New Town Website is Officially Launched

Earlier this month a decision was made by the Select Board to launch the new official town website at www.Longmeadow.org recognizing that there were still significant shortcomings.  Here is short video clip of this SB discussion (courtesy of LCTV).



This new redesigned website is a big disappointment for town residents given the missing and/or outdated information, bad links, etc.  Only within the last week has outdated information been removed from the homepage and more timely news added.  At this point the town website's functionality and usefulness are significantly less than that for the pre-July 2010 time period.

An example...
Where is the School Building Committee's new HS project cost information (bid information + Guaranteed Maximum Price) obtained earlier this month?   It was posted here on the Longmeadow Buzz blog (New High School Project Bids) but not posted on the "new" town website .

It's taken more than 10 months to "redesign" the www.longmeadow.org website using recommendations developed by the Website Task Force.  This group appointed by the Town Manager made a specific recommendation that the town adopt a "WordPress" CMS (content management system) platform because it was free and easy to manage at virtually no cost to the town. (I guess you get what you pay for it.)

During the past 10 months I benchmarked and posted here on the Buzz blog what other towns have done to develop and maintain their websites (including some cost estimates) but my suggestions and recommendations were not followed by the Website Task Force. 

Here are links to those earlier posts...

Roadmap to a New Website
The Cost of Technology
The Cost of Technology- Part II

Where is the new Longmeadow website?

The Select Board's decision this month to re-establish the previously dissolved Website Task Force and ask it to develop a set of policy guidelines as to who can post what on the town website indicates we are still a long time away from having an effective town website.

I would think that Kevin Warenda- Longmeadow's new Director of Technology (Schools + Town Government) and his IT group should have the primary responsibility for developing and maintaining the town website including the policy decisions about posting guidelines but this does not appear to be the case.  Comments by Ms. Swanson and Ms. Crosbie at the end of the above SB discussion are somewhat encouraging when they asked about the Select Board commitment of additional $$$ resources to improve the website from its current state.  Hopefully, IT related support for the town website does not take on the same complexion as the long standing school/ town government maintenance issue.

I encourage town residents to send their comments about the need to improve our town website to all Select Board members.

Here are their email addresses:
Robert Aseltine- raseltine@longmeadow.org
Robert Barkett- rbarkett@longmeadow.org
Paul Santaniello- psantaniello@longmeadow.org
Mark Gold- mgold@longmeadow.org
Christine Swanson- cswanson@longmeadow.org

Longmeadow's Oldest Resident Dies at Age 109

Vivian Maxine (Pickering) Henschke, 109, of Longmeadow, died on May 26, 2011 at the Julian J. Leavitt Jewish Nursing Home in Longmeadow, MA.

Read the full obituary in the Springfield Republican.






On January 23rd, 2003, Vivian Henschke was presented the Longmeadow Gold Cane as the town’s oldest citizen. In a tradition that dates back to 1909, Selectman Gerard Nolet presented Mrs. Henschke with the cane, with Rep. Mary Rogeness in attendance.

Bob Lezinski wrote an excellent article (click to read) about Ms. Henschke for the Longmeadow Chronicles- a feature originally found on the town website but now the archives have been relocated to the new town website at www.LongmeadowMA.org.

New Longmeadow HS Project Bids

This morning there was an article in the Springfield Newspaper announcing that the construction bids for the new Easthampton HS were $3 million lower than expectations ($30 million vs. $33 million - a savings to taxpayers of ~ 9%.  This is similar to the savings achieved for the new Minnechaug HS and was attributed to the favorable bidding environment.

You might ask...

What is the situation with the new Longmeadow HS project?

In a unrelatively unpublicized event, the new Longmeadow HS project bids were finalized at a School Building Committee meeting on May 12. As far as I know there has been no public notice or discussion of these results except during the end of the May 16 Select Board meeting when Mr. Barkett and Ms. Swanson (SBC co-chairs) provided a brief verbal project update (click here to view LCTV video, watch segment at the end of SB meeting).

Question: Given that this SBC meeting took place almost two weeks ago why has this GMP information not been made public?

For those taxpayers who are interested, here are the details that I have learned....

The project Guaranteed Maximum Price- GMP (construction only) is $63.7 million + $14.7 million of soft costs (feasibility study + admin + architecture/ engineering + furnishings/ finish/ equipment + contingency costs) for a total of $78.4 million- ~$88K less than originally estimated and approved by Longmeadow voters.

