Response to "Some additional info"

The previous post is a bit disturbing. Although is identified as helpful information for folks considering Mark Gold's position, you have also included some out of context statements from "the review of the current LHS facility" that could be interpreted as an effort on your part to help rehabilitate Mr. Gold's thoroughly discredited arguments, which he has back peddled away from with each succeeding iteration of his position.

If your aim was to prop up Gold's claim that we could save money on this part of the project, then you are helping to misinform the public. Gold's claims would be debatable, if discussed in a vacuum, but given the fiscal and technical specifics of our present situation, they serve only to false suggest that the proposed option could still be modified without cost increases that far outweigh the "potential" savings he "hopes" for.

Mr. Gold's claims about the MSBA procedures have been refuted by several more well informed sources and will again be refuted by Katherine Craven of the MSBA on May 19th when she speaks here in Longmeadow.

Gold writes, "There remains, however, opportunity to adjust the project scope and to control costs for the $9.4 million portion of the project related to renovations for School Administration offices, the pool, and LCTV without putting the state grant money at risk." THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETELY FALSE, and reflects Mr. Gold's failure to consult with knowledgeable officials about the process or to follow it closely himself.

Obviously, Gold is in a difficult political position. He has endeared himself to the "no" constituency and has tried to legitimate their position, to no avail. While Mr. Gold and Mr. Nolet and Mr. Wojcik and Mr. Fregeau have every right to oppose the project, they don't have the right to make up their own facts. Nor should voters be encouraged to entertain their post hoc speculation about matters fully discussed, debated and rejected during the lengthy process to date.

The MSBA will not provide any funding for a high school project in the coming year if the present proposal is defeated. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will fund an alternative proposal next year either, and both the costs and favorable bond market will be less favorable.

Mr. Gold wants to save us money and prevent us from failing to fund other needs in the near future, both reasonable goals, but his proposal will simply cost us more for less in both the short and long run.

Finally, and possibly most disturbingly, Gold indicates a desire to "balance of our school and town services," which given his argument on this project is more than just a handy expression. Schools ARE town services! Gold's most visible supporters have endeavored for years to divide the town between pro and anti school "interests," apparently without any appreciation of the consequences of a "house divided."

The present project is in the interests of THE ENTIRE TOWN! Ironically, even the anti-school crowd in town, that is presently trying to frighten seniors and library patrons into voting no, will reap financial benefits from the new high school project, despite their objections and obstructions.

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]

Mark Gold's School Building Position

Below is a letter posted this week on Mark Gold's re-election website explaining his position on the Longmeadow High School building project.

Longmeadow High School Project

One of the major issues to be addressed by the residents of Longmeadow this year is whether or not to approve the proposed high school plan. The current proposal is actually two projects in one: construction of a new classroom building and the renovation the 1971 wing. $65.6 million of the costs (all related to new construction) is eligible for 51.8% state reimbursement. The balance of the project’s $78.4 million project cost will be paid for though a $44.4 million debt exclusion bond.

In the six years (2003-2009) I served as chair of the Capital Planning committee, recognizing the needs of the high school building, I led the Capital Planning Committee in recommending the appropriation and expenditure of over $500,000 to address physical plant needs of the high school.

The needs of the high school building are very clear – particularly the physical plant issues such as heating and electrical systems, classroom amenities, and handicap accessibility. Despite the fact that the proposed project includes shortcomings that concern me, and that I would have preferred the townspeople to have been allowed direct input into selection of the final project alternative, the fact is we are presented with the project that is before us: a 186,000 sq. ft. classroom building tied to a renovated 1971 wing. There remains, however, opportunity to adjust the project scope and to control costs for the $9.4 million portion of the project related to renovations for School Administration offices, the pool, and LCTV without putting the state grant money at risk. A revised plan for financing the project that reduces the financial burden that this bond will put on the most vulnerable residents of Longmeadow can also be developed without putting reimbursement funds at risk.

Based upon the effect that the current project is likely to have on the taxpayers of Longmeadow, I am concerned that passage of this project in its current form will restrict the town’s ability to raise funds necessary for future capital needs and / or to maintain current service levels at the schools and town departments. If the issues related to expenditures for renovations to accommodate the School Department offices and the proposed financing schedule are modified to lessen the financial impact to the community I would support this project. However, as currently proposed I cannot support a project that includes the financial burdens imposed.

