School Building Committee Meeting- 1/5/11

I attended the SBC meeting last Thursday to hear an update on the Longmeadow High School project including the cost and prioritization of possible “add alternates”.  SBC members, representatives from Joslin Lesser & Associates, OMR Architects and Gilbane Building Company were in attendance- a total of 20 people. As has been the case for past meetings, public attendance was almost non-existent (2 town residents, including myself).

Below are my meeting notes…

1. “Add Alternates” Update

“Add Alternates” are additional project elements that were not included as part of the original scope.  At the last meeting, the following items were outlined:

Trade- Add Alternates (these items must be prioritized)

#1: Replacement of the natatorium ceramic tile floor + relocation of the diving board
Update: Latest cost estimate is now ~ $160K.

#2: Addition of stage lift mechanism
Update: Latest cost estimate is now ~ $250K -$50K credit for original manual lift design = $200K).  The system being considered is an electro-mechanical lift mechanism that will result in a stage extension of 8 ft x 43 ft.

#3: Under Terrace outdoor storage area, $150K
Update: No change in estimate

The SBC voted to select natatorium as priority #1, lift mechanism as #2 and the under terrace storage area as priority #3.

Non-Trade Add Alternates (these items do not need to be prioritized)

#1: Additional site landscaping features
Update: Design drawings for the proposed enhancements were presented to SBC.  This included an exterior gardenscape including seating and trellis. Latest cost estimate ~ $155K

The SBC vote to include all of the above 4 items in the project bid specification.

The SBC decided to not include the synthetic turf as an add alternate with the project bid specification package but to defer a decision until more information could be developed.  A SBC sub-committee (Barkett, Wrabel, Joyal, Greenberg and Bistran) was appointed to study the synthetic turf options and provide the SBC with additional information.

2. Project Cost Estimates

The overall project detailed drawings and design package is now 60% completed. It is expected that the 90% design package will be completed by the end of February with a targeted March 9, 2011 project bid package release.

Tom Murphy of Joslin Lesser & Associates provided the SBC with an update of the estimated project costs based upon the 60% design package.  The results are based upon estimates from multiple sources.   The range for the latest cost estimates was very small ($63.6 million – $63.8 million) and very close to the original estimate provided to the MSBA ($63.8 million) which was based upon the project schematic design which had significantly less detailed drawings and specs than the 60% design package.

Bottom line: The project costs are on target vs. the original estimates which is good news.

However, it should be noted that these numbers do not represent the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).  It was explained to me after the meeting that these numbers are not inclusive of all costs (e.g., architect fees, some construction site costs, etc. are not included).  The total project cost is still estimated at ~ $78M as originally approved by Longmeadow voters.  Only after the project bids are submitted sometime this spring will the project GMP be determined.

The current construction bid environment is still pretty soft so Longmeadow will likely benefit from lower bids than what has been estimated.  The new Wilbraham-Hampden Regional High School ended up at $65M vs. an original estimate of $82.2M.  Hopefully, Longmeadow will be able to achieve a similar savings.

Additional Comments

1. After listening to the SBC discussion about the various add alternates and their merits, it seemed to me that the stage lift, natatorium upgrades and the outdoor storage options are high valued and should be included with the project.  Furthermore, these alternates represent a total of $510,000 which is less than 1% of the overall project cost.
   
2. The additional landscaping seems a bit over the top given that the project has significant landscaping costs already included as part of the original project scope.
   
3. At this meeting I received a copy of the December 16 meeting minutes.  However,  as of today, meeting minutes from the November and December meetings have still not been posted on the SBC website.   SBC meeting minutes should be posted on the town website in a timely manner.
   
4. During the past two meetings it has been interesting to hear various SBC members speak to the issue of “prudent” spending of taxpayer money.  I’m glad to see that the SBC did not include synthetic turf practice fields as part of the add alternates specifications.  However, I am concerned that this item has not disappeared from future consideration.

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

School Building Committee Meeting- 10/20/10

My primary reason for attending the monthly SBC meetings is to provide timely updates for town residents about the new high school project and how our taxpayer money will be spent. I believe that this activity is particularly important since the SBC has done a very poor job of sharing information with town residents. The last set of minutes posted on the SBC website are dated August 19- a meeting that took place over two months ago. Minutes approved last week for the Sept 16 meeting have not as yet been posted. The SBC does not have televised meetings and in addition, the SBC meeting agenda provides no opportunity for public comments. The short five minute project updates by the SBC co-chairs at Select Board meetings are not adequate.

