Just Say No to "Syn"

or Synthetic Turf

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

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

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



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

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

Some additional background info...

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

CPA Project 2007-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Transparency Game

In case you missed it, here is Alex Grant's “The Transparency Game” that appeared in last week's edition (10/07/10) of the Longmeadow News (with permission of the author and thanks to the Longmeadow News).
____________________________________

If there is one value all candidates to the Select Board and the School Committee pay homage to, it is "transparency." Once elected, however, some town politicians act as if their passion for "transparency," openness, and the free flow of information to the public was rhetorical excess. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant," but for elected town officials, that sunlight is seen as a distracting, harsh glare that takes their attention away from the important matters they need to discuss.

And so it was recently that the Select Board decided to do an offsite "retreat" at the church across the street from its regular meeting room. The explicit purpose of this change in venue was to rid Board members of those pesky cameras that televise their regular board meetings. Board Chair Robert Aseltine thought the retreat was a dandy idea because there could have a "more relaxed" conversation without the cameras. Aseltine noted that the deliberation process is "affected by being on camera." Board member Robert Barkett said that it was his experience that elected officials "tend to speak differently" offsite and that the conversations are "completely different" without the cameras.

Hearing that, curious minds might have wondered, "so what do they discuss when they're off camera?" Or, are the views expressed at their regular meetings so different from their true beliefs? Having piqued our interest, the pro-retreat Board members of Christine Swanson, Aseltine, and Barkett went on to assure the public that this was no retreat of theirs from transparency or the open meeting law. After all, they are literally unable to bar town residents from attending any board meeting, whether styled as a retreat or not. They even went so far as to say that the retreat was really just as open, especially since they would have to post minutes and folks could attend in person (albeit when many are out of town on vacation).

Got that? The retreat, according to the Select Board, was essential to create the privacy necessary to have the candid and "completely different" conversations they needed to have. But, the retreat was also just as open and transparent as any other meeting, even though virtually nobody would ever see it.

Editor's note: There is a web video and meeting "notes" for this August 23 meeting and it was posted on LongmeadowBuzz.  See Select Board Sets FY12 Goals.

At the August 23 retreat, certain Board members voiced support for subcommittees, a structure unfamiliar to the Select Board but very much a part of how the School Committee does business. And now, it seems all but assured that there will be a Finance Subcommittee and an Operations Subcommittee. Board members Mark Gold and Paul Santaniello are opposed.

Most town residents probably view the legislative process of the Select Board as inside baseball, unworthy of attention. However, this subcommittee idea will diminish what the public knows about the budget and other vital town issues. If the School Committee subcommittees are any guide, they will not be televised, their meetings will be mostly unpublicized, and their meeting minutes (if any are kept) will not be readily available. The subcommittees, in turn, will present their findings and recommendations at the regular meetings, and those will be accepted without much discussion.

I wrote about subcommittees last year, and I noted that in July 2009, there had been no meeting minutes of the School's Financial subcommittee posted online since 2007. Those minutes, are now available, but there is nothing posted for the bevy of other School subcommittees. There are five such subcommittees this year, but there are no meeting minutes posted for any of them.

Recently, the School Building Committee just went four months without posting its meeting minutes, and the last posted Select Board meeting minutes are from over three months ago. Meanwhile, Jim Moran, the erstwhile town webmaster who still endeavors to provide information about town events on his own websites, has been refused access to the town's press releases.

All of this points to a trend toward keeping town business more obscure to ordinary voters. This penchant for privacy stems from the belief on the part of some town politicians that our local government would be run more intelligently if insulated from the prying eyes of the public. And make no mistake, by doing the minimum and grudgingly providing information about their affairs online, the Select Board, or any other board, can drastically reduce the amount of attention it receives. The only way to make sure town government is truly open is by holding politicians accountable at the ballot box for their pledges of transparency. Otherwise, the doublespeak will just go on.


Alex J. Grant

Roadmap to a New Website

The Town of Longmeadow Website Task Force is seeking
your input on how to improve the website and other electronic
services offered by the town.  Please click on SURVEY.

This is the message currently being displayed on the homepage at http://www.longmeadow.org/ .

Because I strongly believe that our town needs effective web based communication, I have written two previous articles on technology options for a revamped town website to help provide some direction for the Town Manager's Task Force.

