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.

Longmeadow's FY11 Budget

This week’s Select Board discussion on the FY11 budget provided some good insight into the current “state of town finances”. However, what I observed was not very encouraging. The uncertainty about the level of local state aid makes this current budget development process very difficult. The current budget proposal assumes a 15% drop in state aid. There was some discussion at this meeting as to whether or not this number should be reduced since the rhetoric from Boston in this election year suggests that the state will deliver.

Below are two short video excerpts (less than 10 min. each) from this meeting that are worth watching. The first is an overview of the town government portion of the FY11 draft budget discussed by Town Manager Robin Crosbie. It should be noted that a final budget will not be adopted by the Select Board until March 22.

Ms. Crosbie highlighted that town expenditures were being reduced through various means including a reduction of normal maintenance work (essential repairs only), a cut in library hours (50 hours to 45 hours), less maintenance of athletic fields (+ reduced fertilizer, water, etc…). In addition, there are headcount reductions at the library and DPW. Ms. Crosbie did mention that she was hoping that Carl Sturgis, Library Director would be able to restore library hours to 50 hours by shifting some other sections of the budget.



The second clip includes comments by Select Board members Rob Aseltine and Mark Gold highlighting that the town budget at the level of current services is unsustainable due to the faster growth of expenditures relative to revenue. In addition, the level of expenditures for the current budget is too high. The choices are either continuing cuts in services that will erode our quality of life in many ways or accepting the need for periodic overrides to keep pace with the escalating costs and lower revenue growth.



There is a budget forum that will be held on March 9 at 7 PM in the Longmeadow HS cafeteria. I urge all town residents to attend or watch it on LCTV. The FY11 budget is an important issue affecting all Longmeadow residents.

[The above video clips were provided courtesy of LongmeadowBiz + LCTV. A web broadcast of entire Select Board/ School Committee meetings can watched by visiting the LCTV website.]

Loss of Longmeadow's Library Services

The culture and community of Longmeadow is based on a foundation of learning. We pride ourselves in our School System. It serves 3,100 children. For this system the town budgeted to spend 74% of town revenues this year, or $34,500,000, for schools. Our Storrs Library also is one of our prides. The Library serves all 16,000 of us. This year our town budgeted 1.8% of revenues, or $838,000, for our Library; this amount is one fortieth of what we spend on the schools.

For next fiscal year, your town government is looking to reduce library hours to below the minimum required by State government to obtain their financial support. Should library hours be cut to below 50 per week, Storrs Library will be decertified by the state.

WHAT LONGMEADOW LIBRARY WILL LOSE IF DECERTIFIED !

• All free borrowing privileges and services at area libraries
• State funds to purchase, maintain, and upgrade library computers
• Access to important educational materials for students from elementary school through college
• Professional staff to provide research assistance for school projects, workforce development and online government resource use
• Full programming schedules throughout the year for CHILDREN and adults
• Free and open access to wireless and broadband internet connections
• Timely and convenient access to current newspapers, periodicals, books, DVDs and audio.

Town government must budget next year what is needed to keep our Storrs Library doors open and functioning well 50 hours per week.

To prevent decertification, email or write NOW to your Select Board and Town Manager:

Robert Barkett; Paul Santaniello; Rob Aseltine; William Scibelli; Robin Crosbie; Mark Gold

Write them at Select Board, Town of Longmeadow, 20 Williams Street, Longmeadow, MA 01106

Your Select Board meets next Monday, March 1 and on March 8 to continue their discussion of library funding for next year.

Submitted by Roger Wojcik

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.

Longmeadow ain't what it used to be

Longmeadow became an upscale community with an exceptionally high quality of life because of its residents’ shared values, among them shared (participatory) governance and shared interests (economic and otherwise). The notion of “commonwealth” was deeply engrained in the people, institutions, and ethos of this place. The persistence of our participatory form of government (Town Meeting) serves as an institutional reminder of the Tocquevillian notions of citizenship and community that survived largely unchallenged in Longmeadow until at least the early 1980s.

