My Final Comments

I read Alex Grant’s column in last week’s (December 16) edition of the Longmeadow News (click here to read complete column) but was not surprised to learn that his recent FOI request to the Town of Longmeadow for additional documents relating to the series of SBC/ MSBA correspondence and meetings in November 2009 did not reveal any new information nor any insight as to why the MSBA withdrew at the last minute their concerns (build "new" vs. renovation) for Longmeadow's high school project.    

Click here to view all of the documents obtained through this latest FOI request.

From the documents...

There was an important project meeting between the MSBA and the Longmeadow SBC at the MSBA headquarters (at Longmeadow's request) on November 16- two days before the MSBA Board was scheduled to make their decision on the Longmeadow project.  This meeting was viewed as critical for the project with 15 representatives from Longmeadow (including SBC members, project architects, and local politicians) in attendance.  However, it is quite surprising that no meeting minutes or other published notes were taken by either side (or at least not made public through two separate FOI requests).  The only documentation obtained through the latest FOI request were a series of letters including one (11/17/09) from the School Superintendent thanking the MSBA for the opportunity to present Longmeadow’s information and hoping that it was sufficient for a positive recommendation to the MSBA board on the next day (11/18/10).  Click here to view this correspondence.

Meeting minutes for the two SBC meetings that took place in November 2009 (11/05/09 + 11/19/09) revealed very little about the SBC/MSBA project correspondence, "renovation" vs. "build new" concerns or discussions that took place.

Followers of the Buzz blog know that I was a strong supporter of the school building project until April 2010 when it became apparent that the financial impact on increased property taxes for a new school might become a significant hardship for many residents in town and I publicly spoke out in favor of renovation vs. new construction.

From the beginning of the high school building project activities in June 2009 and through early June 2010 I provided significant IT support to the SBC by creating and maintaining the SBC website which helped keep residents updated and informed about the project.  As the project moved forward, there was no question that the vast majority of town residents believed that we needed to do something about the condition of our high school.  What prompted me to write the blog post in early June 2010 that got me fired as town webmaster was that this entire critical interaction between the MSBA and the SBC in November 2009 was virtually hidden from public view until just prior to the town vote in early June.

When town employees or elected or appointed officials believe that the "end result justifies the means" and that hiding critical project issues from public view is acceptable, this becomes an issue of public trust and transparency in our town government.  This controversy was not about a YES or NO position on the high school building project.

Thank you Alex Grant for trying to get the rest of the story…. I guess that we will never know what really happened.

School Building Committee Meeting- 12/16/10

I attended the SBC meeting last Thursday night and as usual there was little public attendance- 2 town residents (including myself).  I attend these meetings because of my interest in knowing first hand how this committee is going to spend my taxpayer dollars. 

In my past SBC meeting notes, I have noted discussions about the likely project bids being much lower than the estimated $78 million… perhaps as low as $60-65 million given the recent bids for other area high school projects. The new Wilbraham-Hampden Regional HS project is expected to cost $65M (see latest projections as of 12/10/10) vs. original $82.2M with forecasted savings to district taxpayers of $3.8M.  With a significantly lower MSBA reimbursement rate Longmeadow could potentially see much greater savings.

Last June Longmeadow voters gave the SBC authority to spend up to $78 million.  Comments by some SBC members at the October 20 meeting (see notes) and at Thursday's meeting have suggested that because there will be a pot of “unspent” project dollars, the committee should consider adding additional project elements that were not part of the original scope.  Discussion at this meeting also hinted at a possible “spending strategy” to install synthetic turf on the stadium field.  Read the meeting notes below for details.

The agenda for this meeting was of particular interest since there was going to be a discussion + a vote on various project “add alternates” + a number of project scope decisions.  Below are my “meeting notes”…

Scope changes were reviewed and voted.

1. PVC (vs. TPO) was chosen as the preferred roofing material.  There were no cost implications nor performance differences.  A greater US + local installation and life experience with the PVC material gave it the advantage.
2. Waterless urinals (vs. low flow urinals) were chosen.  There is no cost differential but there are maintenance advantages for the waterless urinals.  There is no odor issue with waterless urinals and Roland Joyal indicated that they have worked well at Chicopee High School. 
3. Hand “high velocity forced air” driers were chosen over paper towels for most of the bathrooms. There is a $50-60K increase in cost for hand driers but there are reduced maintenance and paper towel cost savings to compensate for the increased cost. 

Bid “add alternates” (AA) were discussed. 
“Add alternates” are possible project additions to the original scope that are included with the project bid specification package.  A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is developed from this information but this price does not include these AAs.  If the project has unspent money because the GMP is less than the $78 million, some or all of these AAs can be implemented by the SBC.

Tom Murphy of Joslin Lesser & Associates explained there are two types of add alternates… “trade” and “non-trade”.  In accordance with MGL Chapter 149, the “trade” AAs need to be prioritized and implemented in order.  If a decision is made that the SBC does not want to implement AA #1 then they cannot implement AA #2.  The other type AAs, “non-trade” do not require prioritization and any of them can be implemented by the SBC using unspent project monies.

Here are the add alternates that were discussed.

Trade- Add Alternates

#1: replacement of the natatorium ceramic tile floor + relocation of the diving board, cost = $200K

This 1971 wing renovation item was not included with the original project scope.  The pool area floor has some missing tiles and the current location of diving board presents some safety (?) related issues.

This is an item that does not need to be done at the time of the project and could be deferred and implemented through the town’s capital spending plan. SBC member Roland Joyal voiced his strong support for this item.  Because we are building a “new” showcase school, we need to upgrade this part of the facility as well.

#2: Addition of hydraulic lift for the auditorium orchestra pit, cost = $400K
The current project plans include a manual lift system that takes time and resources to move the platform.  Probable use is about 12 times/ year. This item cannot be incorporated at a later date and needs to included in the project bid specification package.   In addition, OMR needs to complete a design for the bid package.

Superintendent Marie Doyle and LHS principal Larry Berte both favored this item (as did Michael Mucci- LHS music dept chairman) and rated it as a higher priority than item #1.

The SBC decided to defer prioritization of the trade AAs until the next SBC meeting on January 5.

