Select Board sets Feb. 28 special town meeting to evaluate three Neary School options amid debate over full renovation vs. shorter‑term repair
Summary
The Select Board set a Saturday, Feb. 28 special town meeting to consider three warrant articles for Neary School—(A) full schematic renovation at the existing site, (B) feasibility/schematic for expanding other schools and closing Neary, and (C) feasibility/schematic for moving fifth grade—with board members divided over a long‑term full renovation, a 15‑year interim repair plan, and whether to give architects cost guardrails.
The Southborough Select Board on Dec. 16 voted to set a special town meeting for Saturday, Feb. 28 at 10 a.m. to decide the future of Neary School. Chair Andrew presented draft warrant language that would place three options before voters: schematic design for a full renovation at the existing site, feasibility and schematic design for expanding other schools and closing Neary (including Article 97 and environmental considerations), and feasibility/schematic work for sending fifth grade to Trottier or Finn with site‑specific constraints.
Board members and staff discussed the scope and purpose of those articles. Tim argued that articles should include schematic design ("feasibility and up to or and or schematic design") to allow apples‑to‑apples cost comparisons, and he urged including cost estimates for expansion options so voters would have realistic figures. Al advocated a fiscally conservative alternative he described as keeping Neary functional for about 15 years—"put a roof on NHERI ASAP...remove and replace the asbestos components, and do the ADA compliance"—to avoid triggering energy‑code upgrades that would substantially raise costs. "This type of plan...is fiscally prudent," Al said.
Kathy and others said they favored fully costing and presenting the three primary options so voters can choose a long‑term solution; Kathy said the school committee supports a complete renovation intended to last 40+ years. Kathy also emphasized the roof's condition and cited a prior estimate that roof replacement will be necessary; she said the roof replacement is likely unavoidable and should be considered in April funding preparations.
The board debated whether to give architects an upfront cost cap or a "financial guardrail". Tim and others supported producing a not‑to‑exceed guideline or tax‑impact estimate to inform voters; Kathy argued that an arbitrary cap risks producing an infeasible design and that architects should return full costs. The board also discussed demographic projections from RLS: a transitory increase in births but a longer‑term declining trend, which some members said supports a conservative approach and others said is too uncertain to assume 15‑year obsolescence.
Several members of the public spoke in favor of including a shorter‑term, lower‑cost option on the warrant so voters can choose among alternatives. Capital Committee members and residents noted that a phased approach (replace roof now, plan larger work later) can be an efficient path and possibly more palatable to voters. Board members agreed to refine article language and to secure cost estimates and schematic scopes for the three options before advancing articles to town meeting.
The meeting did not adopt a final scope or dollar amounts for any article; the Select Board asked staff and consultants to return with clearer cost figures and to coordinate with the Capital Committee and outside consultants before the Jan. 13 capital review and ahead of the Feb. 28 special town meeting.
