Longmeadow's Long Range Plan Anticipated Brewer-Young Project

About 17 years ago the Town of Longmeadow sponsored an intensive study of long range issues facing the town.  The report issued in 2004 highlighted and recommended the possible need at some time in the future to allow selected conversion (repurposing) of large historic homes on Longmeadow Street to professional office use.

 

[click to enlarge]

Here is some background information about this study...

In May 2000 a task force of 14 people- including both town residents and elected officials was formed to study long range issues facing Longmeadow.  There was $60K of funding to hire consulting companies Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. of Watertown, MA and RKG Associates, Inc. of Durham, NH.  The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission of Springfield, MA also played a key role in this study.

A public forum held at Bay Path College in February 2001 which I as well as many other town residents (120+) attended in order to provide inputs to be considered by the task force.

After almost four years and many hundreds of hours of effort a 116 page report: Longmeadow Faces the Future: The Longmeadow Long Range Plan (click link to view full report) was issued in April 2004.

One of the issues studied and detailed in the report was Housing.
Here are some details developed by the task force and the professional consultants.

Longmeadow Street Overlay Zone
"In the future, if large houses on Longmeadow Street no longer prove desirable for single family residences, and either do not sell as residences or begin to fall into disrepair, the Town may wish to consider an overlay zone with strict design guidelines to permit some homes to be converted into professional offices, bed and breakfasts, or condominiums. Creative site and design review would preserve the historic character of the area."

"The third strategy considered for this analysis was to allow certain properties on Longmeadow Street to transition from single family residential to office or mixed-use over time. There are many stately and historic homes located along this corridor, and there is strong support in the community to preserve the historic character of Longmeadow Street. There is also no evidence at this time to indicate that these homes have become too expensive to maintain as single-family residences. Property values on Longmeadow Street are high and the corridor remains a desirable residential location."

"It is not the Town’s preference to change Longmeadow Street into a commercial corridor. However, offering property owners the flexibility to locate office uses within larger homes on adequately sized lots may be necessary in the future, if the cost to own and maintain these residences continues to escalate. The consultant team proposes that the Town consider allowing some commercial uses along the corridor, in strictly controlled cases, within larger structures and on lots with sufficient area to accommodate off-street parking." 

"There was a recognition by the group that most houses on Longmeadow Street were either too small in size or lacked sufficient land to be consider for a home conversion to professional offices." 

 

[click image to enlarge]

It is interesting, possibly only coincidental, but the above diagram showing a potential home conversion to professional office points to 734 Longmeadow Street- the Brewer-Young mansion.  

Figure 7 (see below) from the Long Range Plan report shows a possible conversion of this property with suitable landscaping and necessary to maintain the look from Longmeadow Street.  

This design is very much in keeping with a similar design proposal being offered by the Longmeadow Historic Partners, LLC group.

 [click image to enlarge]

The plan outlined by the Longmeadow Historic Partners to preserve the 132 year historic Wolcott-Brewer-Young mansion and repurpose it to professional office use is in keeping with the recommendations as outlined in the Longmeadow Long Range plan issued in 2004.

Let's allow the property at 734 Longmeadow Street to be rezoned to Professional
and SAVE THE MANSION.

The Fragility of Great Homes

This opinion column was submitted to the LongmeadowBuzz blog by Alex Grant, a resident of Longmeadow and a former member of the Longmeadow Select Board.

____________________________________________

The Brewer Young mansion was the home of rich people, and the house, its outbuildings, and grounds had the trappings of grandeur from a bygone age.  The Town of Longmeadow will decide whether it will permit that mansion to be converted from residential to professional use, which is the only viable plan to save the deteriorating structure.  This residence of more than 10,000 square feet rests in the historic district on the green, and we must decide whether to hold fast to an abstract notion of historical purity, even if it means losing the mansion altogether.

The mansion was built in 1884 and had a succession of short-lived owners until Mary Ida Young, reaping the fruits of the Absorbine Jr. fortune, took hold of the property from 1922 to 1960.  It had its heyday during the Mary Ida era, boasting a large carriage house and a racetrack for horses that extended down toward the river.  The historical record shows that the mansion was the very picture of an extinct gilded age, of teas and dances and garden parties, a world of servants and footmen and gardeners, straight out of the Great Gatsby.

