Longmeadow Buzz

PRESS RELEASE: ALEX GRANT ANNOUNCES RUN FOR LONGMEADOW SELECT BOARD

2013-05-17T07:24:00.001-04:00

ALEX GRANT, after writing a bi-weekly column for the Longmeadow News on town issues since 2007, announces that he is running for one of the two open seats on the Longmeadow Select Board. The election is June 11.

The announcement comes a few days after the annual Longmeadow Town Meeting, in which the Select Board’s proposed annual budget was defeated. GRANT spoke at Town Meeting in favor of a compromise budget that restored some of the cuts to the School Department. The cuts advanced by the Select Board would have decimated the renowned Longmeadow music department, led to layoffs of teachers, and increased class sizes.

GRANT stated at Town Meeting, “I wish we could send the Select Board back to the drawing board” on the budget. He noted that the Select Board budget’s across-the-board cuts in services also hurt seniors in town.

GRANT criticized the Select Board’s policy of taking money from needed town services to put the funds into capital spending at a time when there is no capital plan. Despite the claims of the Select Board and the Town Manager to the contrary, GRANT quoted the interim town manager at the March 6, 2013 budget forum as saying, “There is no capital plan, there should be, there needs to be, it would be better if the capital recommendations for FY 14 were in the context of a capital plan.” GRANT asked that anyone doubting his recitation of the facts to view the DVD recording of the budget forum, read the news story in The Reminder, or to go to his website www.AlexGrantLongmeadow.org to see for themselves the statements from the budget forum.

The compromise budget supported by GRANT, the School Committee, and two members of the Select Board passed overwhelmingly. GRANT said that the Town Meeting result shows that the Select Board is out of step with the voters and that change is needed.

GRANT, who works as a federal prosecutor, also coaches youth soccer, basketball, and track in Longmeadow. GRANT is a graduate of Stanford University and Cornell Law School.

In making the announcement, GRANT said, “I am running to open up our town government by writing about it, by telling residents what really goes on at the Select Board, and by listening to residents more than the Select Board does now. In recent years, town politics has been a conversation involving a fairly small number of people, and that needs to change. We need to engage a larger number of voters if Longmeadow is going to move forward and be a great place to live for people of all ages.”

GRANT reminded residents that the passage of the compromise budget was a limited victory that merely mitigated the cuts to services contemplated by the Select Board budget. The budget passed was still closer to the 0% Select Board approach than to maintaining level services. GRANT does not want to see the quality of life in Longmeadow diminished.

GRANT said, “If you want to have a shot at avoiding these same kinds of cuts to services next year, you need to vote on June 11 to change the lineup on the Select Board. Otherwise, we will be having the same conversation next year. The choice between the two incumbents and me for the two open seats is clear.”

Voters will have a chance to visit GRANT’s booth and meet the candidate in person at Longmeaddowe Days on May 18 and 19.

Funding Capital Needs

2013-05-14T12:21:00.000-04:00

The following article was submitted by Mark Gold,
current member of the Longmeadow Select Board to the Longmeadow Buzz blog and Longmeadow News for publication this week.

___________________________________________________

Longmeadow’s Town meeting was held last week – and the proceedings of that meeting are reported elsewhere in this newspaper. From the front of the room, the vista was amazingly positive; hundreds of town residents had come out of their homes on a beautiful spring evening to perform the duties of the legislative branch of town government. At the meeting, as part of the continued discussion on renewing the infrastructure of the town, citizens approved over $5,000,000 in funding for capital expenditures, authorizing the use of funds from the operating budget, stabilization funds, and the issuance of bonds to begin work on the backlog of over $140 million in capital projects that have been identified for our roads, sidewalks, storm water outfalls, drinking water, and sewage systems. $2,200,000 of these expended funds is derived from water and sewer fees or designated state aid, but $2.8 million is primarily paid through property taxes. If we are to continue to maintain the town’s infrastructure, as we must, and continue to support the operations of the town’s general government services and schools as we want, we must find a way to fund capital improvements that provides the necessary millions of dollars in needed financing while continuing to provide funds for general government and school operations. I believe that this balanced approach to funding both capital and operating expenses can be met.

Beginning when I was chair, the capital planning committee has recommended each year that that capital funds be increased above their current level of 2% of property tax revenue. For the past two years, the Finance Committee has echoed that request. By ramping up Longmeadow’s commitment to capital from 2% to 2.5% over five years, and dedicating those increases to capital improvement bonds, Longmeadow can make available approximately $4.5 million of additionally needed funds to address the most pressing of our capital needs (see chart below). This gradual increase in the capital allocation would require only $50,000 of each year’s allowable increase under the Proposition 2 ½ levy limit, leaving over $1.1 million in increased revenue to support the growth of the overall town budget and, equally as important, not impact the funds available to purchase plows, equipment and other non- infrastructure capital needs. Our infrastructure was built over many decades and this balanced approach provides the added funds to begin to address these needs without having to make unacceptable cuts to the town’s operating budget.

click chart to enlarge

This proposed approach to funding our infrastructure needs mirrors the structure adopted by the Town for funding new fire trucks. Prior to the creation of our fire truck replacement fund, the purchase of a fire truck was a major expenditure that required offsetting cuts elsewhere in either the operating budget (to pay for a bond) or the capital budget (precluding the purchase of other capital items). In place since I recommended it during my tenure as chair of the capital planning committee, an annual payment into the fire truck fund has been integrated into Longmeadow’s capital plan, and has provided funds to pay for two new fire vehicles with minimal impact on either operating budgets or other capital expenditures.

Longmeadow’s capital infrastructure needs must be addressed. By gradually increasing, and allocating that increased portion of our capital budget to infrastructure repairs, the Town of Longmeadow can adopt a balanced approach to funding the capital AND operating needs of the town. This proposal is but one of the ways in which I hope to continue to bring to the voters of Longmeadow a balanced approach to town government.

For more information about how we can address the financial needs of the town, visit my website www.GoldForSelectboard.com.

Mark Gold

We Deserved a Vote

2013-05-13T21:39:00.000-04:00

At the May 7 Town Meeting, there was a warrant article that should have been on the docket, that should have been voted on, and that deserved passage. It was an article that had been part of an earlier draft of the warrant, and then it was removed through an improvident 3-2 vote by the Select Board. It was an article that could have made a difference to hundreds of youth and adults. The article was the Community Preservation Committee's (CPC) proposal to repair and improve the Wolf Swamp fields.

The absence of the Wolf Swamp fields project on the Town Meeting warrant was a missed opportunity that reflects a lack of regard for the work done by the CPC and the Parks Board, which had carefully considered the proposal. Its absence on the warrant also reflects, shall we say, an overabundance of confidence that the three Select Board members held in their own judgment and wisdom. That confidence propelled the Select Board majority to substitute its opinion for the assessments of a greater number of folks who had spent more time studying the subject.

The Wolf Swamp fields badly need repair, and their use needs to be re-oriented to sports like Lacrosse and Soccer, where interest is intense, and so part of the proposal was to fill in two ball diamonds in favor of more field space. To accomplish this, the project required $96,000, and the money was to have been derived from Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, which allows the town to receive a 26% match from the state, which is about the best deal in municipal finance.

So how can a project with unquestioned merit and which makes fiscal sense go down to defeat? Or more precisely, how can such a project be kept from the voters at Town Meeting? The CPC voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve this project. Other CPA projects were rejected, tabled, or failed to pass so overwhelmingly. The CPC included people with histories of long service to the town, such as Gerald Nolet, Arlene Miller, and James Goodhines. This group was not apt to venture out on poorly designed schemes. It was certainly a group that would not agree on every town issue, but it could agree on this.

The Select Board has many other things to do besides second-guessing the layout of sports fields and the angles at which lacrosse balls may be flung. The objections raised by the members who voted to kill the warrant article showed no deference to the review done by the many people who have given a lot of thought on how best to use the town's resources for recreation and sport.

One Select Board member suggested that still more review should be done by the Planning Board and by the Town safety committee. After input by the Parks Board, a vote by nine members of the CPC, review by the Select Board, and a vote by residents at Town Meeting, this process hardly cried out for more bureaucracy. As Mr. Goodhines noted, the need had been identified for several years, and the project was advanced after receiving feedback from the community.

The shame in all of this is that the voters were denied a chance to have their voices heard. Was this idea so dangerous that the people could not be trusted to vote on it? While it was within the power of the Select Board to eliminate this article, surely that power must be tempered by a decent respect for the opinions of the constituents who conferred that power by electing the members of the Select Board. Was it not possible that the voters, had they approved the article, were right, and the three members of the Select Board wrong?

At worst, the Wolf Swamp fields project was a matter on which reasonable minds could differ. Then why not allow our direct democracy to work? Why not allow the clash of ideas, the questions and answers, and the discussion on the floor of Town Meeting to illuminate the best path forward? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." That competition was overridden in this instance, but in our system, the debate never ceases, and this question will arise again, and the expression of the views of the electorate cannot be silenced forever.

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

There is Another Important Vote on June 11

2013-05-08T07:47:00.000-04:00

I was inspired to see the support last night for the compromise budget, but we should remember that this was a limited victory and merely mitigated the cuts to services contemplated by the Select Board budget. All told, the budget passed still was closer to the 0% SB approach than to maintaining level services. If you want to have a shot at avoiding these same kinds of cuts to services next year, you need to vote on June 11 to change the lineup on the Select Board. Otherwise, we'll be having the same conversation next year. The choice between me, and the two incumbents, Mark Gold and Mark Barowsky, for the two open seats is clear.

Annual Town Meeting- Article #26

2013-05-03T17:50:00.001-04:00

Below is Article #26 that is printed in the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting:

Article 26: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw of the Town regarding dimensional requirements and fencing applicable to corner lots, or take any other action relative thereto.

