Southborough Neary Building communications subcommittee reviews public feedback, plans outreach ahead of revised cost estimate

The Neary Building Committee Communications Subcommittee met Jan. 31 and reviewed feedback gathered from two kinder-group sessions, a seniors’ open office hour and other public outreach as it prepares messaging around a revised cost estimate expected in about 10 days.

The subcommittee heard that education-related details were the largest recurring request. "The largest point of discussion was around the education and making sure that that was very clear to the community," Jason said, summarizing the kinder-group sessions that drew about 40 participants over two meetings. He said participants asked for clearer explanations of instructional spaces, specialist staffing and how students would be accommodated during transition periods.

The committee prioritized preparing three communication plans tied to whether the updated estimate rises, falls or remains the same. Jason said the committee will coordinate timing so the public has an opportunity to respond, noting that the estimate update could arrive in "1 to 2 weeks." The subcommittee also asked the finance subcommittee to prepare to support messaging about cost.

Other recurring concerns included the project’s cost (with several residents asking why a higher-cost option was chosen), proximity to a landfill and traffic impacts. Jason said some residents questioned the legal rationale for not using the FIN parcel and did not accept the committee’s legal explanation. The subcommittee noted it has not performed traffic studies; members said a study is needed to assess vehicle impacts on Parkerville and nearby streets such as Clifford and Deerfoot if two additional grades move to the site.

Accessibility advocates asked to review the design after funding is secured. Jason said the public accessibility committee requested involvement to ensure that items added after construction (for example, mounted accessories or hardware) would not undermine accessibility, even if the building initially meets code. Jason noted that Cathy Cook attended part of a session and was able to "address the standards that, from a design perspective, they live up to." The committee agreed to consider a post-funding design review by the accessibility group.

Outreach mechanics and timing also drew focus. An initial seniors’ open office hour drew four sustained participants, who said the event was not well advertised; most attendees had learned of the meeting via Facebook. Roger said the committee’s scheduling has been "too fluid" to rely on the senior center’s bi-monthly newsletter as the primary notice tool. The committee directed staff to post flyers earlier, expand website prominence for FAQs and continue a mix of office hours and group-specific meetings (for example, principal coffees) to reach parents.

Web accessibility and content placement were flagged: the committee intends to move FAQs and key documents from buried menu items to a more prominent position on the project website because most visitors reach the site by phone and may not find buried pages. Jason said many questions asked offline were already answered on the website, but users struggled to locate the information.

The subcommittee agreed to continue the current cadence of meetings and outreach: open office hours posted through early March, principal coffees scheduled for February–April aimed at elementary parents, and additional senior center sessions after Feb. 14 if scheduling allows. The committee set its next meeting for two weeks from Jan. 31 at 9 a.m.

Action: the committee adjourned by motion; roll-call votes recorded an "aye" from Denise, Roger and the meeting chair. The meeting concluded with the committee planning follow-up communications tied to the forthcoming cost update.