School Building Committee Meeting- 1/5/11

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

Below are my meeting notes…

1. “Add Alternates” Update

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

Trade- Add Alternates (these items must be prioritized)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Project Cost Estimates

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Comments

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

Emergency Notifications

I watched the Longmeadow Select Board meeting this past Monday night and found one particular aspect of the discussion about the problems being encountered with the installation of new water meters very concerning.

New water meter installation work has been underway for one "billing" zone (1 out of 6) over the past few months.  Without getting into the details of the discussion it turns out that about 25% of the homeowners in this zone have no contact phone number registered with the town nor is the number published or found in any of the conventional sources.  This includes the town's database for the Emergency Notification Phone System which the town uses for calling town residents about emergency or crisis situations.

If the 25% figure is typical for the rest of the town, then there are approximately 1400 residences in town that cannot be notified quickly via telephone in the event of town emergency such as a gas leak, chemical spill, tornado or other emergency event.

I would urge everyone in town to make sure that they have a contact number (cell, or land line) registered with the town to be used in event of an emergency. Simply click on the above graphic or visit the town website to sign up.

A New Year's Message

2010 has a been a year of change for Longmeadow's presence on the Internet, but there are new opportunities ahead.  I am looking forward to an exciting 2011!

This past July a brand new website- www.LongmeadowMA.org was created to capture and maintain a significant amount of the community oriented content for town residents.  This includes photos, webpages for community groups such as Long Meddowe Days, etc that may not be maintained by our town website in the future.

Looking back to 1997... a volunteer group of town residents wanted to provide a means for better communication in our town.  From that beginning, a tremendous amount of energy was devoted into making our town website- www.Longmeadow.org an outstanding resource for keeping town residents informed.  There was not much information about the town of Longmeadow that could not be found on Longmeadow.org.

About 3 years ago I created the LongmeadowBuzz blog which was designed to provide a means for people in town to express their opinions and discuss controversial topics that were not appropriate for inclusion on the Longmeadow.org town website. 

The LongmeadowBuzz blog provided and still provides town residents with information that is not usually found in the Springfield Republican or the Longmeadow News.  Not just opinion, but background information and facts so that the reader can make informed decisions about a subject.

The LongmeadowBuzz blog is not intended to be a place for "one man's opinion", so other postings have always been welcome as long as the author is identified and is respectful of other opinions.  With the many challenges that Longmeadow faces in the coming years, I am very hopeful that the LongmeadowBuzz blog will become an important means to express different viewpoints/ prospectives and to reduce any polarization that might exist in our town.

Looking forward to 2011, I have renewed energies and excitement about the www.LongmeadowBiz.com website.  Not only will it continue to be a key resource with its Town Calendar and revamped Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board, it will also provide a much needed connection between town residents and the businesses that service our town.   In today's challenging economy we need to support our local businesses.  We have already seen a significant number of local businesses disappear.

New "social media" like Facebook, Twitter and others will come into much greater use in 2011 and provide new opportunities to improve communication and to help us thrive and prosper as a community.

Become a FAN of LongmeadowBiz by clicking the "Like" button on the new Facebook fanpage and join in the conversation.

You can also Follow LongmeadowBiz on Twitter.

Longmeadow is a great place to live.... let's keep it that way!

I'm always interested in feedback/ new ideas for LongmeadowBiz.com or the LongmeadowBuzz blog so please send them to me at longmeadowbiz@comcast.net

Best Regards and Happy New Year!

Longmeadow Deserves Better....

Below are links to the latest press releases that were posted this morning (12/28/10) on the Longmeadow town website- www.Longmeadow.org

Holiday Trash Collection

Annual Town Meeting- Warrant Article Deadline

Long Meddowe Days- Planning Meeting

A couple of comments.... 

• The press releases for the Holiday Trash Collection and the ATM warrant articles were released for immediate publication by the Town Manager on December 20.   Why does it take 8 days for the notices to be posted?  In addition, the holiday trash collection notice was a bit too late for those who had their trash collected yesterday to find out that there was a Select Board Christmas gift of one additional FREE trash bag.
• Yesterday, there was a snow emergency declared for the state of Massachusetts but there was no information posted on the town website about town related operations including snowplowing, parking regulations, town hall hours or trash collections.  In the past, town residents could visit the town website for the latest storm related information.
• The Long Meddowe Days planning meeting notice is interesting.... I guess that there will be an attempt to provide posting of private group notices on the town website as well.
• A suggestion.... there are a couple of notices that should be removed since the events have passed.  With all of the clutter, it is difficult to find important notices.
  

