Something else to consider….

by both sides of the school building project debate.




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

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

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

Click here to read the full story….

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

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

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

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

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

The Issue

What is before Longmeadow voters?

We have 1 issue to decide tomorrow night: whether to accept Commonwealth money earmarked for Longmeadow's High School, or to reject that offer.

Yes or no.

If we vote no, there is not another plan waiting in the wings. We would need to start from square one, and the money the Commonwealth held for us will go back into their general pool for building projects. The LHS would not get repaired; nothing constructive would happen as a result of a no vote.

If we choose YES, however, we benefit in many ways. One way is through the favorable economic climate for such large scale projects. Our interest rate would be at an historic low, and construction bids would likely come in lower than at another time. Evidence from other districts bears this out. Another way is that the timeframe for building would be expedited. Two years--two years without kids in trailers.

The Finance Committee's opinions on this project matter to some degree, since they are the long range planning financial group for Town Meeting. As of this writing, they have not presented Longmeadow with a long range plan, however. Any informal discussion that they may have had regarding other projects is uninformed by a variety of factors: What is the cost for each item? Will we receive grants or other aid from the state or federal government for such projects? There are too many unknowns for the FC to make any valid claim about the future. It is a shame that our FC would waste time discussing that which they have no control over.

Aristotle even classifies deliberation as that which includes practical matters within people’s power (In The Rhetoric, 1359a); there are too many unknowns for them to deliberate about such possible future items. They are inconsequential to the issue before us.

We know the consequences of inaction-voting no. We know the benefits of acting positively with a YES vote. Those concerns, plus our values and interests, are legitimate to consider. I hope Town Meeting decides to keep its eyes on the prize.

Rebecca M. Townsend

10 Year Property Tax Projections

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

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

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

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

Three scenarios as described below were discussed:

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

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

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

Below are the results….

[click to enlarge chart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katherine Craven Answers Questions

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

Respect for the opinions of others….

I created the LongmeadowBuzz blog some 2½ years ago as an alternative to many of the current venues for discussion of local topics and issues such as “Letters to the Editor” in the Republican/ Reminder/ Longmeadow News and the MassLive- Longmeadow forum. As someone who occasionally visits and posts on the MassLive forum I can tell you much of the dialog that takes place there does not reflect very well on the town of Longmeadow or its residents.

LongmeadowBuzz is a moderated forum with contributing participants being “respected” members of our community including both town residents as well as school, business and government officials. The LongmeadowBuzz blog allows only approved contributors to initiate new subjects (without moderation) and each contributor is asked to post under their real name. Most participants understand what is acceptable content for posting on this type of forum and that abuses will not be tolerated.

The high school building project has created a large amount of heated discussion- much of which has appeared here on the LongmeadowBuzz blog. Most recently, a number of postings by Jerold Duquette have crossed the line with regard to respect for the opinions of others. Mr. Duquette has been warned a number of times about the content of his postings- most recently about two weeks ago.

For this reason I have deleted Mr. Duquette’s latest posting and have removed his author privileges so that he will no longer be able to post in the future. In response I’m sure that Mr. Duquette will “discuss” my actions on the MassLive forum….. just look for the JeroldDuquette handle if you are interested in reading his commentary.

I believe that his abusive verbal bullying has actually discouraged people from expressing their opinion on LongmeadowBuzz. I'm hoping that my actions will encourage others to step up and express their opinions- both for and against the school building project. If you are interested in participating on LongmeadowBuzz, please send an email to longmeadowbuzz@comcast.net.

You're Not Listening!

Jerold… you’re not listening!

In your last posting on the LongmeadowBuzz, you continued to portray Mr. Gold as an uninformed and misguided town official in an attempt to silence his opposition to the School Building project. Contrary to all of the rhetoric, Mark is well versed about town finances and the school building project. His outstanding leadership and commitment during his one year term on the Select Board resulted in a BALANCED budget that was overwhelming approved at last week’s annual town meeting.

It’s interesting to note that two current Select Board members (Mr. Aseltine and chairman, Mr. Barkett) voted AGAINST the approved budget because they wanted to see more cuts in the town side of the budget. Both are strongly in favor of the High School Building project.

I would urge you (as well as Ms. Swanson and other School Building proponents) to spend more time listening and less time bashing Mr. Gold’s position.

Below is a response by Mark Gold to Ms. Swanson’s recent criticism of his position.

Dear Longmeadow Residents,

Much has been written over the past several weeks about Longmeadow High School and it is appropriate for me, as a candidate for reelection to the Select Board, to offer my position. In the six years I served as chair of the Capital Planning Committee and in this past year as a member of the Select Board, I have come to understand and appreciate the serious deficiencies in our high school physical plant. I believe strongly that improvements – major improvements – need to be done to this facility. My work as a Select Board member in leading the development of this year’s operating budget compromise has also shown me the limits of our financial resources and how much Longmeadow will change if we are unable to maintain the diversity and quality of services that so distinctly characterize this town.

I have carefully and thoughtfully reviewed the high school project proposal that is currently before the residents of the town. It is precisely because I care about the schools, education, and the issues that attract and keep residents in Longmeadow that I have concluded that this project, at this time, is not the right project for addressing the deficiencies of Longmeadow High School. At a cost to the taxpayers of $44.4 million, approval of this project will put a financial burden on the town that will unduly limit our ability to address other critical operating and capital needs we face in the coming years.