Should the town-wide vote reject the debt-exclusion proposal, I will suggest that the School Building Committee use the MSBA’s appeal process to, at a minimum, revise the scope of the noneligible portions of the project and alter the proposed financing plan for this project to lessen the financial burden of this project for the five to ten year period after project completion.

In summary, my objection to the proposed Longmeadow High School construction and renovation project is based on the financial burden this project will have on town residents, and the limiting effect the cost of this project may have on residents’ willingness to raise other necessary funds over the next five to ten years. With modifications to this project, and within the scope of the MSBA policies, we can provide adequate educational facilities for our students without constraining our willingness or ability to maintain the level and balance of our school and town services.

Mark P. Gold
Candidate for Re-election
Longmeadow Select Board
May 10, 2010

www.GoldforSelectBoard.com

Swanson's exceptional defense of the new high school project

The following is an open letter to Longmeadow residents from Christine Swanson that will appear in the papers soon (I hope). In it, she meticulously corrects several of the misimpressions out there about the proposed debt exclusion override and clearly identifies the fiscal advantages of the proposal.

The patience, prose, and detailed knowledge of the issue evidenced in this letter is a fantastic example of how wise it is to support former School Committee members running for the Select Board. She will most definately bring valuable institutional and organizational knowledge to the Select Board. If you don't support the High School project and Christine Swanson's candidacy after reading her analysis, then I can't imagine how you are making your decisions.

-----------------------------------------------

Dear Longmeadow Residents,

The most critical need in this town is purposeful planning and development of long and short term solutions to address revenue shortfalls, infrastructure needs and maintaining town services. Without a plan in place, residents find themselves paralyzed from taking action based on what may be perceived as an overwhelming, monumental list of issues. Well, I for one do not cower in the face of huge challenges but rather step up to create solutions. This is what I have been known for in my business career and what I bring to the table as a Select Board Member.

This brings me to what some may call the largest issue this town has ever faced to what I call the greatest opportunity ever presented to the town. Of course, I am speaking of the Longmeadow High School Project. As the Co-Chair of the School Building Committee, my position on the project is clear: I absolutely support this project and based on my three years working through the process, I am 100 percent certain that this is the best long term solution for the entire Town of Longmeadow.

One of my fellow candidates for Select Board, Mark Gold, developed and released several position statements in the last few months regarding the Longmeadow High School Building project. In these documents, that have been emailed to residents and/or posted on his web site, Mr. Gold makes comparisons between the Hampden-Wilbraham Minnechaug Regional High School building project and the Longmeadow High School building project. While these two projects may seem similar, they are quite different. All the data for the Longmeadow High School project is available on line at www.longmeadow.org/sbc or in hard copy at Storrs library. I hope the following information will assist Mr. Gold and the residents of Longmeadow with a greater understanding of this project. I apologize in advance for the length of this document but felt that it was important to provide as much information as possible.

1)Hampden/Wilbraham did not do a comprehensive feasibility study to determine current conditions. They were offered a model school option and chose to move forward. Longmeadow residents chose to do a more comprehensive feasibility study that looked at every major component of the building including systems, structure, health and safety and code compliance to determine the best and most economical long term solution.

Eight options ranging from minor renovation to model school were reviewed, analyzed and scored against a decision matrix. The results of this matrix and the eight options considered were shared at several public forums and posted online. However, Mr. Gold incorrectly states in an email to several residents: “the School Building Committee (SBC) looked at one renovation option and only one renovation option. They did not look system by system (heating, electrical, ADA, etc), but rather looked only at a "gut it to the studs and start over" job.” Had Mr. Gold reviewed the feasibility study that has been available on line and at Storrs Library since October of 2009, he would have noted the eight options that were reviewed by the SBC including the renovation of just systems and code compliance.

To reiterate, the School Building Committee did consider 8 different options all of which may be found as part of the feasibility study and can be found on line as well as at Storrs Library. Several options of renovation were considered but the MSBA and the SBC agreed that the most economical long term solution was the selected option of partial reno and partial new construction.

Mr. Gold also states in his email “The SBC discounts the Kaestle Boos study because it only cost us a few $10's of thousands of dollars. They preferentially cite the study done by their architect which only studied the total gut alternative.” Again, this is incorrect. The MSBA reviewed the Kaestle Boos study and found it deficient in many areas, hence the MSBA requirement for Longmeadow to complete a feasibility study. As stated above, eight options, not one, were considered and of those eight, three were submitted for cost estimates. All the details are provided and available on line at the SBC website.