Non- Trade Add Alternates

#3: Under terrace outdoor storage, cost = $150K
This item is an additional outdoor enclosed area for storage of equipment and utilizes space under the arts terrace on back east side of the building.  This addition would include a concrete slab on grade and would be useful for storage of equipment including athletic field items that are currently stored under the stadium bleachers.

There were positive comments by Mike Wrabel and other members of the SBC for inclusion of this item.

#4: Additional site landscaping features, cost ~ $100K
This item is a combination of aesthetic landscaping + function including an outdoor classroom(s), benches, etc.  At this point the details are not fully developed and the quote is only a best guess estimate.  There was some discussion that this would be a great project element for public donations.

#5: Synthetic Turf Practice Fields, cost ~ $600K+
There is no provision in the original project scope for installation of synthetic turf practice fields.  The current athletic practice fields will be damaged or eliminated during construction so existing project plans included installation of two new natural grass fields (see drawing).  This synthetic turf proposal was originally limited to the full size field on Grassy Gutter Road/Bliss Road.  However, just this past week a second synthetic turf practice field (located near the gymnasium) was proposed as a possible add alternate.  The $600K quote does not include lights or the second field installation.  $25K for a detailed design package is required in order to include this add alternate in the bid package.  This money would need to be spent even if the SBC decided not to go forward with this AA.

Co-chair Barkett commented that it was Alex Rotsko, LHS Athletic Director who asked for the second synthetic turf practice field.  However, because neither of the new practice fields was lighted, he was not completely satisfied with the plan.  Mr. Barkett stated that Mr. Rotsko would rather see the SBC support installation of synthetic turf for the stadium field.

At this point a number of SBC members voiced their opposition to expend significant money for new project elements that were outside of the original scope.  Both Ms. Jester and co-chair Swanson voiced concerns about supporting this synthetic turf AA and thought that the SBC should solicit feedback from the community.  In addition, Ms. Jester felt that there was insufficient information available about the subject.  Co-chair Barkett felt that the synthetic turf practice field(s) were not outside the scope and that town residents need not be consulted.

Mr. Joyal who had originally proposed synthetic turf for the stadium field during the October 20 SBC meeting (see meeting notes) felt that the SBC already had the authority to do so.  He also stated that most new high school projects included synthetic turf fields (representatives at the meeting from Gilbane stated that this was not true). Mr. Joyal also stated that “sports is the front porch of your school” meaning that if our new high school is built without a synthetic turf stadium field, our school would be looked at as an inferior facility.

An interesting comment was made by Jeanne Roberts of OMR who reminded the group that funding for many of the new public high schools with synthetic turf cited by Mr. Joyal were funded at a much higher MSBA reimbursement rate than what Longmeadow will be receiving.

Co-chair Barkett stated that the cost of synthetic turf for the stadium field would likely be much greater than $600K since the Americans with Disabilities Act would require a significant upgrade to the high school stadium.  He also believed that installation of synthetic turf for the stadium field was not within the project scope.

Town Manager/SBC member Robin Crosbie proposed that the SBC defer a decision on the synthetic turf until next year and use next year’s Annual Town Meeting to introduce a warrant article to use unspent project monies to install synthetic turf on the stadium field.   This warrant article would only require a simple majority YES vote to pass.

The SBC voted to not include synthetic turf in the project add alternates list but there was a recommendation to form a subcommittee to develop more information on the proposal for later consideration.

Last June Longmeadow voters gave the SBC the authority to build a new high school for $78M (in MSBA terminology, it was a building renovation + new addition, not a new high school).  If the construction climate allows Longmeadow to build this facility for less money, the SBC should try to maximize those savings.  Changes to the project scope to include a hydraulic lift for the auditorium and/ or synthetic turf practice fields are beyond what the average taxpayer voted for last June.

If the town can save $5-10 million on the high school building project, this savings will reduce the taxpayer burden for many years to come.

I would like to see the SBC become more focused upon bringing this project in at the lowest possible price tag- not simply at less than the $78 M. Upgrading the swimming pool area and adding synthetic turf fields should be prioritized with the rest of our town's capital needs. We have many higher priority capital needs in our town.

Don’t forget that our teachers contract comes up for collective bargaining in the next budget cycle for FY2012.

If you are concerned with what you have just read, send an email to:

Robert Barkett-SBC co-chair, rbarkett@longmeadow.org 

Christine Swanson-SBC co-chair, cswanson@longmeadow.org

Just Say No to "Syn"

or Synthetic Turf

In a previous post about the Sept 16 School Building Committee meeting I reported that there was a discussion to include the installation of a new synthetic turf practice field as part of the bid package for the new HS project. Currently, the new HS project includes renovation/ repair of the natural grass practice field since it will likely be damaged during the building construction. At the Sept 16 SBC meeting it was pointed out by co-chair Barkett that the best approach would be to include the synthetic turf field as an “add alternate” to the full project bid package.

Note: “Add alternates” are more expensive project alternatives that can be interchanged if there are project monies available to do so.

At this week’s (10/11/10) Longmeadow School Committee meeting there was an agenda item to discuss support of the installation of a synthetic turf practice field as part of the new LHS building project. Prior to this discussion there were visitor comments by Mary Vogel- past chairperson of the SC who voiced her strong opposition to this proposal. Below is a video with her remarks…



Chairman Armand Wray initiated a discussion about SC support for installation of this synthetic turf if the SBC decides to move forward with this project scope modification and include it with the project bid package. It was clear from Mr. Wray’s remarks that the SBC was looking for a clear commitment by the SC (including a future “rubberstamp” approval) to fully support this proposal.

During the discussion it was pointed out that once the new HS building project is completed, safety, maintenance and operation of a new synthetic turf field will become the full responsibility of the SC. Ms. Jester- a newly elected member of the SC and a member of the SBC stated that she could not support the idea since not enough information had been presented. Ms. Bruns and Ms. DeMarco made similar comments. A motion was made and seconded but it was defeated (3-3) with Wray- Brunette-Weigand in support and Bruns- DeMarco- Jester opposed.

Some additional background info...