I knew that this warrant article was related to a revision of the zoning bylaw governing "corner lots" but given this limited text I wanted to know more. At a boisterous Special Town Meeting last October, Planning Board Chair, Walter Gunn promised to have a revised zoning bylaw on the warrant at the next Annual Town Meeting which is scheduled for next Tuesday. (See earlier Buzz post- What's Happening with Corner Lots? for background information.)

It turns out that the specific bylaw changes were not completed when the warrant was published and not finalized until earlier this week. Below is the lengthy amendment that will be proposed on the floor of the Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday for consideration by voters ...

Move: To amend the zoning by-laws of the Town as follows:

Add a definition of “Front Lot Line” in Article II as follows:
“Front Lot Line.” The front lot line for each lot shall be the street line opposite the rear lot line.

Add a definition of “Side Lot Line” in Article II as follows:
“Side Lot Line.” Each lot line that is neither a front nor a rear lot line.

Amend the definition of “Rear Lot Line” in Article II as follows:
“Rear Lot Line.” A rear lot line is a lot line opposite to the street line. In case of a corner or through lot, the owner may designate which line will be the rear lot line, provided his choice does not involve a violation of any of the provisions of this By-law. In the case of a corner lot where the side lot lines are curved or angled or joined by a tertiary line or curve, the BuildingCommissioner shall designate the extent of the rear lot line.

click here to read full three page amendment

___________________________________________

In order to find out more about this controversial subject I attended a Planning Board public hearing on May 1 regarding the proposed bylaw changes. This public hearing was held in order to solicit public comments and was required by Mass. General Law. Only 7 members of the public attended this meeting.

At this meeting a schematic diagram explaining the proposed changes was handed out and which is shown below:

click diagram to enlarge

The above chart will be presented at the Annual Town Meeting. Below are some additional comments that were made during the public hearing.

There are approximately 800 corner lots in the town of Longmeadow of which 600 are designated "non-conforming". In most cases non-conforming lots mean that they do not meet the 40 ft setback from the Street Line or Property Line or Front Lot Line. Location of any new fences (or substantial modification of an existing fence) must be at least 40 feet from the Street Line.

It was interesting that no member of the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals (who were present) could adequately define what is meant by substantial fence modification which would require a building permit and adherence to the new bylaw no matter when it was originally built.
The new bylaw language allows for home owners to define which "street facing side" of their house is to be considered for the Front Lot line which will determine their Rear Yard (see above diagram for details).
In many cases that were described at the October STM, this new change in the fencing bylaw will not provide significant relief unless it is at least 40 ft from the Street Line.
According to Walter Gunn, PB Chairman, the Longmeadow Building Commissioner/ Inspector (Paul Healey) has reviewed the above diagram and has agreed that it conforms to the language of the proposed bylaw.

This set of zoning bylaw changes will require a 2/3 vote of the Town Meeting. These proposed changes will likely be discussed at a late hour of the Town Meeting.

I believe that this zoning bylaw change should be approved to help provide relief to town residents who are currently facing severe restrictions on the use of their property.

Check Out Alex Grant's Website

2013-04-25T21:42:00.000-04:00

My website is the place to connect with the Alex for Select Board campaign, to learn more about me, and to get the skinny on where I stand on Longmeadow town issues.
www.AlexGrantLongmeadow.org

A Better Budget

2013-04-25T21:25:00.000-04:00

Longmeadow is heading for the most contentious budget battle in years. Strangely enough, the debate is not about whether to raise or lower taxes. No matter how the vote goes at Town Meeting, no matter which alternative is passed, property taxes are going up the usual 2.5 percent.

There has been much hand-wringing about the prospect of a "floor fight" at Town Meeting, as if the preferred method of operation were to make the decisions beforehand and then to have them ratified by supine voters in the style of the former U.S.S.R.'s Party Congresses, where loyal communist party members would signal their assent in unison to the prescribed program. This "floor fight" is nothing more or less than a choice being presented to the voters at Town Meeting, who are, under our town charter, the legislative body. Making that choice is a matter of the voters doing their job.

Readers of this space may recall that I have lamented the lack of choice at Town Meeting. The annual budget, the main order of business, is normally presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion. Or, more accurately, the budget choice is: approve this or face disaster. The voters at Town Meeting have an aversion for disaster and typically approve what is presented to them. I have, in years past, suggested that those elected town leaders who are unhappy with the prescribed budget submit an alternative and let the people decide, rather than grumbling on the sidelines.

This year, the School Committee and other town leaders have wisely opted to let the voters decide whether the budget, narrowly approved 3-2 by the Select Board, or whether a compromise, which has the support of a larger number of our elected officials, should be approved. The compromise is the better choice.

The Select Board's budget raises spending on capital by making cuts to town services and to the schools with a zero percent increase for all components of town government, except capital spending. This "zero budget" means, in real economic terms, a decrease in funding across the board since inflation has made a dollar worth about 2.5 percent less every year for the last few years. 2013 is expected to be the same.

The issue then is not of taxes, but of allocation. The cuts instituted by the Select Board budget would be, by the admission of the Select Board itself, painful to town departments that serve seniors and working adults. This comes at a time when the services provided to seniors, evidenced by the shabby condition of the Senior Center, are hardly abounding. The cuts will also be painful for children in the schools.

In the past several years, under the former town manager and with the support of such stalwarts of fiscal rectitude like William Scibelli, Longmeadow has had "level service" budgets. This meant basically that we wanted to keep things from getting worse in Longmeadow by keeping the level of services the same. Level service budgets kept pace with inflation with the customary 2.5 percent increases.

So why are we now suddenly being asked to adopt an austerity town budget? Three members of the Select Board tell us we need to spend money on "capital." And yet, the telling moment during the March town budget forum was when the interim town manager admitted that there was no capital plan. Spending on capital without a plan is not responsible, and it is not frugal. The plan should come first, and then the spending.

Spending on capital without a plan simply creates a pot of money that may not be wisely spent. Spending without a plan, without direction, and without a process for reviewing the efficacy of these expenditures is a recipe for wasting taxpayer dollars. It was a lack of direction that allowed the Maple Road paving project to start late, to take too long, and to straddle the winter months when paving should not be done. The result was a mess. It was a lack of direction that allowed money to be given to DPW in the last year for trees, and then the work ended up being done on overtime. A boon to DPW employees perhaps, but it was not the most frugal way to get the job done.

Sacrificing services that have real value in order to engage in a pell-mell rush to spend money on "capital" is not the best way for Longmeadow to move forward. The compromise is imperfect because it does not remove the austerity onus on services for seniors, and it only mitigates the cuts to education. But of the two, the compromise is the better budget.

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

Frugality

2013-04-17T22:12:00.000-04:00

Frugality is a word that rarely enters the debate about government spending at any level. Instead, voters hear about "unnecessary spending" and the need to eliminate it when annual budgets are out of line. It always begs the question of, if the spending was unnecessary, why were we doing it in the first place? And then there are the politicians who aim to balance budgets by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, as if waste, fraud, and abuse were OK when times were not so tight.

Politicians who spend tax dollars undertake a solemn responsibility. Elected officials ought to be as careful with the public's money as they are with their own. That is the true test for fiscal responsibility.

To make it through college, I grew wild blueberries with my grandfather on a remote parcel of land in Maine. Keeping costs down meant the difference between making money or not, the difference between attending school in the fall or not. Frugality meant hoping for rain, and when rain did not come, it meant irrigating the land with a used, and not a new, pump. It meant buying some odd lots of used pipe that did not fit together, and then blacksmithing some connecting pieces so that our strange collection of mismatched pipe could do the job.

Frugality is a way of doing business, and for households, it is a way of life. It is my grandmother opening a Christmas present, taking care not to rip the wrapping paper, and then smoothing the paper out, so that it can be used for next year. Frugality is waiting to buy bread at the Big Y until it is a two-for-one special. It is buying your paper goods at Target and not CVS.

Frugality is an everyday thing, not an end of the year thing. It is being mindful of every expenditure, working efficiently, and re-evaluating constantly to make sure nothing is wasted. Sometimes it is making do with what you have, using a thing until it is broken and beyond repair. And it is always about taking care of your tools, and not throwing out things that will have value in the future.

Frugality is an easy idea to grasp while eking out a living on your own blueberry field, wood lot, or lobster boat in Maine. It is easy to understand if you are a senior living on a fixed income. But a spirit of frugality is harder to maintain across a large organization, when the visceral feeling of reaching into an almost empty pocket at the checkout line is gone.

So frugality also means never spending without a plan. Blue chip companies with an eye on the bottom line, like GE and Monsanto, set goals, formulate plans, and then review performance to match up the execution of those plans with the goals. A good company answerable to its shareholders does not allow its money to wander aimlessly from the prescribed path.

Likewise, a good government answerable to the voters is frugal, and it insists on a sound plan before spending any money. A frugal government does not try to save money by haphazardly drawing lines through a budget spreadsheet at the end of the year, eliminating some programs and positions entirely, and doing nothing to increase the efficiency of other programs and positions. A frugal government becomes lean the way a smart dieter loses weight, by slowing shedding calories and pounds over time. Lopping off programs at the end of the year is like trying to lose weight by chopping off a hand. It accomplishes the short-term goal, but it is destructive in the long run.

In recent years, Longmeadow's annual budget has sometimes sparked discord, and sometimes not. This year, the rancor has been notable. But through it all, have we ever looked at our operations, our objectives, and our plans? Have we looked at the way town government does business, in the manner a management consultant would scrutinize a company seeking to improve its performance? Have we, with fresh eyes, looked for redundancies, inefficiencies, and ways in which our spending has deviated from our plans, or ways in which spending has proceeded without a plan?