2)Mr. Gold claims in his position paper and email to a resident that Minnechaug will be 24% larger than Longmeadow High School. To quote from one of his position papers “As comparison, we only need look at the high school project recently approved in Wilbraham and Hampden (Minnechaug Regional H.S.). The Minnechaug project will be building a school that is 24% larger…”

In actuality, Minnechaug is estimated to be 248,000 square feet including their pool and district offices and Longmeadow High School will be 237,000 square feet; a difference of roughly 4.6%. In addition, the MSBA agreed upon enrollment for Longmeadow is 1000 students and Minnechaug is 1225.

3)Mr. Gold claims that Longmeadow High School is 22% more expensive than Minnechaug. In reality, the total projected cost of Minnechaug is $82 million versus $78.5 million for Longmeadow High School. When Mr. Gold makes his statements about cost it is clear that he does not understand the reimbursement calculations for MSBA funding.

While it is true that Hampden/Wilbraham will be receiving a larger percentage of reimbursement; similar to the Chapter 70 funding formula for state aid, reimbursement from the MSBA takes into consideration wealth factors, property values and other economic decision points. This is why Hampden/Wilbraham’s base reimbursement rate was higher than Longmeadow’s and their overall state grant is also higher based on additional reimbursement points for a model school.
Longmeadow Reimbursement Rate-51.84% Hampden/Wilbraham Reimbursement Rate-56.73% plus an additional 5% for model school

4)Mr. Gold writes “The Longmeadow project includes $9.4 Million in unreimbursed costs, mostly for the renovation of the 1971 wing to house the School Department, swimming pool and LCTV. Minnechaug is also renovating an existing wing for their School Department (and like Longmeadow to keep their pool), but their unreimbursed costs for the project are $5.47 million.”

Mr. Gold also states in his email, “Starting with the fact that we're paying $9.4million to keep the pool and build offices for the School Department - and all of that is our money, not state reimbursement. If rebuilding a pool is $3million of that $9.4m, then we're paying $6.4m for office space. Kind of steep when Minnechaug's version of pool and office renovation is $5.4M vs. our $9.4"

All the data pertaining to the ‘71 wing renovation may be found in the feasibility study and in schematic design documents. Mr. Gold is incorrect with his statements regarding the renovation and comparison with Minnechaug.

First, Minnechaug is not renovating their district offices and pool but rather building new spaces as part of the overall building for a total square footage of 17k.

Longmeadow will be renovating the ‘71 building that will house the pool and district offices but will also include an additional gymnasium, weight room, business and technology classrooms, the health classroom and studio and office space for LCTV for a total of 52k sq feet.

While Mr. Gold implies that we are paying almost double for the pool and district office space, he fails to state that we are getting almost three times the square footage with more usable space then just district offices and a pool.

5)Mr. Gold also states: “In the six years (2003-2009) I served as chair of the Capital Planning committee, recognizing the needs of the high school building, I led the Capital Planning Committee in recommending the appropriation and expenditure of over $500,000 to address physical plant needs of the high school. The needs of the high school building are very clear – particularly the physical plant issues such as heating and electrical systems, classroom amenities, and handicap accessibility”

Mr. Gold was the chairperson of the Capital Planning Committee and served the town well in this capacity. However, his claims of addressing physical plant issues, heating, electrical etc are overstated. The following is a list of the projects approved through capital planning for the high school over the past years. It represents a continued process of piecemeal repair and “band aids”:

ADA $147,500, Handicap Bathrooms $15,000, Music Lab Ventilation $25,000, Door and Window Upgrade $65,000, Tech Infrastructure $15,000, Data Upgrade $2,500, Exterior Wall $15,000, Hazardous Material Disposal $6,500, Interior Door Replacement $49,500, Pool Liner Repair $65,000, Re-point Mortar 71 wing $50,000, Pool Heating Coil $9,960, Broadband Network $45,000, Music Room Lockers $25,400, Handicap Access $18,000, Add’l Doors and Windows $45,300, Total $599,660

6)Mr. Gold continues “I believe that in addition to achieving the “needs” of the building, our high school students, and the town residents, the School Building Committee (SBC) selected a project option that includes too many “wants” at too high a price and one that does not address one of the building’s greatest needs – a larger auditorium”

First, I am concerned that Mr. Gold uses the term “I believe” and does not seek out the facts. Mr. Gold’s statement of wants vs. needs is completely unfounded and unsubstantiated. The MSBA completes a rigorous review of the project to ensure compliance with its standards which are designed to “develop fiscally responsible and educationally appropriate solutions, and create safe, sound, and sustainable learning environments.”