Below is table of the individual components for the $14.7 million of soft costs.

Included with this price tag are 4 "add alternates" or "add-ons" to the original project scope. These add alternates (not in the original project scope) include an upgrade of the swimming pool area (diving board + floor tile), addition of an electromechanical lift mechanism for the auditorium stage (vs. original manual hydraulic system), an outside enclosed storage area, and an "exterior environmental gardenscape". Total estimates (quoted at the 1/05/11 SBC meeting) for these add alternates were $665K.

Included with the the above "soft costs" are ~ $4 million of project contingency monies that will be used to resolve unforeseen project problems. Unless some of this money is not used and then later reallocated, there will be no synthetic turf installed as part of the high school project.

Longmeadow elected to use a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) approach which provided a higher MSBA project reimbursement rate (+1.0% ?). Gilbane was approved as the project CMAR so there was no large number of "general contractors" bidding for the overall project... Gilbane was already selected.

In the October - March 2011 time period Gilbane, the project architect (OMR) and the project manager (JLA) were involved in developing the final design + bid specification package. Gilbane/ JLA developed 3 sets of estimates (1 internal + 2 external sources) to use for comparing with actual bids on project components such as steel structure, electrical, plumbing, etc.

The project bid specifications (including basic assumptions) were then issued and various contractors submitted bids for the individual components of the project. At the SBC meeting on April 28 it was announced that there were few  bidders on certain project components (in some cases only one bid) and the bids were high so the bid deadline was extended.

After the extended bid deadline passed, Gilbane selected the best ones and develop the Guaranteed Maximum Price or GMP. Gilbane (CMAR) is responsible for delivering the project building construction for $63.7 million which as I indicated in my comments above include 4 add alternates. Any savings in construction costs will benefit the individual contractors (steel structure, etc.). Overruns will be absorbed by the individual contractors. Gilbane is being paid a fee for managing the project.

If the project runs into some unforeseen problems such as rock, asbestos removal, etc. that are not included with the original bid specs, the additional $4.0 million in the $14.7 million in other project costs will be used. Over that, the town has to ante up for overruns- without MSBA reimbursement.

I believe the reason for the lack of publicity is that the SBC promised that if the project was quickly approved by town voters that a "good" bidding environment (from Longmeadow's point of view) would reap significant financial benefits. The SBC was able to include 4 add alternates to the original project scope without going above $78 million but this was much less than originally anticipated.

Annual Town Meeting

The Annual Town Meeting will be held tomorrow night (Tuesday, May 10) at 7 PM at Longmeadow High School gymnasium. 

All town residents should plan to attend this important meeting. The Town Meeting warrant booklet contains detailed FY12 budget information + the 26 articles under consideration with explanations.

This year's annual town meeting warrant includes articles for approval of the FY2012 town budget for $54.2 million, capital spending on road and other infrastructure repairs, Information Technologies capital requests and renewal of the Community Preservation Act.

I hope to see you there!

Living History- A New LCTV Series

 

Living History is a new LCTV series where hostess Kathy Grady interviews Longmeadow residents who have lived in town for over 50 years. These longtime town residents share their childhood and early adult memories of Longmeadow. The first two interviews are Guy D'Antonio and Linda Abrams. Click here to view a short video containing clips from these first two interviews.

Living History is broadcast on Tuesday evenings at 6:30 PM and Wednesday mornings at 9:30 AM on LCTV Channel 12.

LongMeddowe Days 2011

Below is the official LongMeddowe Days 2011 event flyer with the full schedule of events. This year's event is scheduled for Saturday, May 21 and Sunday, May 22 on the Longmeadow Town Green.

A Sign of Difficult Times?

Last week's Reminder contained a full page advertisement entitled "Town Collector's Notice of Taking" which according to Longmeadow Town Collector of Taxes, Mary Pequignot is required by law before the town places a lien on the property at the Registry of Deeds. Notices and letters had already been sent to the property owners.  The Comm Pres notation with this notice is the money owed through the Community Preservation Act.

For those Buzz readers who did not see this ad, it contained a list of 19 property owners with owed FY2010 taxes ranging from $81 --> $6700.