This project has important financial implications for our town and its taxpayers.  The SBC needs to improve its communication.

At last month’s meeting, I reported in my "meeting notes" that there was an emerging theme voiced by a number of SBC members to consider adding new project elements (called “add alternates) to the original project scope now that it appeared likely that the new high school project was going to cost significantly less than the originally estimated $78 million. Since town voters have already approved a Proposition 2½ “debt exclusion” override up to $78M, the SBC could consider inclusion of new project options (e.g., synthetic turf for practice field, hydraulic stage platform for new auditorium, air conditioning) without the need for any additional voter approval.

At this meeting which was attended by 6 town residents (vs. 2 at the September 16 meeting), co-chairs, Barkett and Swanson went on record to state that the SBC should not consider the $78 million as a blank check and that all changes should be considered very carefully and be “fully vetted”. Town Manager Crosbie went further to state that the SBC should “stay within the scope of the project and not stray from the mission”.

It will be interesting to watch whether or not this guidance is followed through the preparation of the bid specification packages + “add alternatives”.

Below are additional “meeting notes” from last week’s SBC meeting….

• The high school project is on schedule with early site preparation work for relocation of major utilities (electric, telecommunications, etc.) starting sometime in November. As mentioned in last month’s meeting notes, a major portion of the high school parking lot on Williams Street (~ 40 parking spaces) will be eliminated. A portion of displaced student parking in the Grassy Gutter Road parking lot will be relocated to the Bliss tennis courts parking. There will be designated “student parking only” for 40 of 51 available spaces.
  
• As part of this plan a new permanent concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the south side of Bliss Road (from Bliss tennis courts to the high school) to provide a safe pathway for students during the construction period. Some concern was expressed about the displacement of parking for tennis court users.
  
• The relocation of the School Department offices to Wolf Swamp Road School is proceeding well with the new office space almost completed. The Superintendent reported that there were no significant dislocations for students/ teachers. Plans are being made to make the move during the holiday break in late December. The School Dept will remain at WS school until the 1971 wing renovation is completed in 2013 prior to the opening of the new high school. This temporary relocation is estimated to cost ~ $50K.
  
• There will be a Longmeadow Planning Board review for the new high school project on November 3 . All property abutters have been invited to share concerns and issues. No problems are anticipated.
  
• Continuing from last month’s meeting there was a lengthy discussion of project “add alternates”. A FAQ that was prepared for the SBC members about the add alternate process was discussed. Co-chair Swanson stated that this document would be posted on the SBC website (not as yet posted).
  
  The “add alternate” list seems to be growing. At the last SBC meeting, there was a discussion of “synthetic turf” for the HS practice field. At this meeting, inclusion of a “hydraulic lift” for a platform on the auditorium stage, upgrades to the swimming pool area (diving board and pool deck replacement), consideration of air conditioning for the entire high school (not just the adminstration offices) vs. the originally specified “air displacement” system and alternative roofing systems were discussed as possible "add alternates".
  
• Jeanne Roberts (OMR- architect) discussed the need to develop a list of salvagable items could be physically removed from the high school prior to its demolition.  This list needs to be detailed with descriptions + photos + locations if the task is to be successfully completed. This list does not include classroom by classroom inventory that will be transported to the new school but rather items like bathroom partitions, fixtures including toilets, and other items that could be used for other town facilities.  Town Manager Robin Crosbie mentioned that there have been a number of recent upgrades at the high school so these items could have significant value.  At this point there are no town/school resources allocated to this task but Ms. Roberts recommended that it be done sooner rather than later.
  
• There will be a SBC meeting on November 10 (time/ location TBD) to discuss the growing list of project “add alternates”. At this meeting there will be a “value engineering” discussion to help identify and prioritize these items. The project bid specification process requires a listing as well as prioritization (for trade related options) for these “add alternates”.
  