It would have been a far more politically expedient position for me to support this project as it is proposed. However, it is because I have given this project so much thought and reviewed it in the context of my service as a member of the Select Board and within the broader needs of our town that I have concluded that this is not the right project at this time. The physical plant needs and other issues at the middle schools are of as equal concern to me as the needs of high school. As I look to those and the other overall needs of our educational system I realize that it is a mistake to focus on one issue without recognition of the other needs that are also within our field of vision. All the needs of the school system should be considered so that we understand the resource limits of the town and properly allocate them so that all the needs can be met over the coming years.

There is pressure to support this project based on a sense of urgency; many feel that state aid will be withdrawn unless we move ahead now. Although project supporters may disagree, I look at the upcoming vote as A decision point, rather than THE decision point in this project. Other than “forum” presentations of options under consideration by the school building committee, this vote is the first chance that the residents of town will have to fully weigh in on the scope and cost of the project. The Center School project went through two voter rejections prior to its acceptance, and we ended up with a better school as a result of this process. I have read and understand the policy of the MSBA and have concluded that this is the wrong project at this time. The state will not turn its back on Longmeadow should we decide that our town needs further deliberation before moving ahead.

Having stated my position on the project, and at the risk of reducing the discussion on the Select Board contest to a secondary referendum on the school project, it is important that Ms. Swanson’s erroneous comments on my response to a constituent’s questions be addressed. Although Ms. Swanson apparently received the entire contents of the e-mail I sent to a private individual in response to their questions, her responses to parsed quotations and selected segments appears to continue a policy of leaving no criticism unanswered and no critic unattacked.

So, item by item my responses are as follows:

click here to read the rest of Mr. Gold’s letter.

Don't be fooled! Say YES to Longmeadow's future!

Just got a copy of the latest NO propaganda from Wojcik and Co. How can elected officials and candidates like Mark Gold, Paul Santaniello, Dave Gusfstason, and Bill Schebelli possibly want to be associated with such a nakedly wrong headed effort? I sincerely hope that these folks join virtually every other town leader, including Rep. Rogeness and her husband Dean, who are proudly displaying a YES sign on their lawn.

This latest misinformation piece claims that we can utilize the MSBA appeals process in the event of a failed vote, which is true. What they fail to mention is that this would require starting over on a process that took us three years, and going to the end of a 400 project list with absolutely no guarantee of getting any money at all and a high probability of getting less money for a project that would cost more.

Wojcik and Co have no understanding of the relevant processes. Their latest mailer even gets the payback schedule wrong.

They claim we could renovate the HS for $40 million, instead of the proposed project of $44 million, which they see as excessive and unnecessary. Think about this. They are saying we should forgo getting $36 million of our own money back from Boston, and spend $40 million on a renovation that will NOT EVEN BRING THE HIGH SCHOOL UP TO CODE! That's right, they are relying on a report about the high school that didn't include most of the health and safety code violations.

So they think taxpayers who can't afford the the extra $600 per year starting in 2014 and going down over the life of the loan CAN afford the extra $575 a year that their preferred option would cost(they hope). They also apparently believe that the money for the additional repairs as well as the money that we would save with the new HS will fall from the sky. They certainly haven't budgeted for it.

They want us to waste $36 million of our tax money that we deserve to get back from the state, as well as the almost $1 million we've already spent and are currently paying for to develop this project (i.e. on the feasibility study required by MSBA). They want to spend another $1 million to re-apply with a project they prefer, which itself would cost us a couple million more to refine.

All toll it appears that instead of spending $44 million and getting a brand new state of the art High School that will also have multiple community-wide uses and serve as a beacon of quality in our town, these folks want voters to opt for a renovation of the HS that at a minimum will cost the town $50 million. This $50 million is a low estimate when you consider the likely changes in the bond and construction markets. It also does not include the lost savings and increased costs of maintaining the "renovated" High school.

They are claiming that financing $44 million over 25 years to buy a building that will save us nearly $150,000 in energy costs each year, to say nothing of the maintenance savings over the first decade of operation, will crowd out other needed expenses. Their solution is to SPEND MORE on a project already studied and rejected by both the state and town that will not increase the value of the town's largest capital asset, but will only keep it standing.

I hope every resident gets this mailing. Not only has/will each point in it be thoroughly debunked between now and TM, it will be thoroughly debunked at TM.

We sure do live in interesting times. Longmeadow has its own little "tea party" crowd willing to call up down, black white, and to try to scare old folks and library patrons into voting against themselves. Now they are going after every Longmeadow family having trouble making ends meet.

These efforts to misinform are so weak on substance that these nay sayers have refused to debate the issue in public with anyone. They cancelled an appearance at Glenmeadow because they knew how badly their claims would look next to the slide show of the High School conditions being showed by the advocates of the project. They even tried to get Glenmeadow to let them come alone so they wouldn't have to be held accountable for their lies. Guess what date they asked for? You guessed it, May 24th. They wanted to scare these folks just in time to get them to vote against their own interests without an opportunity to get the facts.

Longmeadow is almost certainly going to do the right thing on this issue, but that doesn't relieve us of the cancer represented by a certain small but hardy band of residents who harbor an inexplicable bitterness and deep seated need to fight against the interests of the community. It would be wonderful if these folks were actually serving as Devil's advocates who diligently hold our policy makers and our residents to account for preserving the quality of our town. Unfortunately, this role is not being fulfilled here, though it may be the line they tell themselves in the mirror each day.

We need to come together in Longmeadow and move forward together. There is no future in dividing residents against each other. A resounding and overwhelming victory for Longmeadow on the 25th and on June 8th for the proposed project will indeed "save our town."

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