All of the above notices would have been posted within 24 hours on the Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board (as they have been posted for the past five years) if they were sent to LongmeadowBiz.  However, the Select Board chairman has notified all town departments that LongmeadowBiz should not be included with the distribution of press releases since it is not considered an "official" media outlet- (whatever that means).

In a past Buzz blog post I have highlighted the website for the town of Amherst as a great benchmark for Longmeadow to emulate but have been criticized by a member of the Town Manager's Website Taskforce because he felt that a simple Wordpress CMS "right out of the box" would work just fine and would be "free" or very low cost to the town.  

Amherst just released a "new look" for their town website designed to be easier for people to use according to an article this past weekend in the Springfield Republican.  I would encourage town residents to take a look... but don't expect Longmeadow's new website to match up very well.

It's been almost six months since the town website was "taken over" by the Rob Aseltine and the Longmeadow Select Board.  Let's hope that the announced unveiling of the new town website scheduled for January 1 will actually happen and be responsive to the needs of Longmeadow residents.

In the meantime, town residents can visit the Longmeadow Community Bulletin Board and the Town Calendar and the rest of the LongmeadowBiz website to stay connected with what's happening in our town.  Also, they should also consider following LongmeadowBiz on Facebook.

My Final Comments

I read Alex Grant’s column in last week’s (December 16) edition of the Longmeadow News (click here to read complete column) but was not surprised to learn that his recent FOI request to the Town of Longmeadow for additional documents relating to the series of SBC/ MSBA correspondence and meetings in November 2009 did not reveal any new information nor any insight as to why the MSBA withdrew at the last minute their concerns (build "new" vs. renovation) for Longmeadow's high school project.    

Click here to view all of the documents obtained through this latest FOI request.

From the documents...

There was an important project meeting between the MSBA and the Longmeadow SBC at the MSBA headquarters (at Longmeadow's request) on November 16- two days before the MSBA Board was scheduled to make their decision on the Longmeadow project.  This meeting was viewed as critical for the project with 15 representatives from Longmeadow (including SBC members, project architects, and local politicians) in attendance.  However, it is quite surprising that no meeting minutes or other published notes were taken by either side (or at least not made public through two separate FOI requests).  The only documentation obtained through the latest FOI request were a series of letters including one (11/17/09) from the School Superintendent thanking the MSBA for the opportunity to present Longmeadow’s information and hoping that it was sufficient for a positive recommendation to the MSBA board on the next day (11/18/10).  Click here to view this correspondence.

Meeting minutes for the two SBC meetings that took place in November 2009 (11/05/09 + 11/19/09) revealed very little about the SBC/MSBA project correspondence, "renovation" vs. "build new" concerns or discussions that took place.

Followers of the Buzz blog know that I was a strong supporter of the school building project until April 2010 when it became apparent that the financial impact on increased property taxes for a new school might become a significant hardship for many residents in town and I publicly spoke out in favor of renovation vs. new construction.

From the beginning of the high school building project activities in June 2009 and through early June 2010 I provided significant IT support to the SBC by creating and maintaining the SBC website which helped keep residents updated and informed about the project.  As the project moved forward, there was no question that the vast majority of town residents believed that we needed to do something about the condition of our high school.  What prompted me to write the blog post in early June 2010 that got me fired as town webmaster was that this entire critical interaction between the MSBA and the SBC in November 2009 was virtually hidden from public view until just prior to the town vote in early June.

When town employees or elected or appointed officials believe that the "end result justifies the means" and that hiding critical project issues from public view is acceptable, this becomes an issue of public trust and transparency in our town government.  This controversy was not about a YES or NO position on the high school building project.

Thank you Alex Grant for trying to get the rest of the story…. I guess that we will never know what really happened.

Select Board Holiday Dance

The Longmeadow Buzz blog has been following the actions of the Longmeadow Select Board on Monday nights for quite some time and the proceedings can sometimes be pretty entertaining as well as informative.