Secondly, Mr. Gold does not understand the MSBA building restrictions or the vetting process completed by the SBC. MSBA has strict guidelines for the size of auditoriums and the SBC did challenge the MBSA’s seating restriction and to have an exception made for more seating but to no avail.

7)As Mr. Gold admits he is not a construction expert and when he is challenged on his $40 million estimate he emails “There is no engineering basis for the $40 million renovation estimate. I hope that what I said was that I believed that we could do a renovation for $40 million and that if we did, based on the state reimbursement policy we'd get around $25 million in state money. The basis for that magnitude of funding in my statement was the Kastle Boos study done several years ago. However, that approach would require that we review the systems and other needs of the building and use a triage approach to financing each issue.”

I agree with Mr. Gold, that the 40 million dollars has no basis in fact. This is why the feasibility study was completed by 18 different professional firms in the architectural and engineering fields. Per the architects from OMR: “If you consider the feasibility study budgets, you can spend $5M just renovating the plumbing and fire protection systems OR just renovating the vertical portions of the exterior skin of the building OR just doing half of the mechanical system upgrade OR just providing temporary fit outs while construction is underway. Spending that kind of money now is as someone once said, “penny wise and pound foolish”. You will probably see more needs in a few years and very little to show for it. A complete renovation of the existing building is about the same price as the new wing with sizable reno of the 70s building. Either you do it now at 57 cents on the dollar, or over the next 20 years, the town will be renovating the building in small pieces at more than 100%. Lastly, a $5M reno will most likely trigger complete handicap access and seismic and other structural upgrades to the building and grounds.”

Mr. Gold suggests a scaled down more piece meal approach to upgrades/renovation. Mr. Gold proposes that we can vote down this project and still receive funding from MSBA for a different project of modified scope. His assertion is certainly not grounded in any documentation from the MSBA and is contrary to their “failed vote policy”.

Opposition to the Minnechaug project stated basically the same misinformation causing the Executive Director of the MSBA, Ms. Katherine Craven to write a letter of explanation to the Wilbraham Times, dated August 25th 2009 where she states “This proposed new model high school is an exciting opportunity for the residents of Hampden and Wilbraham, and if this proposal does not succeed, it is unlikely there will be an alternative project for Minnechaug High School for years to come.”

What he fails to mention is the fact that the state will be reimbursing Longmeadow $34 million. To quote the architects from OMR, “It is all or nothing when it comes to the MSBA, either the Town is fully invested in the program, or they walk away. That is a loss of $30M+!”


8)Lastly, Mr. Gold states “among the reasons the SBC rejected the renovation proposal was a concern about the impact on students of a long term construction project at the high school. I, however, am of the belief that construction planners are clever enough to manage a phased approach to renovation or reconstruction of a building with 950 students that has the capacity for 1300 students (such as moving the students out of the 1/3 of the school that is under construction) that is only occupied 185 days of the year.”

Construction planners are creative, however, if is not as simple as renovating a room at a time. Once the walls are opened there is significant abatement of hazardous material necessary and this process should not take place with students in the building. There are currently over a thousand students in Longmeadow High School and given the current curriculum demands of 8 blocks, excess capacity does not exist. A phased approach was considered but the architects, educational professionals and residents all voiced serious reservations and concerns about this approach. In addition, given the significant amount of asbestos in the walls, they determined it was not the most economical long term solution and it was not the best use of tax payer dollars.

As we move quickly to a decision on this critical project for Longmeadow, Mr. Gold fails to point out several of our neighbors who have in last 10 years considered new construction in lieu of renovation. They are the Putnam project (renovated roughly 23 yrs ago and ripe for a new building). Putnam, as we know, has now come in UNDER the projected construction costs in recent bids. West Springfield, Easthampton, Granby, Chicopee - 2 High Schools, Somers, CT; Suffield, CT; and Agawam - expected Statement of Interest before June 2010.

My position on this project is quite well known. I support this project for many reasons including best use of tax payer dollars, operational savings, educational opportunities, community use and a building that will serve the community of Longmeadow for the next 50+ years. This is 44 million dollar building project that is an investment in the future of Longmeadow.