An attentive voter listening to the statements of our town leaders in recent years would have to conclude that every department, down to every last employee, is a model of efficiency. We just seem to take it for granted in the way that the citizens of Lake Wobegon believe that all of their children are above average. A frugal government does not indulge in such fantasies.

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

An Open Letter to Longmeadow

2013-04-16T10:04:00.001-04:00

The following editorial was featured in the Longmeadow News on March 26, 2013

As residents of Longmeadow, we have heard the phrase “eyes on the child” used to describe the philosophy of the Longmeadow public schools. But what does that mean? To me, and my fellow School Committee members, it means making informed decisions in the best interests of our students and the Longmeadow community. Every vote we take, every policy we approve, every contract we negotiate, is done with students and the community in mind.

As a school committee in Massachusetts, we are legally charged with a very specific set of functions - to set the policy and budget of the school district. Our charge is important, and we take it seriously because we know that the most important investment we can make as a community is in education. But as an elected body representing the community at large, we also have a responsibility to make prudent financial decisions. With that in mind, when the FY’14 budget was presented by Superintendent Marie Doyle to the School Committee, it featured a total bottom line increase of $604,714, equating to a 1.8% increase over the current fiscal year. This increase includes a 2% cost of living increase as provided in the contracts we negotiated last year with our unions, step increases, and salary advancement for continuing education. Together, these total $794,560.

This next fiscal year, the school district is also facing an increase in the costs of operating our lunch program, as a result of a necessary contractual change with our food service provider. Based on this change, we had to budget an additional $100,000 to cover any losses we may have in operation of the lunch program.

The most important addition to this budget, however, is to fund key positions to build capacity to serve certain high needs students in district. At the elementary level, we have added a transitional program. This program will enable the district to work with students who have behavioral issues that impact their ability to successfully integrate with the larger school community. Without this program, most of these students would need to be placed in costly out-of district-programs.

The approved budget also includes a new Life Skills program at the High School. This program also allows the district to work more effectively with high needs students, teaching them important life skills that prepare them for independence outside of school. Without the addition of these two programs, the district would be faced with bills for out-of-district tuition for between $200,000 and $400,000.

In an effort to limit the amount of FY '14 increases, the budget approved by the School Committee also includes more than $700,000 of carefully considered reductions from the FY'13 budget.

Ultimately, the budget as approved by the School Committee and presented to the Select Board for inclusion in the Town's FY 14 budget totals the amount necessary to fulfill the mission of the school district as set forth in its strategic plan. The School Committee also understands that we do not budget or operate in a vacuum. We understand that the Select Board has different priorities than we do and our continual budgetary debates are a result of those differences.

Yet, notwithstanding multiple sessions during which members of the School Committee and representatives from the school district have repeatedly answered all questions thoughtfully and completely, the Select Board has approved a Town budget that includes a 0% increase, and in fact a reduction of $90,000 from our FY’13 budget, resulting in an overall reduction of $706,000 from our approved FY 14 budget.

This presents us with a devastating budget scenario that we simply cannot support. Approval of the Select Board's budget at Town Meeting will result in actual positions being cut, and the impact to students will be real. The district will have to reduce up to 15 positions, including some classroom teachers. Class sizes will necessarily increase and the student achievement levels the district has worked hard to increase will be put at risk.

Our fervent hope is that there exists a fair compromise position between the budgets as approved by the Select Board and the School Committee. To this end the School Committee has made a number of overtures to the Select Board seeking a compromise. More recently, members of the Select Board and School Committee have begun to enter into direct negotiations to reach a compromise. These negotiations, however, carry with them no guarantee that a majority of Select Board members would support what ever compromise budget is proposed.

As a result of this uncertainty, the School Committee believes that should a compromise not be reached between boards, it will be necessary for us to offer an amendment to the Select Board's budget on the floor of Town Meeting. We recognize the impact that this would have on the entire community and we see this option as a last resort.

It is our duty as representatives elected by the residents of Longmeadow to advocate for a budget that enables the school district to continue to deliver the excellent educational opportunities our community has come to expect. In this case, we believe that our approved budget is not excessive and very appropriate.

Thank you for the opportunity to inform the residents of Longmeadow as to the status of the FY 14 budget for the Longmeadow Public Schools.

Update: As of Tuesday, April 16, 2013 the Longmeadow Select Board voted to not accept the compromise negotiated with the School Committee. As a result, the School Committee has no option other than to offer an amendment on the floor of Town Meeting. In keeping with our commitment to the community, the School Committee will offer amendments that replicate the compromise budget.

Sincerely,

Michael Clark

Chair, Longmeadow School Committee

Renewing and Preserving the Town of Longmeadow - Part 3

2013-04-13T13:36:00.001-04:00

After devoting my working life to facility management including teaching hundreds of other maintenance professionals in the proper techniques and methods for establishing and maintaining proactive maintenance and repair programs, it is my opinion that we have some very serious funding shortfalls in our community for maintenance and repair activities.

Having a new town manager will renew our opportunities for making improvements in our maintenance and repair programs. As we move forward with this new partnership, it will become increasingly important to keep the residents of our town updated on our progress of stretching our dollars to meet the highest priority needs of our resources.

Our current strategic planning document listed our resource value at $1,000,000,000. Based on the accepted recommendation to set aside 2% to 4% of the value of our resource annually for the maintenance and repair, we should be setting aside $20,000,000 to $40,000,000 each year.

We have a multi-million dollar Department of Public Work’s annual budget, but to the greatest extent these funds are used for the completion of routine and minor maintenance. We annually set aside $1,000,000 in our Capital Improvement program which is solely dedicated towards capital maintenance and repair activities. Although this is a lot of money, $1,000,000 only equals 5% of the minimum we should be spending each year on maintenance and repair, or 1/10^th of 1% of the total value of our resource instead of a minimum of 2%.

Annually we also receive Chapter 90 funds from the state to assist us in maintaining our roadways. Although we receive approximately $450,000 a year from this fund, we should be spending approximately $500,000 a year on routine maintenance on our roadway system. It is evident that our state allocation doesn’t even fully fund our routine maintenance program and does nothing for our deferred maintenance backlog of roadway projects.

In 2009, the town purchased a computerized pavement management system which was installed and made operational by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. This program tracks the condition of our roadways and provides data for making roadway improvements. When the system was installed, it showed that we had an estimated backlog of roadway work totaling approximately $12,200,000. The report further stated unless we significantly increased our allocations for roadway maintenance the backlog would continue to increase. The report indicated that by the year 2014 our backlog would be $27,000,000. Since 2009, we have done very little to alter the outcome of this study. Unfortunately, delaying roadway repairs will exponentially increase the cost of repairs when completed.

In Longmeadow we have approximately 100 miles of roadways. Some of these roadways such as Longmeadow Street, Bliss Road, and Converse Street receive more average daily traffic (ADT) than a typical residential street. As a result of this traffic, these roadways will require significantly more maintenance than a residential road.

Generally speaking all roads deteriorate over time from basic weathering and this process will speed up depending on use and other factors. If left unattended, a new road will gradually degrade to a road that requires reconstruction.

Common Terms for Asphalt Maintenance

Routine Maintenance – Routine maintenance items are those activities designed to address or correct specific pavement failures or distress. Routine maintenance typically addresses localized pavement defects and includes such activities as patching, crack sealing, infra-red heat treatment and other techniques to repair a specific problem area.

Preventative Maintenance – Preventative mainenance tasks are planned activities performed at regular intervals which are designed to protect and seal the pavement. The seal will provide a number of benefits including extending the life of the wearing surface, preventing the intrusion of air and moisture that can break down the pavement surface and filling small cracks and voids in the surface to prevent them increasing in size. Preventative maintenance activities are cheaper per foot of road than reconstruction or rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation denotes that a roadway requires extensive overhaul to bring its conditon up to an acceeptable level and provide significant additional life. Rehabilitation can involve a number of activities including the following:

· Parital depth patching

· Full depth patching

· Joint and crack sealing

· Grouting and under-sealing (filling voids)

· Grinding and milling the pavement to remove high spots and prepare for new layers

· Overlays

Reconstruction – Reconstruction is considered the complete removal and reconstruction of a road or segment. The road is beyond repair and needs to be completely rebuilt. Included in reconstruction projects would be items such as widening, realignment, traffic control devices,and major base and drainage work.

The attached chart demonstrates the effects of delays in performing roadway maintenance.

Dollar amounts required for repairs were taken from the study completed in 2009 by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission.

Chart source U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA)

Let us assume that 40% of our streets are main arterial roads and 60% are residential. The chart above is best suited for arterial roads as residential roads would have lower ADT counts. Let’s assume we reconstruct our arterial roads on a twelve year schedule and our residential streets on a sixteen year schedule. Accordingly, we would rehabilitate approximately 3.3 miles of arterial roads and 3.75 miles of residential roadway annually. Even with all of our roadways returned to a given standard and with us providing adequate preventative maintenance, our annual rehabilitation cost would be between $1,900,000 and $3,500,000, which doesn’t included the $500,000 a year that should be spent on routine/preventative roadway maintenance. These figures represent a simple mill and overlay and do not take into account drainage repairs or the replacement of underground utilities.

In 2008, the Town of Longmeadow contracted with Tighe & Bond, Consulting Engineers and Environmental Specialists to complete a water system evaluation. The results of this study indicated we had nearly $55,000,000 worth of short and long-term improvements to be made to our water system. Since the completion of this study many improvements have been made to our water system but we still have tens of millions of dollars worth of needed repairs. We have miles of six inch and four inch water lines that need replacement to meet capacity requirements in addition to miles of eight inch lines also requiring cyclic replacement.

