The NEARIE Building Committee communication subcommittee on Feb. 28 reviewed themes from a recent public office-hours session and agreed to tighten its outreach materials to address residents’ questions about site selection, hazardous materials and tax impacts.

Committee members said turnout at the session was small but vocal. "There were six folks there," said Roger, a voting member, who summarized the session. "They really were focused on asking why we didn't do something different." He and others said attendees repeatedly urged the committee to consider returning to the Finn site and to add a second floor at Finn rather than proceed with the option currently under consideration.

The discussion matters because public resistance on site selection could shape messages ahead of the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) deadline and the town's upcoming presentation and vote. Committee members said many attendees expressed categorical objection to the Finn site because of hazardous-materials concerns and said no explanation would suffice to convince them the site was safe.

Committee members described three recurring information gaps to address: (1) why the current option was chosen and why Finn is not currently in scope, (2) whether there is a contingency plan if a town vote fails, and (3) the expected tax impact compared with other options. "We need to be able to explain why not Finn," the chair said, noting legal and prior-application issues raised with MSBA in earlier conversations. Members also discussed clarifying that the district did not apply to MSBA for a Finn-based solution and that, when previously explored, the district was told it would "go to the back of the line."

Members agreed they must better target the middle of the town spectrum — residents who are undecided and could be persuaded by clear information — rather than audiences unlikely to change their position. "There's a whole continuum of people from ‘I'm never going to support this’ to 'I'm in a percent support,'" one committee member said, adding the priority should be those in the middle who need clear, concise facts.

To reach those residents the subcommittee endorsed several communications moves: updating and consolidating website content (including a stand‑alone page addressing the Finn question and hazardous-materials testing), tightening FAQs, posting the town-meeting presentation in advance, and distributing a one-page postcard and QR code linking to project materials. Committee members also discussed coordinating messaging with MSBA and validating procedural questions with the town clerk and town counsel, particularly about contingency steps if a ballot or town-meeting vote fails.

Members noted practical questions raised at public sessions about relocation costs and logistics; while no finalized relocation cost figures were presented at the Feb. 28 meeting, one member cited comparative cost scenarios discussed internally. The subcommittee agreed these financial details should be clearly summarized when updated estimates are available.

The committee scheduled its next meeting to continue communications planning and said it will rework website content and FAQs before broad distribution of printed materials.

The subcommittee did not take any vote on project selection or technical analyses at the Feb. 28 meeting; its actions were limited to communications planning and scheduling.