 [click to enlarge]

In recent years, the owners of the mansion have either had a lack of money or lack of willingness to maintain the place.  The racetrack is long gone.  The carriage house has been sold and converted to a residence, and the great house has been ravaged by time and neglect.  The peeling paint, evident for years, is just the most outward sign of decline as the house has suffered from more fundamental failings.  One of the great columns supporting the porch roof collapsed and had to be replaced with an unsightly wooden beam.  Water has leaked through the roof, destroying plaster and causing other damage.

The property has suffered many indignities, including foreclosure by the bank and occupancy by a renter who had to be evicted.  The house is probably close to being unsalvageable.  The days of orchids growing in the greenhouse, the pond stocked with koi fish, a menagerie of horses, peacocks, swans, pheasants, deer, and sheep residing on the expansive grounds are dim memories.  As one writer put it, Mary Ida Young is probably rolling over in her grave.

Into the breach has stepped a group of investors, willing to invest a king’s ransom to restore the mansion, but to make it into professional office space.  After all these years, not a soul has come forward with the funds and desire to live in the house in the grand tradition of Ms. Young.

There are some who want to keep the mansion a residence, as improbable as that option appears to be.  They want to keep the mansion just as it was.  To them, there is a psychic benefit in knowing that some wealthy tycoon is living in the property even if they themselves never set foot in the place.  

This attempt at historical purity shows a willful blindness to the lessons of history.  The train of human events is an unending pattern of fortunes made and fortunes lost.  Rising action and falling action.  Ascension and decline.  Periods of prosperity and periods of depression.  Empires rise to great heights, and they collapse.  Nothing is guaranteed, and nothing stays the same.

Great men and women can achieve immense wealth and power, they can hold the fates of multitudes in their hands, and yet they are as mortal as the rest of us.  When they die, they cannot take their fortunes with them, and they cannot control the upkeep of their properties.  Mary Ida Young may roll over her in her grave if she could see the desecration of her home, but that is all she can do.  Mansions, like any other house, require constant affirmative acts to maintain their splendor, and it is left to the living to choose whether to take those actions.

Time is not kind to great homes.  Monticello, the architectural marvel designed by Thomas Jefferson, fell into decay soon after his death.  His heirs lacked his aptitude to consistently secure loans he could not repay.  Mount Vernon, the house and estate owned by the great George Washington, nearly fell into ruin a few decades after he died.  It was left to the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, a philanthropic group, to bring the property back from the brink of complete destruction.  Even today, those two estates depend on a steady stream of paying visitors to stay afloat.

It should be no surprise that a mansion in Longmeadow with a less impressive pedigree would decay over time.  The plan to restore the mansion and to achieve its original look, albeit with some interior modifications, is a remarkable gesture toward a property whose significance may be driven less by its impact on local history than by a fascination with the lives of the rich and famous.  For historical preservationists, this is as good a deal as the Brewer Young mansion will ever get.

Alex J. Grant is a lawyer living in Longmeadow. 

His email address is alex.grant68@yahoo.com.

$50,000 is real money....

This article was sent to the LongmeadowBuzz blog by Mark Gold, Member, Longmeadow Select Board for publication.

___________________________________________
 

To the Citizens of Longmeadow,

Thank you, Richard Foster, for correcting an error that could have cost the taxpayers of Longmeadow $50,000.  The issue is the purchase of a snow plow.  The story is complex.

I must preface this letter by noting that over my eight years as a member of the Longmeadow Select Board I have tried very hard not to extend select board differences beyond the discussions that are held during our meetings.  Although we may oppose one another during our meeting, sometimes quite vigorously, we pride ourselves on being able to “agree to disagree” and move on to the next topic, either at that meeting or the next.  Criticizing my fellow Board members in public is not healthy for the work of the Board, nor for the town.  The intent of this note is to thank Mr. Foster and to let the people in Longmeadow know that the system again worked, although it is clear to anyone who followed this story as it unfolded that not all town officials are singing from the same hymnal of “treat the town’s money as if it were your own.”

At its meeting on October 21st, the Longmeadow Select Board was asked to authorize that Article 5 be placed on the warrant for the Special town meeting that is being held on Tuesday, November 7th.  Article 5 seeks town approval for the purchase of a truck, plow, and sand spreader to replace the vehicle that was destroyed in the tragic accident that took the life of DPW employee Warren Cowles last winter.  The town manager proposed that the town appropriate from various funds, a total of $225,000 for the purchase of a replacement vehicle.  The “leftover”, but new, 2016 model vehicle was available immediately, and would assure that the DPW entered the 2017-18 snow-plowing season with a full complement of plows.  The requested vehicle was, by several thousand pounds and over 100 horsepower, larger than any that had previously been purchased by the town.  During the discussion on accepting this warrant article, Mr. Foster opposed its adoption on procedural grounds: the specifications had not been vetted through the town’s Capital Planning Committee and there had been no review of the vehicle with the fleet management study and plan that had been adopted by the Select Board several years ago.  I opposed the placement of this article on the Warrant because I felt the vehicle was too large and $50,000 more expensive than the purchase of an equivalent replacement.  The Town Manager and DPW Director argued that the timing and availability made the purchase of this vehicle essential to assure the proper care of town roads this coming winter.

