Why Vote Against a New Lexington Preschool on Monday Dec 4

The Committee for Systemwide Master Planning Before Building a New Preschool urges voters on December 4, 2017 to vote against a new Lexington preschool.

While the Yes campaign will use money from PTOs to ring your phones, mail to your home, put a sign in your lawn, its case for the Lexington preschool puts emotions above financial considerations.

Lexington voters expect to be treated with respect, and that means with analysis and facts intended to justify the projects. Because financial facts do not measure up for the proposal to build a new preschool on the Pelham property, we have formed a ballot committee to bring those facts to you.

Preschool Enrollment and Project Cost

The Lexington preschool has an enrollment of 77 students, only 28 of which are special education students with mandated preschool enrollment.

These students are currently served at the Harrington site, and no material programmatic deficiencies have been identified which cannot be addressed at the existing site.

Nevertheless, because the Selectmen purchased the Pelham property for $8 million, the town is eager to make good use of it. Failing to create a larger program or elementary school plan for the site, the school committee now proposes to build a single story preschool at that site.

The new preschool will cost an additional $15 million. Although the 28 students today take 45 slots, a program with 187 slots will be created at that site, far larger than the state mandate the preschool.

Unfortunately, by creating a school on a new site, taxpayers will continue maintenance of the old Harrington school along with heating and electricity, and then also be paying these costs for a new building. This new building requires a custodian and school nurse, adding $143,000/year in operating costs beyond those today.

The total project cost is $23 million / 77 students = $300,000 per student (compare with Hastings at $75,000 per student). Over 30 years, this translates to $10,000 per student per year. Adding on operating costs of $143,000 / 77 students = $2,000 per student per year, plus heating and electrical costs.

So this new building will cost taxpayers an additional $12,000 per preschool student every year, while the preschool is already widely regarded as excellent.

But if Lexington taxpayers are rich, why not another new facility?

First, our taxes are now nearly the highest in the state, making it increasingly difficult for households without children to justify living here. But we need households without children to keep balance in our community, which already has 7,267 public school students in a town with a total population of 31,394. Further increases in enrollment will destroy operating limits and require capital spending. Will building a spacious, new preschool attract more students at a time when Lexington is already over capacity?

Second, on the horizon town leaders anticipate building a new high school, a seventh elementary school, a new police station, a new visitor center, a new fire station, a new Hastings school, a new preschool and a new cemetery building. The total cost of all these projects exceed the state borrowing limit, and is perhaps double what the town would prudently borrow.

Investing in Lexington’s future does not mean spending the money we have now. It means making the right financial decisions for the long term health and economic competitiveness of our community.

But, the Yes campaign says this will not increase my taxes this much

Town leaders have engineered project financing so the apparent cost to taxpayers is much lower than the total cost we all pay.

The land has already been purchased and is financed with short term debt. The town has stashed $30 million of taxpayer funds in a capital stabilization fund in advance of the debt exclusion. Then when the voters ask about financial impact, they are presented only with the marginal costs on next year's tax bill.

We believe all projects should be presented to taxpayers at full cost. If the project is not built, the capital stabilization fund does not have to be raided. If the land is not used, it can be resold. What if the $30 million capital stabilization fund were instead used to purchase the fire station with no increase in taxes?

Will the town start a new capital stabilization fund for the high school after spending these savings on the Pelham land and preschool?

Why does this committee ask for system wide master planning?

The Yes campaign argues that plenty of planning has occurred. After all, the Pelham site was evaluated for several different uses.

However, our committee asks for system-wide master planning. This starts with the Selectmen and School Committee agreeing on a system-wide capacity target as well as a guiding principle for constructing buildings (and bargaining agreements) which work when school forecasts are inaccurate.

Second, the system-wide master plan must address the largest projects: the high school and a seventh elementary school. Only once the timing, approach and siting of the largest projects are clear should taxpayers be evaluating a project as small as a 77 student (some part time) preschool.

With a plan for major portions of the student body, the town can then determine the best strategy for siting the preschool and school administration. It may seem unfair that the smallest projects are “last”; here we argue that the plan must be developed in entirety, and then the overall plan should dictate the sequence of project building.

Finally, MSBA funding should be sought where applicable. The MSBA contributed $10 million to a preschool-kindergarten building in Dedham, but Lexington has not sought MSBA funding for this project.

Conclusion

In short, the proposed preschool project is far too expensive for the number of students served and nominal programmatic improvements. The town anticipates $500 million in capital spending, and must put together a plan for the largest pieces, and then determine the best placement of the Lexington preschool and final disposition of the Pelham land. We are confident that a larger plan would allow the preschool to be permanently sited at a reasonable cost.

If Lexington supports a preschool in 2017, it will regret using this significant Pelham property to serve only 1% of our students while still failing to retire the outdated Old Harrington facility.

We urge you to get the facts about Lexington’s preschool and vote no on the Lexington preschool debt exclusion - Question #2 on Monday December 4.

Further details can be found at https://planbeforepreschool.wordpress.com