The so-called “me” generation that came to the fore in the 1980s was clearly a significant challenge to the notion that community welfare should precede individual welfare; a notion concisely identified by the great French chronicler of American Democracy as “Self interest, rightly understood.” The worst misfortune to befall our close knit New England town was, however, not merely cultural, or even ideological, it was structural. It was a very permanent and very inflexible change in the rules of self governance, the unintended consequences of which are now being felt acutely in our town.

The passage of “Proposition 2&1/2” in Massachusetts, by the direct democratic mechanism of a state-wide ballot initiative, is one of the most significant sources of Longmeadow’s declining fortunes. Direct democratic procedures emphasize individual rights and the “one man, one vote” principle. They are only supportive of “commonwealth & community” when the community understands itself as sharing a moral, ethical, or values consensus. This kind of consensus mitigates the tendency toward lowest common denominator politics and mob rule that can and does tend to infect direct democratic procedures.

Thirty years ago Longmeadow was a community of families that shared an overarching commitment to the welfare of the community that was most concretely expressed in a commitment to the highest quality of public education in the region. The connection between our schools and our honor; our schools and our values, was the source of Longmeadow’s cherished identity, excellent reputation, and superior quality of life.

The imposition of this divisive anti-community political instrument has done more than any other single thing to reduce the quality of life and community in Longmeadow. The “canary in the mine” in this regard is, of course, the quality of education in Longmeadow schools. A comparison of Longmeadow schools in 1980 with those of 2010 reveals a system that has been gutted of nearly all the programs and opportunities that made our town’s schools the envy of the region.

Did Longmeadow residents gradually lose their commitment to education as the primary linchpin of community? Not exactly. What changed was not our understanding of the importance of education, it was our understanding of citizenship and community that was transformed; a transformation furthered by this radical changing of the rules – prop 2&1/2. The anti-government wave that swept over the country in the 1980s was not different in tone than similar anti-government movements that dot our nation’s history. Indeed, previous such movements were supportive, not destructive, of close knit communities that saw themselves as bulwarks against the storms of individualism and self interest “not” rightly understood.

The difference here was the imposition of an individualistic rule that would encourage residents to consider their membership in the community differently than before; not as family members, but rather as “consumers” of services produced by the “government.” Proposition 2&1/2 was the legal/political equivalent of allowing the kids to vote on the resource allocation decisions of the parents. It produced narrowly self interested fissures in the community that made rational public deliberation and decision making about the town’s long-term interests nearly impossible. It encouraged intra-community rivalries the likes of which were once only seen between communities. The now well understood transition across American society from close extended families to the dominance of closed nuclear families was playing out at the community level and was facilitated and legitimated in our town by legal sanction in the form of Prop 2&1/2. The perceived value of the “village” and its role in the lives of every family in the community has eroded to the point where we now snicker at the politicized version of this proverb with no consciousness that it was once the primary source of our town’s uniqueness and higher quality of life.

Today in Longmeadow our strong community spirit animated by shared values is little more than an abstraction found only in our rhetoric and our lamentations. To a person, I expect that residents long for a sense of shared purpose and shared values among the townspeople. In an era of economic complexity, scarcity, and risk, there is indeed strength in numbers. Ironically, today this strength’s greatest manifestations among ordinary folks- close self governing communities, labor unions, churches, social and service clubs- are too often rejected by the very people who need them most.

In 2010, Longmeadow has a form of government designed for commonwealth but a citizenry attuned to the market place. We have citizens who want consensus, but whose actions (and inaction) unintentionally foreclose that possibility. The rise of the “consumer-citizen” in our town has gradually stripped us of our unique identity and our higher quality of life.

By legitimizing, indeed mandating, that each household be enlisted to approve even modest local revenue increases, often increases that don’t even keep up with inflation, Proposition 2&1/2 has helped destroy effective collective self governance by elevating private deliberation, animated by narrow cost/benefit analysis, above public deliberation, animated by shared values and interests.

