Dueling demographers? Town board hires demographer to review Chap. Crossing school data
September 24, 2010
by Susie Pender
and Christine Yeres
Just last week, the Board of Education of the Chappaqua schools sent a letter to the New Castle Town Board advising them that they had retained a law firm, Keane & Bean, who will be hiring on their behalf a real estate development consultant to help them evaluate the impact on the Chappaqua schools of the newest Chappaqua Crossing proposal. (See, “School board to spell out impact on school district of CC developer’s newest proposal,” NewCastleNOW.org, September 17, 2010.)
Yesterday, the town board announced that they had engaged the services of Paul K. DeMay of FACTS Enrollment Projection Services of Fairport, New York, and then acknowledged that he had been informally hired before Labor Day. According to the statement released by the town yesterday, he has been hired “to review the demographic data that has been presented over the past 16 months regarding anticipated increased Chappaqua School Central District enrollment if the present Chappaqua Crossing proposal (Alternative I) is approved with 199 residential units and no age restrictions.”
The board noted “Mr. DeMay has worked as a demographer for 28 years and has completed enrollment projections for over 200 school districts in New York State, including Hendrick Hudson, Brewster, Wappinger, and Ulster County BOCES.”
“We wish to stress,” the town board continued in their posted statement, “that Chappaqua Central School District already has submitted enrollment projections prepared by Western Suffolk BOCES in response to the Applicant’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and the Town Board respects its work. Western Suffolk BOCES has provided the Chappaqua Central School District with demographic information for many years and is the demographer for the Byram Hills, Katonah- Lewisboro, and Somers Central School Districts, all highly regarded local districts. Nonetheless, members of the public have made projections which contradict or conflict with Western Suffolk BOCES’ analysis, and the Town Board regards the issue as important enough to require another, independent review.”
School board looks beyond BOCES enrollment projections
“Our consultant will focus on two critical areas,” explained Gregg Bresner, the school board member who is the point person for the school board’s demographic inquiry. “He or she will look at projections of incremental enrollment in total, specifically for the proposed development as well as help us determine the fiscal impact to the school district as a result of that enrollment.”
“This consultant will have experience in doing this kind of analysis on a national basis, including significant for-profit experience,” Bresner added. “This kind of analysis is beyond the expertise of BOCES.”
For example, Bresner suggested, this consultant will consider whether it is appropriate to apply a state average for condominiums occupancy in a highly desirable school district like Chappaqua. He noted that the developer’s estimate of 1.2 children per household in the Chappaqua School District is based on the population of Random Farms. Bresner pointed out that the number for the whole of the district is 1.8 children per household, which would make a significant difference in school enrollment numbers.
If the Chappaqua Crossing condominiums are built, Bresner explained, increased student enrollment will be generated from two sources: Families, now that there is definitely no age restriction, who move into some of the 199 units at Chappaqua Crossing, and families who move into houses vacated by empty-nesters who move to condominiums in Chappaqua Crossing.
The economics are pretty simple, Bresner explained: The empty nester currently pays $30,000 in taxes for her 4-bedroom house. That empty nester sells to a family with two children and moves to two-bedroom condominium on Chappaqua Crossing. Now she is paying closer to $4000 in taxes because she has downsized and because condominiums pay around 40% of what a fee simple house pays in taxes. So before, there was $30,000 in tax revenues and no children; now there is $34,000 in tax revenues supporting two children in the school district. At close to $25,000 spent per pupil, the school district is in the red.
Now is the exact right time, Bresner argues, for the school board to be pursuing this analysis for several reasons. “Alternative I, the Modified Plan, is a significantly changed plan. The removal of the age restriction was a very big thing. The market conditions have dramatically changed along with the economy. And it appears that we have finally reached something that appears to be a final proposal.”
Their consultant’s expertise in for-profit real estate development will be helpful in looking forward at the sustainability of Chappaqua Crossing. For example, could the building of the residential portion destroy the viability of the commercial portion?
Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard answered questions from NewCastleNOW about the town’s new hire
Q: To date, all demographic information submitted by the developer, Summit Greenfield, and the Chappaqua Central School District as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement preparation relating to school enrollment that would be generated by Chappaqua Crossing has only addressed the impact of the prior proposal, the “Proposed Action” to build 278 units of housing, correct?
A: Yes. Those numbers we’re still kicking around reflect the 278-unit project, but they’re being refined by the applicant [the developer Summit Greenfield] and the demographic consultant the town board has just hired.
Q: So the demographics haven’t yet been collected for the Modified Project’s 199 residential units?
A: That’s right, but you could infer from the numbers that if you reduce the project from 278 to 199 housing units, the impacts would be less. But it’s become such an issue with the public that we wanted to obtain more information on how many students the latest Modified Project will generate.
Q: With the Proposed Action for 278 units of housing, the developer estimated that the project would draw 58 students. The school board estimated that its break-even number of students [the additional number of students that would be covered by the additional taxes generated from the 278 unit project] would be around 51. In the developer’s literature describing the most recent plan, the “Modified Project” of 199 condos, he still estimates the number of students as 58. With fewer housing units, shouldn’t that number, as well as the school board’s break-even number, both have dropped?
A: No one has seemed to lower it yet. We’re not asking the school board that. It’s up to them.
Q: What is the real piece of data in these reports that you’re trying to pin down?
A: We want the number of students generated by a development of this type of condo units, mostly two-bedroom and some three-bedroom, that takes into account all those factors professionals use in making such analyses.
Q: The school board is hiring not only a demographer, but also a real estate development analyst. Will the town board feel it must “match” that real estate development expert with a similar expert of its own?
A: We don’t have to “match” that expert. Naturally, we’re interested in hearing what that additional expert has to say. The fact is we didn’t engage our demographer to “match” the one engaged by the school board. We only hired him because we realized at the August 10th joint meeting with the school board that it has become an important issue to the public.
Q: Is it true to say that this latest Modified Project, non-age restricted, has not yet had this kind of analysis done on it?
A: The town board decided, in any case, way back in October 2009 to treat any proposal by the developer as non-age-restricted. And believe me, I would be very, very happy if their plans to market and sell the units to retired people worked out. That would be a win-win. But with all the arguing about whether the age restriction was enforceable or who would enforce it, the town board wanted to get to the real issues, so we decided to move forward considering it non-age-restricted.
Q: When do you expect results from your demographer?
A: Our demographer was hired informally before Labor Day, and we expect to see something maybe by the end of next week, perhaps even by Monday [September 27] or Tuesday [September 28, the day of the town board’s information session on the Modified Project]. There’s no way anything is going to happen with this project until after the 28th, after everyone’s had a chance to absorb the information we get.
Q: In your statement on the town’s website announcing your hiring of a demographer, you said, “Members of the public have made projections which contradict or conflict with Western Suffolk BOCES’ analysis.” By “members of the public,” do you mean residents or school board members?
A: Members of the public and school board members, pretty much both.
Q: Did you inform the school board when you hired your demographer?
A: I informed one member of the board, and gave permission for that member to tell the others.
Q: Did the two boards, town and school, ever consider sharing a demographer?
A: No, the school board is looking for support for its own concerns. Their numbers are the numbers we have from the Western Suffolk BOCES, and that’s what their numbers are at the moment. The town board’s interest is in having our demographer analyze the data the school board has already provided. The town board realized after the August 10 joint meeting with the school board that this was going to be an issue that was going to be addressed. And since it was so important to the public, we wanted to find an independent expert who had the credentials to do the job. The school board has probably found the same thing: There aren’t many out there.
I don’t know what the school board’s expert is charged with. We were not informed of that.
Q: The school board, and many residents too, are concerned about the proposed residential development’s cost to the school district’s taxpayers. Is the town board concerned about that as well?
A: There was a lawsuit involving the Valhalla Union Free School District, from the Second Department of the Appellate Division, saying that a school board lacks standing to challenge a final environmental impact finding solely on the basis of financial burden. School districts are obligated to educate the students in their districts. Why are some projects allowed and others aren’t? It has to be more than just the adverse impact on the schools. Financial burden created by having to educate more children is not relevant. Applicants undergoing a SEQR process go into this issue [of impacts to schools not because they have to, but] just to show that they’re not going to be a financial burden, and that’s our hope as well.
