CCSD response to town board’s demographic enrollment analysis
October 1, 2010
Editor’s Note: Members of the Board of Education responded today to a report by the town board’s demographic expert issued earlier this week. Board of education members’ letter follows.
October 1, 2010
Ms. Barbara Gerrard, Supervisor
Town of New Castle
200 S. Greeley Avenue
Chappaqua, New York 10514
Dear Supervisor Gerrard and Members of the Board
We received the demographic enrollments analysis prepared for the Town by F.A.C.T.S. Presentation Services of September 23, 2010 and want to provide you with a prompt response.
We are concerned that the methodology utilized by F.A.C.T.S. is limited to existing New Castle and adjacent comparables that Summit Greenfield’s own advisors stated in the FEIS are not comparable. As stated in the report submitted 7/12/10 by Hudson Property Advisors, financial advisor to Summit Greenfield, “...it was noted that reliance on CCSD comparables is preferable where possible, in conducting assessments of property in that school district. However, this was simply not possible due to an insufficient sample size of similar properties situated within the Town of New Castle.”
The FEIS further states that “The comparable CCSD units were, on average, constructed 20 years ago, while the units at the project site would represent new construction, with modern design, construction and amenities which are not found at the comparable properties.” Aged current units contrast profoundly with the proposed new construction and the relative attractiveness to families with school age children. As a result of the aforementioned concern, among others, the School Board deemed it necessary to retain the firm of Keane & Beane as counsel, who has since retained additional experts to help us to analyze this issue in greater detail. We are attempting to bring as much expert information to the table as possible, to insure to the greatest degree, that the Town board has appropriate resources to guide them in making their decision.
While we may materially differ with respect to enrollment assumptions, we wish to reiterate that projections are simply that, projections. As F.A.C.T.’s stated in its submission with respect to the limitation of its study, “It must be recognized, however, that given the many variables comprising such projections, caution must be exercised in the interpretation and application of these projections”. Our overriding concerns remain that the Chappaqua Central School District (“CCSD”) taxpayers are being asked to bear the substantial fiscal risk of incremental student enrollment from the Chappaqua Crossing development and that our children’s quality of education, a hallmark of this community, is highly vulnerable to the financial impact of incorrect projections.
As we stated in our letter of September 28, 2010, in Summit Greenfield’s recent brochures distributed publicly to New Castle residents it has represented the following:
a. “This plan will have a net positive tax benefit after increased costs are considered”
b. “This project will add about 58 students to the school district — 5 students per grade or 1 per section.”
Given the certainty with which these claims are asserted we ask again: how does the Developer plan to fund these assurances in perpetuity for the taxpayers of this community should their claims prove otherwise? If the Developer will not agree to fiscal assurances then how will the Town Board protect taxpayers from this risk? We suggest that there are mechanisms, such as a fee simple taxation of units that should be considered in approving such a significant and Town altering zoning change.
We look forward to the responses to our questions and requests of September 28, 2010 from the Developer and Town Board and will work expeditiously to complete our submission. To assist you in your review of the F.A.C.T.S. submission, we request that the F.A.C.T.S. professional team remove the words “Corrected” in all references to the projections of the individual members of the CCSD Board of Education. We do not believe it reasonable or accurate to correct the projected assumptions of others without any reasonable means of guaranteeing the certainty of those assumptions.
Sincerely,
Chappaqua Board of Education
Janet Benton, President
Gregg Bresner, Vice President
Randall Katchis, Alyson Kiesel, Jeffrey Mester
tm
________________
For NCNOW’s complete coverage of Chappaqua Crossing, dating from 2007, click HERE.
I completely agree with the school board’s assessment of the situation. Having lived here 18 years, I have yet to meet a family who has moved into my neighborhood who did not have children, and in most cases more than one and in most cases young kids that will need many years of schooling.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the rising cost of educating these children over the years. If the taxes paid by the condo owners are not consistent with the way other homeowners pay and in fact the homeowners are subsidizing the education costs of the condo kids, then as costs rise and the gap widens, this subsidy grows even more.
The primary reason people move here is the schools and it would be foolish to assume such a low number of kids moving in either to the condos or into the empty nester households.
In addition, the traffic caused by these units PLUS the commercial space will provide a huge issue and very dangerous situation around Horace Greeley. The intersection of roaring brook and the Saw Mill is already among the most dangerous in the state and this will be further aggravated by the increased traffic.