Cost of Technology
Cost of Technology- Part II
__________________________________________

After I posted these articles, I have received a series of critical comments from Alan Dove, a town resident and member of Town Manager’s Website Taskforce stating that I have greatly overstated the difficulty and cost of both the development and maintenance aspects for a new town website.  Below are a few excerpts from his comments...

“As for the "Virtual Town Hall" option, it's a blatant ripoff. Nobody with a clue pays a dime for a content-management system these days. Indeed, the town's current technology service already offers professional installation and maintenance of several open source CMSs, so that should add no cost.”

”You also vastly overstate the need for training the people who will post content. A modern CMS makes posting and editing as easy as putting a comment on a blog page. Anyone who can use a computer can do it.”

“There's no technical reason a completely renovated web site should cost more than a few hundred dollars a year.”
_________________________________________

I have recently surveyed a number of town websites in our region and found that the Amherst’s town website http://www.amherstma.gov/  provides an excellent benchmark for our town to emulate. Amherst has been commended numerous times in the recent past for their excellent delivery of web based services through their town website.

To obtain more information about the Amherst’s town website development, I contacted Kristopher Pacunas, Director of Information Technology for the Town of Amherst and asked him a series of questions. His answers shown below were quite helpful in gaining a better understanding of what it takes to create and operate an effective town government website.

1. From the link on your website, it appears that www.amherstma.org is using a document management system developed by CivicPlus®. Is that correct?
   [Kris] Yes it is CivicPlus®
   Note: CivicPlus® develops comprehensive websites for cities and towns with over 700 completed projects servicing 26 million people. Their website is: http://www.civicplus.com/
   
2. How much did the startup phase including the design of the document management system template and required Amherst employee training cost the town?
   [Kris] We did three websites all at once (http://www.amherstma.gov/, http://www.amherstpd.org/  and http://www.lsse.org/  ) and the total initial cost for setup was $25,000.
   
3. How long did it take to get the new website online?
   [Kris] 3 Months
   
4. How many town employees are actively involved with the website? Do you have any volunteers to help maintain and update the website?
   [Kris] 25+ and yes. The granular security abilities allow us to delegate the upkeep responsibilities to many departments and staff.
   
5. When major navigation changes (new webpages, menu items, forms, etc.) are needed, does CivicPlus® take care of the required html development and website implementation?
   [Kris] No and yes. CivicPlus® will walk you through every step.
   
6. Do you have an estimate of how many hours (weekly/ annually) are required to maintain the Amherst website?
   [Kris] This is part of each department's daily routines but it significantly less time overall that what it would take without a web-based content management system.
   
7. Is there an annual charge by CivicPlus® to host the Amherst websites and provide you with any needed technical support (e.g., webpage/form modifications)?
   [Kris] The Town of Amherst pays $6,000 annually for maintenance for the three sites and all modules. I suspect your annual cost would be significantly less. The form creation is also built-in to the content management system so we create our own forms regularly at no cost. In fact there are no additional costs over the annual maintenance which includes hosting.
   
8. Any additional words of advice?
   [Kris] I’ve done a lot of research and spent a lot of time looking at every system on the market and after two years of use there is basically no comparison to CivicPlus®. Let me know if I can be of more help, good luck!

www.amherstma.gov/
Amherst Town Government

www.lsse.org/

Leisure Services and Supplemental Education

ala Longmeadow Parks/ Recreation



www.amherstpd.org

Amherst Police Department

As Kris mentioned in one of his answers, all three of the above websites were included with their town government website development and have a single "look and feel".  The Jones Library in Amherst has a separate website (www.joneslibrary.org/) with a different look and feel and is connected via an "external" link on the Amherst town government website.

The Longmeadow Parks and Recreation Dept has its own website (www.lprd.net).  Perhaps the LPRD's website could be incorporated into Longmeadow's new town website and the annual maintenance savings used to fund it.

Browsing through Amherst's town website I found some features that should be considered for the new Longmeadow website.

• Using the same "look and feel" throughout the three sections (http://www.amherstma.gov/, http://www.amherstpd.org/ and http://www.lsse.org/ ) provides for very easy navigation through the website.
• Excellent Search function on the website allows visitors to find "hidden" information.
• Access to GIS maps and property information (--> www.amherstma.gov/index.aspx?NID=400)
• Very comprehensive Police Dept website.
• Links to blogs

I would recommend that Longmeadow residents visit Amherst’s town websites before they fill out the survey so that they can provide some useful information to the Town Managers Website TaskForce.