On a vote of 2-2 (Ms. Angelides and Chairman Lachiusa voting for the measure, Mr. Low being absent) with Mr. Foster and me voting against the placement of this article on the warrant, Article 5 did not receive the majority vote needed to approve its placement on the warrant.  The Select Board proceeded to consider additional warrant articles.

More than 15 minutes after the vote was taken on Article 5, Town Manager Crane asked that the Board reconsider the vote on Article 5.  He noted his concern about the need for the plow and the importance of having the purchase of the plow approved at the November 7th meeting.  The chair accepted Mr. Crane’s request, and a motion to reconsider was approved.  During the reconsideration, an additional 20 minutes of discussion took place.  It was noted that the long lead time for most DPW vehicles was such that if the appropriation were delayed until the May, 2018 town meeting, it was likely that the town would be without a replacement snow plow for both the 2017-18 AND the 2018-19 winters, but by appropriating funds now, although we would be short one plow this winter, we would have the plow in time for the 2018-19 season.  My background as former chair of the Capital Planning Committee gave me the confidence to know what a snow plow should cost, and I was willing to approve the placement of a warrant article for $175,000 on the Special Fall Town meeting warrant as a way of assuring that the Town wasn’t short a plow for the next two winters.  Among the variations considered to get this article approved for placement in the Warrant was indeed to revise the appropriation from $225,000 to $175,000, with the intent of more closely examining the vehicle specifications prior to Town Meeting. 

That proposal was quashed, when the Town Moderator, who was serendipitously present during this discussion, made it clear that a $50,000 increase in the written appropriation request would not be in order, and the Town Manager wanted to retain the ability to authorize the higher amount.  I would not support the warrant for $225,000, believing that we were purchasing a vehicle that was too large, and too expensive for the town.  My ire was particularly piqued when it was noted that because over $60,000 of the appropriation was coming from the accident insurance settlement, the actual cost to the town was not $50,000 larger than in the past.  My comment that most homeowners who receive a $6,000 settlement when losing a $25,000 vehicle didn’t go out and buy a $31,000 replacement was
essentially answered with “well I did”.   When a vote was called, the reconsideration of Article 5 passed by a vote of 3-1, with me being the only dissenting vote.

Early the next morning Mr. Foster called me and noted that his personal review following the Select Board meeting identified that the truck that was being recommended for purchase through Article 5 was indeed too large – it was not in compliance with the DPW fleet study and was probably $50,000 more money than the town needed to spend.  Mr. Foster then took it upon himself, over the next two days, to work with the DPW staff to identify the properly sized replacement vehicle. 

On Wednesday, October 18th, Mr. Foster and I requested that a special meeting of the Select Board be called to change the dollar appropriation request in Article 5 on the Special Town Meeting Warrant.  That meeting was called for 5PM on Friday, October 20th.  Between Wednesday and Friday, the DPW found an appropriately sized truck, plow, and spreader assembly that was available for immediate delivery.  The cost of the appropriately sized 2018 model vehicle was $175,000 – precisely the $50,000 reduction that had been discussed at our Monday meeting. 

On Friday, October 20th, a special meeting of the Select Board was held to revise the wording of Article 5 of the November 7th Special Town Meeting warrant. By vote of 4-0 (Ms. Angelides was unable to attend at that time), the Select Board revised the article to ask that Town Meeting approve the purchase of a truck, plow and spreader assembly that reflects the reduced purchase of the properly sized vehicle for a total cost of $175,000. 

[click to view Warrant article]

Again, I write this story because I believe it is important for Longmeadow Town residents to know that the system does indeed work.  Mr. Foster’s diligence in examining the proposal, and his willingness to turn his realization that his vote was wrong into action, is worth noting.  The initial vote was taken during a regular, televised, Select Board meeting, and based on the communications I received, was noted by many.  This corrective action was taken in a special meeting not widely communicated to residents.