I urge you to Vote Yes at the Town Meeting on May 25th and again at the ballot box on June 8th.

Christine Swanson
Co-Chair School Building Committee
Candidate for Select Board

Response to “economic objections” to the new high school project

While the transparently irrational arguments against the new high school are self rebutting, the economic arguments have at least the appearance of reasonableness. In truth, they are arguments that were thoroughly considered during the lengthy and very open process that has culminated in the commitment of $34 million in state funds and the Longmeadow School Building Committee recommendation that will be on the special town meeting warrant on May 25th and the June 8th ballot.

Some critics argued that “the town can’t afford this project at this time.” Select Board incumbent and candidate Mark Gold continues to maintain this claim. The evidence to support it, however, is difficult to find. A brand new high school, judged appropriate for high quality, state of the art education for many decades to come with a price tag of $78 million would have been unimaginably inexpensive just a couple of years ago. The contribution of $34 million of that amount by the Massachusetts School Building Authority makes a good deal a great opportunity. Mr. Gold suggests that we should have chosen an option that would have been $10-15 million dollars less expensive and recommends that the town should take a much more incremental approach to repairing the high school in several phases over an 8-10 year period. The fact that such an option was thoroughly studied by the School Building Committee, and that the cost of such an option would far exceed that of the proposal on the table, is curiously ignored by Mr. Gold.

Implications by Gold and others that other capital projects should be undertaken before or in tandem with the high school project were equally well considered during the comprehensive development of the high school project and rejected by a committee that included the would be direct beneficiaries of these other capital investment possibilities.

Why does Mr. Gold believe that his analysis is superior to that of the School Building Committee, which has members from across the town government and from every conceivably relevant professional competency? His argument includes no effort to account for the disparity. It does, however, include the claim that the proposed project is sub-optimal and therefore should be scrapped. To justify this argument (without ever mentioning the enormous costs of foregoing both the state aid and favorable financing environment) Gold claims that the Wilbraham-Hampden school project is bigger, better, and less expensive. This is news to the folks in Wilbraham-Hampden as well as the dedicated members of our School Building Committee, who will presently be refuting Mr. Gold’s “fuzzy math.”

Another criticism of the proposed project is that “too many Longmeadow residents cannot afford the additional $600 dollars a year for the life of the bond that this will cost.” The most significant problem with this claim is that it is a private, or individualistic, objection to a public, or collective, investment, the logic of which condemns ALL public investments. The advocates of the proposed project have thoroughly demonstrated the financial prudence of this investment “for the town,” but this argument essentially reframes the issue as an individual taxpayer burden that (its proponents hope) cannot be as easily justified. Particularly vulnerable from this perspective, according to proponents, are the “elderly residents on fixed incomes” for whom the additional tax liability could be overwhelming.

The political force of this argument is magnified if supporters of the project at issue accept this frame and try to argue that the cost is not an unfair or unnecessary burden on economically vulnerable residents. The reality is that no one could ever argue for any capital investment if this individual taxpayer frame is accepted. Were the voters of Longmeadow to allow themselves to see this investment from this perspective and vote against it, they would, at best, be exercising misplaced and very counter-productive compassion because without sound investments in our town’s capital assets each taxpayer’s most valuable capital asset (their home) will continue to lose value, which jeopardizes the financial capacity of both individuals and the town to maintain quality of life standards.

Rather than antagonizing residents who worry about the additional costs to their tax bill, fair-minded voters and supporters of the proposed project should be open to community-based assistance to economically vulnerable tax payers. We really are all in this together, and when a few of us have trouble moving forward it’s up to the rest of us to help everybody keep up, not by stopping and failing to progress, or by leaving anyone behind. Simply saying no to sound investments like the new high school pulls everyone down, which would be the real injustice.

The economic arguments against the new high school simply don’t add up.

Vote YES on May 25th and on June 8th.

Jerold J. Duquette, M.P.A, Ph.D.

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

Don't just disagree, debate!

The ongoing controversy over the high school project is a difficult one for anyone who truly cares about the future of our whole town. The only way to turn this controversy into a productive debate about legitimate financial strategies is to actually have "debates" and to focus the arguments on the substantive question, which has nothing to do with the motives of the advocates or opponents.

It's time to put aside claims that our elected officials have irrational biases and to put forward the best financial arguments for and against the proposed investment in the town's largest capital asset, the high school.