Longmeadow Town Manager and School Superintendent Contracts

As I mentioned in my previous post, the current negotiated employment contracts for the Town Manager and School Superintendent were not found at Storrs Library but I was able to obtain copies via a request to Town Hall. Both contracts are public documents.

Here are links to these contracts…

Town Manager- dated March 25, 2009

• Current contract was signed on 3/25/09 is effective until 6/30/12. 
• Initial salary of $99,031/ year through 6/30/10. Merit increases and other compensation may be awarded at the discretion of the Select Board.
  (There were no merit or other compensation increases for FY11.)
• Includes 4 weeks vacation, 12 days of sick leave (which can be accumulated up to a max of 150 days). Also included are 3 personal days/year (no carryover or accumulation) and 12 paid holidays.
• There is a car allowance of $200/ month, $2500/ year tax deferred compensation, up to $2500 for professional development and payment of dues for professional memberships.

School Superintendent- dated March 30, 2010

• This new contract is for three years effective 7/01/10 with an initial starting salary of $155,000/year.
• Evaluation every year (June 30) with the potential of an annual increase based upon performance.
• 5 weeks vacation (carryover 5 days/ year), 15 sick days (carryover max of 45 days), 12 paid holidays, 2 personal days, 3 bereavement days per year.
• Monthly expenses for a cell phone/ Blackberry electronic device are paid.

Comments

According to the above contract, the School Superintendent’s salary was finalized on March 30 yet the FY2011 school department budget provided to town voters at the Annual Town Meeting showed a line item of $135,000 even though the actual contract salary at the time was $155,000. This is a 25.4% increase over the $123,000 paid to our recently retired school superintendent.

Why were town voters mislead by the School Committee as to new superintendent’s salary particularly given a budget that was achieved in part with a new teachers contract having a 0.0% COLA?

Comparison of school superintendent salaries in East Longmeadow ($130,000- FY11) and Wilbraham-Hampden Regional School District ($135,000- FY10) suggests that $135,000 was a competitive salary for our region and towns with similar characteristics.

Based upon the current salary structure for Longmeadow teachers, our new superintendent is getting paid more than twice the highest paid teacher in the school system.

Our new superintendent is also being paid at a salary that is 57% higher than our current Town Manager.

Town employee salaries are a very large part of our town budget. The current Longmeadow teacher contracts expire next summer so teacher salaries including COLAs (as well as other town employees) will be a significant factor in achieving a balanced budget for FY2012. Police and fire fighters are still in collective bargaining for a new contract.

It should be an interesting upcoming budget process.

P.S. The TM and School Superintendent's contracts should be included with the other contracts available at Storrs Library.

Followup on New Longmeadow Town Bylaw….

In accordance with the new town bylaw 2-320, copies of the current “negotiated labor contracts” were deposited at Storrs Library. I spent time last Thursday at Storrs Library to determine what information could be found.

Here is a list of the current labor contracts that are available at Storrs Library...

Longmeadow Education Association
1. Unit A- 9/01/09 - 8/31/11
2. Unit B- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11
3. Unit D- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11
4. Unit E- 8/31/09 – 8/31/11
5. Unit F (educational assistants)- 9/01/09 - 8/31/11
6. Unit H (custodians)- 7/01/09 - 6/30/11

Longmeadow Organization of Clerical Workers
(full time clerical employees for Town Clerk, DPW, Police, etc.
7/01/05 – 6/30/08- contract has expired

Longmeadow Local 1903 Int’l Assn. of Fire Fighters
7/01/08 – 6/30/09- contract has expired

Longmeadow Int’l Brotherhood of Police Officers, Chapter 370
7/01/08 – 6/30/09- contract has expired

Longmeadow Police Supervisors
7/01/09 – 6/30/12

Longmeadow police officers, fire fighters and clerical workers have not completed collective bargaining contract negotiations with the town.

Longmeadow teachers, educational assistants and custodians as well as the Longmeadow Police Supervisors have existing contracts- each with a 0% COLA. All of the existing Longmeadow Teachers contracts expire during FY2011. For those who are interested, here is the Longmeadow teachers' salary structure including steps, education and longevity factors.

I did not read each of these contracts in their entirety but plan to do so at some time in the near future.

