The Neary Building Committee presented a recommendation to replace the aging Neary (NHERI) elementary school with a new two-story, four-grade school, citing failing systems, accessibility and safety gaps, and educational benefits from consolidating grades. The committee said it will propose a $108.5 million project at upcoming town votes and is estimating roughly $35 million in state reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

The committee’s chair, Jason, summarized the project and the process that led to the recommendation and told the audience, “Costs have changed. They've come down. We've gotten our MSDA grant pretty much solidified.” He said the MSBA process and several rounds of design review and community feedback produced a final schematic the committee now recommends sending to voters.

Why it matters: Committee members repeatedly pointed to building-condition studies and an ADA review as primary drivers. The committee said NHERI’s core systems — roof, windows, electrical and HVAC — are at or beyond expected service life, asbestos has been identified in building materials, there is no fire-suppression system, and the building “failed on about every avenue possible” in a 2021 ADA compliance review. The proposed new building is designed to meet current safety standards, consolidate services and special-education programming, and preserve long-term operating efficiencies the district expects to realize after opening.

Most important facts: The schematic design shown to the public totals about 99,564 square feet and the committee is proposing a gross project price of $108.5 million. The committee’s current estimate of MSBA reimbursement is roughly $35 million (final MSBA approval is pending), leaving an estimated town share of about $68 million. The committee also said it is pursuing roughly $5 million in state and federal incentives tied to energy measures (including an approximately $4 million federal incentive contingent on federal programs) and expects gross debt service of about $4 million per year on the town share under the financing assumptions presented (30-year bond, 4.25% interest). The committee estimates steady-state net household impact at roughly $703 per year per average residential property when operational savings are included.

Design and educational rationale: School leaders and district staff argued the four-grade configuration improves continuity for students and teachers, allows ‘learning neighborhoods’ that group grades into smaller communities inside the larger school, and increases the district’s ability to deliver specialized services on site rather than sending students out of district. Dr. Ryan Horn told the committees the design supports “greater academic alignment and vertical alignment” and said the plan includes more and improved spaces for special-education, occupational and physical therapy, art and music — all planned to reduce out‑of‑district placements.

Funding, schedules and contingencies: The committee described the MSBA process as prescriptive and iterative; the MSBA requires communities to study a set of alternatives and approve steps before advancing. The Neary project is entering the funding phase; the MSBA will vote in a public meeting (the committee noted an April 30 MSBA meeting in the slide deck). If both town votes succeed (a town meeting appropriation vote and a separate ballot vote), the committee expects to select a construction manager at risk, complete about a year of full design, and then approximately two years of construction — targeting an opening in fall 2028 if timelines hold. The current budget includes roughly $12 million in design and construction contingencies; the committee said the owner’s and construction contingency layers are standard at this phase.

Energy, site issues and alternatives: The committee recommended a ground-source heat-pump system (geothermal) after evaluating alternatives, noting a higher upfront cost offset by incentives and lower operating costs. Committee staff said the geothermal option produces a lower net lifecycle cost given the incentives they believe will be available; they also said the choice can be revisited if federal incentives change. Several speakers raised groundwater and the adjacent capped landfill as concerns; the committee scheduled a separate technical session to present the hydrogeology, monitoring plan and any required mitigation. Committee engineering consultants told the group that monitoring wells and design features will be added to protect the building and allow ongoing testing.

What a failed vote would mean: Committee members said that if voters do not approve funding within the MSBA’s required 180‑day funding window, the MSBA could release the earmarked funds and the town would lose its place in the current state pipeline. Committee members said that outcome would require the town to re-evaluate options (repair NHERI, use modular classrooms, reconfigure grades across other schools or reapply to the MSBA) and that construction costs generally do not decline over multi-year pauses.

Public questions and concerns: Residents’ questions focused on taxpayer impact, alternatives such as reusing existing schools (Fin, Woodward, Trottier), teacher licensure implications of grade reconfiguration, and the capped landfill/wastewater and groundwater risks on the site. The committee responded that the MSBA-required alternatives process limited some options (for example, including Finn in the MSBA application would have required restarting the MSBA process), and that the proposed plan was the product of multi-year study with substantial public input.

Votes at a glance: The advisory committee voted to support the Neary project as recommended by the Neary Building Committee. The motion “Advisory Committee supports the Neary (NHERI) project article at the special town meeting” was approved by advisory committee members present. (See structured action below for the recorded vote.)

Next steps: The committee urged residents to attend town meeting and the May ballot vote (two separate votes) and stressed that residents must be physically present to vote in the town meeting article vote. The committee posted the full schematic design report and supporting materials on the project website and scheduled additional informational sessions (detailed slide and Q&A sessions, a finance deep dive and a technical session on the landfill and site) before the town meeting and ballot votes.

Ending note: Committee members acknowledged a range of opinions in the community and repeatedly said the proposal represents a compromise among educational goals, state reimbursement rules, and cost constraints. The MSBA and town approvals remain required steps before construction could begin.