In 2008, the Town of Longmeadow contracted with Tighe & Bond, Consulting Engineers and Environmental Specialists to complete a sewer system evaluation with focus on operations and maintenance. Although the report mentioned the general condition of many of the systems components, most of their recommendations for improvements were for maintenance and operational issues. The report recommended many operational items which have been cared for and/or are currently being pursued for correction. Many ongoing activities are collecting additional data on our system to more accurately forecast future improvements. Even though the results of the study were more concerning to future maintenance procedures, it still outlined over $2,000,000 in needed improvements stating “As DPW implements report recommendations we anticipate additional sewer system problems will be identified, especially in the older sections of the community situated along Longmeadow Street. As problems are identified, additional funds will be necessary to repair and update the system.”

We have approximately 71.5 miles of sidewalks. Our sidewalks like our roads are in various states of need and require a considerable amount of rehabilitation. If we assume that 1/3^rd of our sidewalks currently need replacement (conservative estimate) it will cost us $5,300,000 to complete these repairs. This year the Select Board recommended that $280,000 be allocated towards this program with funds from the capital improvement program. Even if this effort is continued in the future, it will still take us 18.92 years to eliminate the current backlog.

In a study completed by JCJ Architecture in 2007 on fifteen of Town of Longmeadow’s buildings showed an estimated backlog of work including schools to be approximately $123,000,000.

In this brief overview I have provided some insight on the growing problem of deferred maintenance and repair on just five critical resource groups in our community. Other resources not included would be parking lots, streetlights, signs, trees, landscape areas, recreation areas, drainage systems, dams, traffic signals, ADA compliance, just to mention a few of the other areas that demand equal attention during the year.

Just with the resource groups shown it is estimated that we have maintenance and repair backlog of approximately $213,000,000. As staggering as this figure is, it doesn’t take into consideration the millions of dollars we need to add to our maintenance and repair annual budgets to provide adequate preventative maintenance in the future to keep our resources at an acceptable standard. And these figures don’t take into account the deficiencies of the resource groups not mentioned in this brief overview of our Town’s resources.

I have identified a problem that our community faces and I have outlined a process for improvement. I am hopeful that our new town manager will embrace some of my suggestions as he develops an action plan for the future of our community that avoids making the same mistakes from the past. We can reverse the degenerative curve on the condition of our resources, but it is going to involve varying degrees of change, growth, and increased revenues.

The residents of Longmeadow deserve to live in a well maintained community where our attention ensures that our resources receive adequate maintenance attention to preserve and protect them for the enjoyment of future generations.[1]

Richard Foster

Although I am a Select Board member these views are my personal views and observations and should not be considered as the official opinion of the Longmeadow Select Board.

[1] Committing to the Cost of Ownership, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1990

Engineering Report, State of the Infrastructure Town of Longmeadow, Massachusetts, February 2010

JCJ Architecture Town-Wide Facilities Study, 2007

Tighe & Bond Sewer System Evaluation, 2008

Tighe & Bond Water System Evaluation, 2008

Letter to the Editor- Longmeadow News, 4/11/13

2013-04-12T16:38:00.000-04:00

In the April 11 edition of the Longmeadow News, Select Board member, Mark Gold responded to recent comments by two School Committee members about FY2014 budget process.

_________________________________________________

In the March 28, 2013 edition of the Longmeadow News there were two opinion columns, one by School Committee member John Fitzgerald and the second by School Committee chair Michael Clark that presented the School Committee’s opinions about the current Longmeadow Town budget process. Since it appears that the residents of Longmeadow will be receiving their information in the Longmeadow News about important topics such as the budget through opinion columns rather than an objective reporter’s article, I feel it necessary to respond to both these opinions by offering my opinions on this discussion.

Let me start by making it clear that I have, and continue to support a compromise budget with the School Committee. Even before this process of dueling budgets began, I reached out to School Committee member and school finance sub-committee member Jim Desrochers to see if there was a compromise budget that could be agreed upon. Although I am not particularly fond of the compromise that has been proposed, that is in fact the nature of a compromise, a budget that neither side is entirely comfortable with but one which can be taken forward for the Town’s Fiscal 2014 budget.

Having stated my support for compromise, I also, however, feel it important to communicate to town residents why I feel it was reasonable to request that ALL town departments, from accounting to zoning, from Parks and Recreation to Schools, prepare a fiscal 2014 budget at the same level as Fiscal 2013. In fact, all town departments except the school department met that budget directive. It is also important to communicate exactly what a level funding is, because even that was an early point of disagreement between the School Committee and the Select Board.

What is Level? During last year’s budget process, the Select Board and School Committee jointly identified an annual expense of $110,000 within the School Committee budget for the rental of a fiber optics system from Verizon that served both general government offices and the schools. At the recommendation of the Director of IT, it was jointly agreed that the town would purchase a fiber optics network, remove this $110,000 from the school’s annual budget, and use those funds over the next 8+ years to pay off the bond that purchased the fiber optics network. It was agreed that for FY 2014 and beyond the school committee budget would therefore be reduced by $110,000 (or slightly less to account for the cost of a service contract for the purchased network) to reflect the capital costs of this purchase. With the FY 2014 budget that was first proposed by the School Committee, it was claimed that the budget was $635,000 above last year’s budget, but in fact it was $735,000 above the “level funding” budget that had been jointly agreed upon. A small point, and perhaps it was just semantics, but it took several weeks before the School Committee acknowledged that the submitted budget represented an increase of $735,000 above last year.

Recent tax history and capital needs. The Longmeadow tax rate for the current fiscal year (FY13) is $21.54 per $1000 of evaluation. This is an increase of 9.45% over the FY12 tax rate of $19.68 per $1000 of evaluation. This increase is the result of three factors: A general budget increase that raised tax revenues by 2 ½ %; the Proposition 2 ½ exclusion of the cost of the bonds for the new Longmeadow High School; and the reduction in tax revenue from large taxpayers such as Twin Hills Country club who successfully challenged their tax classification.

Despite this significant increase in tax rate, the Select Board recognized the need to begin addressing infrastructure needs that had been long neglected; road repairs, sidewalk repairs, and storm sewer outfalls all need substantial improvements – improvements that required capital funds. Although the Select Board could have asked town residents to fund these projects through debt exclusion bonds (bonds that are paid for in addition to the Proposition 2 ½ general tax increase) this approach was not taken for two reasons. First, the amount of capital needed for currently identified repairs to these three areas (roads, sidewalks, storm sewers) would have required a bond that is up to two times the amount borrowed for the high school. That’s right; road, sidewalk, and storm sewer outfall capital needs exceed $60 million. Secondly, it was felt that a way had to be found to begin to include the cost of these capital repairs into the general operating budget so that we could tackle these infrastructure issues over time without exceeding the proposition 2 ½ levy limit. I did not feel that it would be wise to add to this year’s 9.45% tax increase with a tax proposal for next year that would also exceed the proposition 2 ½ % levy limit. Luckily, there were several issues at work in the town that would allow us to provide funds for beginning the infrastructure improvement program without increasing taxes above the 2 ½ % levy limit. The starting point for providing this capital infusion was level funding for operating department budgets.

Why a level funding request is reasonable. But I digress from the purpose of this document, which is to put forth why I believe a level funding request to all town departments, including the School Department, was reasonable. There are four reasons I felt that the town departments could submit a level budget for 2014 vs. 2013.

First Reason: Turnbacks: The first reason to expect a level funded budget is that for many years the budgets of both the general government side of the ledger and the School Department side of the ledger has exceeded the funds needed to run those departments. Year after year, money has remained unspent at the end of the fiscal year. This money is returned (or turned back) to the town and is euphemistically called “free cash”. It’s not free, you and I paid for it in taxes. In the past four years these funds have ranged from as little as $400,000 to as high as $800,000. Why are town departments asking for money that is apparently so desperately need in May, only to return it unspent a year later? In a word – contingency. On the general government side of the budget, we are required by state law to approve budgets department by department. Not quite as restrictive as the line item budgets of the past, never-the-less the town departments must estimate in May how much money will be needed in the upcoming year. For example, on the general government side of the ledger, funds allocated to the police department’s wage overtime line item cannot be supplemented by funds available from not fully spending funds on legal fees. Since police department overtime is used to pay for OT needed to book criminals, watch prisoners in our cells, or testify in court, one can only estimate the overtime that will be necessary. In a year (such as this) where there was a string of house breaks requiring extensive OT, that budget was fully utilized. We cannot supplement Police Department overtime funds in January by transferring funds from Park and Rec, only a town meeting can put more funds in that budget. But the School Department budget is different. The School Committee has line item autonomy. Working with just a “bottom line” budget, the School Committee can and does shift funds from line item to line item. They can alter any budget line item needed – as long as the bottom line remains unchanged.

The Select Board has worked hard to minimize turn backs, and with a track record of consistent turn backs it was felt that better budgeting would prevent us from raising tax money that wasn’t going to be spent – and with the line item flexibility within the School Department a budget request that would minimize next year’s turn back of funds was reasonable.

Second Reason: payroll attrition: The second reason to expect a level funded budget is attrition of employee salaries. The salary structure of the general government and schools often include payments for longevity and steps for years of service to long-term employees. The natural attrition of employees that takes place year after year has become statistically predictable. It’s time we started budgeting for that attrition. This year the general government included these salary changes in our budget process – some through true attrition (including the town manager) such as the police department and some the result of the unfortunate deaths of two key town employees. There are retirements in the schools every year, and it is not unreasonable to ask the School Committee to include in its budget a reduction that reflects the approximately $100,000 in lower salaries that result each year from hiring new employees at the bottom of the pay scale or without the steps or longevity of those departing employees.

