Consultants: Neary School roof in failed condition; Select Board backs roof borrowing and advances warrant language for March special town meeting

SoCoTech consultants Jim Russo and Andrew Barr presented an assessment that the Neary School's roof system (30 years old, roughly 63,000 sq ft) is in a failed condition, with ponding water, detached insulation (about 22,000 sq ft unattached), and approximately 8,000 linear feet of failed seams. Russo said the membrane has lost tensile strength and that partial blow‑off over the gymnasium had already occurred. Their recommendation was for a full roof replacement; their current construction estimate for the roof portion is about $4.5 million (the package with contingencies reported in the consultant document was $4,496,002.45).

The consultants noted that the size and cost of the roof project may trigger a building‑value threshold (around 30% of assessed building value), which could in turn require ADA upgrades and other code work. They provided an example estimate that upgrades tied to the trigger could add roughly $2,000,000 or more, and said the work would likely be scheduled so the majority of roofing replacement could be completed over the summer with some punch-list items into September.

Select Board members and school committee representatives vigorously debated what to include on the special town meeting warrant (March 2): a stand‑alone roof borrowing article (Article 4, $4.5 million), and separate feasibility/schematic design articles (Article 1, $175,000; Article 2, $500,000; Article 3, $324,000) to study renovation alternatives for NHERI, Finn and Trotter. A central point of contention was Option 2's $15,000,000 target/cap for a limited renovation: some board members argued a hard cap is necessary to prevent scope creep and to make a fiscally realistic, passable article, while others argued that a strict cap could eliminate bidders and leave required code compliance undone.

Following a long discussion the board recorded support for the roof article and finalized warrant language with agreed numbers; members discussed amending Article 4 on the floor if Article 1 later passes and reduces the need for some scope items. The board voted to approve the amended warrant and to sign the signature page with final edits to be verified and applied before printing.