Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/20/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — The East Longmeadow Town Council took up issues regarding the funding of the proposed high school project at its Sept. 15 meeting. The major issue of debate was the length of the bond that the town would need to take out for the school and the pool building. The funding of the latter will be a separate question from the school funding on the Nov. 7 special election ballot.
Because the payments on the bond for the project will be beyond what could be paid for through normal means, residents are being asked to approve a debt exclusion. Massachusetts law states that municipalities cannot tax their residents more than $25 per $1,000 in property value unless residents approve a debt exclusion.
The bond could be taken with a term of 20, 25 or 30 years to pay it back. The School Building Committee had agreed that 30 years should be the maximum. This is also the longest term allowed by the Massachusetts School Building Authority, a state entity that reimburses municipalities for a portion of school construction or repair costs.
School Building Committee Chair Stephen Chrusciel said 30 years provides taxpayers the “least financial burden” by spreading out payments. The longer the term, however, the higher the final cost due to interest payments.
Town Council member Jonathan Torcia asked Chrusciel if the community had expressed concerns with the project beyond the cost. Chrusciel said, “[There is] a fair amount of the community who thinks we’re not being above board,” he said. He assured the council and residents listening that the owner’s project manager and architectural team had been appropriately vetted.
Town Council President Ralph Page said, “I don’t think it’s anyone’s intention to mislead the public.” He added that rumors were circulating around town, including one that residents need to bring $2,000 to the polls to bid down the cost of the school.
Some people have what Chrusciel called a “just-fix-it” mentality. He explained that repairs beyond a certain cost or square footage would trigger a legal requirement to bring the entire 1960s-era building up to code. Because of this, the cost of repairs is estimated to be $100 million. None of that would be covered by the MSBA.
People have also asked why the MSBA is only covering $63 million of the project’s $177 million price tag. Chrusciel said the MSBA has never covered the full cost of school projects. Instead, he said it takes limited funding and “spreads it around” to as many projects as possible. For that reason, the authority does not cover high-cost items, such as pools. This is also why the MSBA is stringent in its approval process. Before being accepted in the agency’s program in 2019, East Longmeadow’s high school was denied seven times.
“It’s our turn,” Chrusciel said. “When you sign up for the benefit, you sign up for the duration.” He said it would be “naive” to think “there will [not] be an asterisk next to East Longmeadow” if the town voted down a project after asking to be in the program for seven years.
Torcia said that timing, inflation and the MSBA’s policies mean East Longmeadow will receive the same product as other towns that have recently built new high schools, but at a higher cost.
Chrusciel said people are “horrified” by the conditions in the school. “These are the conditions that we’re staring at, and we can either do something or not,” Chrusciel said. “It’s a big number. That’s just the world we live in. This is our chance, seize the day. Let’s go.”
Town Council member Marilyn Richards looked on the School Building Committee’s website for an itemization of the $100 million in repair costs that Chrusciel had mentioned but could not find it. Chrusciel said that while it is on the website, the fact that Richards could not find it is a problem, because others in the community may not be able to find it either.
Page said his concern is that there are still other schools in town that need to be updated. “We can’t wait 30 years for the middle school,” he said. Due to a building boom in the 1960s, he said there are other buildings in town that also need to be addressed at the same time.
Chrusciel acknowledged that these were important factors to consider but said he would rather have the flexibility that a 30-year bond may offer.
Town Council member Matthew Boucher said there had been a lot of last minute “harebrained,” “Rube Goldbergesque” changes to save money. He specifically pointed to moving the central office and shrinking the pool.
Page took exception to this characterization and said anytime you can save money, “especially on a project this size,” it is not “harebrained.”
Page then invited current and former members of the Finance Oversight Committee Christine Saulnier, James Broderick and Dawn Starks to give their recommendations to the council. Saulnier said the town has been “very cautious” in “trying to stay away from the $25” ceiling. She was in favor of shorter bond terms, especially the pool building. She said it is “ridiculous” to let inflation nearly double the cost of the natatorium. Instead, she suggested a 25-year bond for the school and a 20-year bond for the pool. Both Starks and Broderick supported Saulnier’s suggestion.
Town Council member Connor O’Shea said, “It seems far too premature,” to set the limit now when interest rates in three years cannot be known. He cautioned that “strapping yourself to a higher payment” will make it less likely people can afford other town building projects. He also noted that towns with median incomes of $100,000 have bonded their projects for 30 years. East Longmeadow’s median income is closer to $86,000, he said, making it less likely residents can afford higher tax bills. O’Shea said presenting one figure, “no matter what that magic number” is, will be misleading. Providing a range of tax increases based on the different bond terms may help, he said. Broderick also said proposing a range to residents would give people accurate information while allowing the town to be flexible until it knows more about the interest rates in three years.
Richards said a 20-year bond is “too severe,” for the high school but said she, too, was open to providing taxpayers with a range of potential tax increases. The other councilors agreed.
Page suggested recommending the School Building Committee publicize a range of 25-30 years for the high school’s bond. A bond term of 25 years would add $325 per $100,000 in property value in taxes each year. A 30-year bond would translate to an additional $310 per $100,000 in property value annually. The bond term for the natatorium would range from 20-30 years.
Town Council member Kathleen Hill was in favor of taking no action on defining the bond term. She said setting a 30-year cap was redundant as it was already the MSBA-allowed maximum. Residents could be given a range of all possible options, and a decision could be made by the council at a later date, she said.
Saulnier said if the owners project manager presented only the tax rate increase and not the total project cost, including interest, it would be “stacked” because residents would choose the lower tax rates without realizing the total cost would be higher.
Torcia commented, “We need to have a great building, but we need to squeeze and save as much money as we can.” He said a shorter term would save tens of thousands of dollars.
The council approved recommending the range Page suggested with a vote of 5-2. Boucher and O’Shea opposed. The council delayed appropriating funding for the project until after the town votes on whether to approve the debt exclusion on Nov. 7.