LONGMEADOW – Of the roughly 280 voters who came out to Longmeadow’s May 10 Annual Town Meeting, nearly two-thirds voted against using $350,000 in community preservation money to fund a skate park.

Article 36 requested funding to begin planning a skate park project at Bliss Park. A feasibility study exploring the idea was approved at a Town Meeting in 2020, after a small group of children proposed the project. Since then, a location was chosen in Bliss Park, where four clay tennis courts currently sit. The feasibility study also contained cost estimates for the project.

A member of the Finance Committee reported that it did not recommend the project and said the Select Board had expressed concerns about water runoff and environmental impacts of a large impervious surface in Bliss Park.

Attorney Alex Grant, who has been working with the children who had proposed the park, said a “detailed cost breakdown” had been provided by the company that completed the feasibility study. He also stated that the law firm Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy had provided an opinion that a skate park located in town would not increase the likelihood of personal injury claims against the municipality.

Several residents spoke both for and against the project. William Welch of the Finance Committee said the estimated cost is “completely wrong,” and mentioned several other skate parks and what it cost to build them. Resident Ricky Belcher responded, “We’re not talking about other skate parks,” and said the Longmeadow design would be much less complex than many other parks.

Resident Kurt Friedman asked why that location was chosen. Grant said five locations were scouted, including the site of the former Department of Public Works, Glenbrook Middle School and the former senior center. He said the flat topography of Bliss Park was a factor in keeping costs down. He also noted it is in a central location, near other amenities and safely accessible with sidewalks.

Resident Kathy Mullins said her son isn’t interested in team sports, and a skate park gives kids like him an athletic outlet.
Another resident said the abutters had not been notified. He was concerned about noise, maintenance costs and the “injuries sure to occur.”

Town Manager Lyn Simmons said she was neutral on the idea of a skate park, but said the process has “suffered” from a lack of engagement with town departments and the public. She added that contracting for design documents and demolition of the existing tennis courts will increase the cost of the park.

Park Board Chair Andrew Berke, who spoke in favor of both the project and the location, described Simmons’s comments as “a hatchet job.” Townsend chastised Berke but allowed him to continue. He said the children are underserved and opposition to the skate park is exclusionary.

Permanent Town Building Committee Chair Mary Beth Bergeron agreed with Simmons. She said the documentation provided was “incomplete” and “inappropriate” to present at the Town Meeting in its current stage.

The vote was 177-107 against the skate park.

Center School Windows

Another community preservation-funded project that prompted discussion was replacing the windows at Center School. Select Board member Thomas Lachiusa explained to residents that the windows are nearly 30 years old and are “inefficient.” Their condition has been worsened recently due to consistently opening and closing them to aid ventilation.

The issue before voters was whether to appropriate $300,000 of Community Preservation Committee money. The rest of the project would be paid for using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. The project, which was originally estimated to cost $1.2 million, had increased to $3.4 million, partially due to increases in material costs. Completing the entire project was not possible with the requested funding.

Bergeron agreed that the windows needed replacement but motioned to refer the project back to the Select Board to reconsider funding mechanisms. She suggested bonding for the project or using funds from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).

Simmons explained that the windows were not eligible for MSBA accelerated funding as they were not yet old enough.

Resident Dave Marinelli told the people that the windows are in severely poor shape and said some have exposed broken glass. Fellow resident Liz Bone said the town had been talking about replacing the windows for over 15 years and the kids and teachers are the ones impacted.

Select Board member Mark Gold spoke in favor of referring the issue back to the board and suggested the school’s HVAC inadequacies could be addressed at the same time.

The question arose of whether the town could keep the money in abeyance until more funding could be acquired. Gold recounted a previous project in which that had been done and it had taken nearly five years to raise enough funding.

When the vote was conducted, residents chose not to refer it back to the board and voted 98-23 to approve funding for the replacements.

Pool Liner and Cover

Articles 5 and 6 sought $200,000 for a pool liner and $30,000 for a pool cover, respectively. Greenwood Pool is damaged and cracked, leaking 15,000 gallons of water each day at a cost of $80 per day. The liner would solve the leaking water and the cover would allow water to remain in the pool year-round, which is recommended and would help keep the structure from further deterioration. It would also add an element of safety.

Friedman asked why not repair the pool, instead. Simmons said the pool was repaired repeatedly, as recently as two years ago, but the cracking continues to spread. Another resident asked why community preservation funding had not been tapped for this project. Simmons explained that the extent of the issue and estimates were not known in time for the community preservation funding deadline.

The article was approved.

Water Conservation Bylaw

One of the more controversial articles was a bylaw that would restrict outdoor water use during times of drought or water scarcity. It also would have required sprinkler systems to be outfitted with a device to control backflow.

No action was taken on this article, however, and Select Board Chair Steven Marantz explained that more community discussion was needed due to the bylaw’s “controversial nature.”

Electronic Voting

This was the first time that voting at the Annual Town Meeting was completed using electronic voting. As voters registered, they received a keypad device. The devices were numbered, and residents were required to keep it on themselves throughout the meeting. Once voting on a question opened, people had 20 seconds to either press “1” for yes or “2” for no. At the end of the meeting, the keypads were dropped into collection bins.

Before voting began, Townsend randomly selected a handful of voters to run a few test questions. The voters entered their choices on the device and the town clerk checked their entries against what had registered in the system to verify its accuracy.
One resident took to the microphone to comment on the system.

“I have to question this entire voting system,” he said. Of the change to an electronic method, he said, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” Townsend told the resident that the public had ample opportunity to comment on the change during the demonstrations that were conducted. With the voting system not on the warrant, Townsend said it was not up for debate. When the man refused to sit down, Townsend gave him his “first warning,” and the resident left the microphone.