HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-09-AC-min-att2To: Appropriation Committee
From: Glenn P. Parker, Chair
Date: April 9, 2025
Subject: Fougere report to the Select Board on the impact of MBTA Community Zoning
Below is a synopsis of an email from Alan Levine to the committee in which he shared his
opinions about the report, Impact Analysis of Multi-Family Housing Development on
Lexington, Massachusetts, from Fougere Planning + Development dated March 19, 2025.
Useful contributions
• Included revenue from car excise taxes
• Conducted interviews with department heads
• Separated affordable from non-affordable units when analyzing students per unit
• Examined public safety and municipal impacts in detail
Critique
1. The 1,100 units analyzed are just the beginning. Many more units could come from:
• Development on properties that have submitted PSPs
• Projects in remaining MBTA overlay districts
• Non-MBTA developments (like 28 Meriam and 257 Waltham St)
• Town projects and related developments (Lowell St, Vine St, etc.)
2. School expense calculations need better explanation
• The $10,000-$12,000 per general education student seems low and needs justification
• Out-of-district special education students make up 1.4% of total students (not 1% as
stated)
• The report uses $80,000 per out-of-district SPED student, but actual costs may be
$100,000 when transportation is included
• Circuit breaker funds will offset some SPED costs for additional students
• Employee benefits from the Shared Expenses budget appear missing (could add 20%
to estimates)
• Costs per student will likely increase significantly if enrollment grows 3-5 times more
than the 499 students assumed (due to construction costs for new facilities)
3. Projections lack proper uncertainty analysis
• The student number projections use limited data from existing developments
• Too few condominiums were studied, causing high statistical errors
• Fewer apartment complexes were analyzed than in the January LPS report
• No adjustments made for pandemic-related enrollment drops
• Projections don't consider that dens may be used as bedrooms
• Student occupancy varies between developments - using averages may underestimate
if new housing follows higher-occupancy patterns
4. Capital costs missing for larger development scenarios
• One-time costs will likely be needed if more than 1,100 units are built
• The report doesn't address school capital costs
5. Analysis should use reasonable highest-cost scenarios for planning purposes
6. Some of these concerns apply to both the AC memo and AC STM report as well as the
Fougere report
2
There are a few key questions about differences in our projections compared to the Fougere
report that I would like to answer in the clearest of terms.
The first, and biggest, question is about the cost-per-pupil assumptions. There is a direct
overlap and we’re both working from the same data, theoretically. This issue can be broken
down into two components: the basic cost per pupil, and the potential for new construction
resulting from what I might call “enrollment overflow”.
The second question is about the projections for new population growth, which I think the
committee’s report already answers with a far more thorough discussion than the Fougere
report. A follow-up to this is estimates of property tax revenue from new growth.
The third question is about the impact on demand for town services, which the Fougere report
explored in more depth than the committee’s report. I think the Fougere report largely supports
the comments in the committee’s report, while providing some numerical projections that we
did not attempt.
After tonight’s meeting, I would like the AC to submit a formal response to the Select Board
that discusses these questions.