A synthetic multi-purpose HS practice field was originally proposed for consideration of CPA funds in 2007 by the Longmeadow Youth Sports Council. A considerable amount of effort was spent preparing this proposal but it was ultimately rejected- mostly on the grounds that it did not meet some of the CPA guidelines. The cost for this project at that time was estimated at $825,000. Here is a link to the full CPA project documentation that was submitted.

CPA Project 2007-2

This latest discussion about installation of a synthetic turf practice field has surfaced because it appears that the our new HS project will cost considerably less than the originally estimated $78 million.- possibly as low as $60 million based upon the recent Wilbraham-Hampden Regional HS project bid.

I expect that our SBC committee and its co-chairs to view any project savings as opportunities for our town to resolve some of our other major infrastructure issues- not as a “pot of gold” that could be spent for new HS options that were not part of the original project scope. I’m sure that we will start hearing the SBC “spin” where $825,000 is only 1% of the total project cost and therefore not a large financial impact or burden on taxpayers.

It will be interesting to see what other “add alternates” will be included with new HS bid package and how many of them are actually implemented.

If we try prioritizing the synthetic turf practice field with our other infrastructure needs (e.g., DPW facility, the two middle schools, roads, water/sewer, etc.) I doubt that it would even show up in a top 10 list.

The SBC has a “fidiciary” responsibility to town residents to build the new high school as originally approved by town voters at the lowest possible cost.

If the bid for our new HS with the original scope and materials selection ends up substantially lower than the originally estimated $78 million, the project spending limit should be reduced appropriately.

Given that the SBC has indicated that the town will receive bids in Spring 2011 timeframe, consideration should be given to formally reduce the allowable project expenditures at the Annual Town Meeting in May.

Something else to consider….

by both sides of the school building project debate.




As described in a news story that appeared in yesterday's Republican, there is an active ballot question initiative to reduce Massachusetts sales taxes from 6.25% to 3%. Approval of this ballot question in November would reduce annual state revenue by up to $2.4 billion beginning January 1, 2011.

A recent poll by Suffolk University/ WHDH-TV found 49% supporting the initiative and 44% opposed and 7% undecided.

According to Michael Widmer of the business-backed Mass Taxpayers Foundation that does not support the initiative, half of the state budget is dedicated to mandatory spending with only local aid to cities and towns, human education and higher education available for cuts.

Click here to read the full story….

Some issues to consider when deciding how to vote on the Proposition 2½ debt exclusion question at tonight’s special town meeting and at next week’s election…

1. Katherine Craven- Executive Director of the MSBA told us last week that one percent of the state sales tax is committed to the MSBA and used to provide money for Massachusetts school building projects. If Longmeadow does not approve the grant money now, the funds used by MSBA may be reduced significantly and not be available to Longmeadow in the future. She did state that the promised funds for Longmeadow are already set aside.

2. A relatively small reduction (4%) in state aid to Longmeadow for the upcoming FY2011 caused a significant reduction in town services including teacher/ town employee layoffs, reductions in town/school services and a teachers contract with 0% COLAs for the next two years. Any significant cut in state aid that may result through voter approval of the state sales tax reduction will likely require additional Proposition 2½ overrides over the next 1-5 years to maintain the current level of school and town services. If these additional overrides are not approved, this will necessitate drastic reductions in school/town services in order to balance the budget.

The new high school building project costing Longmeadow $44 million over 25 years is akin to a ~$3.2 million override in starting in FY2013 (July 2012)- not something that we should dismiss without serious deliberate thought. In FY2013 we will also be renegotiating the teachers and other town employee contracts again.

Our infrastructure needs, the uncertainty of state aid to cities and towns and our limited financial resources highlight the need to consider this school building project decision very carefully.

10 Year Property Tax Projections

Below is Article #1 for the Special Town Meeting warrant that will be discussed and voted on Tuesday, May 25 at Longmeadow HS. The Longmeadow Finance Committee (LFC) will provide a recommendation to the Town Meeting floor regarding the impact of the pending High School Building project on future property taxes.

ARTICLE 1
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds, a sum of money to be expended under the direction of the School Building Committee for Longmeadow High School, located at 95 Grassy Gutter Road, between Bliss Road and Williams Street in Longmeadow, Massachusetts, which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years, and for which the Town may be eligible for a school construction grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (“MSBA”). The MSBA’s grant program is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any project costs the Town incurs in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the Town. Any grant that the Town of Longmeadow may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of (1) fifty one point eight four percent (51.84%) of eligible, approved project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA.

In order to better understand the impact of the new high school project on property taxes I attended the LFC meeting on May 18 during which the LFC recommendation was discussed. (Interestingly enough, I was the only town resident other than members of the LFC in attendance at this meeting.)

The LFC reviewed a forecast prepared by Paul Pasterczyk, Longmeadow Finance Director showing the impact of the High School Building Project on Longmeadow property taxes for the next ten years (--> 2020). As part of this analysis, the impact of a series of 3- $1 million overrides (pretty conservative at an average of $3ooK/year) + construction of a new $9 million DPW facility in 2017 (much lower capital investment than the $150 million estimate for water/sewer and major building projects provided by the A Better Longmeadow/ Vote NO group) were included.

Three scenarios as described below were discussed:

Scenario #1
High School Project not approved + $1 million operational overrides in FY2012, FY2015 and FY2018.

Scenario #2
High School Project approved + $1 million operational overrides in FY2012, FY2015 and FY2018.

Scenario #3
High School Project approved + $1 million operational overrides in FY2012, FY2015 and FY2018 + construction of $9 million DPW facility in 2017.

Below are the results….

[click to enlarge chart]

One more case: do nothing.... a 2.5% annual increase (compounded) for 10 years results in a 28% increase in property taxes.

I was surprised by the relatively small difference in financial results for the three different 10 year projections. However, the analysis did show an increase in property taxes ranging from 39 - 48% for the average homeowner over the next ten years.

Obviously, there are many additional factors (state aid, health care costs, employee salaries, etc.) that could affect future property taxes, operational overrides and reductions in town services. This latest analysis is relatively conservative with only one additional $9 million capital project and 3- $1 million operational overrides over 10 years.