The LongmeadowBuzz provides town residents with information that is not normally found in the Springfield Republican or the Longmeadow News.  Not just opinion but background information and facts so that the reader can make up their own mind about the subject.

The LongmeadowBuzz blog is also not intended to be "one man's opinion" so other postings are always welcome as long as the author identifies himself.

The year ahead looks pretty challenging for the Select Board with the following items on the 2011 agenda:

• another difficult budget year with significant state aid reductions, loss of federal stimulus money
• new teacher contract negotiations
• unsettled current contracts for firefighters and police officers
• new photovoltaic solar energy facility project
• consolidation of town's  IT department under the auspices of the School Department
  (Hopefully, the transition will be faster and more successful than the 6 year old town wide maintenance dept consolidation)
• revamping and updating of the town website- http://www.longmeadow.org/

Stay tuned...I will continue to watch and comment on the actions of the Select Board.

School Building Committee Meeting- 12/16/10

I attended the SBC meeting last Thursday night and as usual there was little public attendance- 2 town residents (including myself).  I attend these meetings because of my interest in knowing first hand how this committee is going to spend my taxpayer dollars. 

In my past SBC meeting notes, I have noted discussions about the likely project bids being much lower than the estimated $78 million… perhaps as low as $60-65 million given the recent bids for other area high school projects. The new Wilbraham-Hampden Regional HS project is expected to cost $65M (see latest projections as of 12/10/10) vs. original $82.2M with forecasted savings to district taxpayers of $3.8M.  With a significantly lower MSBA reimbursement rate Longmeadow could potentially see much greater savings.

Last June Longmeadow voters gave the SBC authority to spend up to $78 million.  Comments by some SBC members at the October 20 meeting (see notes) and at Thursday's meeting have suggested that because there will be a pot of “unspent” project dollars, the committee should consider adding additional project elements that were not part of the original scope.  Discussion at this meeting also hinted at a possible “spending strategy” to install synthetic turf on the stadium field.  Read the meeting notes below for details.

The agenda for this meeting was of particular interest since there was going to be a discussion + a vote on various project “add alternates” + a number of project scope decisions.  Below are my “meeting notes”…

Scope changes were reviewed and voted.

1. PVC (vs. TPO) was chosen as the preferred roofing material.  There were no cost implications nor performance differences.  A greater US + local installation and life experience with the PVC material gave it the advantage.
2. Waterless urinals (vs. low flow urinals) were chosen.  There is no cost differential but there are maintenance advantages for the waterless urinals.  There is no odor issue with waterless urinals and Roland Joyal indicated that they have worked well at Chicopee High School. 
3. Hand “high velocity forced air” driers were chosen over paper towels for most of the bathrooms. There is a $50-60K increase in cost for hand driers but there are reduced maintenance and paper towel cost savings to compensate for the increased cost. 

Bid “add alternates” (AA) were discussed. 
“Add alternates” are possible project additions to the original scope that are included with the project bid specification package.  A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is developed from this information but this price does not include these AAs.  If the project has unspent money because the GMP is less than the $78 million, some or all of these AAs can be implemented by the SBC.

Tom Murphy of Joslin Lesser & Associates explained there are two types of add alternates… “trade” and “non-trade”.  In accordance with MGL Chapter 149, the “trade” AAs need to be prioritized and implemented in order.  If a decision is made that the SBC does not want to implement AA #1 then they cannot implement AA #2.  The other type AAs, “non-trade” do not require prioritization and any of them can be implemented by the SBC using unspent project monies.

Here are the add alternates that were discussed.

Trade- Add Alternates

#1: replacement of the natatorium ceramic tile floor + relocation of the diving board, cost = $200K

This 1971 wing renovation item was not included with the original project scope.  The pool area floor has some missing tiles and the current location of diving board presents some safety (?) related issues.

This is an item that does not need to be done at the time of the project and could be deferred and implemented through the town’s capital spending plan. SBC member Roland Joyal voiced his strong support for this item.  Because we are building a “new” showcase school, we need to upgrade this part of the facility as well.

#2: Addition of hydraulic lift for the auditorium orchestra pit, cost = $400K
The current project plans include a manual lift system that takes time and resources to move the platform.  Probable use is about 12 times/ year. This item cannot be incorporated at a later date and needs to included in the project bid specification package.   In addition, OMR needs to complete a design for the bid package.

