. . . about the district’s comments on the Chappaqua Crossing DEIS
October 9, 2009
NCN question: Geoff Thompson, spokesperson for Summit Greenfield, the developer of Chappaqua Crossing, was pleased to see that the school district’s estimate on the number of students that will be added to the district from the residential development is in agreement with the estimate by Summit Greenfield in the draft environmental impact statement.
Mester response: On page 3 of our submission to the DEIS, we noted that the BOCES analysis is in substantial agreement with those made by Summit Greenfield for Scenarios I-III. Scenarios IV and V were not in agreement. Table 1 quantifies the amount Summit Greenfield was below the BOCES estimates in scenarios IV and V. Summit Greenfield had projected more students would move into the district under scenario II than BOCES projected.
NCN question: Largely because of enrollment decline, the New Castle town and planning boards in their joint meeting Tuesday, October 6, concluded that the proposed Chappaqua Crossing – with 254 un-age-restricted condo units (and 24 senior affordable units) generating 61 additional students – as described in Scenario II of the board of education’s DEIS comments, is not of great impact to the school district. Do you agree?
Mester response: The Board of Education believes that our submission to the DEIS speaks for itself. We believe that Table 2 on page 4 clearly shows the impact to the district taxpayers under the five scenarios. In scenario II to which you refer, the estimated cost to the district’s taxpayers that we can quantify is $253,302. It is important to differentiate between the school district itself and the district’s taxpayers. The CCSD is obligated to educate any and every student that resides in the school district. The district taxpayers are obligated to fund that education. As noted in our submission, while there may be physical capacity to house the new students, that fact is separate from a discussion of costs. We indicated in the submission that the potential costs cannot be estimated although in the Redistricting section of our submission, we provide detail on what the potential costs may be. In the final paragraph of the Summary, we note that the risk of there being additional costs and of the demographic and tax estimates being incorrect is borne by the district’s current taxpayers. It should also be noted that in the absence of new development the benefits of reduced enrollment would accrue to the district’s taxpayers.
NCN question: The town and planning boards at their meeting on Tuesday, October 6, expressed the desire for more analysis of the $25,000 per pupil cost in relation to the amortization of capital. Didn’t the Board of Education report give that analysis, and a rationale, for using that figure?
Mester response: The $25,246 number was derived by dividing the 2008 budget by the number of students.
NCN question: The BOCES study predicts a $250,000 deficit, but that’s based on Scenario II, a condo development with no age restriction. If the developer agrees to build residences that would be taxed at single family rates rather than at condo tax rates, does that change the picture for CCSD? Or is that scenario IV, 26 single family homes with its $250,000 surplus?
Mester response: The BOCES study only estimates the number of students, it does not predict the deficit. The district in its submission used the BOCES demographic projection, its own internal cost per student number, and the town consultant’s tax projections to arrive at the $253,302 deficit number. That number only applies under those assumptions. If the development, or some part of it, was taxed on a fee simple basis, presumably the increase in school tax revenue would be higher. We would need an updated projection from the town’s consultants in order to estimate the effect to the district taxpayers. Our submission, near the top of page 5, clearly indicates a method.
____________________
Need to catch up? To access all NewCastleNOW.org’s articles and letters to the editor on the subject of Chappaqua Crossing in chronological order, newest to oldest, click here.
Copyright 2012 NewCastleNOW.org