• An update of the details of plans for the high school project financing was provided.  The SBC financial sub committee is giving strong consideration toward the use of permanent financing (vs. temporary construction loans, interest payment only) at the beginning of the project.  This option is being considered for implementation in December to lock in low interest rates.  The initial bond would be for $25 million with a 30 year bond maturity. Using permanent financing will create a interest + principal repayment in the current FY2011 of ~ $500K which would increase FY11 property taxes by ~ $.22/1000 or $77 for the average homeowner.  There would not be a need for voter approval since it is part of the $78 million Proposition 2½ debt exclusion.   A final decision on financing options will be made by the Select Board in November.

Stay tuned... the next important SBC meeting is scheduled for November 10.

The Facts, Ma'am.

In case you were wondering about the flurry of papers that fell out of your Reminder this week, one of them is from the Citizens for a Responsible Government. This organization has been opposed to much progress in the town's history, and I was pleased to see that Mark Barowsky, Chair of the Longmeadow Finance Committee, responded to what he called the "published propoganda" via a note to the School Building Committee (SBC) with many points of clarification and correction. Of course, the SBC knows the truth, so he is preaching to the choir. I post much of his letter here as a way of reaching out to a wider audience of interested readers. All emphasis via bold/italics is mine.

"A flyer inserted in this week's reminder by the CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT made erroneous statements as to the position and [recommendation] of the Finance Committee presented at the Special Town meeting on May 11th.

"The Finance Committee's recommendation was that the project is 'financially feasible' not 'feasible'"

"The Finance Committee at no time stated that taxes will double by the year 2020 if only this project was approved"

"The Finance Committee's calculation for the rise in taxes through 2020 NEVER included a negotiated contractual escalation of 4.5% for labor costs"

What about those other projects? Like other town buildings? Like the DPW facilities? Or Williams or Glenbrook? Or how about a sky bridge to connect the Community House and Town Hall? Or a monorail, for that matter? ;-)

In all seriousness, lots of things can be considered, but few are within the realm of possibility. What does Mr. Barowsky say about them?

"The Finance Committee has noted that while there have been many studies performed that there has been no prioritization for any of the projects and while there is a recognized need, it has yet been determined if any of these projects need to be on an immediate basis. The Finance Committee has recommended that the boards prioritize and put a plan in place as to which and when each project should be initiated."

"Unless the statement was made behind closed doors, the comment that 'several of the Finance Committee members repeatedly insisted that property owners could always choose not to pay the taxes' was never made in our meetings. Such an aberration can only be deemed a deception."

"This Citizens for a Responsible Government seem to use such information as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for illumination."

I don't know about that, but I do know that the focus on any town vote should be based on the facts, on the legitimate merits of a case. The facts of the LHS are clear--clearly disturbing. The need for action has been established. The proposed plan meets those needs and addresses the concerns about maintenance and cost effectiveness. The proposal we will vote on JUNE 8th at the Community House from 8am to 8pm is a financially feasible proposal. The whole town will benefit if the vote is a gracious YES, thank you.

Rebecca M. Townsend
for more information, see Lancer Pride

This just in from Peter Greenberg, also a member of the Finance Committee:

As a member of the Finance Committee, whose responsibility it is to conduct long range fiscal planning, we have reviewed a number of 10 year scenarios. When you scenario plan, you assume both good and bad. That leads to “what ifs”, uncertainty and outright guesses. I admit that I don’t have the powers to foresee the next 10 years and these days, it’s hard to predict what may happen 6 months from now. But what I can tell you today, at this moment, is that our Town has very little long term debt and can afford the LHS project before you, our residents on June 8.

I don’t have to remind you that our town’s financial Achilles heel is that our tax base is limited by its residential nature and the restrictions of Proposition 2 1/2. There simply is very little extra revenue to fund these major capitol projects while trying to maintain the level of day to day services that we now enjoy. We have to find, and if deemed proper, embrace any opportunity that allows us to one by one, rebuild our worn out infrastructure.

One of these opportunities is upon us. For nearly thirteen years, we have been trying to get to this point today, where a viable option finally exists to fix our High School. Over the last 22 months, the Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) of which I am also a member, has worked to position our project within the guidelines of the MSBA, knowing full well that we had one shot to take advantage of the current reimbursement program. The alternative: Lose the approved 34 million dollar grant and literally start over competing with 100’s of other school districts already vying for the same dollars. Again, looking at this moment in time, losing that money would be in my opinion, financially irresponsible.