Superintendent Marie Doyle and LHS principal Larry Berte both favored this item (as did Michael Mucci- LHS music dept chairman) and rated it as a higher priority than item #1.

The SBC decided to defer prioritization of the trade AAs until the next SBC meeting on January 5.

Non- Trade Add Alternates

#3: Under terrace outdoor storage, cost = $150K
This item is an additional outdoor enclosed area for storage of equipment and utilizes space under the arts terrace on back east side of the building.  This addition would include a concrete slab on grade and would be useful for storage of equipment including athletic field items that are currently stored under the stadium bleachers.

There were positive comments by Mike Wrabel and other members of the SBC for inclusion of this item.

#4: Additional site landscaping features, cost ~ $100K
This item is a combination of aesthetic landscaping + function including an outdoor classroom(s), benches, etc.  At this point the details are not fully developed and the quote is only a best guess estimate.  There was some discussion that this would be a great project element for public donations.

#5: Synthetic Turf Practice Fields, cost ~ $600K+
There is no provision in the original project scope for installation of synthetic turf practice fields.  The current athletic practice fields will be damaged or eliminated during construction so existing project plans included installation of two new natural grass fields (see drawing).  This synthetic turf proposal was originally limited to the full size field on Grassy Gutter Road/Bliss Road.  However, just this past week a second synthetic turf practice field (located near the gymnasium) was proposed as a possible add alternate.  The $600K quote does not include lights or the second field installation.  $25K for a detailed design package is required in order to include this add alternate in the bid package.  This money would need to be spent even if the SBC decided not to go forward with this AA.

Co-chair Barkett commented that it was Alex Rotsko, LHS Athletic Director who asked for the second synthetic turf practice field.  However, because neither of the new practice fields was lighted, he was not completely satisfied with the plan.  Mr. Barkett stated that Mr. Rotsko would rather see the SBC support installation of synthetic turf for the stadium field.

At this point a number of SBC members voiced their opposition to expend significant money for new project elements that were outside of the original scope.  Both Ms. Jester and co-chair Swanson voiced concerns about supporting this synthetic turf AA and thought that the SBC should solicit feedback from the community.  In addition, Ms. Jester felt that there was insufficient information available about the subject.  Co-chair Barkett felt that the synthetic turf practice field(s) were not outside the scope and that town residents need not be consulted.

Mr. Joyal who had originally proposed synthetic turf for the stadium field during the October 20 SBC meeting (see meeting notes) felt that the SBC already had the authority to do so.  He also stated that most new high school projects included synthetic turf fields (representatives at the meeting from Gilbane stated that this was not true). Mr. Joyal also stated that “sports is the front porch of your school” meaning that if our new high school is built without a synthetic turf stadium field, our school would be looked at as an inferior facility.

An interesting comment was made by Jeanne Roberts of OMR who reminded the group that funding for many of the new public high schools with synthetic turf cited by Mr. Joyal were funded at a much higher MSBA reimbursement rate than what Longmeadow will be receiving.

Co-chair Barkett stated that the cost of synthetic turf for the stadium field would likely be much greater than $600K since the Americans with Disabilities Act would require a significant upgrade to the high school stadium.  He also believed that installation of synthetic turf for the stadium field was not within the project scope.

Town Manager/SBC member Robin Crosbie proposed that the SBC defer a decision on the synthetic turf until next year and use next year’s Annual Town Meeting to introduce a warrant article to use unspent project monies to install synthetic turf on the stadium field.   This warrant article would only require a simple majority YES vote to pass.

The SBC voted to not include synthetic turf in the project add alternates list but there was a recommendation to form a subcommittee to develop more information on the proposal for later consideration.

Last June Longmeadow voters gave the SBC the authority to build a new high school for $78M (in MSBA terminology, it was a building renovation + new addition, not a new high school).  If the construction climate allows Longmeadow to build this facility for less money, the SBC should try to maximize those savings.  Changes to the project scope to include a hydraulic lift for the auditorium and/ or synthetic turf practice fields are beyond what the average taxpayer voted for last June.

If the town can save $5-10 million on the high school building project, this savings will reduce the taxpayer burden for many years to come.