But you can’t make a decision based solely on whether people like a development proposal or not. Board members don’t necessarily like a project they approve, but they approve it because the law requires certain things to go forward. Look at homeless shelters and affordable housing that needs to be built, all the things society requires and that have to be located somewhere. Members of the public will rise up and say “Don’t do this, it will ruin our neighborhood or town.” So the courts recognize that it has to be something more than the public not liking it.
The town board’s obligation is for the fiscal security of the town and part of that is not getting sued in a suit we wouldn’t win. We do have some rights over property in our town. Many of the environmental impacts, getting units out of that [steeply sloped] North Village, away from the meadow, drainage considerations that reduced the number of units to 199, those are all good things.
Look, the town board wants commercial activity. I’ve said we want it. If we’re really lucky, the first thing the developer will do is spend a lot of money, making the investment in leasing the business space. That’s the business they’re in. They were getting $20 million in rents [on a 20-year lease with Reader’s Digest]. That was easy money for them. Now, with Reader’s Digest gone, if they put some money [into the commercial side of the business], they should be successful.
Q: Hasn’t that been hard to do with the town’s four-tenant cap?
A: Yes, but we want them to be successful. They’ve known that from the beginning. And the town has said, “Make that investment” because there’s not a lot of competition [in commercial rental property] up here.
Q: Many people believe the developer would prefer to create and sell residential property rather than continue to manage commercial property.
A: I think the developers are committed to the commercial, and thought they could create some residential and that the commercial would keep running by itself.
________________
For NCNOW’s complete coverage of Chappaqua Crossing, dating from 2007, click HERE.
This is just getting silly. Does the Town Supervisor really believe it is appropriate to put this zoning request in the category of “homeless shelters and affordable housing that needs to be built”? This is a for profit enterprise asking for a zoning variance completely inconsistent with the surrounding area. On the demographic front, if the town is the risk taker in all this, shouldn’t we simply assume 150 - 250 students and stable enrollment? Unless this is completely implausible, these have to be our assumptions.
How much is this consultant being paid?
The Town Supervisor has stated that there is an appellate court decision stating the the financial impact on the school district is not a valid basis for challenging the environmental review. I’m not an attorney and I don’t pretend to know whether or not the Town can successfully defend the current zoning simply on the basis of “that’s the way it was zoned when you bought it.” The Town Board seems to be making the point that they cannot use the financial impact on the school district as a basis for denying a request for a zoning change.
This keeps coming back to one point that nobody seems to want to acknowledge. The Town of New Castle is not the same as the Chappaqua Central School District. Can any one of the attorneys who post here provide a precedent for a Town making land use decisions based on the impact to an independently governed school district? Suppose the Town approved high-density condominium development located in one of the other four school districts that lie partially within the Town? Could one of those school districts object? How about the taxpayers in the other Town that would have to pick up the extra tax burden? Would they have standing to challenge New Castle’s decision?
Supervisor Gerrand certainly knows how to waste money in a difficult economic environment!
Editor’s Note: Fortunately, fees for the consultants the town hires to assist in responding to the environmental review process required by NYS are passed on to the developer to be paid.
Doesn’t Barbara Gerrard realize that if she and the board permit the CC residential development, there will be multiple lawsuits
(and possibly a class action suit) that the town will spend years defending?
Why would she think that the only threat of a lawsuit comes for Summit Greenfield?
Regardless of the school tax burden, which she appears to admit the town will incur if SG builds residential housing, there is the issue of zoning laws.
Are zoning laws indefensible in our law courts? If they are, can any of us take the same route. My neighbors have been discussing this issue and we are all opposed to the CC residential development. The lawyers in our group suggest the possibility of lawsuits and have also informed us that we have the same rights regarding the zoning laws.
As they explained it, the main issue for SG is economic. Many of us have the same economic issues of investment and the economy. We could conceivably build town houses, even a few condos, especially when we consider that we are residentially zoned.