The current employment contracts for the Town Manager and School Superintendent which were of greatest interest to me were not included with the contracts at Storrs Library.

The new bylaw says “negotiated labor contracts” – which must have been narrowly interpreted so as to not include the TM and Superintendent’ contracts.

I have subsequently obtained copies of both contracts which are public documents and plan to share details and commentary in my next blog post.

New Longmeadow Town Bylaw

A revised version of the Longmeadow's General Bylaws including amendments approved at the 2010 Annual Town Meeting and approved by the Massachusetts Attorney General is now available for review on the town website (click here to view). 

One of the new amendments (Article 2- Chapter 3) which was on the 2010 ATM warrant by voter petition and championed by town resident Joe Occhiuti is shown below:

2-320. Contract Negotiations.
All current and future negotiated labor contracts shall be announced in our local newspaper(s) no later than two weeks of said settlement. A hard copy of all negotiated labor contracts shall be deposited in their entirety at Storrs Library.

In this morning's Springfield Republican there was a business article about the contract for Amherst's new Town Manager including compensation details.

Click here to read the full newspaper article.





This new town bylaw would require the Town of Longmeadow to publish details of all negotiated labor contracts as they are approved.  Hopefully, this would include contracts for the new School Superintendent, Town Manager, etc as well as Longmeadow Teachers contract, etc.

The new bylaw states that all current contracts should be deposited for public view at Storrs Library as well.

One employee contract of interest is that for the new School Superintendent. 

On May 11 town voters at the Annual Town Meeting approved the FY11 School Department budget (dated 2/22/10) which included a Superintendent salary of $135,000- a 9% increase from the FY10 Superintendent salary of $123,600. 

On June 14 the School Committee (see meeting minutes) approved a revised FY11 budget with the Superintendent's salary set at $155,000- a 25.4% increase over FY10.  With the current Longmeadow teacher's contract set at a 0% COLA for the next two years, a 25.4% increase seems a bit too much- particularly given the "as advertised" credentials and experience of the new superintendent.

According to School Committee meeting minutes (February 22, 2010) Marie Doyle had accepted the town's offer of employment as Longmeadow School Superintendent pending successful contract negotiations.  In a March 22 SC executive session, a contract proposal was discussed and approved in open session for presentation to Ms. Doyle (see meeting minutes) and execution by Chairperson Mary Vogel.  However, I could not find any SC minutes for subsequent meetings documenting whether or not the contract was accepted by Ms. Doyle and there was no mention of additional negotiations.

Question: When was the new School Superintendent's salary finalized?

 For most people who followed the FY11 budget process, the Superintendent's salary for FY11 was $135,000 since this was in the budget information provided to town voters at the ATM and it appeared (though not reported on the School Department website or by local newspapers) that the School Superintendent had been hired prior to the ATM. 

This is a mute question since Massachusetts state law requires the town voters and ATM to approve a total school budget only- not line by line. The SC is certainly within their authority to line shift the dollars to increase the Superintendent's salary (which they apparently did at their June 14 meeting).

I may be all wrong in my thinking.... so adding a copy of the current Superintendent's Contract to Storrs Library will restore my confidence that the development of our budgets (town government + schools) are done in an open and transparent manner. 

Based upon implementation of the new town bylaw I expect that all negotiated labor contracts (which I assume means Town Manager, Longmeadow Teachers, etc., Police, Fire....) will be made public "in their entirety" at Storrs Library in the very near future.

Thank you Joe Occhiuti!

A good start for Longmeadow's town website

but there is still a long way to go!

There are now announcements from Town Hall being posted on the town website- www.Longmeadow.org. A new notice was also posted today that the Town Manager’s Website TaskForce will asking town residents how to improve the website and what other electronic services should be offered.

Now that I know that there are some people at Town Hall reading the Buzz blog and reacting to at least some of my comments, I would like to offer the following suggestions….

1. Keep the town announcements and event calendar timely and up-to-date.
   Town residents want to know about street repaving work and other project work “before” it begins. There is currently some street reconstruction work going on this week on Longfellow Street. I know that Center School sent out letters to parents but not all of us have kids attending Center School so a town wide announcement would have been useful.
   
   The new agenda “tab” on the Calendar solves the "readability" problem that I mentioned in my last post.... thanks!
   
