To Concerned Taxpayers of North Hampton

Winter 2011
Dear Friend and Neighbor:
On March 8,2011 there will be a North Hampton School District election and there will be six money warrant articles for voter consideration. We support all but one. The purpose of this letter is first and foremost to urge you to become an informed voter and vote - in person or by absentee ballot. But we are also writing to inform you that we are opposed to the one warrant article to raise $2.55 million to
construct a 4-classroom addition at the North Hampton School. We believe now is the wrong time to propose an expenditure of this magnitude, that the proposal has not been carefully thought out and that it is not supported by the facts.

These are extremely difficult times. The economy is still in trouble, many people are out of work, and those living on Social Security are struggling to make ends meet. Closer to home, North Hampton is experiencing a steadily eroding tax base. Total valuation is now at 109o/o, which means that many properties are over valued; and this inevitably will generate an increase in the number and amounts of
legitimate abatement applications. Town revenues are significantly lower and the State is shifting more costs to municipalities (e.9. reduced share of Room and Meals Tax and increased mandated contributions to the State Retirement System). Finally, we may again become a "Donor Town", which means sending more North Hampton tax dollars to "less affluent" municipalities.
These distressing realities almost certainly mean significantly higher property taxes in the near future; and the days of reaching into the undesignated Fund Balance, or "Cookie Jar", to offset tax increases are coming to an end. This past year alone the Selectmen took $500,000 from the undesignated Fund
Balance to offset what would have been a tax increase of more than one dollar/1000, or 6.90/o, in a year when the official federal inflation rate was nil. Withdrawals of this magnitude are simply not sustainable.

We all know that the prices of gas and food have gone up substantially, yet retirees on Social Security have not received any increase for two years. This is the primary reason why we believe now is not the time to propose this $2.55 million dollar addition.
But there are additional reasons to oppose this proposal - namely that the School Board has not demonstrated a need for four new classrooms, two for kindergarten/preschool and two science labs.

Let's examine the Board's rationale and compare it to the facts. The Steering Committee Report which the School Board relied on as justification for this proposal claims that the quality of education will suffer if two new science labs are not built; but no empirical data was offered to support such a claim. Indeed, Principal Peter Sweet conceded in a recent meeting that no such data exists. This
unsupported claim from the Report is to be contrasted to School's "Report Card Academic Year 2009-2010" , dated February 2010 which contains the following comments on the performance of our students in the Sciences:
"In a composite of the 4th and 8th grade scores, we can report that we scored 13th out of 146 districts in Science, scoring better than 91% of the Districts in the state of New Hampshire. By comparison, last year we scored 24th of 149 districts in Science, scoring better than 84% of the other districts in NH." In other words, our students are performing a very high level and, indeed, are improving their
performance in Science, all without new science labs. Significantly, there is no mention in the Report Card of any need for new science labs or more classroom space.

The Report also cites the need for space to accommodate an "all day kindergarten" as a reason for the proposed expansion. While such an expansion would undoubtedly convenience some parents, we doubt that such a day long program is a compelling need, and it is not required by the state. Inexplicably, the School Board at its January 11th Public Hearing denied that all day kindergarten was being proposed at
all. lf so, why ask the taxpayers to fund two larger kindergarten classrooms?

The proposed addition sacrifices two classrooms for four classrooms, new bathrooms and storage space. The Steering Committee Report "...surmised (its term)that it is cost effective to create new restrooms rather than renovate existing ones." We strongly believe that decisions of this magnitude should not be surmised, or made based on conjecture and assumptions. With due respect to all of the members of the Steering Committee who worked on the Report and undoubtedly acted in the utmost good faith, we believe that the work was done hastily and did not give
sufficient consideration to other alternatives. While we do not dispute that there appears to be a need for more space in the School, given present enrollment, class sizes and special needs requirements, we do question whether all other alternatives were explored in depth. That the Steering Committee commenced its work in September 2010 and finished by early December 2010 suggests its work may have been rushed. Moreover, there is no mention of considering modular classrooms, renovations or
slightly increasing some class sizes as a means of freeing up additional space. We recognize that small class sizes are prized by educators, but like so many among us who have to get by with less, it may be appropriate to modestly increase class sizes for a few years. Our School enrollment peaked in 1999(538); it is now at 485. Some demographic projections for our state tell us that school populations
generally will decline because the "Baby Boomers" are now past child bearing age. The space issue may resolve itself.

One justification offered by the School Board for advancing this proposal now is that the current Bond, which financed the 1996 addition to the School,.is about to expire. Therefore, a new bond will not
increase our debt service. The annual debt service for the current bond is $332,827 -We suggest that instead of rushing to incur new debt, we give the taxpayers a "breather" for a few years in the form of lower taxes. Raising $333,000 every year means about thirty two cents on the tax rate. By not taking out another bond, we could all benefit from those savings.
We recognize and honor the need for excellence in our School and share the Town's pride in the many achievements of its Students and its fine Faculty and Administration. We are not necessarily opposed to an addition to the School; only the timing and what appears to have been a hurried analysis of alternatives. We believe that the test for all spending should be whether the proposed expenditure is
ESSENTIAL to maintain appropriate levels of Town and School services. A much more comprehensive analysis needs to be undertaken and all possible alternatives must be fully explored.
This proposal will appear on the School Ballot as a warrant article that needs 3/5 approval. It was approved by the Budget Committee by the narrowest of margins (5-4). Also, the School Board vote was not unanimous (4 to 1) with one of the four in favor expressing reservations about the wisdom of the project before finally voting in the affirmative. Again, we support the other warrant articles but for all of
the reasons cited above we cannot recommend approving this expenditure of $2.55 million for an addition to the School.
Voting will take place on March 8,2011 at the School. We urge you to vote in person or, if you qualify, by absentee ballot. An absentee ballot can be obtained from the Town Clerk by calling 964-6029, or by email,sbuchanan@northhampton-nh.gov. Once filled out, mail to: Town Clerk, 237 Atlantic Avenue, North Hampton, NH 03862. If you have any questions, or want to join our email list, or just wish to
discuss this with one or all of us, please feel free to contact us by email at CTNH@comcast.net.
Thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendation.
Charles A. Gordon ,Richard H. Stanton, Don Gould