$50,000 is real money, and town residents need to know that although there may be those who would short-circuit the review and approval process in the name of expediency, there are others, like me and Mr. Foster who, in fact, spend the town’s money with the same care as they spend their own.  I have chosen to communicate this story, and thank Mr. Foster publicly in this manner, because I will be on a medical leave that will prevent me from thanking him at the next Select Board meeting or at Town Meeting, and I believe that Town Residents should know that the controversy and disagreement they heard in the televised October 16th meeting have been resolved.  It is in the town’s best interest to approve the revised Article 5 as it now appears on the Special Town Meeting warrant for November 5th.

Mark Gold
Member, Longmeadow Select Board

Vote YES for a New DPW Facility on Tuesday June 13

The following Letter to the Editor about the upcoming vote on the new DPW Facility was submitted to Longmeadow Buzz by Richard Foster, a member of the Longmeadow Select Board.

___________________________________

Longmeadow Residents,


On June 13, voters will be asked to fund a new DPW facility.  The replacement of our Department of Public Works (DPW) complex has been the most studied event in the history of our town. We have three different engineering studies and reports from three or four resident volunteer task forces who have evaluated this replacement. Without question, the current effort is the most systematic and in-depth of all studies, which is why it has enjoyed overwhelming support at four Town Meetings since 2014.


In 1931, when our Department of Public Works maintenance complex was constructed, it was a simpler period of time, a time when trolleys provided transportation along Longmeadow Street connecting Enfield and Springfield.  It would be another twenty-five years before the high school building that we just replaced would open. In 1931, Longmeadow had 1294 dwellings, a population of 4437, and 23 miles of roadways.  According to the 2010 census, our town has 5948 housing units with a population 15,784. We presently have 91 miles of asphalt roads, 71 miles of sidewalks, 100+ miles of roadway drains and over 100 miles of water lines of various sizes.

In 1931, our fleet was comprised of Model T Ford trucks. Today our DPW fleet includes dump trucks, back hoes, tractors, mowers, a sewage vacuum truck, as well as many smaller pick-up trucks, sedans, and SUVs. Our maintenance shops are so small and outdated that our snow removal trucks do not fit into our repair shop resulting in our staff working on these vehicles outside when we have active snowplowing operations underway.

Our DPW operations experienced significant increases in responsibility over the years.  DPW now includes the Parks and Recreation Department. DPW cares for all town buildings including the schools, water systems, sewage systems, roadways, and recreational facilities including grounds.   The DPW is also classified by the federal government as a first responder agency, and as such, needs to be self-sufficient and operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. In addition to public works emergencies like water main breaks, they are called to support the activities of our Police and Fire Department for emergency operations under their management. Unlike other departments and operations in our community, DPW doesn’t shut down during emergencies. They report to work and perform critical support functions to protect the health and safety of our community.

Throughout the past year, there have been public meetings, public forums, websites, social media, and other direct interactions with town residents dedicated solely to this project.  The questions of “why can’t it be rebuilt at the current site?” and “why does it cost so much?” have been answered many times.  I encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with the project to go to the project website at longmeadow.org to see those answers or trust your friends and neighbors who have done the research and fully support the project.

As a resident and as a member of the Select Board, I ask you to vote yes on June 13 for a new DPW facility and to finally address a long overlooked problem in our community.

This is the Right Plan – The Right Place – The Right Time…Thank you.

Richard Foster

Vote YES on Article 31

 

Marybeth Bergeron, long time town resident and current chairperson of the Adult Center Building Committee shares her thoughts on Article 31 that will be considered by town residents during night #2 of the Annual Town Meeting.

______________________________________

It has been said for the past decade, that baby boomers will change the way people live the last years of their productive lives.  As one of the baby boomers I agree.   Many of the Longmeadow older residents I know continue to play tennis, exercise daily, or go to the Jewish Community Center to swim.  When I attend learning opportunities at Storrs Library, I am impressed that the vast majority of people there are older residents of our town.  Vibrant and active, our residents seek out opportunities to live out their lives healthy, active and engaged.

So, I write today as the Chairman of the Adult Center Building Committee to encourage you to attend the SECOND  night of the Town Meeting on May 10^th, and support the decision made by the Adult Center Building Committee and the Select Board to seek funds for architectural and design  of a new senior center at Greenwood Park under article 31 of the warrant.

ARTICLE 31- To see if the Town will vote to transfer from available funds in the treasury, the sum of $250,000.00, or a greater or lesser sum, for the purpose of funding Architectural and Engineering Services for the design of a new and/or renovated Adult Center at Greenwood Park, or take any other action relative thereto.