Are we not equal before the law (and doesn’t that includes the zoning laws)?
West Ender, I don’t think the school district is asking for them to deny the zoning change; they are asking for a mitigation of the risk of the expense of new students in the development and in the vacated houses in town exceeding the additional revenue. The CCSD would be satisfied with as many students there as want to live there if the units are taxed fee simple or if the developer collateralizes the risk through an escrow account or even a direct payment to the district (and thus its taxpayers) If you look at the recent development rejected in Huntington on LI, the developer was making a payment ($1.5 million?) directly to the district in his proposal.
The Town does have an obligation to mitigate the environmental impact including the financial impact on its residents. 90% of the CCSD taxpayers are Town of New Castle taxpayers.
To the Editor - but who pays for 2 Demographers? The developer- or us - the tax payer? Given the tone and behavior of Supervisor Gerard and Town attorney Clinton Smith in this and other recent matters I believe we all need to treat them as NOT impartial!
We agree with “Resident” that Supervisor Gerrard and Mr. Smith are not impartial. We are asking ourselves: “Why?”
Why would they want to allow the CC residential development to proceed when it is detrimental to the interests of our town? Why would they neuter our zoning laws? Why would they be adversarial to their colleagues on the school board and ignore their statistical study that reveals the alarming future escalation of school taxes if this development goes forward?
Why do they keep advancing arguments in favor of SG that have been refuted time and again by competent attorneys and other appropriate professionals? (Mr.Smith’s 5th Amendment argument is a beaut! It would be comical if the matter were not so serious!)
Would somebody at the Tuesday meeting please ask Supervisor Gerrard to stop repeating these tired and lame arguments?
If Ms. Gerrard is afraid of litigation, doesn’t she realize that there will be a spate of lawsuits by individual and groups of property holders in this town. The litigation that the rezoning of the former RD property will engender will last for some time.
The real gamble, it seems to us, is to rezone and subject the town and other entities to a decade of lawsuits by residents. Litigation costs will not be a major issue because of the extraordinary number of lawyers in this town, many of whom are property owners.
If on Tuesday, there are over 100 people outside the assembly room who cannot get into the meeting, are we going to have a fiasco similar to what occurred on August 10?
Or has Supervisor Gerrard made provisions this time for an alternative location includng the appropriate recording equipment?
@East Ender
I have no problem at all with the Town requiring any residential development at Chappaqua Crossing to be Fee Simple. I also support a revaluation of the entire Town at full market value (as this will solve many school tax related issues for the West End) and would even support a homestead election that would assess all residential property in Town, including not only single family homes but also existing condominiums as well as any to be built in the future, on the same basis. I would not insist on this election, however, because of the impact it is sure to have on existing condo owners.
I do have a problem with people insisting that the Town consider the financial impact on the CCSD as part of the process. It is simply not the Town’s responsibility to mitigate the impact on their school taxes, regardless of how much of the Town is in the CCSD. Any project that improves property values in Chappaqua will necessarily increase the school tax burden in the West End because of the disparate impact it has on the equalization rate. Should the 500 residents in the Ossining schools threaten to sue the Town every time a land use decision impacts our school taxes adversely?
The Town Board is responsible for the Town’s finances, not those of the CCSD. That is the result of the ridiculous mess of political districts and subdivisions and taxing authorities in New York State. Whether the residents of New Castle like it or not, the Town Board has a responsibility to act in the best interests of ALL of the Town’s residents, not just those who live in the CCSD.
@ West Ender
I am a little bit confused by your belief that the Town not consider the financial impact on the CCSD. An Environmental Impact Statement is supposed to do just that; study the impact on the local environment. With your premise, the Town should not consider the traffic impact on the high school nor any other way the development might affect the district. I am quite certain that the Town would even go so far as tell the CCSD that they should not be commenting if the impact on the taxpayers of the CCSD, 90% of whom are also New Castle taxpayers were not relevant for the EIS. They did not. In fact they scheduled a special work session on August 10th to inform the district of the latest proposal. Was that just a courtesy?