   
2. Meeting minutes…. I attended last week’s School Building Committee meeting and posted some notes here on the Buzz. At this meeting on Sept 15 (8 days ago) there were 4 sets of minutes approved dating back to May. Why are they not posted on the School Building Department website?
   
   How about Select Board meeting minutes? There is only one new set of minutes posted for the combined School Committee/ SB meeting on September 20, but where are all of the other ones for meetings this past summer?
   
   How about meeting minutes for all of the other boards/ committees/ commissions?
   
   The new Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (Section 22 (c), effective July 1) states: “Minutes of all open sessions shall be created and approved in a timely manner. The minutes of an open session, if they exist and whether approved or in draft form, shall be made available upon request by any person within 10 days.
   
   The new www.Longmeadow.org website should provide town residents with easy access to all meeting minutes. The Town Manager and “webmaster” should actively solicit this information. Posting of meeting minutes 2-6 months after the meeting has occurred usually provides information with very little worthwhile value.
   
   Perhaps “draft” meeting minutes could be posted (and labeled as DRAFT) as soon as they are available possibly within days of a meeting.  (A former Longmeadow School Superintendent (Tom McGarry) posted his meeting "notes" on the town website within a week of the meeting.) This would permit town residents to better understand what is happening and attend the next meeting or write email if necessary to provide their comments. This would be a large step forward in communicating with town residents.
   
   
3. There is an organization called Common Cause of Massachusetts which actively promotes better e-Government. Each year they evaluate (and re-evaluate) official city and town government websites in Massachusetts using an established set of criteria and recognize cities and towns in Massachusetts accordingly for their efforts. Through my work as town webmaster Longmeadow has received this e-Government award for the past three years. There is a “with distinction” award designation which Longmeadow has not received because some documents have been missing from the website. Receiving the e-Government “with distinction” award should be a goal of the new website team.
   
   If Longmeadow were being evaluated today by Common Cause, it is likely that Longmeadow’s town website would not receive the e-
   Government award.
   


4. There was a strong interest by three members of the Select Board (Aseltine-Barkett-Swanson) to take control of the website and convert it to an “official town government” website. That makes a lot of sense since significant taxpayer money will now be used to support the website.  Providing technical support for community organizations including website development and other needs should be considered outside the scope of the website.
   
   LongmeadowBiz, LLC has already made an offer to provide Storrs Library with free website support but it has been refused.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Website Taskforce to make their final recommendations to the Select Board.  Hopefully, in the meantime there will be continued effort to keep the website up to date.  Town residents have been accustomed to better service.

What’s happened to communication in Longmeadow?

The Longmeadow town website- http://www.longmeadow.org/  once acclaimed for its outstanding delivery of information to town residents has seen a significant deterioration during the past two months. Anyone who has followed the “insubordinate volunteer” incident here on the Buzz blog or in the local newspapers is aware of the town website situation. The town website has now been under renovation for almost two months and Select Board has not as yet developed a plan to provide town residents with an effective website and access to up-to-date information. At last week’s Select Board meeting it was reported that the Town Manager’s Website Task Force had met for the first time but no update was presented.

There have been efforts to post announcements for town residents on the town website as shown below in a snapshot from earlier today.

However, three of the four notices currently posted are out of date. The new "town calendar” on the website homepage provides a somewhat better attempt with posting of town govt meeting dates but the accompanying agendas are sometimes difficult to view completely or print.  I rate this effort at a C- and is not what town residents have come to expect from our town website.

I have attempted to continue posting town government announcements on the Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board and Town Calendar as I had been doing for the past five years. Both of these free web based resources can be found on LongmeadowBiz.com.  Some time ago, I made a simple request to the Town Manager and the various department heads that LongmeadowBiz be added as a media outlet on the distribution lists for town press releases. That never happened and last week I found out why.

Rob Aseltine, Longmeadow Select Board chairman, had unilaterally directed  Town Manager Robin Crosbie to block any press releases or event information from being sent to LongmeadowBiz.  This was done without formal discussion with the other members of the Select Board.

In addition, all visible links to these free town resources (Bulletin Board and Town Calendar) have been removed from the town website which has caused further frustration for town residents in their search for the latest news.

There are upcoming flu shot clinics planned by the Board of Health, Maple Road is being repaved soon, high school building project construction will begin, etc…. How are town residents going to be informed?