Thousands of hours have gone into the design of the high school submitted to and approved by the MSBA for funding. It keeps us competitive with other bedroom communities in providing a high school facility that can legitimately reach a 50-year life cycle. It will allow our teachers today and tomorrow to fully take advantage of 21st century learning initiatives and it provides key academic and community spaces that our current footprint under any renovation plan would be difficult to match.

Surrounding communities have recently supported investing in new high school projects while facing similar economic constraints as Longmeadow. I hope that as a community, we seek to understand every dimension of this decision, encompassing both current residents and future generations. Though it is difficult to separate today’s seemingly uphill battle from the hope and promise of a better tomorrow, I believe the residents of Longmeadow will ultimately make the right decision.

In the 50’s my grandparents made that decision by voting for the construction of our current high school facility. I honor their memory and their foresight to keep excellence in the delivery of Longmeadow’s public education, by suggesting that we do the right thing for our children and grandchildren, and vote yes for this project.

Thank you.
Peter Greenberg

Some additional info

For those readers of this blog who are unfamiliar with the new high school project, here are a few illustrations to help clarify what Mark Gold is talking about in his school project position...

Below is a schematic drawing of the first floor current building configuration showing the various additions including the 1971 wing (pool + library + BTC/open space).

[click graphic to enlarge]

During the review of the current LHS facility, there were positive comments made about the condition of the 1971 wing which were presented at numerous SBC public forums.

1. The 1971 wing is structurally in better shape and has a higher potential for minor renovations.
2. The roof is in satisfactory condition.
3. Pool systems are in good condition.

The first floor of the proposed new high school building structure is shown below including the location of the 1971 wing...

[click to enlarge]

Below is a detailed look at the renovated 1971 wing....

[click to enlarge]

Here is a graphic showing the entire site plan for the new HS project.

[click to enlarge]

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.

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

Some Additional Info on School Building Project

I wasn't able to attend last Thursday's SBC Public Information Session but was obtain and post the slides from the meeting on the SBC website. There are a couple of slides from this presentation that I hadn't seen before and are worth sharing.

A detailed site plan......

[click to enlarge]

and a ground level view of the front entrance of the new high school.

[click to enlarge]

The latest project budget information was also presented at this public forum. Below is the slide from the presentation.

[click to enlarge]

For those town residents who want to learn more about the school building project, I invite you to visit the SBC website and to continue visiting the LongmeadowBuzz blog.

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.

The Longmeadow School Building Project Continues Forward

Last Thursday, the Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) hosted a Public Information Session to update town residents about the new high school building project. If you were not able to attend or watch the session on LCTV it is available via webcast on the SBC website.

A press release from the SBC released yesterday is also available.

Below is a short video clip (9 min) from this meeting with Christine Swanson, SBC co-chair summarizing the financial aspects of the project.



The key highlights for the project include:

Total cost: $78,452,888
State reimbursement: $32,310,867
Town Cost: $46,142,020
Overall reimbursement rate: 41%

Ms. Swanson also included a slide showing the cost to taxpayers by year….

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

The average tax increase for a typical $350,000 home over 25 years is projected to be $450/year which translates to a mil rate of $1.28/$1000.

One of the comments made during Ms. Swanson's presentation was that the projected tax increase for town residents for the first three years FY11, FY12 and FY13 is pretty low as shown above. It is not until FY14 that a significant tax increase shows up which is due to the fact that this is a construction type loan and construction is not expected to be completed until Sept 2013. It is interesting to note that the mil rate impact in FY14 is 1.66/$1000 or $580 which is significantly higher than the average over the 25 year bond period.

Ray McCarthy, a town resident commented (see short video clip below) that the committee should not sell this building project based upon the low upfront tax impact but it should make sure that town residents understand the significant long term impact on their taxes. I definitely support Mr. McCarthy's recommendation in this regard.



I disagree with a comment made by SBC co-chair Mr. Barkett during this meeting. He stated that some of our debt from other capital projects will be maturing over time reducing the town's outstanding debt obligations and therefore mitigating some of the high school project tax burden. With all of the potential future capital projects that our town may need in the near future including a new DPW facility, water/ sewer upgrades, we should not count on the town's overall outstanding debt disappearing anytime soon.

Stay tuned to LongmeadowBuzz for further developments on this important project.