Third reason: designated fund accounts: The third reason to expect a level funded budget is that the School Department has significant money in designated fund accounts. These specific accounts total over $750,000 and although not all the funds in all accounts can be made available (some are indeed restricted use funds), accounts such as the parking lot fund (money raised from student parking fees) will clearly not be needed to renovate the new high school parking lot (one of the stated uses for the fund when it was established) for years to come. There is $40,000 in this parking lot fund that can be used for one time purchases, thereby reducing the overall school budget by that amount. The parking lot fund is just one of many designated accounts available to the School Committee to moderate their budget for 2014. The general government budget has been using one time funds (free cash, reserve fund) for several years to balance the budget – it’s not unreasonable to request the school committee do the same.

Fourth Reason: enrollment decline: The fourth reason to expect a level funded budget is that there has been a significant decline in school enrollment over the past five years, and neither school department staffing nor funding reflects that enrollment reduction. Since the 2007-2008 school year the enrollment in Longmeadow public schools has declined from 3157 students to 2868 students this year (numbers from the Mass Department of Education). That’s a reduction of 289. Since 2004-2005 the numbers are down 499 students, with a further projected decline of over 30 students next year. During this same five year period where enrollment has declined 10% the school departments non-cafeteria staffing has increased as has their overall budget by over 10%. It is not unreasonable to expect to be able to hold the line on expenditures one year out of five in the face of reduced year over year enrollment.

As I stated at the outset of this article, I favor finding a compromise budget position with the school committee. I have provided these comments because there have been opinions published in the Longmeadow News that present the Select Board’s budget directive as either arbitrary or unreasonable or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Select Board’s budget directive was and remains a reasonable expectation.

In his opinion article, School Committee member John Fitzgerald chose to characterize the Select Board as “a collection of five individuals who can pretty much do what they feel like doing”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Select Board members are answerable to ALL town residents, even those who do not have children in the town school system. We deal with a myriad of issues from underage drinking violations to water and sewer rates. The breadth of responsibilities of the Select Board requires that our actions be guided by the Town Charter – a document that supersedes the need for a catch-phrase based vision statement. As for his opinion that members of the Select Board “do not have to offer evidence to support their views”, and that few of our meetings “feature real policy debates”, he clearly has not attended or watched many of the Select Board meetings. Unfortunately the contents and details of neither Select Board nor School Committee meetings are reported in depth in the Longmeadow News, but Mr. Ftizgerald is mistaken if he believes that his ability to pen a well written, but error filled opinion column will be the definitive word on the workings of the Select Board.

The operations of Longmeadow Town government, particularly the relationship between the School Committee and the Select Board, should not be a win-lose alternative as Mr. Fitzgerald “predicts” in his column. Such a statement indicates an unwillingness to work toward a solution that best benefits ALL town residents. The use of press releases couched as opinion columns that portray only one side of an issue do little to encourage the town residents to understand the complexity of issues that the town is facing. I encourage Mr. Fitzgerald to join the other members of the School Committee and work toward a budget that recognizes the realities of 21st century municipal financing, one that the entire town can live with.

Mark Gold
Longmeadow Select Board Member

Letter to the Editor

2013-04-11T16:46:00.002-04:00

Below is a Letter to the Editor from Longmeadow Select Board member Mark Gold about his recent vote to remove a Community Preservation Committee proposed article from the warrant for upcoming Annual Town Meeting.

______________________________________________________

Clarification Regarding My Opposition April 10, 2013

Thank you for your story in the March 28th edition of The Reminder that reported on the Select Board's decision to remove a proposed $96,752 spending article from the Longmeadow Town Meeting warrant. I believe that additional clarification to my opposition to that proposal would round out that article by providing insight into my reason for my vote to remove that article from the warrant.

As background, one should note that the article proposed to modify the Wolf Swamp Road fields to remove two softball fields and infill them with grass so that additional soccer/lacrosse fields can be placed in this area. However, the cost breakdown of the project shows $20,000 as the cost of that field conversion, the balance of the project funding being designated to: replace the fencing between the fields and the road ($27,186), install 15 foot high netting on top of that fencing ($21,883), installing a guardrail along Wolf Swamp Road ($15,053) and project contingency ($12,620). To be clear, that's 21 percent of the project cost to convert the fields. The need for new fencing and netting was because the proposal also called for the fields to be reoriented to a North-South alignment (perpendicular to Wolf Swamp Road) rather than the current East-West (parallel to Wolf Swamp Road) orientation of the playing fields.

I opposed taking this proposal for funds to Town Meeting for the following reasons:

First, as reported in your article, Mr. Goodhines, the Parks and Recreation Committee liaison to the Community Preservation Committee, indicated that the highest priority of the Parks and Recreation committee is to maximize the number of playing fields within Longmeadow. Based on the diagrams submitted with the project proposal, this goal of maximizing fields is achieved simply by infilling the softball fields at the Wolf Swamp Road fields – and no additional playing fields are gained by changing the orientation of the fields by 90 degrees. With the fields remaining in their current East-West orientation the need for the fencing and netting is eliminated. If the primary goal of the project can be achieved for 21 percent of the cost, it is our fiduciary responsibility to save those funds. Just because the funds exist in the Community Preservation Committee's account is no reason to spend them.

Second, the inclusion of 15 foot high netting on top of a five foot high chain link fence would inextricably alter the appearance of the fields. This proposed change conjured up memories of the changes made to Turner Fields less than ten years earlier. In an eerily similar situation, the Parks and Recreation commissions (they were elected commissioners at that time) unilaterally chose to alter Turner Field by cutting down trees, installing a road-front barrier of hemlock, and revising the traffic pattern – much to the dismay of town residents and neighbors who were impacted by a change in everything from visual appearance of the neighborhood to a changed water table that created localized flooding. My opposition was also based on the fact that this Wolf Swamp Road field project would implement a significant change in appearance of the fields without proper consideration by the Planning Board. Imagine what would happen if Bay Path College or St. Mary's school erected a 20 foot high fence and netting along a town street without review by proper town authorities.

Third; the inclusion of a barrier along Wolf Swamp Road to isolate the parking lot was proposed without review by the Town Safety committee. Although it may appear that the installation of a barrier between the parking lot and the road would be beneficial, a safety review by individuals trained in such issues might determine that the current situation is safer where cars parked facing the road can pull out directly into the road, thereby not backing up into a narrow parking lot filled with children. Such a decision should be made by the town safety team, a group composed of police, DPW, and the Town Manager.

Finally, there's the issue of jurisdiction. Although least important of the reasons, it must be noted that the Wolf Swamp Road fields are not a park, under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department, but are open space, under the jurisdiction of the Select Board. When the Parks and Recreation Commissioners altered Turner field years ago, they did so outside of their jurisdiction. Even with a review by the Community Preservation Committee, this was clearly a project request beyond the jurisdiction of the submitting party. Although the Parks and Recreation committee is advisory to the Parks and Recreation department, the responsibility for proposing changes to Open Space is with the Select Board, and although the Parks and Recreation committee members can and should pursue additional playing fields, that goal should not include permanent changes to the fencing and roadside appearance.

In summary, my decision to oppose the Town Meeting warrant article that proposed to spend $96,752 to modify the Wolf Swamp Road fields was based on the knowledge that the goal of additional playing fields could be achieved at lower cost (without including changes to the fencing appearance), and my belief that it is the responsibility of the Select Board to make sure that proposals are fully vetted by appropriate groups (Planning Commission, safety committee) before they are brought before Town Meeting for a capital appropriation request.

Mark P. Gold
Selectman, Longmeadow

Renewing and Preserving the Town of Longmeadow - Part 2

2013-04-08T12:27:00.002-04:00

Management of a town requires the collective skills of many people working as a team. Because of these complexities, Division Chiefs must be looked on as subject matter experts for a variety of issues including long-range planning for their divisions under the stewardship of the Town Manager.

Commitment to maintain resources in a community should be programmatic instead of reactive. Simply stated, repairing roadway drainage structure (drop inlet) before it fails by sinking into the ground is proactive maintenance, while scheduling this repair after it has failed is reactive maintenance. The main different, one form of maintenance you control and the other controls you. Bad news, reactive maintenance costs you more money and is very disruptive to operations. Good news, with proper procedures in place combined with adequate funding you can drastically reduce incidents of reactive maintenance.

In 1990 a distinguished group of public and private sector maintenance professional assembled to conduct an in-depth review of how public resources were being maintained and to offer recommendations for improvement. The name of this study was “Committing to the Cost of Ownership” and in their final report they identified three major areas of concern for improving how we manage and maintain public resources.

Adequate Funding:

It was determined that underfunding of maintenance and repair (M&R) activities was widespread and a persistent problem. The study concluded that an appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R should equal 2% to 4% of the aggregated replacement value of the resource. The study also determined where a neglect of maintenance had caused a backlog of needed repairs to accumulate; spending must exceed this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated.

Our Town’s current strategic planning document lists our resource value at $1,000,000,000, which would mean we need to set aside between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000 a year to fund our maintenance and repair program.

Our Department of Public Works (DPW) annual budget funds all of our routine maintenance and some limited repair activities, but falls far short in being adequate to meet all of the maintenance and repair needs of our resources. Special funding sources such as the Capital Improvement Fund and Chapter 90 funds are primarily dedicated towards maintenance and repair (M&R) activities, but even with these additional resources we still fall far short of where we should be.

Our Capital Improvement Program instead of being established at funding threshold equal to 2% of our net resource valve it is funded at 1/10^th of 1% or 0.01%.

Condition Assessment:

Periodic condition assessment (inspection) is an essential step in effective facilities management. This process involves comparing the current condition of a resource against the condition if it were being maintained properly. The result of this comparison identifies your maintenance backlog. Ideally this information would be used to develop your next year’s M&R budget. This process also becomes a management tool for monitoring the effectiveness of M&R activities. When the inspection takes place and you notice a resource starting to fail you schedule the required repairs before it fails which is proactive instead of reactive maintenance. You do the repairs when it is convenient instead of being forced to do them at an inconvenient and more expensive time.

