"Game On" for the new Middle School(s)

When someone says 'Game on!', it means that they are accepting a challenge or ready to get something done.

This is certainly what I think that I heard at this week's School Committee meeting (9/26/11).  Committee members, Michael Clark and Laurie Flynn presented the results of their study this summer to review the conditions of the two middle schools and to recommend a forward action plan for the School Committee.

Below is a video clip- courtesy of LCTV with their presentation as well as the SC's followup discussion.



Here are some highlights and comments from this presentation:

1. Both Glenbrook and Williams Middle Schools are in deplorable condition with poorly functioning heating, plumbing and ventilation systems, alarm systems + other issues. Both schools were built more than 40 years ago GMS-1967 and WMS- 1959) and are at the end of their useful lives.  (Where have I heard that before?)
2. Both schools do not measure up to 21st century learning standards- size of classroom, inadequate science labs and facilities, physical layout, etc. (Where have I heard that before?)
3. GMS is not ADA compliant because of its multiple levels and the use of a "frightening" contraption for moving wheelchair bound students is not ideal. (Where have I heard that before?)
4. Locker rooms at WMS are in very "rough shape". (Where have I heard that before?)

Below are the main recommendations that were presented...

1. A new Middle School Working Group should be formed with 12 participants including 2 SC members, 1 Select Board member, Town Manager, Town Facilities Manager, School Superintendent, both Asst. School Superintendents, GMS + WMS principals and 2 town residents.  This group will be charged to develop a strategic plan for fixing both middle schools.  Because this "working group" is not an official committee or board it will not be required to post meeting notices or minutes.
   
   
2. The two middle school SOI's should not be updated and resubmitted this year.
   Both Mr. Clark and Ms. Flynn encouraged the SC to use the Middle School Working Group's effort to help build "political will".  They both felt that there was not strong enough support to undertake another large school building project just as the tax impact of the new high school project was going to start (see Longmeadow Taxes- Part II).

My reactions:

1. This "working group" proposal sounds very similar to the School Building Committee.  The recommendation seems like it is trying to "jump start" the whole feasibility process without any official sanctioning.  The town cannot afford to commit the efforts of all these town employees to a "working group".
   
   
2. The SC and SB should put together a joint taskforce to look at the all of the town's infrastructure needs- not just those that are school related so it can develop and properly support a prioritized list of projects.
   
   
3. Hopefully, the SC and school administration will not embrace the same tactics as those used to gain support for the new high school in which normal maintenance and updates were deferred for many years.
   Example: If (as Ms. Flynn reported) the current locker room space at WMS is in such deplorable condition, the WMS principal should submit work orders to fix it.  It is amazing how appearance can be improved with simple relatively low cost repairs (paint, floor replacement, etc.).

Tear down these schools

“If you seek new school projects, if you seek increased taxes for Longmeadow residents, if you seek financial ruin: Come here, to this town.  Ms. Katherine Craven, tear down these schools.”

This quote is adapted from a famous Presidential speech to be used in a future speech by Armand Wray (or the next SC chair) in 2011 about the new Glenbrook/ Williams Middle School building projects.

I’m sure that the Longmeadow School Committee (or a future School Building Committee) will be able to point out a crumbling wall or two (like the crack in the northwest corner of LHS) that will convince Ms. Craven and the MSBA of the need to build two (or one larger) new middle school(s) in Longmeadow.

Last night’s SB meeting was evidence to the agenda of the Longmeadow School Committee and certain members of the Select Board.  If you didn’t watch last night’s discussion regarding the MSBA “statements of interest” (SOIs) for our middle schools, you should take 30 minutes at 7 PM tonight to watch the rebroadcast.  I understand the first 10 minutes of the discussion (which were not broadcast last night due to technical problems) will also be aired tonight.

Here are statements from the first section of both SOIs…

The following priorities have been included in the SOI:

1. Replacement or renovation of a building which is structurally unsound or
   otherwise in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of school children where no alternative exists.
2. Elimination of existing severe overcrowding.