Also, in a recent case on Long Island (Huntington, in the past two weeks a town board turned down a new development for the very reason you say the NC Town Board should not consider. The Huntington Board said it would adversely affect the school district. This even after the developer was offering a $1.5 million payment to the district.
But, even if your legal distinction were correct, consider that the school district is simply acting as fiduciaries and spokesman for the overlapping taxpayers. To me, the only distinction is whether the district is commenting as a valid legitimate (for the EIS) commenter or as spokesman for the thousands of CCSD taxpayers.
Regardless of how you look at it, the concerns are equally valid and relevant.
Continued in next comment as what I wrote exceeds this sites capability on size.)
(Comments continued from previous submission…)
As for you statement that the Town Board has a responsibility to act in the best interests of ALL the Town’s residents, not just those that live in the CCSD, you are absolutely correct. But your entire argument points out one simple fact. The interests of the West Enders and the CCSD taxpayers do not appear to be aligned although it does appear that the ways to mitigate the concerns of the CCSD board do align with the East Enders as you pointed out.
You agree that Fee Simple is a reasonable solution as is a revaluation and maybe even a homestead election. Another proposal made by a school board member at the August 10th meeting was for the developer to put up some sort of bond to guarantee their claim that this would be tax accretive to the CCSD tax payers. I doubt you have a problem with that as it does not affect West Enders negatively. The only solution proposed so far by the school board that you would not support appears to be a simple “No to zoning changes”.
When the Town is faced with decisions that do not have solutions that are best for all town residents or interests, they must make a tough decision that will not sit well with all. I do not necessarily think that they should simply raise a wet finger and see which way the majority winds are blowing. They must consider the valid concerns of the minority too. But, if you are suggesting that the West Enders (or any one minority group) has a super vote or a black ball vote then you lose me.
The Town board, when asked to describe “what is in this for the town?” was unable to articulate how the collective Town of New Castle would benefit from this development other than avoiding a lawsuit. By the town’s calculations this may not even be tax accretive to their residents. West Ender, East Ender, dead ender, whatever, this development, as proposed, does not appear to be in the collective best interests of the Town.
@East Ender
I think that the suggestions made by the CCSD board to mitigate the financial impact of residential development at Chappaqua Crossing are reasonable and would have no objection to any of the scenarios that you described. I do, however, believe that those residents of Town who insist that the Town Board do nothing and force Summit Greenfield to live with the existing zoning (including the four tenant and square footage restrictions) just don’t get it. If nothing is done, it is all but certain that Summit Greenfield will get the assessment on the property reduced. While the residents of the CCSD may be willing to accept the increased school taxes that would follow, I doubt that many of us outside the CCSD would be lining up to express our gratitude for the increased Town taxes we have to pay.
If there truly is no benefit to the Town in approving a change in zoning, then perhaps leaving things as they are is the right decision. Unfortunately, now that Readers Digest is gone, the value of the property, with the current zoning and restrictions on commercial use, will continue to decline and will adversely impact all residents of the Town. Doing nothing is guaranteed to increase Town taxes and I don’t see how the Town Board can use the impact on school taxes in the CCSD as justification for such a decision. They need to do something to shore up the Town’s tax base.
Suppose the Town had decided to sell the ball field next to Rocky’s Deli to the Millwood Fire District so that the residents of the District, all of whom are Town taxpayers, could save money on a new firehouse. Do you think that the residents outside the District would feel the Town was justified in sacrificing just a bit of Town parkland to keep other Town residents’ Fire District taxes down?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
The 500 or so homeowners in the West End have paid millions of dollars in excess school taxes to the Ossining UFSD based almost entirely on the impact that property values in the CCSD have on the Town’s equalization rate. If the Town reassessed at market value and freed us from the equalization rate, I doubt that the debate over Chappaqua Crossing would garner much interest on this side of Route 100. The Town Board is concerned about the cost of a reval, but the cost is about the same as the annual tax revenue that the “do nothings” are so anxious to give up to maintain the status quo at Chappaqua Crossing. We’re not asking for a veto, but we are tired of our concerns being ignored.
