Board of ed consultant estimates 20-year fiscal impact of Chappaqua Crossing at $101 million
December 17, 2010
by Susie Pender
The net fiscal impact of the proposed Chappaqua Crossing development, under the “Most Likely Scenario” of 198 additional students generated over 20 years, will be negative $101.1 million, according to the real estate advisory firm hired to analyze the project. Under their “Conservative Scenario” of 127 students, the net fiscal impact over 20 years would be negative $53.3 million.
School Board consultant’s enrollment projects
This fall, the Chappaqua Board of Education hired the law firm of Keane & Beane, P.C. to assist the board in determining the net fiscal impact of the proposed development of 199 housing units at the former Reader’s Digest property. Keane & Beane hired Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC (RCLCO), a nationally recognized real estate advisory firm with extensive experience in evaluating proposed developments like this from both the developer’s and a community’s perspective.
In October, RCLCO delivered the first phase of their analysis, enrollment projections, to the school board, who forwarded it to the New Castle Town Board as Lead Agency on the proposed development. In that report, RCLCO calculated that under the “Most Likely Scenario,” the parameters of which are defined in the October report, the 199 housing units at Chappaqua Crossing would generate 198 additional students over the next 20 years. Under their “Conservative Scenario,” also defined in the October report, the development would generate 127 students. Click here for “School Board’s expert predicts 127-198 new students in district as a result of Chap Xing,” NewCastleNOW.org, October 22, 2010, which includes the full text of that report and commentary by readers.
RCLCO’s Comprehensive Net Fiscal Impact Analysis
On Friday, December 10, the School Board delivered a cover letter with RCLCO’s analysis as attachments to the Town Board that hit the highlights of RCLCO’s Comprehensive Net Fiscal Impact Analysis. School Board Member Alyson Kiesel presented the analysts’ at Tuesday’s Board of Education meeting as well. Click here for a pdf of the school board’s letter to the board with RCLCO’s full report as an attachment.
Relying on the current cost per pupil in the Chappaqua Central School District, which is approximately $26,000, the board’s experts predict that 198 additional students over 20 years would cost the school district an additional $101.1 million under their “Most Likely Scenario.” Using their “Conservative Scenario,” Chappaqua Crossing’s 127 students would cost the school district an additional $53.3 million over 20 years. According to Kiesel, basing the analysis on the district’s current cost per pupil is an accepted convention viewed as the most reliable in the real estate development industry.
“These numbers are big and scary,” Kiesel stated flat out. She noted that the analysis identified, but could not incorporate, several risk factors that could further negatively impact the school district’s financials. Potential certiorari claims that could be filed by the Chappaqua Crossing condominiums, which if successful would require tax refunds to be paid, would increase the negative fiscal impact on the school district. Condominium complexes in New Castle routinely file such grievances, as Reader’s Digest did as a commercial property owner for many years. Summit Greenfield currently has certiorari petitions pending for tax years 2008-2010.
In addition, the board’s letter noted, the analysis assumes that New York State aid to the school district will increase annually on an enrolled student basis from 2015 to 2030. However, with the recent decreases in state aid to CCSD and with the significant fiscal challenges facing New York State, it is not unreasonable to assume that those increases will not materialize.
The consultant’s analysis, it was noted, only projects out until 2030. The fiscal impact of this development will continue long beyond the timeframe of this analysis.
_________________________
To view the letter from the board of education to the town board, click HERE.
To see the RCLCO fiscal impact report, click HERE.
I’m shocked! A consultant hired and paid for by the School Board—a Board that is vehemently opposed to this project—determined that there would be a huge negative financial impact!
I’m sure that the Board sat Keane and Bean down and said “Hey guys, look, we want to know objectively what’s going to happen here, even if the answers are different from what we currently assume. So please, make this objective, show us just the facts, no bias.”
Do you think that’s what happened? No way. This overly intrusive
School Board, which is having an identity crisis and thinks it’s actually the Town Board, brought in a cover team to make it look like an objective opinion from outside.
I don’t trust the developer, but I don’t trust the School Board (other than Janet Benton), and I respect the Town Board (cut down to 3 in this matter because of the blood lust of opponents to the development).
To clittle (aka SG),
Are you kidding? The school board hired an independent, nationally recognized firm to do the work. This is far different from the one-man, “boiler-room” shop the town hired. Is it overly-intrusive that our school board is hiring experts to analyze the impact on our students for the long-term? You simply don’t get it!!!
The facts are the facts - this is a horrible proposal. You now have what appears to be a world class firm validating..stop your SG propoganda. It is enough..
Clittle, I’m sure you read the letter in today’s edition titled “Summit Greenfield lawyers scold town board for delay and demand approval by January 14, 2011”. At the end of that letter, there’s a link for a letter dated December 14, 2010 from the developer’s legal team (link below) which states “building market-rate residential units that will meet an identified community need and provide substantial tax revenues to the Town and School District with little or no new service requirements”. Putting aside whether there’s an identified need for condos priced @ $700K-$1M, do you think the legal team should amend their letter based on the report released the same day which estimates the 20-year fiscal impact of Chappaqua Crossing at $101 million?