It may sound like the health and well being of our middle school children and teachers are being jeopardized, but according to the SC + superintendent comments, this language  is necessary (even if untrue) in the SOI in order to get a high project priority!! 

Last night was supposed to be a simple SC/SB joint meeting for the SB to approve the SOI’s which are due January 26 at 5 PM.  Comments by Swanson and Gold pointed out a large number of factual errors (not minor) and both SB members appear to be unwilling to sign an official town document containing such errors.  It turns out that the MSBA notified the School Superintendent last June that Longmeadow’s SOIs needed to be updated.  The deadline is about to pass with some lame excuse that the MSBA system has changed and that is why the documents are being submitted at the last minute.  There was not a satisfactory explanation as to why the SOIs were not accurate.

The SB agreed to continue their joint meeting tonight at 6 PM in an effort to resolve the errors and be able to submit an accurate SOI before the deadline passes.  It will be interesting to see what happens.   

BTW… the meeting is not being videotaped so you will need to attend the meeting at 6 PM at the Police Dept Community Room if you want to view the proceedings.

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.

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.

10 Year Property Tax Projections

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

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

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

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

Three scenarios as described below were discussed:

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

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

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

Below are the results….

[click to enlarge chart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katherine Craven Answers Questions

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

School Building Cost and Taxpayer Impact

Estimated property tax increases for the new high school project continue to be publicized by the School Building Committee in the media as the "average" over 25 years.

Below is the latest property tax impact analysis by Longmeadow Finance Director, Paul Pasterczyk using the MSBA approved projected building costs and reimbursement information.

[click chart to enlarge]

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the frequently quoted "average property tax increase" over 25 years is not reached until the year 2027- halfway through the life of the 25 year bond. For most home owners, the first full year property tax increase (FY14) as well as the first five years property tax increases are probably more important- not the average over 25 years.

Below is a summary of key information derived from the above graphs.

[click table to enlarge]

The above table for Chart A shows that the first year (FY14) property tax increase is 29% higher and the 1st 5 year average is 22% higher than the 25 year average. Similar results are found for Chart B results.

No one knows what the final taxpayer cost will be for this project because of the uncertainty of both interest rates and project building costs. According to the MSBA approval letter, Longmeadow will be granted up to a maximum of $34 million on a total project cost of $78.5 million. If unforeseen construction costs such as unexpected asbestos removal are incurred that are larger than that included with the budgeted contingencies, it is most likely that Longmeadow would have to cover those costs without reimbursement from the MSBA.

At the School Building Public Forum on September 30, I asked Jeffrey Luxemberg of Joslin Lesser & Associates- Owners Project Manager about the impact of unforeseen cost overruns for our high school project. He indicated that such an "overrun is borne by the locality" meaning Longmeadow and that the MSBA will not provide any additional funding. Below is a short video clip of his response.

Up to now I have been a supporter of the new Longmeadow HS but during the recent FY11 budget discussions I have become increasingly concerned about our ability to afford this project without future sacrifices of important town services. You cannot separate operational and capital needs- the money to fund both types comes from the same source- the Longmeadow taxpayer. Next year, there will likely be continuing discussions to reduce or close Storrs Library and the Longmeadow Adult Center and other town services in order to meet the every increasing financial needs of our schools.

I ask every town resident to make a special effort to become better informed about the school building project by attending upcoming public forums and the special town meeting on May 25.

Also, don't forget to learn more about each of the four candidates running for the two seats on the Longmeadow Select Board. The two individuals who are elected will become key players in determining Longmeadow's future.

Mark election day- Tuesday, June 8 on your calendar.

Now is the right time!

At the September 16 town forum seven different options ranging from "do nothing" to building a completely new school on a different site were presented by the project architect for review and comments by town residents. The Longmeadow School Building Committee met again on September 30 during which cost estimates for three of the seven alternatives were presented. After public comments and committee discussion, the SBC voted 14 to 1 to choose option 2B at an initial estimated cost of $80.5 million and a first year estimated property increase of ~ $1/$1000 (mil rate) of assessed value or ~$372 for an average home assessed at $370,000.