Our committee had submitted  to the Select Board four potential sites that might work.  Additionally, the original architect submitted a plan through the town manager which is called the “Greenwood Master Plan”.  That plan has been rejected by both the Select Board and the Adult Center Building Committee for many reasons.  That  Master Plan is not longer on the table, but the other four locations need to be reevaluated by an architect for a dedicated building for our senior residents.

The facility also services not only our senior residents needs, but also the Town nurse, the Veteran’s Agent, the Food Bank, and all of the Social Service Outreach in our town. Additionally the building is used after hours by various committees and groups, all of which we expect would  to continue in a new adult center.

The residents in Longmeadow represent one third of our population.  This is  tremendous growth in the past five years, and  that demographic  will increase through 2030. This growth indicates that the trend across our country of “aging in place” is also true in Longmeadow.

Our existing senior center is not large enough to accommodate the hundreds of people that currently use the site daily, nor the participation of the increasing numbers of senior residents that  is expected. The building was a school, built for children.

You will recall that at the Town Meeting in October 2016, our residents spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted the Adult Center to remain at Greenwood.     We heard you.  If Greenwood  is where our residents want the senior center, we believe it may be a challenge, but it is do-able. 

In order to proceed, the town needs approval of article 31, in order to secure the services of a building architect and a landscape architect.    We cannot move this needed project forward without design funds.

Aging is a gift and a privilege.  There are some  people that will never have the gift of  aging.  So,  as community, let us age gracefully and with dignity…… together .

Vote YES on Article 31.

Marybeth Bergeron

Upcoming Two Night Annual Town Meeting

Below is a LTE from Select Board chair, Marie Angelides with some comments about next week's two night Annual Town Meeting.

   

Tuesday May 9th and Wednesday May 10th Longmeadow is having a two night town meeting. This year there are too many important issues to be appropriately discussed and voted on in one night.

This year the Select Board and School Committee worked together on a balanced budget and we were still able to maintain our commitment to a quality education, address our unfunded retiree benefits, increase our investment in our crumbling infrastructure, and not go to the full 2 ½ % tax increase as allowed by law.

The Town will continue deliberations regarding the effort to build a new DPW. This is a difficult project, the town has delayed since the 1980s. We can no longer allow our employees to work in the current conditions at the complex. Every year we delay the project, the town is risking its substantial investments in equipment, on a site and in building that is not fully insurable because it is located in the floodplain. Previous town meetings made it clear that the facility should not be sited on town-owned land, especially open space.  Therefore, the site that has been recommended by the volunteer DPW Committee is the Grand Meadows Tennis Club property on Dwight Road.  Like most residents, I do not want to spend over 20 million dollars on a new complex, but it is necessary to do what is right  for the community. Delaying the project the past 30 years has not made it any cheaper; any delay will only increase the cost of this necessary project.

The first night will also include discussion on three articles related to the private development on Dwight Road. This project does three important things:

1. Increases the tax base without changing the character of the community
2. Addresses the problems of the two of most dangerous intersections in town.
3. Creates a more convenient health care facility for the community. 
   The District Improvement Financing is a creative approach to financing and developing this project. Additionally, this public/private partnership may open up additional revenue opportunities. 

The second night Town Meeting will address many other important articles including the planning of a new Adult Center. A new Adult Center is the second building priority established by the town’s elected officials. The current center does not meet the needs of our seniors and this is the fastest growing segment of the population in Longmeadow. Seniors already constitute more than 33% of the town.  Like the DPW project, previous Town Meetings decided not to use open space to site a new facility- preferring to keep it at Greenwood Park. The Adult Building Committee working with the staff has outlined the program space needed for the building and the need for a building dedicated to the services needed for this population.  The funds requested in the article will continue the planning effort for a building dedicated solely to Adult services at the Greenwood Park. The Select Board has also approved a goal of a zero energy building that requires extra design money. The design money will be necessary to get this project, with the necessary detail and estimated costs in front of Town Meeting next year.

The second night will also include the establishment of a Stormwater Enterprise Fund. The EPA has mandated significant new regulations for all towns and cities that becomes effective this July. The purpose of this unfunded mandate is for clean water in our streams, rivers, and lakes where stormwater (runoff from rain and snow) is directed by the drainage system.  In addition to water quality testing, the new regulations require additional maintenance to the drainage system.  The estimated cost to Longmeadow is $200,000. The new fee proposed by the Select Board is tied directly to the costs of the EPA mandates. We are also working on policies to reduce fees for commercial and nonprofit  property owners who manage stormwater onsite as well as policies of rates setting based on projects approved by town meeting.   Our current stormwater infrastructure annual costs are well over a million dollars and are completely funded by property taxes. These added increased costs will reduce current services if new revenue is not generated. 