I would like to see the SBC become more focused upon bringing this project in at the lowest possible price tag- not simply at less than the $78 M. Upgrading the swimming pool area and adding synthetic turf fields should be prioritized with the rest of our town's capital needs. We have many higher priority capital needs in our town.

Don’t forget that our teachers contract comes up for collective bargaining in the next budget cycle for FY2012.

If you are concerned with what you have just read, send an email to:

Robert Barkett-SBC co-chair, rbarkett@longmeadow.org 

Christine Swanson-SBC co-chair, cswanson@longmeadow.org

Electronic Pickpocket

As technology adds new features to our everyday lives... opportunities for electronic thieves will continue to emerge.   With embedded RFID chip technology being used everywhere, there is a potential for electronic theft of credit card information without your knowledge.

Below is a TV news video clip from station WREG in Memphis, TN highlighting a new way that your credit card information can be stolen.



Click here for additional information on the WREG website regarding this new high technology threat.

Paperless SB meetings... a good idea but

but there are still a couple of technical issues remaining ...

At their last meeting on November 15 chairman Rob Aseltine declared that the Longmeadow Select Board was going to conduct their meetings using new netbook computers which would reduce the large volume of paper that is generated every week.  In addition, he stated that town residents will be able to access SB meeting information via the Internet. 

An announcement was made that a "new website" had been created by the Select Board to share these documents with town residents.  Here is a link to this new resource.  I've checked this link for the past 3 weeks after the initial announcement was made but no documents as yet have been available to the public. 

I usually watch the bi-weekly SB meetings but being without a copy of the relevant information that is being discussed sometimes makes it very difficult.  I expect that having the pertinent information available will be particularly useful for upcoming budget discussions. I applaud this effort to share information in a timely manner with the public.

However, there still appears to be "some minor glitches" remaining.  Perhaps after the IT consolidation is completed and additional school dept. resources can be utilized, these problems will be worked out faster.

Going paperless and sharing SB meeting materials with town residents via the Internet is a great idea!

I would hope that meeting materials for tomorrow night's SB meeting will be made available before the meeting commences.

IT Consolidation- Final Comments

At the Select Board meeting on December 6 there will likely be a vote for the consolidation of Longmeadow's town wide IT resources under the auspices of the School Department and School Committee.  There have been a couple of prior posts about this subject (see IT Consolidation- Part I, IT Consolidation- Part II) as well as a SB public hearing on November 15.

At this public hearing there were many comments from town residents both for and against the proposal. Some opposed the IT consolidation because it would require changing the Town Charter while other people objected that the school department should not be burdened with a broadening scope of their primary goals.

Tim Topitizer, a town resident and also a professional in the Information Technologies industry and with some prior involvement with the town's IT needs spoke against the proposed organization change.  Mr. Topitizer asked why there was no strategic plan for the proposed consolidation and that there should be an assessment across all town and school departments looking at present and future needs before a consolidation takes place.  I thought that his comments were right on target!

Below is a short video clip courtesy of LCTV with Mr. Topitizer's comments...




Consolidating the town's IT resources into a single function for a more effective use of our budget monies is a goal that most people agree is a good idea.

However, the town's IT effort has been under resourced for many years.  Town Manager Robin Crosbie has managed to conduct town government business with only one full time IT employee + some occasional support from the School Department.  With this proposed IT consolidation Ms. Crosbie will no longer have IT resources in the town government organization and will have to rely upon the School Superintendent and the new IT department to properly prioritize projects. 

If this IT organization change occurs, I would still expect that the Town Manager to have IT goals and responsibilities even though the required resources will not be direct reports.

Our town has historically been financially limited in most budget areas and this is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. I am not concerned with line item transfers from the new IT dept for other school uses... but I am concerned that the business of our town and its residents may be compromised if the School Department and the School Committee must choose between educating our students (their primary mission) and all of the other IT needs for the town.

Rob Aseltine states that if this IT consolidation is to occur, it cannot be done under Town Government because of a recent Federal ruling by the US Dept of Education which prohibits IT consolidation of school dept resources outside the auspicies of the school dept.  SB member Gold states that East Longmeadow has already completed their IT consolidation under town government.  So it would appear that this issue is not clear.

I would urge the Select Board to defer this vote until a strategic plan and town/school wide assessment of needs is completed.