This continued retribution by Mr. Aseltine against me for my blog posts in early June regarding the School Building project has clearly resulted in poorer communication between the town and its residents.  His effort is obviously directed toward my LongmeadowBiz, LLC enterprise and he is doing whatever he can through his position as an elected town official to disable its effectiveness and popularity.

If you are concerned by the actions of our Select Board chairman, please send an email to him with your comments. His email address is: raseltine@longmeadow.org  . Be sure to copy in the other members of the Select Board and the Town Manager. Their email addresses are shown below:

rbarkett@longmeadow.org , cswanson@longmeadow.org , psantaniello@longmeadow.org  and mgold@longmeadow.org .

Be sure to visit the Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board and the Town Calendar on LongmeadowBiz.com to stay connected with what is going on in Longmeadow. I will try my best to make available to Longmeadow residents all town government and other related information.

School Building Committee Meeting- 9/15/10

Because there has been very little publicity about the activities of the School Building Committee (SBC), I decided to attend their regular monthly meeting on Wednesday night to find out what is happening. As I expected, there were very few town residents in attendance (total = 2, counting myself).

Meeting minutes have not been posted on the SBC website (http://www.longmeadow.org/sbc/minutes.htm) since March 16 and as of Wednesday afternoon there were no additional hardcopy meeting minutes available at the Town Clerk’s office. I find this lack of meeting minutes very disturbing given the new Massachusetts Open Meeting Law which became effective July 1.  According to the official guide from the Attorney General’s office…. the law requires that existing minutes must be created and approved in a timely manner.

Meeting Highlights

The first item on the SBC meeting agenda was approval of SBC meeting minutes for May 13, June 2, June 17 and August 19.  A little less than the “timely manner” as required by the new Open Meeting Law.  I'm guessing that this agenda item may have been a direct response to Mark Gold’s request to Christine Swanson (SBC co-chair) at Monday’s Select Board meeting (9/13/10) to post overdue SBC meeting minutes.  With the current town website situation I would not want to guess when these “newly approved” minutes might be available online.  Hopefully, the content, completeness and quality of these latest meeting minutes will be improved vs. the minutes posted for the November 2009 time period when the MSBA to SBC correspondence was hidden from public view.

Design Update

Exterior Walls/ Flooring/ Interior Walls/ Paint/ Glazing and other material choices affecting cost that have been made by project work groups were reviewed with the SBC. These choices are needed to prepare the full project specification package. Other choices such final wall or carpet color can be changed later since they are not likely to affect final cost.

Project Schedule Update

There will be some early project work in Nov/ Dec for the relocation of existing school utilities including phone, gas, water and power lines. This early work is necessary because most of these utilities are connected to the current HS through areas where the new school will be built.

This early project construction work will create a signficant loss of HS parking spaces resulting in the need to identify other nearby alternatives and/or the creation of a new temporary lot. Bliss Tennis Courts parking and the west side of the Longmeadow Shops were mentioned as possible choices.

Feb 2011- Start demolition of the existing school department building wing

May 2011- New HS building construction begins

Comment

Here is an interesting question…. The School Department will be relocated to space available in Wolf Swamp Road School and Center School after this space has been renovated. The original plan called for the School Dept to relocated to existing space in the 1971 wing after it had been renovated this fall.

What happened to the original plan? It looks like there will be additional costs involved with this revised plan….

How much will the Center School/ Wolfswamp School office renovation cost and will that cost be absorbed by the HS building project?

The School Dept will be relocated for an extended period of time….up to three years according to a MassLive report. It sounds like there may be a significant cost involved with this renovation.  These costs should not be absorbed by the current school or town operating budgets and should be included with the new school building project.

Other Agenda Items

During this discussion a number of ideas were suggested by SBC members. Highlights included the following:

• Interest was expressed in the incorporation of a cell phone tower within the new building structure as a means to develop rental income for the town (or school dept). One estimate of potential revenue from tenant wireless carrier(s) was $40K/ year.
• One committee member- Roland Joyal highlighted the fact the recent local new high school project bids (Putnam HS in Springfield + Wilbraham/ Hampden Regional HS) have come in much lower than originally estimated because of the poor economy and low construction activity. (According to the Springfield Republican the winning bid for the WHRHS project was $53.6 M vs. original estimate of $82M). Mr. Joyal predicted that the bids for the new Longmeadow HS project will also be much lower than the $78 million estimate. He recommended that the SBC consider other project uses for the predicted savings. He proposed inclusion of a artificial turf field to to replace the current turf field at the football stadium. One cost estimate for this option was $750,000.
  