This type of financial analysis can be extremely useful in making long term financial decisions. I hope that the LFC continues to probe our financial future… it would be a welcome change from the year to year planning that Longmeadow always seems to be using.

Based upon what I heard at Tuesday’s meeting, the LFC will “recommend” that approval of the new high school project is “feasible”. They will likely share some of the 10 year property tax projections that I have included with this posting.

We need to do something with Longmeadow High School…. The key question is how much can we afford!

Katherine Craven Answers Questions

Katherine Craven, Executive Director of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) visited Longmeadow this past Wednesday, May 19 to provide commentary and answer questions about the new High School Project. I was particularly interested in this session and had submitted the following question:

There are many people in Longmeadow who believe that the current high school building project as developed by the School Building Committee and approved by the MSBA is too costly. If the June 8 ballot question on the Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override is defeated, would the MSBA be receptive to an alternative proposal that significantly reduces the overall cost to the town by modifying/eliminating the "renovation" portion of the project scope but retains the MSBA reimbursed portion?

Answer

Ms. Craven provided the answer that I was expecting to hear since she would not want to sabotage the upcoming Special Town Meeting and Town Election result.

Ms. Craven indicated that any changes in the scope and/or cost of the current "as MSBA approved" project + scope would need to be revisited by the SBC, project architects and MSBA before a new path forward could be determined and that might take some time. With the current backlog of projects that might not be accomplished before the end of 2010.

However, the door was left open for an alternative project scope in the event of a failed vote at town meeting or on election day. Ms. Craven stated at least 4-5 times during her comments that "there is no line" and that the MSBA recognizes Longmeadow's urgent need for a new/renovated high school and would be willing to discuss potential options with Longmeadow.

Below are some short video excerpts of Ms. Craven's comments and answers to specific questions (provided by LCTV).




To view the entire SBC public forum, click the links below:

LHS Public Info Session, 5/19/10 Part I

LHS Public Info Session, 5/19/10 Part II
LHS Public Info Session, 5/19/10 Part III

Say Yes to LHS; Say Yes to our future

95 Cedar Road

Longmeadow, MA

01106 – 3241

(413) 567 - 6315

To the Editor:

I am writing to thank you for your excellent coverage of the new high school question in Longmeadow. I think that you have been fair to all sides.

However, I have become convinced that one side has the superior claim to our support because of their reliance on logic, science and due process. I support a Yes vote for the new high school project in Longmeadow.

The recommendation for building a new high school for Longmeadow was based on a serious examination of the existing building. The engineers and architects were asked to evaluate the existing building for a renovation or a rebuild. After going through the building in a careful and systematic manner, they presented a number of alternatives. The soundest recommendation was to build a new building with a partial renovation of part of the existing building. The recommendation was made on the basis of science, logic and transparent due process.

Any attempt to do a cheap renovation of $5million would not do the building or the town much good. There is simply too much wrong with the existing building to fix with a cheap renovation. We are talking about asbestos, lead paint, antiquated heating and ventilation, inadequate air conditioning, energy waste and related inefficiencies.

A number of the opponents of a new high school are people who served in Longmeadow’s Town government over the last few decades. While they were serving their watch, the school buildings of the town were deteriorating. (This is along with other public buildings and the roads and sidewalks of the town.) Where was their concern for renovation and maintenance when they were supposedly serving the public interest? It was non-existent. Instead we were given prideful boasts about how the taxes were kept low and over rides were avoided.

Any responsible public servant will honestly discuss the need for expenditures and revenues with the voters and not simply ignore the realities of municipal life and disregard the effects of time and New England weather on our physical infrastructure. Their miserly approach to local government is very much a part of the problems we face today.

The sensible solution to our current situation is to remember the past and work to shape the future. A YES vote for the Longmeadow High School project will do just that.

Sincerely,

John J. Fitzgerald

Longmeadow group opposes proposed new high school

This morning’s Sunday Republican newspaper (4/24/10) contained an article entitled “Group Opposes School Building” – click here to read complete story on MassLive.






















The group calling themselves “Citizens for a Better Longmeadow” voiced their concern to the Springfield Republican editorial board about the wisdom of spending $78 million building a new high school given the significant financial difficulties that are ahead for the town of Longmeadow. They believe a more “fiscally responsible” and lower cost renovation project would be in the best interest of the town. This group- led by Roger Wojcik, Philip Fregeau and Gerald Nolet have been holding “public forums” to express their concerns.

Their next forum is scheduled for Tuesday, April 27 at 6:30 PM at the Storrs Library/ The Betty Low Room.

Hopefully, the discussion will be more reflective of our town’s character and not resemble the last public forum on April 12 about which I wrote a Buzz posting that was largely a shouting match between the opposing sides in this debate.

School Building Cost and Taxpayer Impact

Estimated property tax increases for the new high school project continue to be publicized by the School Building Committee in the media as the "average" over 25 years.

Below is the latest property tax impact analysis by Longmeadow Finance Director, Paul Pasterczyk using the MSBA approved projected building costs and reimbursement information.

[click chart to enlarge]

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the frequently quoted "average property tax increase" over 25 years is not reached until the year 2027- halfway through the life of the 25 year bond. For most home owners, the first full year property tax increase (FY14) as well as the first five years property tax increases are probably more important- not the average over 25 years.

Below is a summary of key information derived from the above graphs.

[click table to enlarge]

The above table for Chart A shows that the first year (FY14) property tax increase is 29% higher and the 1st 5 year average is 22% higher than the 25 year average. Similar results are found for Chart B results.

No one knows what the final taxpayer cost will be for this project because of the uncertainty of both interest rates and project building costs. According to the MSBA approval letter, Longmeadow will be granted up to a maximum of $34 million on a total project cost of $78.5 million. If unforeseen construction costs such as unexpected asbestos removal are incurred that are larger than that included with the budgeted contingencies, it is most likely that Longmeadow would have to cover those costs without reimbursement from the MSBA.

At the School Building Public Forum on September 30, I asked Jeffrey Luxemberg of Joslin Lesser & Associates- Owners Project Manager about the impact of unforeseen cost overruns for our high school project. He indicated that such an "overrun is borne by the locality" meaning Longmeadow and that the MSBA will not provide any additional funding. Below is a short video clip of his response.