Special Town Meeting/ Election for Longmeadow School Building Project

The Longmeadow Select Board (SB) meeting this past Monday (2/01/10) turned into a marathon 4+ hour session with the first hour dedicated to visitor comments (vs. normal five minutes). The primary subject for these comments was the proposal by the School Building Committee (SBC) to have a separate Town Meeting and Town Election for the School Building Project. The proposed timing for both was before the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for May 11. This school building project is currently in final design phase before being submitted for approval by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in March 2010. The estimated project cost is ~$81 million which will require a Proposition 2½ override vote (2/3 majority) at a Town Meeting and at a townwide election (majority YES vote). Estimated taxpayer annual property tax increase is $1/1000 or $300 for a $300,000 home payable every year for 25 years.

Below is a 10 minute video (courtesy of LCTV) with selected excerpts from this “public comments” agenda item…



The primary argument used by most people speaking in favor of a separate special town meeting was that people needed ample time to ask their questions so that they could decide which way to vote. As I conduct my own unscientific poll around town, I do find many residents who do not have a good understanding as to what is happening. The SBC has made a good attempt so far to help educate town residents about this project through numerous public forums but there appears to be a lot more that needs to be accomplished….

I strongly agree with town resident Arlene Miller (see video excerpt) who stated that waiting for the town meeting (annual or special) is too late to learn about the project in order to make an informed decision. Longmeadow voters need to do their homework on this project before the town meeting and only look for clarification on key points.

Voters also need to be able to factor in the operational side of our town finances. With a potential major cut in town/school services and/or operational Propositional 2½ override for FY11, town residents need to have this information at the same time as this school building project decision is made.

After considerable discussion, the SB decided by a vote of 4:1 in favor (Rob Aseltine against) to schedule a special town meeting on May 25 (after the Annual Town Meeting on May 11) and not to grant the request of a special election.

I strongly agree with this SB decision and feel that any attempt to circumvent it through a SBC initiated voter petition or other means should be met with public skepticism as to its motive.

Now is the right time!

At the September 16 town forum seven different options ranging from "do nothing" to building a completely new school on a different site were presented by the project architect for review and comments by town residents. The Longmeadow School Building Committee met again on September 30 during which cost estimates for three of the seven alternatives were presented. After public comments and committee discussion, the SBC voted 14 to 1 to choose option 2B at an initial estimated cost of $80.5 million and a first year estimated property increase of ~ $1/$1000 (mil rate) of assessed value or ~$372 for an average home assessed at $370,000.

[click image to enlarge]

One town resident voiced his concern at the recent public forum that “now is not the right time” because of uncertainties in the economy including job losses, state level cut backs in funding, etc. Recent news shows that the state of Massachusetts continues to be plaqued by large drops in revenue which may result in future cutbacks of local aid to cities and towns.

The proposed high school building project should be examined in a different light rather than as a simple property tax increase.

A vast majority of our recent local property tax increases have been caused by increased operating costs rather than capital building costs. The estimated increase in taxes of $372/ year for a typical $370,000 home for the new high school building project should be looked at as a mortgage payment for the typical homeowner since the new high school becomes a valued assess of the town and its residents.

Using an interest rate of 4.5% and 25 years as the duration, a simple mortgage calculation reveals a principal amount of $5400. Given that Longmeadow’s reputation for excellence in education is one of the primary factors for our higher home prices vs. surrounding towns, a new high school would certainly add at least $5400 to the sales price of the median home. In these terms, building a new high school is equivalent to a minor bathroom home remodeling project and the investment should certainly be worthwhile since it will add to the long term value of the typical home.

The next steps for this project include a presentation to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in mid November. If Longmeadow’s high school project is approved by the MSBA, there will be months of intensive efforts to finalize the project’s details and costs before final presentation and approval by the MSBA next spring. Longmeadow will then have 120 days to approve the project (Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override) which will include a required 2/3 vote at the Annual Town Meeting in April and a majority YES vote at Annual Town Elections in June.

If the town of Longmeadow votes no on this project, we will return to the end of very long line with another 160 Massachusetts school projects awaiting consideration. The cost of continuing to "fix" our high school will continue to escalate with corresponding increased operating costs and property tax increases (and/ or reduction in town/ school services).

There is a need to do something about our deteriorating high school. Please support this important project.

NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME!

For additional information (including web videos of the recent public forums) and to stay informed on this important project. visit the SBC’s website.

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.