Maintenance Management:

A computerized management system is where all of your work requests are stored in data files where they can be scheduled at any time. This is also where your maintenance backlog projects can be found. No more waiting for something to break. Go to the computer and schedule a week’s worth of tasks in priority order for each employee in your organization. This data provides you with reliable resource data on work project completion, cost, history of repairs, etc. Critical work events and routine repair requests can be schedule and will automatically be generated on the due date. Web-based tracking of resident complaints allow originators to access updated status on complaints until completed. Even with all of the variables in place, without a management system to facilitate your organization your overall success will be limited.

It is unfortunate but inevitable that the construction of new facilities attracts far greater attention than the maintenance and repair of existing ones. While facilities are designed to provide service over long periods of time, the substantial costs of construction are addressed all at once in public debate and management decisions. In contrast, the yearly cost of maintenance seem small, although over the course of the facility’s service life they generally total much more than the initial costs of construction. The commissioning and occupancy of a new facility are news-worthy event that attracts public attention, but the ongoing work of maintenance and repair receives little notice except when failures occur that affect the ability of the facility’s user to perform work. We just opened a brand new High School that is going to require a much more sophisticated maintenance and repair program than our previous school with its state-of-the-art systems and equipment.

Managers and elected officials, faced with the constant challenge of balancing competing public priorities and limited fiscal resources, often find it easy to neglect the maintenance and repair of public buildings, and not only because new construction or other activities have greater public interest. The cumulative effects of wear on a facility are slow to become apparent and only infrequently disrupt a facility’s user. Managers of facilities seldom have adequate information to predict when problems will occur if maintenance efforts are deferred. These managers are often poorly equipped to argue persuasively the need for steady continuing commitment to maintenance. Underfunding of maintenance and repair is such a prevalent practice in the public sector that it has become in many communities a de facto policy that each year compounds the problem as the backlog of deficiencies grows.

Neglect of maintenance can nevertheless affect public health and safety, reduce productivity of public employees, and cause long-term financial losses as buildings deteriorate prematurely and must be replaced. Decisions to neglect maintenance, whether made intentionally or through ignorance, violate the public trust and constitute a mismanagement of public funds.

This is a brief overview of some of the building blocks required for having a proactive maintenance and repair program. In Part 3 I will address problem-solving and an overview of where we are today in the Town of Longmeadow concerning the care of our resources. [1]

Although I am a Select Board member these views are my personal views and observations and should not be considered as the official opinion of the Longmeadow Select Board.

[1] Committing to the Cost of Ownership, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1990

Town of Longmeadow Three Year Strategic Plan 2007 - 2010

Renewing and Preserving the Town of Longmeadow

2013-04-06T09:50:00.001-04:00

Longmeadow, like many towns across America, is facing an infrastructure crisis. Our roads and sidewalks are in disrepair. Our water and sewer lines are aged and in need of reconstruction. Our recreation facilities are in need of modernization and expansion to meet current needs.

These deficiencies are a result of normal aging and deferring maintenance for years because of inadequate funding. Although deferring maintenance is a common practice used for stretching funds, it always costs you more money when you defer maintenance.

Over the coming days and weeks I will post information on suggested steps to reverse our present course and improve our maintenance of the Town’s cultural, capital, and natural resources.

As this initiative moves forward I welcome public comments and suggestions. Through this partnership, I encourage a balanced approach as we continue to improve our quality of life for Longmeadow residents.

Although I am a Select Board member, these are my personal views and observations and are not necessarily the opinion of the Longmeadow Select Board.

Richard Foster-rfoster@longmeadow.org

Keeping Longmeadow Great by Alex Grant

2013-04-03T07:32:00.002-04:00

I have thrown my hat into the ring. I have written this column every two weeks for five and a half years, an experience which has surely earned me the disapproval on at least one occasion, and perhaps many more, of every reader of the Longmeadow News. After all, one cannot please all the people all the time, and I have scarcely tried. With that inauspicious beginning, I have gathered the necessary signatures and will be on the ballot for this Spring's Select Board election.

I am running for the same reason my family moved here six years ago, because Longmeadow is a great place to live. And it really wasn't about the schools. My wife and I assumed the schools were pretty good, but then again, there are other towns where dedicated students with mindful parents can do just fine. Our concerns were more basic. We had lived on a street in Washington, DC where we could hear sirens blaring all night, where drug deals took place just a few doors down from our stoop, and where three shootings had occurred within one block during the last 12 months. A young man had recently died on the corner from swallowing crack cocaine after the police had stopped him.

We came to Longmeadow because the streets were safe, the town was a short distance from our jobs, and there were decent homes we could afford. The leafy green avenues of Longmeadow looked picturesque, and with parks and conservation land and town pools, the town seemed like a perfect place to raise a family. And at night, it was blissfully quiet.

National magazines have rated our little suburb a top place for families and for retirees, and they were not wrong. One can see the sense of community on the youth soccer fields, where there is overwhelming participation by kids, parents, and grandparents. Greenwood is a microcosm of our town, with seniors rubbing elbows with preschoolers and all of the kids in the parks and recreation programs. The countless volunteer hours expended by parent teacher organizations and at the Senior Center show that we believe in something larger than our individual selves. Every year, I marvel at Longmeaddowe Days, which is nothing less than a rededication to our history and to our community.

Our form of town government also makes Longmeadow great. We have held on to an unadulterated, direct democracy that Longmeadowites of the 1700s would recognize. Our charter makes the voters at Town Meeting, and no one else, the legislature of our town. It is a testament to the notion that men and women are fit to govern themselves.

The challenges facing Longmeadow are modest in comparison to those facing many towns and cities across America. We are not tasked with constructing a sense of community where none exists. We are not faced with the job of revitalizing a once great community ravaged by crime, de-population, and financial ruin. There are towns wondering how to make themselves walkable, or pondering how to create green space, or fighting to control sprawl. We need only to keep Longmeadow great.

I start this campaign with an appeal to our hopes and aspirations, rather than a discussion of grievances and limitations. Above all, I aim to open up our town democracy. In recent years, town politics has been a conversation involving a fairly small number of people, that is, people who hold elected office, people who serve on committees, people who attend Town Meeting. If Longmeadow is going to do great things in the future, if Longmeadow is to remain a place for all ages, our town politics has to engage a larger number of voters.

Opening up town government requires elected officials to explain what they are doing and why they are doing it. Watching a meandering, lengthy meeting on LCTV, if it is televised, is no substitute for a cogent explanation of the policy choices and the trade-offs that the Select Board makes. A Select Board member, having taken the time to study the issues and having the relevant documents at hand, can distill the Board's decisions down to their essence.

If elected, I will continue this column, and I will reach out in other ways. If elected, I will know more about town government, and the voters will know more. In the next couple of months, I will stake out my positions on the important issues facing the town, and I hope to debate the other candidates in this race in as many venues as possible. I intend to make this campaign the most informative and substantive we have had in recent years. Longmeadow deserves nothing less.

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

Chef Extraordinaire- Allen Lefferts

2013-03-31T21:26:00.000-04:00

Allen Lefferts is a man of many talents. Currently the chef at the Longmeadow Adult Center, his culinary talents are well known. He is an artist when he designs a plate of food and a gourmand when he plans the menu.

He adds flair to traditional favorites which draw crowds most days. Special meals sell out in the first few days of every month. On an average day, he produces over 100 meals for the dining room and the Meals on Wheels program. He is aided by two sous chefs and a team of volunteers who deliver meals to tables and to homes.

Allen moved to Springfield from New Jersey as a young child. He grew up in Forest Park, the youngest of five children. He attended high school at the Suffield Academy. He went to college at Keene State for almost a year, which he describes as the longest, best, most expensive party ever.

At loose ends, he was close to joining the military when a friend invited him to Long Island. There he found the work that he has done periodically ever since. A manager of 5 school cafeterias trained and hired Allen to run the cafeteria in an elementary school.

When he returned to this area, he became the Assistant Manager at Wilbraham Monson Academy where Paul Calberg was the Manager. (“Chef Paul” later worked at the Longmeadow Adult Center.) In addition to schools, Allen managed employee cafeterias in several businesses. He spent 5 years managing the cafeteria at Spaulding Co. where he also accumulated a lot of golf balls.

Allen enjoys himself by composing classical music. Without formal training, he has learned to chart orchestral compositions which, he claims, only he likes. He also deals in antiques of the modern era, which is predominantly arts and crafts through mid-20th century. For eight years, he had an antique store on Bridge Street in Springfield until the Entertainment District drove up prices and drove away buyers.

Allen landed at the Adult Center on June 1, 2010. We are so lucky to have him.

[reprinted from The Voice of Longmeadow newsletter/ Longmeadow Adult Center, April 2013]

Candidate Forum

2013-03-29T10:25:00.002-04:00

Longmeadow’s Annual Town Elections will be held on Tuesday, June 11.

The only contested race is for Select Board for which there are three open seats and three candidates running. Incumbents Mark Gold and Mark Barowsky will be running against newcomer Alex Grant for the two 3 year seats on the SB.

Newcomers Kimberly King and Janet Robinson will run unopposed for the two 3 year seats on the School Committee. Current SC members Gerard Kiernan and Jennifer Jester will be not be running for re-election.

LongmeadowBiz is inviting each of the three SB candidates to post information of interest to voters on this LongmeadowBuzz blog. Hopefully, as the election draws closer, this forum will become a means to discuss important issues related to the election. Mr. Grant has already accepted this invitation.