The insistence that the Town do what’s best for the CCSD, coupled with threats of lawsuits from aggrieved residents and offers of free litigation services suggest that perhaps the best solution for those of us who don’t live in the CCSD would be to simply leave the rest of you alone. We can petition to carve off our little parts of Town to be annexed by Ossining, Mt. Pleasant, North Castle and Mt. Kisco. I’m sure the residents of the 90% of Town located in the CCSD would have no problems with that. We don’t actually have much of an impact on the Town. Finally, there would be an end to the annoying posts from the person on the other side of Town who doesn’t seem to understand that yes, we know that the Town of New Castle is not the same thing as the Chappaqua Central School District, but we just don’t care.
Ms. Gerrard all but admits in her statements that for all intents and purposes the Board has already approved the developer’s petition and is just looking for an expert to produce a report that will placate “the public”.
I don’t believe New Castle residents are opposed to this project simply because they don’t “like” the development proposal. Rather, it is because they have yet to see any evidence that the project will result in any net benefit to the town. Besides increased traffic issues in an already problematic area and increased costs in educating additional students (resulting in higher taxes for all of us), the addition of 199 housing units is also bound to adversely affect our property values. Ms. Gerrard speaks as if our zoning laws were not enforceable and the town were obligated to approve a project it did not like. I’m not a property lawyer, but bailing the developer out of a bad investment does not seem to be a constitutional issue such that would put into question the enforceability of our zoning regulations. If this is the advice Clinton Smith is giving the Board, I suggest that the Board find another, less apparently interested, lawyer, because it is increasingly clear that if the Town approves this proposal, it will indeed be sued in a suit they “wouldn’t win”. It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, the Chappaqua Crossing project is a lose-lose proposition for New Castle.
West Ender,
A review of all your blogs over the past several weeks reveals a vindictive attitude toward CCSD residents.
Your snide and taunting remarks reveal your antagonism to residents who live in the CCSD.
You appear to wish them ill.
Envy is an ugly human characteristic.
Envy is an ugly human characteristic. You appear to want to
@West Ender
There is no action you can take that will stop annoying posts. Not even seceding from the Town of New Castle.
@West Ender…your posts are boring already. You pontificate yet much of what you write is incorrect. Of course The Town must interface, communicate, and cooperate with CCSD. As previously stated, any environmental review takes into account population (including students), traffic (including buses and school bound transportation), and capacity issues to name just a few. do you think an environmental impact study pertains to trees, birds, and watersheds?? How do you suppose Recreation department activities use the facilities of the schools and visa versa. That is just one very small and simple example that you can ponder. Lastly, communities that work best do so when Government officials work well with School officials.
I am glad to see that both the boards have hired demographic experts to better define the potential number of students that may be generated from the CC development. After the 8/10 meeting I became curious to understand just how many new students could be expected as the 282 projected by Greg Bresner’s report seemed to be much more than it is reasonable to expect.
My experience as a 32 year resident, 17yrs. in a SFH, 15 in a condo and a builder of both SFHs & a small condo project during the late 80’s led me to question the projection.
The data was collected from the CCSD & the NC Town Assessor from town and school district tax records. There are 652 condos w/178 students and 101 fee simple units w/23 students for a total of 753 units – 201 students a ration of .27 stu/unit. Therefore, approximately 4 condo/FS units support each enrolled student .
So instead of the 282 students from 199 units the numbers from the actual history show that the expectation should be closer to 55 students. Of course, the actual result may differ but it is hard to see how it could differ by a factor of 5 or greater.
The tax contribution per unit is greater than just the tax paid by the homeowner because NYS sends a check to the CCSD for the difference between the Tax Rate at the full assessment and the Assessment minus the Star exemption. Specifically, the school tax contribution is approximately $5,700. per condo unit rather that the $4,000. mentioned in other letters. This means that the contribution per Condo student is close to $23,000. Adding the incremental tax revenues from the fee simple units will increase the contribution per student modestly.
