At a special Town of Southborough meeting, voters failed to approve Article 1 — an appropriation of $108,517,205 to design, construct and equip a new Margaret A. Neary School — when the moderator ruled the tally did not meet the two-thirds threshold required for passage.

The appropriation in the motion would have authorized the town treasurer, with select board approval, to borrow the full amount under MGL Chapter 44 and anticipated the town applying for a Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) grant; the warrant language noted any MSBA grant would be discretionary and that the grant would not exceed 46.76% of eligible approved project costs as determined by the MSBA.

The vote followed more than three hours of public comment and a series of procedural motions. Voters first approved a motion to end debate and proceed to a vote; a later motion to conduct the article vote by secret ballot failed, and the final voice/hand-count on Article 1 did not reach the two-thirds majority the moderator said was required, so the appropriation failed.

Why it mattered: The proposal would have replaced the current Neary building with a roughly 99,000-square-foot, four-grade elementary school the Neary Building Committee said is intended to meet contemporary safety, accessibility and educational program standards and to reduce future capital needs across the district. Supporters argued a new building would deliver long-term operational efficiencies, enhance safety, and help retain and recruit teachers. Opponents raised the project cost, potential tax impacts, alternatives using existing buildings, and environmental risk from an adjacent, capped landfill.

Most important facts

- The motion on the floor requested $108,517,205 to design, build and equip a new Margaret A. Neary School. The motion text specifically referenced MGL Chapter 44 borrowing authority and noted the MSBA grant program is discretionary.

- The Neary Building Committee and its chair, Jason Malinowski, told voters the schematic design completed in recent months yields a roughly 99,000-square-foot building and that the planned timeline (if approved) would be about one year of design followed by approximately two years of construction, with optimistic occupancy in fall 2028.

- Committee leaders and project staff said the town’s share of the project is currently estimated at about 68.2% of the approved project cost after MSBA reimbursement; the MSBA grant cap cited in the warrant was 46.76% of eligible approved project costs as determined by MSBA.

- The project budget includes roughly $12 million of contingency. Committee members said the construction procurement would use a “construction manager at risk” delivery method to try to manage cost uncertainty.

- Opponents pointed to alternatives: reconfiguring existing schools (moving grade 5 to Trottier Middle School, repurposing Finn and Woodward) and a previously studied “base repairs” plan for Neary. Neary Building Committee members said Finn and other sites were analyzed and had constraints that made them unsuitable for the preferred solution or would push the town to the back of the MSBA queue.

- Environmental concerns were repeatedly raised because the Neary site sits adjacent to a capped former town landfill. Residents cited groundwater and monitoring-well results that they characterized as showing “reportable” levels of contaminants. Town officials and members of the building committee, including Mark Davis, said the town and state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have monitored the landfill for decades, that wetlands in the area help collect flows, and that additional monitoring wells, vapor barriers, radon-style venting and other controls are proposed as mitigation.

- Procedural notes: Voters passed a motion to end debate and move to a vote (mover recorded in the transcript as Dhoomil Shah). A citizen motion to use secret ballot (mover Patricia Burns Fiore) failed. When the moderator called for the Article 1 vote the moderator announced the result “does not receive a two-thirds majority” and declared the motion failed. The meeting then voted to dissolve.

Key voices and quotes

- Jason Malinowski, chair of the Neary Building Committee: “This is a plan, not an idea. It sets forward the future of our Southborough Public Schools.”

- Mark Davis, Neary Building Committee member with experience in environmentally challenged development: “Wetlands are our friend,” and he described long-term monitoring and proposed engineering controls including vapor barriers and radon-type venting beneath the foundation.

- Gene Carmelak, resident and presenter of an alternative proposal: “I’m here to present an alternative to the proposed new Neary school that will not cost the town $108,000,000.”

- Patricia Burns Fiore, voter (motioned for secret ballot): “I would like to make a motion that we vote on article 1 via a private ballot.”

- Greg Martineau, superintendent, reading a statement from the Southborough Teachers Association: “Our ability to adapt doesn’t mean that substandard learning environments are acceptable.”

What supporters said: Building-committee members, school leaders and many supporters emphasized educational benefits, updated safety systems, ADA compliance, modern teaching spaces and the opportunity to address multiple deferred capital needs in one project. The committee noted the MSBA had advanced the project through its four-stage process and that failing to secure local funding within MSBA’s timeline would end the MSBA partnership (the committee said MSBA gives a fixed local window, typically 120 days, to secure local funds).

What opponents said: Residents emphasized the cost and tax impacts, questioned long-term projections and estimated savings, and pressed for additional environmental testing or an alternate site because the Neary parcel is adjacent to a long-closed landfill. Several residents urged reusing or reconfiguring Finn, Woodward and Trottier schools rather than new construction.

Process and next steps

Because the appropriation failed to receive the two-thirds vote required by the warrant motion, the Neary Building Committee and town leaders will need to decide the town’s next steps. Committee members warned that MSBA involvement would lapse if the town does not secure local funding within the MSBA’s required window, requiring a reentry to MSBA’s queue (committee indicated reapplication could add several years). Select board members said if the appropriation fails the boards and committees would reconvene to consider alternatives, including the previously studied base-repair scenario for Neary (committee cited an estimate of roughly $40 million for major base repairs after state reimbursement) and other capital strategies.

Ending

Voters left the meeting with the status quo intact: the present Neary building remains the district’s responsibility and the town must now decide whether to pursue a revised plan, an alternative capital approach, or to re-engage the MSBA in the future. Town officials emphasized the need for further community engagement and for stakeholders on all sides to take part in whatever process follows.