In 2010 there were 11 foreclosures in Longmeadow according to filings at the Hampden County Register of Deeds. This compares to 1 foreclosure in 2009 and 1 in 2008.

A comparison of Longmeadow home foreclosures in 2010 with surrounding towns showed the following:

Longmeadow- 11; East Longmeadow- 11; Hampden- 5; Wilbraham- 17; Agawam- 32

I believe that these foreclosure numbers do not show the real financial stress on Longmeadow homeowners.  Analysis of the real estate results from last year show that there was likely a pretty high level of "short sales" of properties in Longmeadow wherein the bank accepted less than what was owed on the property and so the owner was able to sell to an interested party at a bargain price.

In addition, a large percentage of homes were sold in Longmeadow at prices below the official assessment value continuing a trend that has been in place for the past two years. In 2010 49% of the homes (86 out of 158) were sold below the current assessed value. For the final three months (Oct --> Dec) 73% of the homes (22 out of 30) were sold below the current assessed value. In 2010, 10 homes were sold at greater than $100,000 below assessed value.

Anyone who has tried to sell a home in Longmeadow (or anywhere else) knows how difficult it is.  Because of this difficulty, there are many homes in Longmeadow that are being rented (or are vacant).  In many cases, rents being paid do not adequately cover the homeowner (or landlord) costs.
 

This information was obtained at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds at: http://registryofdeeds.co.hampden.ma.us/ which has a free public database that anyone can access. 

Additional information and analysis can be found on the Real Estate Buzz at LongmeadowBiz blog.

The Longmeadow Select Board, School Committee and School Building Committee should consider the above information when making decisions about Longmeadow spending.

Michael Clark Deserves a Public Apology

At March 21 Longmeadow Select Board meeting, Michael Clark, clerk of the Longmeadow Finance Committee read an official statement during the public comments period regarding support of the formation of a Bonding and Investment Advisory committee.  At the end of the written statement, Mr. Clark offered his own "personal" remarks that were different from the official FC vote including a re-thinking and reversal of his original committee vote.  It was clear to me and probably to most viewers that these were his personal comments.  Below is a short clip (courtesy of LCTV) with Mr. Clark's remarks.



At the Finance Committee public meeting two days later, Peter Greenberg, the FC chair read a strongly worded message that was highly critical of Mr. Clark's personal remarks and threatened that similar future actions by any committee member would result in member expulsion.  Because this FC meeting was a public forum on the upcoming FY2012 budget, was being taped for broadcast on LCTV and attended by a large number of town employees and residents, the remarks were not simply a intra-committee discussion.  It was a very public reprimand.

Richard Liasse, the appointed FC to SB liaison was present at this March 21 SB meeting.  Why wasn't he asked to read the FC statement given that this is his assigned responsibility?  Also, it is interesting to note Mr. Liasse's biweekly SB comments as the FC representative usually contain both official and his personal remarks.  Below is a video clip (courtesy of LCTV) of Mr. Greenberg's remarks.



As readers of my Buzz posts know, I was highly critical of Mr. Clark's lack of experience when he was running for Select Board last June but I have been impressed with his participation in town government related business over the past 9 months by his membership on the Finance Committee.  His recent decision to run for School Committee to gain experience on school related business is also very noteworthy.  While I do not agree with many of his publicly expressed views, I do admire his willingness to commit his time and energy to town and now school related business.

What happened at the March 23 Finance Committee meeting was a "cheap shot" aimed at making sure that committee members "toe the line".  I'm sure that Mr. Clark is feeling similar to how I felt last year when I was fired as the "town webmaster" for expressing my "personal" opinion about the tactics of the School Building Committee. (N.B. My commentary was here on the Buzz blog and was in no way connected to my responsibilities as town webmaster.)  I suspect that Mr. Greenberg is working from the same playbook as our current SB chairman.

We need both public officials and town residents to be able to voice their opinions in public without fear of reprisal of any kind.

Michael Clark deserves an official public apology from Peter Greenberg.

Will the SBC Submit to Elections or Oversight?