In thinking about the entire situation it seems that there has been a great deal of fear generated by the assumptions that this project will generate an enormous burden on the school district and its taxpayers.
After examining the facts generated by the almost 30years of experience with Condo/Fee Simple projects in the CCSD that fear seems to be misplaced. It may be that the assumptions about those who move to condos/fee simple are in error. It has been estimated that 57%, of NC homeowners do not have children in the schools, in the condos that ratio is 75% so something other than the school system motivates these folks to locate here; a good commute, relatively stable home values, a well regarded community. To assume that “This time it’s different”, is not a valid assumption.
Let’s all hear what the additional experts have to say , analyze it with open minds, then make our decision as to whether this proposal will benefit the community. In the interim, let’s cut out the personal attacks, they are a disservice to all concerned.
The last two posters miss the point. ALL the CCSD is saying is that they want to mitigate or put the risk of the projected number of students on the developer not the other tax payers. They are not saying don’t build the project (although it is one way to mitigate the risk; say no) If the developer is so confident in his prediction of 58, then he should be willing to collateralize that estimate. He can put some amount into escrow against the expenses exceeding the revenue or make a payment in advance against the risk. Sort of like buying insurance for the risk. Maybe Lloyd’s would write a policy? The district has said that if they were taxed fee simple, it would have no problem educating 1 or a 1,000 new students as the risk of the number of new students is borne by the developer in the form of being able to sell the condos at prices that support the tax structure. There are plenty of fee simple SFHs that pay less in taxes than the cost per child in that house. But that is fair. Everyone should have the same risk and cost basis.
Why wouldn’t the developer want to have fee simple units? They don’t sell as well. So, by definition it is an asset and a great benefit to him to have condo tax rates. How is he paying for that asset? What is in it for the taxpayers? As it stands, there is risk that his estimate in the number of school children is wrong. Mitigate that risk and build away.
I ask one simple question. If the developer and town are convinced that the number of 58 is so accurate, what are they proposing to do if they are wrong? Is that an “oops” that the taxpayers pay for for years to come?
To IN THE MIDDLE:
The attraction of Chappaqua Crossing and the marketing strategy of Summit Greenfield is to capitalize on the Chappaqua schools.
If the current condominiums were built over 20 years ago, many of their owners are now empty nesters. How many of the 75% who do not (or no longer have) children in the schools have been in their condos for 10 or more years? They are no indication of the number of children new buyers will bring, especially,in a far more challenging economy.
Therefore, your numbers are unrealistic.
In addition, the school budget has risen by 90% over the last 10 years from: $57,703 for the 2000-2001 school year to $109,387 for 2010-2011.
(Schools taxes comprise over 70% of total taxes.)
What has always brought people to Chappaqua? The schools. It is
common knowledge.
That is still the case.
However, there is an even stronger case to be made for buying a condo versus a house today. If you can pay $5000 instead of $35,000 in taxes, that is a greater incentive for choosing to purchase a condo rather than a fee simple dwelling today than it was 20 years ago when the difference in taxes between the two was not so extreme.
While condominium taxes have stayed tenable, fee simple taxation of individual houses has increased exponentially and disproportionately.
Therefore, it makes more sense today than it did 10 or 20 years ago to purchase a condominium.
That is exacly what Summit Greenfield is counting on as their market strategy.
If Chappaqua Crossing is ever permitted, it will be interesting to see how their advertisements read.
What do you want to bet that the Chappaqua School District will be featured prominently, in their advertisements, as one of the finest in the country?
Otherwise, they could relinquish CCSD zoning and solve that problem
instantly.
exostegeglins, http://www.ecodico.net/ - cialis generique Ensuite, ses effets persistent plus longtemps (jusqu’a 36 heures chez certains sujets. http://www.ecodico.net/ - acheter cialis
Hi, http://twilightvampire.com/ - cipro sale All of these dosages and formulations require a prescription. http://twilightvampire.com/ - order ciprofloxacin online
6S60gL rzgivibblcgz, mpjbjqkupvad, [link=http://exepwpxqlgla.com/]exepwpxqlgla[/link], http://xnjiasqqfvik.com/