Up to now I have been a supporter of the new Longmeadow HS but during the recent FY11 budget discussions I have become increasingly concerned about our ability to afford this project without future sacrifices of important town services. You cannot separate operational and capital needs- the money to fund both types comes from the same source- the Longmeadow taxpayer. Next year, there will likely be continuing discussions to reduce or close Storrs Library and the Longmeadow Adult Center and other town services in order to meet the every increasing financial needs of our schools.

I ask every town resident to make a special effort to become better informed about the school building project by attending upcoming public forums and the special town meeting on May 25.

Also, don't forget to learn more about each of the four candidates running for the two seats on the Longmeadow Select Board. The two individuals who are elected will become key players in determining Longmeadow's future.

Mark election day- Tuesday, June 8 on your calendar.

A Public Forum on Longmeadow's Financial Crisis

On Monday afternoon I attended a public forum at the Longmeadow Adult Center organized by a group of concerned citizens including Roger Wojcik, Jerry Nolet, Joe Ochuitti and Phil Fregeau. There were a total about 40 people in attendance representing many different constituencies in town.... including three School Committee members/ the School Building Committee co-chair, two Select Board members, a Select Board candidate, numerous senior citizens, pro-school / anti-school, former teachers, ..

The message from the forum organizers was as follows:

Longmeadow is in a Fiscal Crisis!

The cost of our Schools, Public Safety and other Town Services is becoming overwhelming.

• The School Committee is asking us to take on a $46 million mortgage for a new high school.
• Longmeadow is obligated to pay $28 million in Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) which it does not have.
• Longmeadow’s buildings, roads and water/sewer systems need over $100 million worth of repairs.
• Longmeadow’s budget for next year begins to borrow from our last remaining reserve fund.

The organizers were asking for ideas on how the town might make its way through this mine field of future expenses.

The meeting quickly evolved to a “shouting match” debate over the merits and concerns of the proposed $78 million high school building project.

From the prospective of someone who has followed this project and is reasonably knowledgeable about many of the specifics, I found that there was significant misrepresentation and inaccurate information contributed from both sides- particularly with regard to the cost of the new + renovated high school to the average taxpayer.

I have commented in past LongmeadowBuzz postings that the School Building Committee's average tax increase estimate was misleading. A recent summary of the taxpayer cost by Paul Pasterczyk- Longmeadow's Finance Director wherein the annual cost is shown for each of the 25 years of the school project bond is a much better representation. The first full year of project impact in FY14 will increase the average taxpayer's cost by $575 - $700 depending upon prevailing bond interest rates at that time. The average annual increase over 25 years is estimated to be $455 - $516.

Note: These numbers are somewhat high because the project cost to the town is now $44 million vs. the $46.2 million used for Mr. Pasterczyk's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------
Here are some words to describe a large portion of the meeting.....
loud, angry, disrespectful, contentious.....,

I attended this public forum as an observer and not as a participant. I have attended numerous public forums in the past on similar subjects, listened to my fellow neighbors share their views and occasionally added my own comments. With most past forums, I have walked away feeling that the public debate was worthy of our great town….

Monday, I walked away very disappointed that our town has been much more polarized than I had thought, that the intensity of debate had risen dramatically and many of the participants were not listening to the other side. Most concerning was outright disrespect for other people’s opinions and ideas.

I can only hope that this forum is not representative of the debate that will occur between today and election day and that both sides will work together to see our way through the current financial crisis. We need compromise on both sides….. One word that did finally emerge at the end of the forum seemed to suggest what is needed for our town to successfully navigate these difficult times….

BALANCE…. I will expand what this word means in future posts.

Longmeadow High School-A Principal’s Perspective

As a resident, parent and administrator in Longmeadow for nearly twenty five years, I would like to share my thoughts on the high school building project. This will be one of the largest projects in the town’s history, and the focus must be on our children and the importance of their education.

When considering a long term, viable building solution, we must remember that we are creating a facility that will serve not only as an educational institution but also as the environment where our children will learn the necessary life skills to become successful contributors to their communities. It is, therefore, essential that we focus on the attributes of a high quality/high-performing school.

A high-performing building should be designed logically to fully support all facets of the educational Program of Studies and to support the values and priorities of the community.. It must provide appropriate classroom, office, meeting and collaborative spaces that accommodate a variety of teaching and learning styles. These spaces need to be flexible to adapt to teaching strategies that will address 21st century learning expectations. It must be appropriately sized and equipped to support our widespread student participation in co-curricular activities such as athletics, music and fine arts. Proper design must include outside views, bright well-lit classrooms, and an efficient, comfortable heating and cooling system.

The building will also serve the greater community. When equipped with attractive public spaces, such as an auditorium, library, cafeteria, gymnasium, fitness center and thoughtfully laid out athletic fields, people will be drawn to the facility. The entryway to the building will have display areas that highlight student achievement. Artifacts honoring the community’s heritage along with student artwork and murals will adorn the walls. Academic and extra-curricular accomplishments will be celebrated and spaces will be thoughtfully constructed so that everyone feels “at home.” The exterior spaces will be equipped with ample parking for staff, students and guests, yet encourage alternate means of transportation by providing bike racks and sidewalks.

The strength of Longmeadow High School has always been the intellectual ability of our students and the determination to excel that they bring to school each day. When this desire to learn is combined with effective instruction and supported by a modern facility, we will have the formula for success.

This is an exciting time for our community! The decisions to be made in the coming months will affect young people’s lives for generations to come. The final planning process will require vision and determination. As residents of Longmeadow, we need to choose wisely with an affirmative vote. With a project of this magnitude, where the stakes are high and the window of opportunity open only briefly, there is little room for error.

By Larry Berte- Principal, Longmeadow High School

Financing the Longmeadow High School Project

Below is a copy of a press release with some additional information about the financing costs of the Longmeadow High School project...

The final actual cost of the Longmeadow High School project is probably three years away at best- once the mortar sets, the paint has dried and the classrooms are filled with students.