  The current high school practice field (natural grass) will likely need significant renovation after building construction is completed and there are project monies being included for this purpose. It was suggested during this discussion to consider making this an artificial turf field rather than a natural grass field.
• Co-chair Mr. Barkett remarked that these items would need to be included in the “add alternates” section of the bid package for the project. An “add alternate” is a secondary more expensive option that may be considered during the construction phase.

Comment

The project design team has been conducting “value engineering” meaning a “systematic application of recognized techniques which identify the function of a product or service, and provide the necessary function reliably at lowest overall cost.”

Longmeadow voters approved the construction of a new HS building project with an estimated cost of $78.1 million. If the winning project bid comes in at a lower price tag say $62 million, the SBC should not take that as a cue to include additional elements (ex. artificial turf field(s)) because there is money available to be spent without the need for approval by town voters.

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

I am planning to attend the SBC monthly meetings on a regular basis and post my meeting "notes" here on the Buzz to help town residents keep abreast of the high school project activities.

As always, I welcome SBC co-chairs to "set the record straight" if there are errors in my reporting or commentary.  Other town residents are also invited to participate.

A New “Game plan” for FY12?

At the Select Board meeting on August 23 there was a series of discussions that appeared to be directed at developing a new “game plan” for the upcoming FY12 budget process (see recent Buzz post- Select Board Sets FY12 Goals for meeting details).

I believe that there is a high probability that the new “Aseltine-Barkett-Swanson (A-B-S) majority” will attempt to “marginalize” and negate the influence of both Gold and Santaniello during the upcoming FY12 budget setting process.

Here are some highlights from the recent SB goal setting meeting that led me to this conclusion….

1. The formation of a financial “subcommittee” (similar to that employed by the School Committee) was proposed to assist with the development of the town’s annual budget and with other financial issues that face the SB. Aseltine and Barkett both expressed dissatisfaction with last year’s budget process and wanted to change the methodology.
   
   This new subcommittee would "assist" the Town Manager by setting specific goals and then helping to work out the details. It would consist of only 2 SB members since 3 or more would represent a board quorum. SB members who are not on this subcommittee could attend as town residents but would not be able to participate directly.
   
   [The Town Charter states that the Town Manager not the Select Board nor this proposed SB financial subcommittee has the prime responsibility for developing a town wide budget including the school department. So what exactly will be the role of this new financial subcommittee?]
   
   
2. Barkett also expressed a desire to rein in the activities of any “rogue” board members (was he referring to Gold + Santaniello?) who might directly interact with department heads to ask budget or other related questions. Aseltine and Barkett both favored a new SB protocol that required all information requests or questions be channeled through the SB chair and then through the Town Manager who would then ask the Dept. Head for the information. If such a protocol is adopted, members who are not on the proposed SB financial subcommittee will likely have a much more difficult time accessing budget related information since they will not be able to directly ask town department heads (Finance Director, DPW Director, Fire Chief, etc.).

During last year’s budget process, Gold was a key player in developing a FY11 budget compromise that balanced the needs of our town and which was approved at the Annual Town Meeting. He played an important role in the negotiation of a new trash collection contract that significantly reduced costs and improved service. He also identified an opportunity for a subsidized energy conservation program for town buildings that will significantly reduce energy costs.

It’s interesting that both Aseltine and Barkett voted against the FY11 budget that was approved at the Annual Town Meeting. At the time of the SB budget vote Aseltine stated that he thought the proposed town side of the budget did not go far enough in cutting town employee headcounts, increasing outsourcing or improving the sustainability of the town side of the budget for future years.

I believe that this new game plan (formation of a financial subcommittee + adoption of new information request protocol) that is supported by the A-B-S majority will be used as a strategy to marginalize the efforts of both Gold and Santaniello and shift the town’s financial resources towards the school side of the budget.

Barkett and Swanson are also the co-chairs for the School Building Committee and each has a large important commitment to the new high school project in addition to being SB members. It would seem prudent for the SB to appoint Gold and/or Santaniello to this financial subcommittee given the large amount of work involved in developing the town budget.

I hope that my speculations are proven wrong and I will watch to see what happens….

I strongly recommend that all town residents stay tuned as well.