After town-school boards’ joint meeting, school board members continue talk on Chappaqua Crossing

August 20, 2010
by Christine Yeres

At the conclusion of the August 10 joint town board-school board meeting dedicated to a discussion of Chappaqua Crossing, board of education members returned to their own meeting in Greeley’s academic commons.  There, for the benefit of the handful of audience members and the potential video watchers later, they reported on their meeting with town board members and spoke further about the development proposal for the property across Roaring Brook Road from the high school, now nearing the final stages of environmental review.

Board president Janet Benton gave a brief summary of the details of the newest proposal, Alternative I [the letter ‘I’], for 199 condominium units, 60 of them town houses, 139 apartments, no age restrictions, 20 of the units to be workforce, all but two of the units to be two-bedroom and two three-bedroom.  The developer projects 58 school children and 425 people in total from the development. 

Although the developer states in the final environmental impact statement that he intends to make them all condominiums, the town supervisor, Barbara Gerrard, emphasized in the session with school board members that the town will insist that the 60 townhouses, at least, should be taxed “fee simple,” as single family houses.

Board further considers hiring another demographic expert

Benton noted that one of details that most interests the board—“the assessed values of these units and the taxes generated by them”—is not yet available. Her first question was whether board members wished to take a position on Alternative I.  “I’ve heard concern about the enrollment projections [by BOCES], so do we want to do our own projections, hire an outside firm to do a projection analysis? We still don’t have information from the town on the financials.”

“And remember,” Benton continued, “we have no board position other than our comments of last September on the draft environmental impact statement on the last application [by the developer].”  See NCNOW’s article on the board’s September statement, “Board of Education submits its comments on DEIS,” dated September 29, 2009.  Then she invited comment from board members.

Jeffrey Mester asked that copies of the fiscal analysis Gregg Bresner presented to the town board that evening be distributed to board of education members for study and discussion. More important to Mester than enrollment projections, he said, is how residential units at Chappaqua Crossing would be taxed—whether as fee simple dwellings or as condos—and then to figure “who has the risk of the expenses exceeding the revenues—the taxpayer or the developer?”

Alyson Kiesel told fellow board members that she would like to revisit enrollment projections with an expert consultant, “to have some enrollment number to point to that we feel confident is relevant, and then look at tax revenues.”

“I concur,” said Bresner. “Once we have a base-case enrollment projection, we can put together a pretty robust analysis, because our costs are very well determined.  I recommend we engage an expert who has experience in the for-profit marketing of these types of units, who can give us not only demographic information, but who also understands the nuances of marketing, for-proft. And another thing: This is an iterative process.  Even if [the developer] has a marketing plan, that marketing plan will change; it will not be controlled by the town.  One major issue is that once you get residential zoning, from a legal standpoint, I’ve been told, it may be easier for the developer to get more condos once he has the zoning.  We need to see that modeled by a professional as well as the modeling of town-wide revaluation.”

“We need a broad-based risk assessment that would include all that,” said Randy Katchis. “I spoke with the attorney, who assured me there would be a subdivision between the commercial and residential, not allowing them to hop across for a quick zoning if the commercial fails.”

Board members discussed what sort of expert to engage, and what it might cost.  They asked Interim Superintendent John Chambers for advice. Chambers cautioned the board that demographic experts would only be able to offer a range of possibilities, not an exact number. “Experts will tell you,” said Chambers, “that they can’t guarantee projections.”

“That’s why I think that enrollment projections aren’t as important as financials,” interjected Mester.

Board president skeptical about hiring another demographics consultant

“The town board also said they are considering a revaluation of all New Castle properties,” said Benton, “and would consider moving to tax all condos as ‘fee simple.’  They asked us for our thoughts on that.  We might need a consultant for that as well.  Second, I’m willing to look into it, but I’m skeptical about finding a professional demographic consulting firm that will have better data than BOCES [who furnished the board of ed with its original demographic report in 2009].”

“I feel we have the data we need,” continued Benton. “We have so many condominium units, six developments in town, we have enrollment data of students, by bedroom, in those units.  We can use the high number from those units, we can use the average number.  We can come up with a range and use those numbers rather than hiring another demographer.”

“I disagree,” Mester responded, “because those condo units were built some number of years ago, and you have to ask who’s going to move into them now?  If you look at the former Reader’s Digest property, in this economy, I think we’re going to attract a much higher number of families with young kids than when those others were built.”

“The BOCES report is very confusing,” said Bresner. “Most of its scenarios include age restriction, which is now gone [from the developer’s new Alternative I].  We need an analysis now of Alternative I, and I don’t think BOCES has the experience in the nuances of a development and what can happen.  I’ve got a couple of names of experts.  I’ll get more information on them.”

“Pelham’s done a reassessment recently,” noted Katchis. “We can also double-check the BOCES data that already exists.  That will tell us about enrollment data.  The other side of this is just pure risk: to what degree do we have risk, and how quickly will that risk come to us?”

“And back to what Janet said,” responded Kiesel, “there could be one or 1,000 kids.  If there’s an inflection point at which we put the burden on the taxpayer, we need some fulcrum to mitigate that risk.  Even if we say there are going to be 100 students, still the question is How are we going to pay for that?  How can we protect district taxpayers from that number being wrong?”

“This is very complicated,” said Benton.  “But there’s tremendous risk already.  I feel I have to point out that if nothing happens [at the Reader’s Digest property] and tax revenues decline continually, we’re all bearing that burden, too.”  The same point had been made by town board member Robin Stout, in the earlier joint meeting.

Bresner and Mester answered at the same time, “But that’s a finite number.  It’s .6% and we know we can deal with that.”

“I have to see your numbers,” said Benton. “I can’t see that from 199 units five kids per unit would be generated.”

“I don’t, etiher,” responded Bresner. “But we don’t need five.  If it’s just the census average in town is .7 students per household.”

“But you can’t use that number,” countered Benton.

“And you have to consider a second dynamic,” continued Bresner. “Empty nesters selling their homes to move into a new development.”

“But I feel that’s double-counting. That was when it was age-restricted, and it’s not any longer,” said Benton, “but these are things that need to be hammered out in an analysis.  So next steps: some of you will explore what experts we might engage and how to use their services.”

Board members agreed to seek out an expert consultant, to procure financial data from the town board and to produce a new statement for the final environmental impact statement by late September, before the town board’s September 28 public information session on Chappaqua Crossing.  Board members asked Chambers whether they should be expected to present a unified opinion to the town board.  Chambers suggested that if they fail to agree on a new statement, they might return to their original statement to the town board on the draft environmental impact statement.  “The points made in that document are still very valid,” said Chambers.
_____________

NCCTV now has a direct link in “video on demand” to the joint work session of the town and school boards on Chappaqua Crossing.  Click HERE to see the 55-minute session.

From NCNOW’s archives: For coverage of Chappaqua Crossing from June 2010 to present, with commentary from readers, click HERE.

For NCNOW’s complete coverage of Chappaqua Crossing, dating from 2007, click HERE.