The failure of the select board to debate and vote on the project was very unfortunate, but instead of beating them over the head with their mistake, we should encourage them to publicly explain their perspectives as soon as possible. Hopefully, the fact that I was in the room when that happened and didn't totally lose it is an indication that I'm making progress on my anger management.

The transparency of the project's development over the last year or more has been laudable and should not be abandoned at this late stage. Supporters of the project (like me) need to "try hard" to avoid attacking opponents for their use of rhetorical gimmicks, something that would be easier if the debate were open and fair, with clear rules and ample opportunity for both sides to rebut the claims of the other.

I hope every town resident will contact the elected officials and candidates on both sides of this issue and urge them to go public with their best "substantive" financial arguments, and to participate in as many well structured, open, and fair debates as possible.

This decision is way too important to allow our conflicting general political perspectives to confuse or distract even one single resident. On this point, I must admit, I have some culpability. Local government is government, not business, and ideology is definitely relevant, however, when local government's make financial decisions of this magnitude and moment partisan and ideological voting cues can do as much harm as good. This debate is not about "the schools" per se, it is about the pros and cons of making a capital investment in the biggest and most visible public asset in our town. Attitudes about education, or teacher pay, or the like, are not central to the question before us.

The advocates need to make the case that this investment will enrich and improve the whole town at a price that will never be this low again. Opponents need to explain why this investment would not add value to the town, and (in my opinion) they should also detail a viable alternative that will move our town forward and begin to tackle our serious capital deficiencies.

For my part, I will try to control my temper and to employ my expertise in public administration, budgeting, and finance, to explain to as many residents as I can why I believe that the project is key to the financial stability of the town. I have invited any and all opponents of the project to debate me on my LCTV show. That invitation stands. Open and fair debates have been suggested by a number of organizations in town. I strongly urge every candidate and activist on this issue to seek to participate in as many of these as possible.

One piece of evidence for my claim that this issue is not about left versus right, it seems to me, is the very strong support of Rob Aseltine for the project. Rob is a VERY conservative Republican who has clearly demonstrated his conservative political and economic bona fides. If you share a right of center political perspective that makes it difficult for you to trust a liberal on this issue, just go to Rob and have him explain why this investment is perfectly consistent with a conservative approach to public finance.

Jerold J. Duquette, M.P.A., Ph.D.

Our Infrastructure

"What does the Town of Longmeadow do for preventative maintenance on sewers and water mains?" I asked a former member of the Water and Sewer Commission back in 2003, during a Charter Commission meeting. The town was investigating whether the structure of government was helpful in meeting town needs or was causing problems. The answer we received, that there was no preventative maintenance, surprised me. Who would think that this gem of towns in western Massachusetts had a flaw so deep inside?

That was one problem. There were several others. The town ultimately voted to restructure government so that it would more easily attend to residents' needs. It is not perfect; indeed, there may be no such thing as an ideal fix. But we can see evidence of improvement in maintenance of town resources, especially in the process used for the proposal to solve the problem that is our high school.

In particular, residents need to know about "The Maintenance Factor" as Director of Public Works & School Building Committee member Michael Wrabel puts it.

What does he write of the existing HS building?

"Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems (MEP) and Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC) are showing their age. Components have been out of service and have adverse affects on the building and the everyday users of the high school.

Steam lines that are in mechanical chases or tunnels under the building are degrading and leaking. Access for repair is difficult and often requires asbestos abatement work prior to the mechanical repair being completed.

In 2009 a broken steam line that crosses a courtyard from one addition to another ruptured and required partial replacement. Access to the courtyards for excavation is non-existent for excavation equipment and repairs were expensive to perform.

Plumbing drain lines that were installed in the 1950’s become blocked and at times requires breaking of a concrete floor for access to permit repairs.

Air handlers, blowers, heating and cooling coils, all parts of the HVAC system constantly require service because of their age in spite of routine preventive maintenance that is performed on them."

Further, he adds:

"Replacement of this tired and out-dated facility with a modern structure will enhance the ability of custodial and maintenance staff to perform routine duties.

Building energy efficiency will be increased and capital project spending will be decreased for the next 10-15 years if this project receives approval from the residents.