Nothing understood as a “public” good can be a source of unity, familial bonds, or even civic friendship, if its provision is subject to the norms and values of the marketplace. Our town’s beauty, safety, education, and even administration ain’t what it used to be, not because our public servants are less skilled (they are highly skilled), but because our community’s expectations are no longer expressed as shared purposes, shared values, and shared interests.

Jerold J. Duquette

Some Tough Choices for our Schools

The Longmeadow School Department and School Committee face some difficult staffing and program decisions in order to meet the expected budget reductions requested by the Town Manager. I attended the Public Forum on the School Department budget that was held this past Monday (2/08/10) to gain a better understanding of the upcoming school budget and its consequences.

Jahn Hart, Longmeadow Superintendent of Schools presented the public forum with a detailed overview of the proposed FY11 school department budget.

Here is a link to the proposed FY11 school dept. budget.

Some of the highlights from this budget presentation included:

• The proposed FY11 total school budget is $30.09 million which is a decrease of $1.55 million dollars from FY10. Because of reduced special revenues and mandated increases, total reductions to the school dept general fund were $1.86 million.
  
• A total of 35.35 positions would be eliminated which is a reduction is ~ 8% of the total staff.

One of the areas for reduction was the elimination of the “pull out” instrumental and choral music program at the elementary school level and elimination of the orchestra music instruction at the middle school level. There was also a reduction of music related staff at the high school which would decrease the number of course offerings. District-wide there would be a total reduction of 2.2 music related positions (out of a total music staff of 10.3).

Most of the public comments during this forum including impressive presentations by numerous middle and high school students as well as parents of music students centered upon the reduction in the music program and related staff. Suggestions by students and parents of a “fee based” music to allow its continuation were rejected by the School Dept since this portion of the music program (different from general music classes) is not allowed because it is a core offering. Obviously, eliminating instrumental and choral music programs elicits a strong emotional reaction.

Below is a video excerpt of the one of these comments that was representative of the objections voiced:

Perhaps, offering of such programs through the Longmeadow Parks and Rec dept as an after-school fee based programs could replace the “pull out” music and choral offerings. In this week’s Reminder, there was an advertisement for the following after school program. Perhaps, we could hold onto these important music related programs through “non-school dept” offerings.

I raised a question about prioritization of cuts and was told that the School Dept and School Committee had developed a priority list of cuts but was not going to make it public. Given that state aid to cities and towns is in flux and subject to change, I think that this information should be publicized so that the public could provide some input to the decision making process. Below is the related Q/A on this subject.

This is only the beginning of a long final budget formation process for FY11. Stay tuned to Longmeadow Buzz for the latest developments and insights.

[video clips provided courtesy of LCTV]

If at first you don’t succeed….

Let me first state as I have in previous posts that I believe Longmeadow needs a new high school and the current school building project is good for Longmeadow. However, I was a quite dismayed this past week by a discussion that occurred at the Select Board meeting (2/1/10) between Select Person Santaniello and Select Board Chair Barkett. It should be noted that Mr. Barkett is also co-chair of the School Building Committee.

During Monday’s meeting Mr. Barkett stated that one of the reasons for asking for a separate early election on the Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override for the school building project was to be able to have a second [“do-over”] election in case Longmeadow voters said NO to the project. Below is a video excerpt of the discussion courtesy of LCTV…



Talk of a second “do-over” election contingency or actions that try to ensure that newly elected Select Board members (two open seats) after the June 8 town election will promise to hold a second election will surely create great distrust within our town. I hope that our new high school project gets sufficient airing and discussion by town residents so that the vote is overwhelming in favor as it was for the town of Wilbraham last fall.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is an opportunity this coming week for town residents to get updated and ask questions about the school building project....

The LONGMEADOW SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE will be holding a PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION for the High School Building project. Updated designs and cost estimates will be highlighted by our Owners Project Manager, Architects and School Building Committee members.

Thursday, February 11 at 7 PM
Longmeadow High School Business Technology Center

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.