To clittle…the school board, in the best interest of its constituents are doing their due diligence. They hired a reputable, independent firm to assess the situation. Unless you have hard facts to back up your claims of the School Board being corrupt, because that is what you just accused them of being, then keep your accusations to yourself.
Clittle, you’ve insutled the integrity of Charles Lesser & Co., LLC, you’ve insulted the School Board and you’ve insulted the blood lusting opponents to the development. Is that what you do when you don’t get your way? You should’ve just written what you felt….waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…..stop crying & grow up!
@CLITTLE - and the experts hired by Summit Greenfield?? They are to be trusted?? I think it is safe to assume a sophisticated huge real estate owner and developer has deep and vast experience in hiring armies of demographers, architects, consultants etc that all support the position they are hiring to support - that of SG. Compare these deep pockets and years of experience challenging communities to our School Board that is made up of residents without such experience. What a joke you are CLITTLE. Especially amusing is your statement ” I don’t trust the School Board (other than Janet Benton). Why Janet Benton. She is the only Board member still left that endorsed, sponsored, and was instrumental in the building of Seven Bridges Middle school. That school was/is a waste of tax payer dollars and is largely responsible for our escalating taxes and the extra capacity in our school system. I am curious why you chose Ms. Benton to single out as someone you trust? She ignored the studies of expert demographers who warned that school enrollment would decline and make 7Bridges an unnecessary burden - which all came to pass.
I don’t get it because I don’t agree with you. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the tidal wave of opposition “doesn’t get it”, or “is Summit Greenfield”. Sorry, I don’t believe for 1 second that the School Board would have hired a truly independent firm to do this study. Imagine opening New Castle Now this morning and seeing “Consultant Hired by School Board Finds Minimal Impact to Schools and Community Expense”. Not a chance. These guys were hired to confirm the opinion of the majority of School Board members.
By Seriously, you ask for hard evidence only when the opinion disagrees with you, otherwise you are willing to accept specious data and arguments full of ulterior motives.
to CLITTLE- and I dont believe for a second that Summit Greenfield hired truly indendent firm to endorse their proposal. CLITTLE- you think the School Board hired a biased firm but the developer hired truly independent and impartial experts? At least as a resident of this town I believe that our School Board has our best interests at heart. Conversely Summit Greenfield is only looking out for themselves and trying to figure out a way to recover from a bad investement. Why would you question the motive of our school board and give SG a pass? That is why people think you are SG- if you were fair and balanced you would at least mention that SG has a team of experts intent and committed to making a case for SG. Commercial NOT residential - PERIOD the end!
clittle,
What more likely happened was the school board had its lawyers hire the firm and if they did not like what the response was they would have not released the report and hidden behind attorney client privilege. The type of nationally recognized firm they hired would not risk their business to back into a report. The independent report was released because it said what it said. It would have been more noteworthy had the school board not released it after promising it. On the other hand, try and Google the firm FACTS that the town hired. Try it; use FACTS presentation services. You get nothing other than links back to NewCastle Now. Then Google Paul Demay the person who is FACTS and who wrote the report. Not much different there either. He (FACTS) does not even have a website. How did the town find this guy?
To CLITTLE and Seek the truth….why would you question the integrity of the School Baord and the expert independent firm it hired yet you do not question the integrity and trickery of Summit Greenfield. I believe that the School Board has my interests at heart. If anyone could reasonably make the case that residential at Chapp Crossing as presented by SG would be beneficial to our community and bring down taxes (not increase them and burden the rest of us) then there would be broader support. As an example, in early presentations SG tried to show (using their experts) that residential rezoning in Chapp Crossing would only add a very small number of school age students (19 -50 i believe was their estimate). Any reasonable logical person knows that 200 condo units advertising “superb school system” will attract families - therefore school age kids. CLITTLE and Seek the Truth- what about the honesty and integrity of that estimate and “expert firm” ? It’s as dishonest as SG focusing on rezoning while pretending to seek commercial tenants. It’s commercial - it should stay commercial- they bought commercial - we need commercial tax revenue- NO RESIDENTIAL - period!
Clittle,
You have earned your name. You really do “see little”. You must be part of the developer’s team. How can you blame the school board for protecting the students and our town from a greedy developer out to recover his bad investment from taxpayers? Wake up. The developer is now showing its true colors - threatening litigation to extract from the town. We should thank the school board for acting like true fiduciaries and helping to rally our community against this absurd proposal. $101 million over 20 years? What a lousy project. Take notes Town Board and continue to act like fiduciaries. The town can handle any developer litigation. No worries…..
I am no expert. But knowing what attracts people to this town, I am confident the proposed condos will very likely attract people with enough kids in total to result in a net fiscal loss once you figure in what it costs to educate each child. This is not hard math. I don’t see how the town can take such a risk.