What will be known in the very near future is the state’s agreed upon portion of the debt and the Town’s share. The appropriation of the Town’s share of the debt is controlled by Town Meeting which is scheduled for vote at the May 25, 2010 Special Town Meeting. The vote at Town meeting will be contingent upon a successful June 8, 2010 debt exclusion ballot vote authorizing the borrowing of the Town’s share of the debt.

Current estimates for the new structure and renovation portion of the High School are approximately $78.5 million. The more important number to the Longmeadow taxpayer is the Town’s share of the project. This amount is currently estimated at $46.6 million dollars and is subject to change based on the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) Project and Scope meeting currently scheduled for March 31st. Upon MSBA approval of Project Scope and Budget, the Town will only have 120 days to successfully fund the Town’s share. Under the MSBA’s current project financing methodology, the Town will progressively receive the MSBA’s share of the project which eliminates the need for the Town to borrow the full project cost. The Town will only have to borrow its share of the total cost which will save the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest costs.

How will the $46.6 million be financed and how will it affect the individual taxpayer?

An example of one financing option uses equal principal payments over a 25 year bond life at a 3.5% interest rate. Currently, the average assessed home value in Longmeadow is $350,000 which equates to an average increase in taxes of approximately $455 per year over the life of the debt (see Chart A below for tax increases for each year).

[click to enlarge]

A 5% interest rate would average a tax increase of $516 per year for a $350,000 assessed home (see Chart B below). These are only examples.

Several different financing options are currently being reviewed in order to minimize the tax impact. Some areas of consideration include: supplemental grant funds availability; conventional tax exempt bonding versus other bonding options available; timing of permanent bonding; consideration of phasing the borrowing to take advantage of current low rates; and, the overall town debt schedule. It is our goal to minimize the tax impact to all residents by leveraging the best financing and grant options available.

Paul J. Pasterczyk
Finance Director, Town of Longmeadow
Member, Longmeadow School Building Committee

Understanding the Numbers…

If you have been somewhat (or totally) confused about the cost of the new high school as a homeowner/ taxpayer, you are not alone…. I have attended all of the public meetings on the School Building project in order to provide commentary here on the LongmeadowBuzz blog but came away confused from the last public forum on February 11. Below is a summary of what I have learned since this forum.

For the "average" homeowner with an property assessment of $350,000..

• The average tax increase will be $532/yr (mil rate increase = $1.52/1000) for the first 10 years (FY14 - FY23) after new high school is opened.
  
  This compares to the $450/yr for 25 years (duration of school bond) figure that was presented at the 2/11/10 forum.
  
  
• To calculate your average property tax increase for each of the first 10 years...
  Multiple the mil rate increase x property assessment (1000’s)
  example: $275,000.... 275 x $1.52 = $418/year
  
  
• Click here to look up your current FY10 property assessment so that you can calculate your increase in future property taxes.

Continue reading for the rest of the story....
_____________________________________________

The public forum last September 30 provided an estimate of taxpayer costs as shown in the slide below…

The estimated tax increase was ~ $1.00/ $1000 (mil rate increase) of property assessment or ~$372 for an average $370,000 home.

However, at the latest School Building forum on February 11, the average taxpayer annual increase presented appeared to increase signficantly even though the town’s share of the project cost had shown only a small increase ($44M --> $46 million, + 4.5%).

For a typical $350,000 home, the estimated tax increase per year is projected to be as follows:

FY11: $11; FY12: $65; FY13: $150; FY14: $580;
FY15: $567; FY16: $557; FY17: $546

Note 1: Tax increases for FY11 --> FY13 are low because the school project construction will not be completed until FY14. In the first three years (FY11 -> FY13) only interest on the borrowed money is being paid. In FY14 the construction loan will be converted to a 25 year municipal general obligation bond and the full tax increase will be realized.

Note 2: Because of lower property values for the current FY10, the average home assessment is now $350K (vs. $370K). The average annual tax increase for a typical $350,000 home over 25 years is estimated to be ~$450/year which translates to a mil rate of $1.28/ $1000.

At this point I was confused and had a couple of questions….

1. Did the average taxpayer cost of the project increase by 22% from Sept 30 to Feb 11 ($370 --> $450)?

2. Why was the average taxpayer cost for the first four years after completion of the project now $563 or $1.61/$1000? Was that a 52% increase ($370 --> $563) from the Sept 30 estimate?

I asked Paul Pasterczyk, Longmeadow’s Finance Director and a member of the School Building Committee and Christine Swanson/ SBC- co-chair for some clarification.

Here is what I found out…

1. The September 30 forum number was miscalculated and wrong!

2. The latest tax increase estimates which varied each year (higher beginning in FY2014 and lower at the end- FY2038) were based upon a fixed principal repayment bond repayment scenario vs. a constant debt service bond scenario. It should be noted that the quoted $450 average tax increase does not occur until FY2026!

To further understand this numbers, I calculated the year by year the tax increase for the two bonding scenarios and the results are shown below.

[click to enlarge spreadsheet]

For this first bond scenario the average tax increase for the first 10 years is $532.

[click to enlarge spreadsheet]

The second spreadsheet shows a constant debt service or tax increase of $469/year (mil rate increase = 1.34) for property owners.

Total increased tax payments by the "average" taxpayer over the term of the 25 year bond ranged from $11,250 (scenario #1) to $11,729 (scenario #2).

While I do not want to handcuff our bonding process, it would seem to me that the second bond scenario that provides for lower taxes in the first 10 years would be the preferred option for taxpayers.

I am interested in accurate estimates of the cost for our new high school. I would also ask the School Building Committee to present the taxpayer information in a more upfront manner. Quoting the FY11 --> FY13 tax increases as part of the tax increase picture is OK as long as we don't use it to minimize the cost that we will incur for many years to come.

By the way.... let's not forget the $750,000 that we have spent for the current planning/ design phase that is now bonded for 5 years at an average taxpayer cost of $30/year.

Tough Times Ahead for Longmeadow- Part IV

I have now been writing about Longmeadow’s budget problems for about one year (see A Financial Tsunami Is Heading Toward Us (1/16/09). The situation really hasn’t changed since the last time I wrote on this subject… see Tough Times Ahead for Longmeadow- Part III (12/06/10).