Comments to postings on LongmeadowBuzz can be made by anyone with a Google account. Additional information is available for anyone interested in contributing to LongmeadowBuzz.

With a large number of important issues facing our town including adequate funding of school services as well as infrastructure improvements (roads, sewers, storm drains, DPW facility, etc.), it is essential that we elect qualified people to the Select Board and School Committee who can meet these challenges.

State Seeking to Give Money to Communities

2013-02-26T12:16:00.000-05:00

The state of Massachusetts wants to give grants to city and town governments to further their pursuit of energy saving programs. In 2008,the governor signed The Green Communities Act, which sets aside 10 million dollars a year from revenue from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for this purpose.

In order to obtain the money, each community must agree to (1) perform a municipal energy audit, (2) allow for zoning of renewable energy facilities, and (3) embrace an enhanced energy efficient building code.

In Longmeadow, the second requirement already has been met by virtue of a zoning bylaw amendment passed and accepted in 2010.

As of December 2012, 110 communities have become designated as Green Communities and are eligible to receive funding. Surrounding communities who participate in this program include: Springfield, Holyoke, Monson, Palmer, Belchertown and Easthampton.

click chart to enlarge

For additional information read this summary about local programs funded by the Green Communities Act or watch the presentation below by Jim Barry of the Massachusestts Green Communities Division (courtesy of LCTV).

The Longmeadow Transition Initiating Committee is seeking to engage the citizens of Longmeadow in an educational process to facilitate the understanding of the regulations and the adoption of the building code at the annual town meeting in May. David Miller, a member of the Transition committee, will speak about the process at the Longmeadow Senior Center at 12:30 PM on March 20. All interested citizens are invited to attend this important meeting.

Select Board Picks New Town Manager

2013-01-31T12:38:00.000-05:00

On Monday, January 28, the Longmeadow Select Board met at the Longmeadow Fire Station to choose a new Town Manager amongst three candidate finalists- Edward Del Rubio, Kevin O'Donnell and Stephen Crane. Public interviews were held last Thursday, January 24 and these interviews are available for viewing on the LCTV website.

I watched the three interviews last week and felt that Stephen Crane was the #1 candidate and would be a great addition to the town despite having limited managerial experience with Massachusetts municipal government.

Below is a short video clip (20 minutes, courtesy of LCTV) of the SB deliberations in which Stephen Crane was selected and a motion was approved to extend a conditional offer of employment to him. As of today, a contract offer has been offered to Mr. Crane and the SB will meet later today at 5 PM in executive session to discuss this contract.

Below is a chart showing the initial polling of choices by SB members.

It's worth watching the short video to see how Stephen Crane was selected.

Mr. Santaniello clearly did not support the selection of Mr. Crane and made comments that Mr. Crane was not qualified to be Longmeadow's next TM because of his lack of experience. These public comments were made even though the "super majority" vote of 4:1 was assured when Mr. Gold's shifted his support to Mr. Crane.

Let's hope that the contract negotiations go well and that Mr. Stephen Crane becomes our new Town Manager and he gets strong support by all Select Board members including the Chairman.

Understanding Property Assessments

2013-01-22T12:16:00.002-05:00

Longmeadow property taxes showed significant back-to-back increases of 5.8% in FY12 and 6.1% in FY13 in large part due to the impact of financing for the new high school (see earlier Buzz post for details). Every year there are Longmeadow property owners who challenge their property assessments in order to receive an tax abatement.

In FY12 there were 162 abatement applications filed and 63 were granted.

Given the difficult real estate market during the past couple of years during which 50% or more of the homes that were sold were at prices less than the "official" assessed value (see chart from Real Estate Buzz blog), more assessment challenges are likely to come.

The deadline for payment of FY13- 3Q property taxes and filing FY13 abatements is February 1.

________________________________________________________

Earlier this month I spent some time with Robert Leclair, Principal Assessor for the Town of Longmeadow in order to better understand how individual property assessments are determined. What I heard was a systematic approach to the development of assessment values for over 5400 residential properties in town.

According Mr. Leclair individual property assessments should reflect the fair market value that a motivated buyer will pay for a property. The latest property assessments which were posted on the Vision Appraisal website in mid-December 2012 are for the current fiscal year (FY2013) and represent home values as of January 1, 2012. However, there are many property owners in town who claim that their property assessment is too high and does not represent "fair market value".

Click here to view a FY12/FY13 Property Assessment + Property Tax comparison for all Longmeadow properties (residential + commercial) for both FY12 and FY13. This pdf document is full text searchable and could prove very useful in filing an abatement for property taxes request.

________________________________________________________

Below is an outline of how the system for assessing property values in town is configured. First of all, there are two components that make up the Total Assessment- 1. Land + 2. Improvements.

Land Assessment
Let's consider the land portion of the Total Assessment. Below in Figure 1 is a map of Longmeadow outlining 6 different land zones.


Figure 1- Land Zones- Longmeadow, MA [click to enlarge]

Land in each zone (4-9) is assessed a different value ($/ft2). In addition, larger lots are assessed a smaller value ($/ft2) vs. smaller lots as shown in Figure 2 below.


Figure 2- Assessed Land Values (Zones 4-9) [click to enlarge]

Using the charts in Figures 1 and 2, a homeowner should be able to determine the land value of their property. I found that the Land assessment can range from 30-70% of the Total Assessment. It's interesting to note that a house situated on 15,000 sq ft land in zone 4 will be assessed a land value of ~$120K while a similar house on the same size lot in zone 9 will be assessed ~$280K- a difference in FY2013 taxes of $3450.

There are database adjustments in the Land Assessment for individual properties. For example, property lots that are adjacent to lower tier sections of town may be adjusted downward given specifics- (e.g., corner lot located on busy street).

One interesting sidebar on this Land Assessment value....
How about the impact of the corner lot zoning restrictions regarding property use and fencing (see recent Buzz post on this subject?

Should corner lot property owners be entitled to land abatements?
The current activity by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to resolve this zoning bylaw may directly affect the number of abatements applications that will be filed next January.

_______________________________________________________

Improvements

This part of the Total Assessment estimates the value of the house structure.

A major portion of this part of the Total Assessment is the size and number of rooms as well as the condition of the house. It should be noted that the dimensions for the house footprint are outside wall measurements. Updates to the kitchen, bathrooms, room additions including finished basement, etc. increase the Improvements portion of the Total Assessment. Central air conditioning, in-ground pool and other outdoor structures (shed) increase the Improvements value.

It's interesting that landscaping is not a factor in determining assessed value even though it is definitely a factor for determining fair market value.

_______________________________________________________

There is a process for a systematic review of the Total Assessment for each residential property as follows:

Every year: All of the information in the database is reviewed and evaluated based upon recent home sales.
Every three years (triennial): There is a state level review of the data.
Every 10 years- There is a measure and list evaluation which involves a visit. This year starting in April and continuing until September all properties in town will be inspected and details compared to the property record. Any discrepancies will be corrected and take effect in December 2014.

A visit to Assessor's Office at Town Hall (2nd floor) to obtain a copy of your "property record" is worthwhile to ensure that all of the details are correct. Any identified errors (room sizes, etc.) may be sufficient cause to file an abatement for a reduction in property taxes.

Longmeadow on the Web

2013-01-21T12:37:00.000-05:00

Are you a Longmeadow town resident who is constantly having difficulties finding out what is happening in town?
Do you have frustrations using the "official" town website?

Check out the new "gathering place" on the web for Longmeadow residents at www.LongmeadowOnTheWeb.org

What's happening with corner lots?

2013-01-18T12:32:00.000-05:00

I attended the Fall Special Town Meeting on October 23 with two warrant articles dealing with changes in a section of the Town Bylaws involving corner lots. One of the articles (#13) was "tabled" at the last minute but a second warrant article (via citizen's petition) dealing with corner lots was considered by the town meeting. Warrant article #14 was defeated after some intense heated discussion as well as strong opposition to the proposed bylaw change by the chairmen of the Planning Board (PB) and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) (see Reminder Publication article by Chris Maza for additional details).

At the end of this STM Walter Gunn, chairman of the Planning Board (PB) promised to advance some changes in the zoning bylaws governing corner lots to provide some relief for homowners. My wife and I left the town meeting totally confused about the issues relating to corner lots.

It should be noted that the CORNER LOT issues described below do not apply to fencing and structure changes that occurred prior to 2003 when the bylaw was changed.
________________________________________________________________
On January 9, the PB and the ZBA held a public hearing at the Longmeadow Community House to obtain feedback from town residents regarding the limitations of property use and allowed fencing with corner lots as defined by the current zoning bylaws. In attendance was Walter Gunn, PB Chairman, David Lavenburg, ZBA Chairman and Paul Healy- Longmeadow Building Inspector. Paul Santaniello, Select Board Chairman moderated the hearing. I attended the meeting to get a better understanding of the controversy.

Figure 1- Public Hearing- 1/09/13

At this public hearing two diagrams were handed out to explain the issue regarding corner lots. I have color coded these drawings for easier review and they are shown below...


Figure 2- Fencing Regulations- Standard Lot [click to enlarge]


Figure 3- Corner Lot Description [click to enlarge]

For the majority of residential properties in Longmeadow, the REAR YARD is directly behind the HOUSE (see Figure 2 above). SIDE YARD and FRONT YARD descriptions/ definitions are as expected and easily understood.

For owners of CORNER LOTS, the REAR YARD is not directly behind the house and is uniquely positioned as shown in Figure 3 above.

Allowed fencing and permitted uses for each designated area with corner lots are the sections of the zoning bylaw where the major issues arise.