I have included only the highlights in this year’s Warrant.  We also have by-law changes, Community Preservation Projects, and numerous citizen petitions (including the much discussed “bees”!). Please come to the two night meeting and have your voice heard. In Longmeadow, you are the legislative branch of government.

Thank you,
Marie Angelides
Select Board

Town Resident Supports New DPW Facility

This "Letter to the Editor" was submitted by town resident Douglas P. Sarnelli in Support of a New Department of Public Works Facility for the Town of Longmeadow

  




 As a concerned resident of Longmeadow I am writing to urge all residents to attend our town meeting on Tuesday May 9th and to support the decision made by the Public Works Committee to relocate the Longmeadow Department of Public Works Facility from Pond Side Drive to that of site known as the Grande Meadows Tennis Club property located at 170 Dwight Road.

In January 2016, Town Manager Stephen Crane convened a Public Works Committee to confirm the need for a new Department of Public Works Facility, to determine the appropriate site for such a facility and to approve a facility design based on the current and future needs of our town.

The Public Works Committee is comprised of nine Longmeadow town residents from many professions who volunteer their time and talent. They have vested interests as residents and taxpaying members of our community. Under the superintendence of Committee Chair Christopher Cove and Co-Chair Arlene Miller, the Committee carefully analyzed well over two hundred possible sites as well as all financial, social, environmental, legal and all other practical considerations necessary for making a sound recommendation to the town. While I am not a member of the Committee, I have attended every Public’s Works Committee meeting for the past fifteen months and I have had the opportunity to observe the committee administer its civic responsibilities with the requisite professionalism, integrity and due diligence.

The Committee, in its many months of deliberations has deemed that the current public works facility is obsolete, incapable of adequately serving the needs of our community and unable to provide a sustainable work environment for its employees. The facility is located on an old ash dump and in a floodplain. To construct a new facility at the current location on Pond Side Drive would be too costly as the facility and our equipment would be uninsurable, being in a floodplain. In the event of a natural disaster it would present great risk to the Department of Public Works employees and to town owned equipment just when public work’s services would be needed the most.

In an October 2016 town vote, our community spoke clearly, affirming the Committee’s decision that the site selected should not affect any residential neighborhoods, parklands or athletic fields or our precious “green space.” 

The proposed facilities designed by Weston Sampson Engineers and the Committee is cost effective, will be energy efficient and conscious of our environmental concerns and most importantly will allow the Public Works employees to administer their duties and responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner in an environment that meets all current safety and regulatory requirements.  The Committee’s budgetary considerations for this project have operated well within the appropriate margins in designing a modest facility to accommodate only our current operational needs and has demonstrated the necessary sensitivity to any tax increase to property owners.  Our town’s Finance Committee supports these measures.

In closing, the Town of Longmeadow is very fortunate to have a body of dedicated, honorable and deeply concerned residents presiding over this Public Works Facility matter.  I wish to personally thank the committee for its commitment to our town and for the hundreds of hours spent away from family and professional and personal interests.  The Public Works Committee has earned the trust and confidence of our town.  All residents should support the committee’s decision to relocate the Department of Public Works Facility from Pond Side Drive to that of the Grande Meadows site on 170 Dwight Road.

Douglas P. Sarnelli, Longmeadow, Massachusetts

Article #32- Storm Water Enterprise Fund

This "letter to the editor" regarding Article #32 (Storm Water Enterprise Fund) which will be considered at the Annual Town Meeting on Wednesday, May 10 was submitted to the LongmeadowBuzz blog by Curt M. Freedman, who resides at 24 Ridge Road.

 
At the next Longmeadow Annual Town Meeting on May 9th and 10th, Article #32 calls for the establishment of a separate Stormwater Enterprise Fund as per M.G.L. c.44, § 53F½ that will charge annual service fees to pay for upgrades to stormwater infrastructure and maintenance which are presently paid for by our property taxes.  Under our present law, MGL c. 83: §16, our selectmen, “may from time to time establish just and equitable annual charges for the use of common sewers and main drains and related stormwater facilities, which shall be paid by every person who enters his particular sewer therein. The money so received may be applied to the payment of the cost of maintenance and repairs of such sewers or of any debt contracted for sewer purposes.”  We are also required by law to abide by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision: “Emerson College v. Boston (1984),” that mandates that fees be fairly substantiated; the revenue from one customer cannot unfairly subsidize the costs of utilizing the system for another customer.  The judges ruled that an unfair subsidization effectively becomes a “TAX” and no longer a “FEE” and would be ILLEGAL and CONTRARY to Massachusetts law.