Longmeadow takes pride in the educational system and this upgrade to the cornerstone of the educational system will be a source of pride to residents for many years to come." (emphasis mine)

As someone (on the Housing Authority) who is keenly aware of residents' housing needs (and is working to improve the situation for those who are struggling financially), and as someone who has been aware of the ENTIRE TOWN's infrastructure needs for several years, I am in favor of the High School proposal. It will contribute to a much better Longmeadow, one that benefits all residents.
Rebecca M. Townsend

Response to Jim Moran & Call for Wojcik’s Resignation

Unfortunately, the necessary corrections to Jim Moran’s latest post were too extensive to put them all in comments to his post.

Jim’s effort to question the relevance of my statement regarding the fact that the high school project is a capital budget expense and the library operation is an operating budget expense is wrong headed. Apparently, Jim was fooled by Mr. Wojcik’s rhetorical sleight of hand. Mr. Wojcik conflated the principle and interest payments (which do happen annually) with operating expenses like library operations as if the cost of one would be necessarily pitted against the cost of the other. The fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest this scenario, and that it is based on cherry picked assumptions, clearly complicates Mr. Wojcik’s efforts to frighten library patrons into cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Jim also writes, “Mr. Duquette’s approach is similar to many new HS school building advocates who have simply decided that to ignore or discount or discredit mention of the any other financial needs of the town and want to simply move forward and build the new high school. They do not want to discuss the financial ability of Longmeadow’s town residents to support such a project.”

This is particularly disappointing commentary given Jim’s dedication to keeping up with issues in our town. His work in this regard is tremendously valuable. But this analysis is way off the mark. No one has ignored or discredited mentions of other capital needs in town, in fact during the exhaustive process of working toward the new high school virtually every elected official in town solicited opinions about the town’s priorities. Indeed, the elected officials who support the high school project are also the officials most acutely aware of our budgetary and capital needs issues. The arguments of Messrs Wojcik and Nolet have been heard and debated ad nauseum. Their credibility at this stage requires the belief that our elected officials are either incompetent, corrupt, or both, and that is simply beyond the pale.

The idea that supporters have simply rammed through the high school project without regard for the opinions of those who have different priorities is cynical and wrong. Essentially, Mr. Wojcik and company simply lost the priorities debate on the merits, something made blatantly obvious by the desperate nature of their “argument” against it now.

Wojcik tried to argue that we can’t afford a new High School as if we haven’t spend the last year carefully weighing the manner in which we were going to upgrade a high school that presently violates any number of building code requirements and has failed to keep up with the requirements of properly educating our children. He also seems oblivious to the fact that the present project is a hell of a good deal that will never get cheaper. He wants folks to believe that all the other town needs will fall by the weigh side if we build a new high school and yet he has never even presented an alternate vision of the town’s priorities placing something else in front of the high school.

Wojcik and company argued that we could renovate for less. They were proven wrong on that. They cherry picked a claim from an old study that seemed to imply the feasibility of cheaper renovation, ignoring the finding of that same study which strongly recommended building new. At every step of the way these “concerned citizens” had their concerns proven unwarranted and now they are simply throwing every possible argument against the wall and praying that something sticks.

So what was left of Wojcik’s arguments last night? He put some old wine in slightly new bottles, primed the audience's economic anxiety and fear of the unknown, and then tried to slip in his “Hail Mary” pass – that our Select Board and School committees want to commit all of our resources to the schools and close the Storrs library. For Wojcik, its really all about stopping our elected officials from building a Taj mahal for their kids on the backs of Longmeadow’s hard working folks without kids in the school. Incidentally, both pro and anti school factions in our town have parents and empty nesters aplenty. Short sightedness is not an age-related disability. The effort to construct an "us versus them" narrative along generational lines is just a cynical ploy intended to maximize emotional reactions.

Jim Moran is one of our town’s most valuable civic assets and I have tremendous respect for what he does and usually how he does it, but I think he might have gotten too close to some folks on this one and lost his perspective. He thinks that high school supporters like me “do not want to discuss the financial ability of Longmeadow’s town residents to support such a project.” We’ve been discussing that very thing all along. If we use Mr. Wojcik's budgetary assumptions we'd have to conclude that our town can never afford to do anything, which of course is the conclusion his chosen assumptions were designed to encourage.