For example, you are not permitted to build a shed or erect a playscape or pool in a SIDE YARD. For CORNER LOT owners, this represents a strange predicament given the locations of their two SIDE YARDS. In addition, if the house is situated somewhat differently from shown in Figure 3, the designated REAR YARD may be too small or without sufficient setback from the property line to allow construction of a desired structure.
Furthermore, fencing height for SIDE YARDS is limited to 4 feet.


Figure 4- Dr. Dennis Gordan's Infamous Fence [click to enlarge]

A number of homeowners who had recently moved into town and attended this meeting were unaware of the above described restrictions for CORNER LOTS and expressed disappointment when they found out about restrictions on the use and allowed fencing for their property.

Mr. Gunn felt that the Longmeadow Zoning Bylaws require a major revision, particularly the sections dealing with CORNER LOTS. Town residents in attendance as well as both chairmen (PB + ZBA) agreed that one possibility was to allow one of the SIDE YARDS to be designated by the homeowner as the REAR YARD on a CORNER LOT.

According to Mr. Gunn the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning Board on February 6 will include a discussion of corner lot zoning changes. Mr. Gunn hopes to be able to propose a change in Zoning Bylaws covering CORNER LOTS at the May Annual Town Meeting.

Longmeadow Adult Center Needs a Full Time Director

2013-01-09T16:57:00.003-05:00

Update

An employment ad for the Longmeadow Director of Adult Services was posted earlier this week on the Town website. While the ad describes it as a "full time" position, the current position is budgeted at 30 hours/ week. The Longmeadow Select Board should consider increasing the hours and salary of this position to be comparable to surrounding towns to show their commitment to a rapidly increasing segment of our population. The ad states that this Director position will be under the general supervision of the town manager- hopefully, that means that this position is a participating member of the TM's staff.
_____________________________________________________________

The following was submitted for posting on the LongmeadowBuzz ...
_____________________________________________________________

Let your voice be heard! Be an advocate; be proactive, not reactive.

As a former member of the Longmeadow Council on Aging Board of Directors, I am very familiar with the population that is served at the Adult Center, all the services and programs provided including lunches and Meals on Wheels, and the need for a continuum of care for our senior citizens. Our senior population is the fastest growing segment of not only our town’s population but the country as a whole and its projected growth is even more substantial.

That being said, I would like to emphasize the need for a “full time” director; this is not a part time position. The Adult Center should be opened at a minimum the “typical” hours of the other town departments. The population that is served are senior citizens and not school children. Therefore the hours of 9 to 3 are unacceptable and inadequate for the population of the town. This is no longer “a mother’s hours” job.

Let me share with you the following information as a comparison:

And by the way, the town of Longmeadow is presently the ONLY town other than the little town of Hampden who does not have what would be considered a full time director and furthermore whose Council on Aging has no staff positions that are full time.

The Senior population, especially in today’s economy, needs a facility that is open to them with more hours and serviced by at least one full time staff member – which should be the new director. May I suggest that the town hire a full time person (probably at a lesser wage than the former 25+ year employee) and expand the hours of operation at the Adult Center. That would be the ideal scenario. After all, if you are going to pay health benefits for a 30 hour employee, you might as well reap the rewards – 40 hours’ worth of work! In essence, if you replace a 30 hour person with a 40 hour person at the same or lesser wage level, you increase the productivity by 25% but you do not increase your costs. There would be absolutely no impact on the budget. That’s a win win situation. Good for the Town and good for the Seniors.

I suggest that all of us who are in favor of a Senior Center (our Adult Center) that is open 40 hours a week with a full time Director please call our Acting Town Manager, Barry DelCastilho at (413) 565-4110 and tell him so.

You can contact our Select Board at that same phone number as well. The following is a list of their email addresses:
Barry Castilho, Town Manager- bdelcastilho@longmeadow.org

Paul Santaniello, Select Board Chair, psantaniello@longmeadow.org
Mark Gold, SB member, mgold@longmeadow.org
Mark Barowsky, SB member, mbarowsky@longmeadow.org
Richard Foster, SB member, rfoster@longmeadow.org
Marie Angelides, SB member, mangelides@longmeadow.org

Let your voice be heard! Be an advocate; be proactive, not reactive.

Diane B. Nadeau

41 Shaker Road

Longmeadow, MA 01106

Is America Great?

2012-12-21T11:07:00.001-05:00

In case you missed it, here is Alex Grant's article Is America Great? that appeared in the December 20th edition of the Longmeadow News (with permission of the author and thanks to the Longmeadow News). It reflects sentiments that many of us have after last week's tragedy.
____________________________________________________________

In the wake of the Newtown shootings, I am beginning to wonder, for the first time in my life, whether America can be a great country. In my lifespan, we have endured the tragedy of Vietnam, the shame of Watergate, the prospect of nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union, the shock of the 9/11 attacks, and three wars in the Middle East. Through it all, I have remained steadfast that we are, as our Puritan forebear John Winthrop said, a "city upon a hill." I have read the story of our nation as the history of a people called to a higher purpose, as expressed in the Mayflower Compact, the Constitution, and in our current form of government.

American courage and ingenuity, displayed for generations, from the War of Independence to World War II to the Cold War, have been placed in service to the rest of the world and to ourselves. I have always thought that the arc of our history bends upward, and it lends credence to the idea of the perfectibility of mankind. I question all of that now.

Whatever aspirations we may have for shared prosperity, the health and happiness of our people, or even social justice, none of them matter so long as small children can be slaughtered en masse and so long as the survivors and the rest of society must live in apprehension, and with the knowledge, that such a mass killing will happen again. When the Declaration of Independence said that we are all endowed with the unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," it was no mistake that "Life" came first.

Life is first because everything else flows from it. The society we hope to build in the coming years, however much we succeed in our aims, will be of no use to the Newtown children lying in the morgue. Freedom and material prosperity count for nothing to the dead. If we cannot provide peace and security in our cities, towns, and in our schools, if we cannot protect our young children, then we, as a people, are a disgrace. We are a disgrace to ourselves and to our proud history. If we cannot secure the lives of children whom we hold most dear, we are not a beacon to the world, we are a failure, and we deserve the condemnation of countries around the globe.

In decades past, we have faced mighty challenges from without, forces bent on our destruction. We have been bloodied but not beaten. The problem of gun violence, however, is one of our own making, and being within our control, it ought to be susceptible to solution. But the list of mass killings has grown, they have become more frequent, and we remain paralyzed. Places like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora emerge from obscurity and now live in infamy, and somehow, nothing changes.

The question now is whether Newtown will be simply added to the list, or whether Americans will act, and act now, to prevent their children from being massacred. If we do not act now, we will never act. And while our children have, for years, been killed one by one, in incidents so commonplace that the newspapers often do not even notice, the choice of whether to live in fear, or to do something about it, has never been so clear.

Are we so enured to gun violence, are our hearts so hardened, that even this will not awaken our consciences? In 1929, the murder of seven Chicago mob associates on Valentine's Day was enough to spark public outrage, and that outrage led to the downfall of Al Capone, whose organization carried out the killings. There was a time when we cared, when we refused to live amid anarchy and killing. We have to care enough now to change, to change our hearts and our ways, to make it so that Newtown will never happen again and children will not have to live in fear.

That is the great task before us. We have before faced and overcome greater tasks, but we cannot doubt that this is a moment of reckoning for our country. The issue is nothing less than whether the honored dead in Newtown will die in vain. Sympathy, prayers, and grief are not enough. Killings like these must stop. If the deaths of the Newtown kids do not matter, then we as a country are dead inside too, and God have mercy on us all.

_________________________________________________________

Alex J. Grant is a lawyer living in Longmeadow.

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

Longmeadow Property Taxes Through 2020- An Update

2012-12-02T15:16:00.002-05:00

Now that the Longmeadow FY2013 property tax rate (or mil rate) has been set at $21.54 for FY2013, it is time for an update of my projections through 2020. See Longmeadow Buzz post for predictions made earlier this year.

These latest projections include future effects on property taxes for all of the outstanding capital projects (Proposition 2½ debt exclusions) that have been approved by Longmeadow taxpayers. They include the impact of bonds for the new LHS project + the annual 2½% increase as allowed by Proposition 2½. Property taxes for FY2014 --> FY2020 are based upon an average property assessment of $341,800 which is 3.1% lower than last year's average assessment of 352,600.

[click chart to enlarge]

FY2013 property taxes for the average Longmeadow property owner will increase to $7362- a 6.1% increase from FY2012- following a 5.8% increase in FY2012 from F2011.

Of the $781 increase in property taxes experienced for FY2012 + FY2013, ~$473 (or 60.5%) can be attributed to the new high school project which is close to that estimated by the School Building Committee before the project was approved by voters.

According to the Longmeadow Assessors Office, updated property assessments for FY2013 will be available on the Vision Appraisal website later this month ~ December 11. A Longmeadow property owner can calculate his FY2013 taxes as follows:

It is important to note that the FY2013 1Q (August 1) /2Q (November 1) property tax payments which have already been paid reflect estimated taxes and the upcoming February 1 (3Q) and May 1 (4Q) payments will be adjusted to reflect the new mil rate and property assessments. While most taxpayers will see an increase in FY2013 property taxes, there will be some Longmeadow taxpayers who will see no change or even a decrease depending upon the new FY2013 property asssessments.

The above estimates do not include the Community Preservation Act charge (currently 1% surcharge) that is included with these tax bills. For the average property owner this amounts to ~ $74/year.

Projections of Longmeadow property taxes through 2020 shown in the above graph assume that there will be no Proposition 2½ overides (Operational or Debt Exclusion). Given that there are infrastructure improvements already being discussed by the School Committee (upgrade of middle schools) and Select Board (new DPW facilities, road repairs) and significant pressure on operating budgets (e.g., salaries), it is likely that the actual increases in future property taxes will be higher than that predicted due to one or more Proposition 2½ overrides before 2020.