The article posted below written by Alex Grant which appeared in this week's Longmeadow News is a continuation of a series (see below) which challenges the "self" empowerment of the Longmeadow School Building Committee.  Below are LongmeadowBuzz links to the original article as well as the recent official SBC rebuttal from co-chair Christine Swanson:

Who Put the SBC In-Charge? by Alex Grant, 3/03/11

Role of the School Building Committee Prescribed by Massachusetts Law- by Christine Swanson, 3/12/11

_______________________________________________________

Will the SBC Submit to Elections or Oversight?

Will the School Building Committee (SBC) submit to elections to select and replace its members?  If not, the members of the SBC will continue to serve indefinite terms.  If not, the SBC will continue to exercise an unwritten mandate that only it will define.

The SBC, through its co-chairperson, Christine Swanson, has responded to my question of "who put the SBC in charge?" by making essentially two arguments.  First, the SBC says that the voters of Longmeadow, by agreeing to fund the feasibility study and by agreeing to fund the construction of the new high school, also agreed to follow the state's rules, and therefore implicitly agreed to the creation of a school building committee.

There's just one catch: the votes for the feasibility study (November 2008) and for the new high school (June 2010) occurred AFTER the SBC was created in June/July 2008.  So those votes could not have given approval, even implicitly, for the creation of the School Building Committee.  Moreover, the town's voters were never asked to vote, even after the fact, on whether to create an unelected board with undefined powers and duties.

Second, the SBC says that the Select Board and School Committee exercised its power under section 4-4 of the Town Charter to create the SBC when it voted in June 2008 to select certain members for the SBC.  But look it up.  Look up the meeting minutes of the meetings that the SBC cites.  The minutes only indicate that certain members were selected.  The minutes say nothing about creating the SBC, and they say nothing about the scope of its responsibilities, its oversight, its term of service, its mission.  Nothing.  And I did a FOIA request to see whether there might be another document, not publicly available, that established the SBC.  Again, nothing.

But let's pretend for a moment that the Select Board and the School Committee did exercise their power under section 4-4.  Under that section, the newly created committee "shall be monitored and dissolved as appropriate" by the appointing authority.  In other words, the Charter requires such a committee to be overseen by the board that created it.  And, the "appointing authority" has the power to dissolve such a committee as it sees fit.  That means that a section 4-4 committee is subservient to the Select Board or School Committee.  In that way, the elected officials of the Select Board and the School Committee must answer for the actions taken by the committees they oversee.

But the SBC is overseen by nobody.  And since it was never given a mandate to follow, the SBC decides for itself the scope of its own authority.  In Ms. Swanson's response, she says that the SBC has "responsibility for shepherding the high school project through the MSBA and town approvals, as well as through the design and construction phases of the project."  There is no document and no decision of the Select Board or the School Committee that articulates the SBC's responsibility in that way, and the SBC points to none.  The SBC functions as a super board, a board of unlimited duration and unlimited discretion.

Under the state regulations the SBC cites, a town must create a school building committee to go through the state funding process.  The regulations require nothing else about the form and membership of the committee.  The regulations do not purport to override any local charters or local law.  Indeed, 963 CMR 2.10(3)(b) states that the school building committee "shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of the Eligible Applicant’s local charter and/or by-laws."  Beyond that, the regulations make "recommendations" about including certain people as members.

To the extent that the SBC leans on the state regulations to justify its self-defined powers, it is leaning on a pillar of sand.  The state regulations say nothing about the SBC deciding on its own which design to submit to the state, they say nothing about indefinite terms for members, they say nothing about requiring independence from the voters and the elected boards of a town.  All of those questions are a matter of town law.

The reality though is that whatever the Charter, the decisions of the Select Board, and the state regulations say, the SBC has exercised power; it has made important decisions, like the design of the high school.  No town official has challenged the SBC in its nearly three years of existence.  Unopposed, the SBC will continue to operate in its usual fashion unless its members decide that the entity should answer to the voters or their representatives.

So, the question becomes: will the members of the SBC voluntarily agree to submit to elections?  If they did, I am sure that many, if not all, would be elected.  Christine Swanson, for one, probably knows more about the state funding process and has worked harder for the new high school than any resident in town.  The members of the SBC are good people, but the committee must be accountable to the voters no matter how beneficent their decisions, and it must have clearly defined powers, just like every other town board and committee does.

reprinted with permission of the author

______________________________________________

Alex J. Grant is a lawyer living in Longmeadow.  His email address is alex.grant68@yahoo.com.

LCTV- A valued resource for our town...