Based on direct past and present experience, our town does not know how to charge for service fees that are “just” and “equitable.”  Can we ever forget the Ascending Sewer Rate policy in 2007 that was advertised to have only a 15% increase, but resulted in many customers having their water and sewer costs more than double.  Two years ago, the Selectmen (Water & Sewer Commissioners) attempted to impose hundreds of dollars of annual fixed fees on our water bills per household that would have caused large increases for thousands of residents and dis-incentivized water conservation.  Since Longmeadow still does not allow irrigation water meters (yet surrounding communities do), homeowners who water their lawns pay ghost sewer bills of approximately $550,000 per year.   

Please excuse me for sounding cynical, but for more than 20 years, our Water & Sewer commissioners (now the Selectmen) have been informed on how to adjust our water & sewer rate policy to be “just” and “equitable” as required by law.  For decades, our elected officials have punished us for watering our lawns, now they want to punish us for raindrops landing on our driveways.

If this article passes, our town will have "good" driveways and "hydraulically evil" driveways that could cost each resident tens of thousands of dollars to make impervious surfaces pervious, a most ridiculous hidden tax camouflaged as a user fee.  Let us not have such saturating rainy day government policies result in:  breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flooded basements, and evaporation of our limited liquid financial assets.  Let us also not have this "Rainy Day Tax" compete with funding for other projects in our community with greater societal needs.

Article #32 is not in our Town's interests; it only deserves to be flushed down the toilet.
 

 

Curt M. Freedman, PE

Single (vs. Split) Property Tax Rate for Longmeadow

Bill Low, a member of the Longmeadow Select Board shares the reasons for his vote last month to continue a single property tax rate (vs. split tax rate ) for residential and commercial property owners.

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

Every year the town Select Board must vote to have a single or split tax rate. The split rate creates a separate rate for residents and commercial/industrial property owners. The intent of a split rate is to shift more of the tax burden onto businesses, presumably because they make a profit, as opposed to home owners who are just supporting town services. When a City, like Springfield, with 20%-25% of the real estate classified as commercial/ industrial/ personal shifts the tax to that category, it can make a big difference to home owner’s tax costs while raising the business owners by a nominal amount. Don’t misunderstand; Springfield’s commercial tax rate is the highest in the state and, in many people’s minds, stifles new business development, but homeowners still benefit with a lower tax rate.

However, as is the case in Longmeadow with less than 5% categorized as commercial/industrial, a split tax rate has the following effect: every 1% shift to the commercial owners, raises their rates by $.25 per $1,000 of value ($525 per year on average) and reduces residential rates by only a penny, or $3.50 a year on average.

Additionally, the commercial property owners, who are landlords, pass those cost to their tenants. In the case of retail properties, leases are “net” or “triple net” (the terms are misused constantly), what’s important is; the total real estate taxes are passed on to the tenant. With office buildings, the increase is also paid by the tenant via “escalators” or “expense stops” regardless if the lease is all inclusive or a “gross lease”, the increase in any operating expense is paid by the tenant.

Regardless of whether the tax rate is split or single, the amount of tax revenue raised by a town in Massachusetts is not effected.

So, what does this shift accomplish? In 30 years in the real estate industry I have dealt with large, national companies, public real estate investment firms (REIT's) and small family owned businesses. Small family owned businesses can be put out of business by this kind of increase, while larger companies will pass this cost to the consumer. In the case of a town like Longmeadow, it’s a lose-lose proposition.

William H. Low
Longmeadow Select Board

Another Select Board Member Weighs in on the SOI Submission

Mark Gold, a member of the Longmeadow Select Board sent the following letter to fellow town residents who have recently asked him to support and approve an updated Statement of Interest to renovate the existing middle schools or build a new school(s) or a combination of both.

_______________________________________

Dear Longmeadow Resident,

Thank you for your note asking me, and the rest of the Select Board, to support the School Committee’s middle school Statement of Interest (SOI) to be submitted to the Mass School Building Authority (MSBA).  I believe that there is much about the MSBA’s school project consideration process that was learned from our high school project, and I think it’s important that residents remember what happened with that project.
 
