn’t work.
Select Board member Tim Fling had publicly wavered on the plan to seek the costs for renovating Neary to last for just 15 years. After initially advocating for that approach last spring, he dug into the data as a member of this summer’s PreK – 8 School Building Committee. In December, he explained that based on what he learned, he didn’t believe it was viable.
But this week, Fling and Hamilton indicated they were still working together on the approach. Fling supported seeking data for the possibility of avoiding some code requirements. (An approach Hamilton referred to as walking a tightrope.) He wanted the public to be able to compare the costs for extending Neary’s life by 15 years or 40+ years.
Explaining the work they’ve been doing, Fling stressed that they aren’t trying to updates they see as related to safety:
My kids are going to go into this. So I have a vested interest in how this building is, too.
He cited installing energy efficient windows, replacing/adding insulation to all of the walls, and replacing the entire electrical system as examples of code upgrades that he wouldn’t want to invest in for a shorter term use of the building.1
All of the Select Board members agreed that it makes sense to incorporate Hamilton’s limited list of building improvements as one of the aspects to be studied. Chair Andrew Dennington suggested there was enough overlap with the Article for studying broader Neary improvement costs that it wouldn’t add much to the contract expense.
However, the majority, including Fling, disagreed with including Hamilton’s “arbitrary” $15M as a hard cap.
Cook argued that she believed that the list of items that Hamilton proposed to be tackled would be a much bigger figure. She was willing to include the number if pushed, but didn’t think including one person’s number was fair. She later argued:
I appreciate you trying to keep this the impact down. We all want to do that. But if it’s not a realistic number what good does it do?
Fling believed the figure could be provided to a contractor for useful context rather than a “hard number”. He wanted to learn what was possible with just $15M, what could they do with a little more, etc. For studying potential projects at Neary, he argued for outlining:
These are must haves. These are not debatable. So, we must make sure the building can stand for the next 15 years. . . We would like to have this educational reconfiguration. . . We’d like to do all these other things. So, this is our goal. We know we might not be able to afford it. So, what what how much is the must haves? And if we want to do everything to get where we want to go, what does that cost?
In multiple public comments, parent Mary Tinti argued against using unsupported figures:
I think you speak from a place of strength when you talk about what are our must haves, what is that list versus putting a political cap on it. . . when you keep throwing out numbers that do not equate to that value set, you are confusing the issue from now until the time that we vote.
Hamilton wasn’t ready to give up on including a hard figure. Instead, he wanted to do more work on the number. In his letter to the editor, he explained that a “budget cap” is needed to ensure that “‘feature creep’ does not get out of hand.”
Although Hamilton was outnumbered, the other board members were seeking a unified position the board could present at the Special Town Meeting. They appeared to worry that a debate among them would tank the Articles, and the Town would fail to make progress on addressing the Neary building issues.
The Specific STM Articles
The board reviewed four draft warrant articles expected to appear on the March 2nd Special Town Meeting warrant. Articles 1 through 3 relate to feasibility studies for potential school renovations and expansions plus associated design, planning, architectural, and engineering work. Article 4 concerns the replacement of the Neary School roof.
- Article 1 seeks up to $175,000 for Neary renovations & improvements
- Article 2 seeks up to $324,000 for Trottier Middle School & Finn School renovations & expansions — adding grades 5 & 2 (Woodward School would be used for grades 3 & 4)
- Article 3 seeks up to $500,000 for Finn renovations & (larger) expansion – adding grades 2 & 3 (Woodward would be used for grades 4 & 5)
As initially drafted, if all 3 were passed, that would cost up to $999,000. Upon questioning from Fling about why Article 3 costs so much more than Article 4, Dennington suggested they could sharpen pencils on those figures. And based on overlapping work, he suggested planning for a potential motion to lower the amount in Article 3 if Article 2 passes.
At the same time, it seems the cost of Article 1 could rise. Not only did the board agree to add Hamilton’s list, but they also agreed that work that was specified in the draft for Article 4.
Since the Town is still waiting on an official quote for the roof replacement work, the amount in Article 4 was blank. (They hope to have a figure by the end of this month.) The draft Article in the packet included funding a “”Feasibility Study evaluating additional capital repairs and building systems, including but not limited to asbestos abatement, fire suppression, electrical, HVAC, window replacement and ADA compliance”. Members agreed that shouldn’t be bundled with the roof work.
Fling continued to be uncertain about the approach of listing each Article separately. Fling appeared to worry about the impact on a future Town Meeting and ballot initiative for a building project if voters at the March STM only approve one or two of the studies.
In prior meetings, the board had talked about having one Article that combined all three, followed by individual Articles in case the first one failed. This week, the majority seemed to oppose that approach
More Public Reaction
In a public comment, Kristen LaVault asked the board to stop referring to “Hamilton’s amendment”. She argued that the approach has broader community support. Instead, they should call it the MVP or most conservative option. Reiterating her worries about the economy and a potential downturn, she stressed “We’re facing kind of extraordinary times.”
In contrast, Kelly Conklin criticized the approach by asking the board to consider:
who gets to decide what our must haves are. Is it the select board? Is it the school district? And what is the basis for that decision?
She noted that she was echoing a comment by Tinti who had asked the board to consider replacing Neary’s gym as a need. She pointed to the popularity of youth basketball and the gym’s insufficiency to be used for official games. Cook agreed with both Conklin and Tinti. She said it should be “the Town” that decides what is needed. And she believed that the basketball court should be renovated, along with the kitchen. The list proposed by Hamilton, and supported by Fling, doesn’t include either. In Hamilton’s letter to the editor, he wrote:
The layout would not be reconfigured, and the kitchen would remain a warming kitchen (as is has been for over a decade).
Referring to the Finn expansion, Bonnie Phaneuf asked if the town had investigated its ability to use the abutting Mooney Field (protected under Article 97). Fling responded that based on information from Town Counsel, changing the land use would require approval from the state legislature.
The board talked to attending School Committee member Roger Challen about the potential for them to vote on their positions on the Articles before the board finalizes the Warrant. Challen said he believed it was too late to add the agenda item to their meeting scheduled for tonight (Thursday, January 22nd.) And he wasn’t sure what the committee would be asked to vote on since the draft Warrant was being revised.
The School Committee’s next regular monthly meeting is scheduled for February 4th.
The Select Board will discuss the Warrant again at their next regular meeting, the evening of Tuesday, February 3rd. If necessary to make the deadline for posting the public Warrant, Dennington noted they could also schedule a special meeting for the week of February 10th.
Hamilton highlighted that the board could still revise what motions they make at Town Meeting after the Warrant is posted. Cook cautioned about causing confusion for voters. Hamilton agreed, but followed that it was an option if something changes after the Warrant is signed. They agreed that if that happened, it would be important to publicize the revised motions ahead of the meeting.
(The Select Board has a meeting scheduled for this Saturday. But that joint meeting with the Advisory Committee and Capital & Improvement Planning Committee is their annual Budget Summit in preparation for the Annual Town Meeting in April.)
Meeting Details Reminder
The Special Town Meeting is scheduled to open at 6:00 pm on Monday, March 2nd in Trottier Middle School’s auditorium. It is open to all registered voters in Southborough (and their children). If you aren’t registered as a Southborough voter yet, that deadline is February 20th (5:00 pm). Learn more here.