[click image to enlarge]

One town resident voiced his concern at the recent public forum that “now is not the right time” because of uncertainties in the economy including job losses, state level cut backs in funding, etc. Recent news shows that the state of Massachusetts continues to be plaqued by large drops in revenue which may result in future cutbacks of local aid to cities and towns.

The proposed high school building project should be examined in a different light rather than as a simple property tax increase.

A vast majority of our recent local property tax increases have been caused by increased operating costs rather than capital building costs. The estimated increase in taxes of $372/ year for a typical $370,000 home for the new high school building project should be looked at as a mortgage payment for the typical homeowner since the new high school becomes a valued assess of the town and its residents.

Using an interest rate of 4.5% and 25 years as the duration, a simple mortgage calculation reveals a principal amount of $5400. Given that Longmeadow’s reputation for excellence in education is one of the primary factors for our higher home prices vs. surrounding towns, a new high school would certainly add at least $5400 to the sales price of the median home. In these terms, building a new high school is equivalent to a minor bathroom home remodeling project and the investment should certainly be worthwhile since it will add to the long term value of the typical home.

The next steps for this project include a presentation to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in mid November. If Longmeadow’s high school project is approved by the MSBA, there will be months of intensive efforts to finalize the project’s details and costs before final presentation and approval by the MSBA next spring. Longmeadow will then have 120 days to approve the project (Proposition 2½ debt exclusion override) which will include a required 2/3 vote at the Annual Town Meeting in April and a majority YES vote at Annual Town Elections in June.

If the town of Longmeadow votes no on this project, we will return to the end of very long line with another 160 Massachusetts school projects awaiting consideration. The cost of continuing to "fix" our high school will continue to escalate with corresponding increased operating costs and property tax increases (and/ or reduction in town/ school services).

There is a need to do something about our deteriorating high school. Please support this important project.

NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME!

For additional information (including web videos of the recent public forums) and to stay informed on this important project. visit the SBC’s website.

Longmeadow School Building Project Continues to Move Forward...

The Longmeadow School Building Committee (SBC) has been working hard developing a plan to renovate or build a new high school. A number of factors, taken together, will determine whether the SBC selects an addition/ renovation or a completely new school as the long term building solution.

The current project timetable shows a presentation to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) (November 2009), final MSBA project approval (March 2010), a debt exclusion vote at the annual town meeting (April 2010) and if successful, a followup vote at town elections (June 2010). Longmeadow will get only one chance through this process so it's important to get it right the first time.

A first public forum to discuss the status of this work was held on August 18. A web video of this event and the accompanying slide presentations are available on the SBC website.

Most recently, the SBC posted a series of FAQs on its website that should be of interest to most town residents.

The SBC is charged with developing two options for the MSBA and then the MSBA makes the final decision. On November 18 there is a scheduled meeting between the SBC and the MSBA to review Longmeadow's proposals.

**It is important to understand that the town will not be able to vote on new vs. renovation nor will the town be able to vote on multiple options. There is only one vote- by the SBC.

On Wednesday, September 16 at Glenbrook Middle School at 7 PM there will be a second (and last) public review session conducted by the SBC for feedback and discussion. The architects will be presenting several building options for the long term building solution for LHS.

The purpose of the public forums is to present the options to town residents and solicit feedback. Community input is essential in order for the SBC to make informed decisions. The forums are designed for residents to come and speak up and ask questions. The School Building Committee will be voting on the final recommendation on September 30.

This school building project is one of the most important issues facing our the town in recent years. Take the time to come to this last public forum on September 16.... listen, ask questions and provide feedback to the SBC.

Visit the School Building Committee's website often to keep abreast of new developments.

Feedback can be sent to the SBC via email to: longmeadowsbc@yahoo.com

or simply shared by commenting to this post.