The fact is that the people who understand that schools are our town’s most valuable asset are the majority of the folks who do all the work and show up to all the meetings and sacrifice massive amounts of their time to run for and serve on town government boards and committees. The proud few like Wojcik, who are very active in town but do not share this view of our priorities are understandably frustrated about their inability to win arguments in our participatory political process, but that’s no excuse for dishonesty and fear mongering. Their efforts to incite the anger of voters who are not engaged in, or knowledgeable about the town's affairs is shameful. Frankly, I cannot understand how anyone can put much stock in Mr. Wojcik’s “budgetary analysis,” which several audience members clearly debunked during the meeting last night, given his shameful efforts to exploit the fears of residents and to smear the good names of public officials that have given him every opportunity to make his case and who have earned the respect and admiration of all of our town’s residents.

I think residents of good will should demand the immediate resignation of Mr. Wojcik from the town’s Finance Committee. His distorted budgetary analysis makes him unqualified for that job and his baseless attacks on the integrity of our elected officials makes him unfit for public office.

Citizens for A Better Longmeadow

is the name of the group led by Roger Wojcik that organized a “public” forum that was attended by an overflow crowd of ~ 65-70 people last night at Storrs Library. The meeting objective as outlined at the outset by Mr. Wojcik was to provide some factual information about the financial issues facing the town both today and into the future. This group believes that many town residents need additional information to make informed decisions at the upcoming town meetings on May 11 and May 25 as well as town elections on June 8. Mr. Wojcik asked attendees to be respectful to each other and not have a repeat of the April 12 forum.

First of all, I applaud Mr. Wojcik’s attempt to provide some factual information about town finances including both the town’s annual operating and capital budgets as well as some of the other current liabilities such as Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). In addition to being a member of the town’s Finance Committee and a past member of the Capital Planning Committee, Mr. Wojcik has useful workplace experience in developing and managing corporate budgets. During the meeting Mr. Wojcik was criticized a number of times by some attendees, particularly about the accuracy of a $35 million OPEB future liability but he pointed to an official town analysis by Scanlon & Associates as his source. Similar objections were voiced about a report on town infrastructure problems and there were attempts by some attendees to discredit this information as well.













Other than one flamboyant outburst by a well-known town resident and regular poster on this blog, the meeting proceeded with a reasonable decorum- far better than the previous forum on April 12 (see my previous post)…. that is, until Mr. Wojcik turned the meeting from an information session into a political debate about Select Board candidates for the upcoming election and the inadvisability of electing former/ current School Committee members to the Select Board. What followed was not unexpected from my vantage point given the makeup of the audience.... the meeting turned into a similar “shouting match” situation as did the April 12 forum and the meeting ended on a very sour note….

Regarding Mr. Duquette’s latest post here on the Buzz blog…

I have listened and attended numerous Select Board/ School Committee meetings as well as official public forums on the current school/town budgets and high school building project during the past 9 months. I believe that I understand the situation quite well and have become very concerned about where we are headed.

Mr. Duquette makes the following statement in his latest Buzz post…

“The library is an operating expense, while the new high school is a capital expense. Closing the library doesn’t do anything to advance the high school project.”

He also states that Mr. Wojcik would have “earned a poor grade in my public budgeting course”. During the meeting Mr. Duquette also restated his recurring theme that “you can’t run public government like a business”.

As Mr. Wojcik tried to explain at last night’s meeting, a capital expenditure turns immediately into an line item operating expense through annual repayment of interest + principal. For the proposed high school project this operating budget line item is likely to be ~ $3.5 – 4.0 million in FY2014 (based upon estimates by Paul Pasterczyk- Town Finance Director but actual numbers are dependent upon municipal bond interest rates). (See my recent post to determine individual property tax impact.)

Mr. Duquette’s approach is similar to many new HS school building advocates who have simply decided to ignore or discount or discredit mention of the any other financial needs of the town and want to simply move forward and build the new high school. They do not want to discuss the financial ability of Longmeadow’s town residents to support such a project.

I believe that we are making a mistake if we simply choose to ignore Longmeadow’s other financial issues as we debate the decision to build a new high school. Given our difficulties in formulating the FY11 budget, it is clear that we will be making additional difficult choices in the very near future… not necessarily ones that we want to make but ones that we are forced to make. These unpopular choices may include reductions in teachers, fire dept/ police dept staff, additional curtailment of library services ……

Our town leaders need to BALANCE available financial resources to deliver both school and town services so that all segments of our town population are treated fairly. With two seats (out of 5) on the Longmeadow Select Board being decided at the June 8 election, it is important for town voters to fully understand each candidate’s position on this issue so that they can make right choices.