Previous posts include:
Tough Times Ahead…Part I
Tough Times Ahead….. Part II

Here is an overview of the current fiscal crisis facing Longmeadow…

• The town is facing a $2.1 million budget deficit for the upcoming FY11 without considering the financial impact of ongoing collective bargaining with the teachers, firefighters, police and other town employee unions.


• A 1% COLA adjustment for the current FY10 and FY11 years would add an additional $900,000 in additional operational costs (FY10 = $300,000 and FY11 = $600,000). Such a contract settlement would balloon the FY11 deficit to $3 million.


• There is $0 in our free cash account.


• There is $1.9 million in the Operational Stabilization Fund (OSF).The SB has recently adopted a policy that stated they will not authorize the use of OSF monies which depletes the fund below $1.0 million unless there is a plan to replenish the fund to that level.

A large majority of the town + school budget costs are employee salaries + benefits so a reduction of $2,100,000 in expenditures likely means significant layoffs and/ or furloughs. Paul Pasterczyk, Longmeadow’s Finance Director stated at a recent SB meeting (12/07/09) that any employee layoffs would also require the town to pay unemployment compensation/ severance benefits that could total as much as $450-600,000.

Achieving a budget reduction of $2,100,000 (~4% of total budget) will not be very easy without seriously affecting the quality of life in Longmeadow. One of the options being seriously considered by some SB members though not voiced during public meetings is the closing of Storrs Library. Closing of the Storrs Library would save an estimated $675,000 but it would be a severe impact to our community given the large number of people who use this important resource on a regular basis.


Other options that may be considered by the SB to reduce costs include:
- regionalization of town services including library, DPW, fire, water
- continued consolidation of town departments
- institution of a fee based curbside trash collection

The Town of Longmeadow is also engaged with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) on a path to the building of a new high school at an estimated price tag of ~ $80.5 million. Approval by the MSBA will likely come sometime in late March after which the town has 120 days to approve the project. Longmeadow’s share after reimbursement by the state has been estimated to be ~ $44 million. The high school project must be approved at a town meeting and town election (Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override). If the Prop. 2½ debt exclusion override is approved, cost to the average property owner has been estimated to be $1/$1000 of assessed property value or $300/year for a $300,000 home. This is an extremely important project to the town but it would appear to be in serious jeopardy given the current budget crisis and national/ local economies (see my earlier LongmeadowBuzz post- Now Is the Right Time!)

The Town Manager is scheduled to present the proposed FY11 budget (including the School Dept) to the SB on February 26. It will be very interesting to see how the TM manages to balance the budget. From recent SB discussions, it would appear that town employee COLAs will not be included and any potential financial impact will be ignored. At their December 7 meeting the SB asked the School Committee to deliver 70% of the required cuts (~$1.5 million) in their proposed FY11 budget and the Town Depts to provide 30% of the required cuts (or $630,000). They also asked for priorization of the proposed cuts.

Here is what I see taking place later this year….

1. Presentation of a balanced budget (without contract settlements?) at the Annual Town Meeting (ATM) on May 11 with budget cuts significantly affecting both school and town services. It is possible that there also may be a vote on a Proposition 2½ operational budget override to balance the budget.
   
2. At the ATM there will be a warrant article for a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override for $44 million to build a new high school.
   
3. Town elections will be held on June 8 to decide the two separate Proposition 2½ override questions. It should be noted that the last Proposition 2½ (operational) override for $2.1 million in November 2007 passed by only 6 votes. The outcome of these votes will influence the quality of life and services in our town for many years.

One thing that concerns me greatly is the lack of interest and/or understanding by many town residents about this current crisis. As I survey residents around town and ask them what they think, many of them are not very familiar with the school building process or the severity of the need to reduce the town budget. It will be too late if town residents wait until the annual town meeting to provide their inputs to town leaders…. the decisions will already have been made.

Now is the time to become involved and provide inputs to our town leaders about how to manage the budget!

[If someone is interested in contributing an article to the LongmeadowBuzz forum, simply send a request to LongmeadowBuzz@comcast.net with your name and address and you will receive an invitation to join. Anyone can post a comment to a posting but we would like to disencourage anonymous entries. All comments on this forum are moderated to eliminate objectionable content.]

Decision Making Time

The Longmeadow School Building Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, September 30 (6 PM, LHS cafeteria) to decide which school building option to move forward for approval by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). This is an important decision because it sets the path forward ending with a town meeting vote in April 2010 and a town election vote in June 2010.

At the last public forum on September 16 seven different options ranging from renovation to all new construction were presented to a group of ~ 150 town residents.

[click graphic to enlarge]

The presentation revealed that there has been a great amount of effort thoughtfully expended with a number of interesting options identified. The one that seemed to be the frontrunner in the discussion was called Option 2B. This option involved renovation of the 1971 section of the building (to preserve the pool and building wing in best condition), demolition of the remaining sections and the building a new addition of 190,000 sq ft for classroom and primary core spaces (see figure below).

[click graphic to enlarge]

Other than qualitative commentary, one important piece of information was missing from all of the options presented was cost. From what was presented, it appears likely that option 2B may be the most expensive choice since it will involve construction of 190,000 sq ft of new facility that is not considered “model school”. Options 3A and 3B will likely not be far behind. If the new Wilbraham-Hampden Regional HS cost is any indication, we should expect a pricetag of option 2B to be in the neighborhood of $70-80 million. It would have been of considerable value to have an estimated cost for each of the 6 options presented at this public forum. For a copy of the full presentation or to view the forum video, visit the SBC website.

At the SBC meeting on September 30 cost information for the six options will become available and used to make the final choice. According to Bob Barkett, co-chair this information will be presented at the beginning of the meeting.

Longmeadow is getting a chance to do something about its deteriorating high school facility and have the state of Massachusetts provide a large amount of the required funding. The SBC needs to make the choice that has the best probability of being accepted by the residents of Longmeadow. Because the state has ~ 160 other school building projects in the pipeline, it will be a long time before we will get another chance.

I wish the SBC much wisdom and good judgement with the decision that they make on Wednesday night.