At the time the high school SOI was submitted, town residents were told, much like we are being told now, that the MSBA received many applications each year, that their waiting list for projects was long, and that it would be several years before the Longmeadow High School project was accepted for action.  It was a short time later that the MSBA notified the school committee that they had accepted the Longmeadow SOI and were ready to move forward with a project.  At the time, the Longmeadow School Committee placed the following statement on their website, a statement at remains posted today:

“…Longmeadow High School was deemed by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) as a school in need of immediate attention. The MSBA has committed millions of dollars to Longmeadow to assist in the corrective action determined through the feasibility study process.  However, this money comes with strict guidelines. Once the MSBA has approved the project funding scope (scheduled for March 2010), Longmeadow has only 120 days from that date to pass the debt exclusion at Town Meeting in April and at the polls in June. If the town votes the motion down, we will not have a second chance and the MSBA will move on to one of the 400 other towns in need of assistance.  Longmeadow will be placed in the back of line and have to start the process all over again. At that point, there is no guarantee that we will receive funding from the state.” 

The fact that the town was not ready to move forward would be overwhelmed by those who insisted we must move forward with all deliberate speed least we lose the opportunity for partial state funding.

So, in 2009, even when town residents had not sorted through the project details, the school committee moved forward.  Lost in the memory of many residents it the fact that the MSBA’s analysis of the project was that the Longmeadow high school should be renovated, not replaced.  This conclusion was described in a letter dated November 10, 2009 to Longmeadow School Superintendent E. Jahn Hart that stated, “The MSBA and its Consultant have believed that the Longmeadow High School has strong potential for renovation, and the conclusions of your feasibility study have not substantially altered that view.”  On November 16, 2009, just a few days after that letter was received, a hastily gathered delegation of School Committee members, along with State Representative Brian Ashe, visited the MSBA to convince them that a renovation project was inappropriate.   Armed with letters from Congressman Neal, State Senator Candara and others, the rest, as they say, is history.   These letters and minutes of the meeting are now part of the public record.

It was the outcome of that November 16, 2009 meeting between a few “new school” proponents and the MSBA that convinced me that the current argument that the MSBA will help the town find the most appropriate solution to the middle school issue is incorrect at best, and misleading at worst.  The premature submission of an SOI will simply allow those with connections to the MSBA to dictate the direction of the project(s).  The proper methodology, in my opinion, for determining the forward path in this effort is for the town, led by its elected leaders on the School Committee and Select Board, to develop a single proposal for addressing the middle school situation and present that single solution to the MSBA for state assisted funding.
   
Submitting an SOI without first establishing a consensus on a single forward plan is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.  Additionally, we should not be submitting an SOI in anticipation of not receiving state approval “for several years”.  By doing so, we’re wasting our time and the time of the MSBA.  I am convinced that a properly developed plan, that demonstrates clear and compelling need AND community support, will receive state support and funding in a timely manner.

At the current time I do not believe that a consensus has been reached with respect to any of the following issues:

1. Whether it is appropriate to repair either or both of the current schools or to replace one or both schools. 
2. If the decision is to build new, whether or not to combine our two middle schools to a single school or maintain the current two-school structure
3. Where we would put a single school, on the Glenbrook campus on the Williams Campus
4. Whether there is sufficient town support to fund the plan that is developed.

Throughout this process, please be assured that I agree that current physical condition of the Longmeadow middle schools merit the attention of our town leaders and residents.  I am familiar with the details of the buildings’ shortcomings as described in architectural studies and reports, but have not participated in discussions on the optimum resolution of those shortcomings.  As Select Board member I will be asked to approve the submission of an SOI to the MSBA.   To my understanding, that document has not yet been written, yet it appears to have the support of a number of residents who also do not know what is contained in that document, what assistance it asks for, or what information it conveys.   My decision to vote in favor of submitting an SOI to the MSBA for financial support to addressing the shortcomings of the Longmeadow middle schools will, to a very large extent, depend on what information that SOI contains, and what actions it seeks.  To ask the MSBA to identify the best way to address the shortcomings of the Longmeadow middle schools is, in my opinion, inappropriate.

Again, my thanks for writing to me on this important topic.  My goal is to meet the expectations of the majority of the residents while providing for the future of our middle school facilities.  I have every reason to believe that we can and will meet both of the objectives of that goal. 

Regards,
Mark Gold
Longmeadow Select Board