Longmeadow School Building Project Continues to Move Forward...

The Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) has been working hard developing a plan to renovate or build a new high school. A number of factors, taken together, will determine whether the SBC selects an addition/ renovation or a completely new school as the long term building solution.

The current project timetable shows a presentation to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) (November 2009), final MSBA project approval (March 2010), a debt exclusion vote at the annual town meeting (April 2010) and if successful, a followup vote at town elections (June 2010). Longmeadow will get only one chance through this process so it's important to get it right the first time.

A first public forum to discuss the status of this work was held on August 18. A web video of this event and the accompanying slide presentations are available on the SBC website.

Most recently, the SBC posted a series of FAQs on its website that should be of interest to most town residents.

The SBC is charged with developing two options for the MSBA and then the MSBA makes the final decision. On November 18 there is a scheduled meeting between the SBC and the MSBA to review Longmeadow's proposals.

**It is important to understand that the town will not be able to vote on new vs. renovation nor will the town be able to vote on multiple options. There is only one vote- by the SBC.

On Wednesday, September 16 at Glenbrook Middle School at 7 PM there will be a second (and last) public review session conducted by the SBC for feedback and discussion. The architects will be presenting several building options for the long term building solution for LHS.

The purpose of the public forums is to present the options to town residents and solicit feedback. Community input is essential in order for the SBC to make informed decisions. The forums are designed for residents to come and speak up and ask questions. The School Building Committee will be voting on the final recommendation on September 30.

This school building project is one of the most important issues facing our the town in recent years. Take the time to come to this last public forum on September 16.... listen, ask questions and provide feedback to the SBC.

Visit the School Building Committee's website often to keep abreast of new developments.

Feedback can be sent to the SBC via email to: longmeadowsbc@yahoo.com

or simply shared by commenting to this post.

The world is changing fast

Technology has changed our world in many ways. Both information and knowledge are exchanged at a much faster pace.... Our traditional office has become a virtual office with communication tools that were not envisioned as little as 10 years ago. Distance learning both in the university and business environments is quickly becoming a norm rather than the exception.

We should make sure that our traditional way of education is tuned to the new reality and that our children are better prepared for the future.

It is worth the time to watch the video below that shares some of this prospective....

Big-ticket schools prompt a scolding

Boston Globe- May 22, 2008

Below are some quotes from this timely article posted today on the Boston Globe's website.

“State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill complained yesterday that some Massachusetts communities are embarking on excessive, McMansion school construction projects that neither the towns nor the state can afford.”

“… Cahill also said that school communities should not be making decisions for a community. He argued that even the wealthiest towns have residents who cannot afford the tax increases needed to fund such projects.”

Longmeadow faces the same difficult economic decision as many towns in Massachusetts. Building a new high school (or undertaking a major renovation) in Longmeadow is an important financial decision. Let’s make sure that we balance our needs. It makes no economic sense to build a new high school and then realize that we have to layoff teachers to afford it. As Cahill is quoted in this article … “teachers are far more important than bricks and mortar”.

Let’s make sure that whatever decision is made that we can ensure the quality education of our children. This should be our #1 priority.

It is worth the time to read this Boston.com article to compare our Longmeadow's situation with other towns in Massachusetts.

What’s it going to cost for a new high school and DPW facility?

Our town leaders are currently having a difficult time trying to meet the budget request from the School Committee for “level services” in our schools as well as maintaining other town services. Front and center on the town’s longer term agenda are requests by the School Committee to build a new high school (estimated to cost $90-100 million) and after listening to this month’s town wide facilities review, a new DPW facility is likely to be needed in the very near future. As I have stated in an earlier blog note, next year could be a year for another Proposition 2½ override in order to meet the town’s budgetary needs if we do not spend our money wisely and use a financial plan with least a 3-5 year timeframe.

It’s no secret that the Select Board and the School Committee for many years have not budgeted maintenance at a level that is prudent to avoid infrastructure deterioration so there are likely to be other major unplanned infrastructure repairs. For example, at last week’s Select Board meeting, there was discussion of a major storm drainage problem at Woodside Drive/ Williams Street that may require the expenditure of $850,000 to fix it.

The Longmeadow Capital Planning committee led by Mark Gold does a great job prioritizing the town’s capital needs and making recommendations to the Select Board and Town Meeting as to which major items should be approved. However, because available monies for capital spending are limited, many needed expenditures are deferred.

Now we are told that we desperately need a new high school and DPW facility. How is the town going to handle this financial burden? I’ve heard the price tags on these facilities but I was interested in what it is going to cost my wife and I as taxpayers in this town…. so I took time to do some simple financial calculations and what I found was not unexpected.

Here are my simple calculations….

Let's assume the following

• Longmeadow decides to build a new high school (estimated cost ~$100 million) and a new DPW facility ($15 million). Also assuming 60% reimbursement from the state for the school project ---> total new debt --> $55M.
• Assume our good bond rating will result in an interest rate of 4.5% for 20 years for the $55M of new debt

Using a simple mortgage financial calculator ---> annual interest + principal payments --> ~ $4.2M / year. For this proposal to succeed the town would have to pass a Prop 2½ debt exclusion override.

Once the project was underway and the full monies were bonded and spent, Longmeadow property owners could see a step increase in their property taxes. For this example if one assumes that this happened in the coming fiscal year, this step increase would be by ~ 11.4% ($4.2M/$37.0M).

Note: $37.0M is the total property tax levy in proposed FY09 budget.

If one included the additional 2½% tax increase (.025 x $37.0M = $0.93M) the first year of the full impact could potentially see an increase of $4.2M + $0.93M (Prop 2½ limit) = $5.1M or 13.8%. For the average taxpayer paying $6000/ year, the increase would be ~ $830. Over 20 years of the bond this increase would amount to $16,600 for the average property owner.

The purpose of this blog note is not to say we shouldn’t go forward with these two projects but for the town to consider using a longer range financial roadmap wherein both our annual operating costs and our future capital expenditures are more fully considered together. Last year's Budget Strategies Committee was a good start, but much more is needed. We cannot continue to simply operate from year-to-year without such a vision.