Why has the Town of Tuxedo Put a Gag Order on their Consultants? Maybe because The Related Companies is overstating school aid by $696,465 per year? That $700,000 annual deficit would have to be subsidized by a School Property Tax Increase!
It is no wonder that the Town of Tuxedo is trying to divert the publics’ attention from the environmental impact of Tuxedo Reserve by hiring consultants to focus on the Fiscal & School Study. The irony is that the The Related Companies has extended their pattern of mis-representation to even the Fiscal & School Study.
In response to Camoin Associates’ previous comments, The Related Companies is essentially saying that state aid formulas are too complex, and that the Applicant should just assume per-pupil state aid will remain the same whether or not the project is built. So, The Related Companies has replicated the fiscal analysis assuming that state aid per pupil remains constant.
Camoin Associates worked on a similar peer review two years ago for the Town of Pine Plains. As with Tuxedo, the proposed project was a similar housing development that would significantly change the population of the host Town. The developer commissioned a study into the state aid question titled, “State Aid to the Pine Plains Central School District Projection Methodology,” dated January 11, 2008. After 25 pages, the study concluded:
“The preceding analysis clearly indicates that if built, the Carvel Property Development will influence the amount in State Aid that the Pine Plains Central School District would receive on a per-pupil basis. Specifically, both a second home and comparative primary home scenario would likely lead to a decrease in State Aid, projected to be in the order of approximately $2,400 less in aid per pupil, per year.”
However, the summary continues by saying that some of that decrease may be attributable to other factors including trends in population and wealth happening irrespective of the development. The analysis then projects that the difference between state aid with the development and without the development is $945 per pupil. (See Table B.21, Summary of Impacts to State Aid, line “Projected State Aid/Pupil” in the aforementioned document).
So, what could this mean for the Tuxedo School District? The Tuxedo Reserve project is slated to add 427 pupils to the school districts’ 310 “aidable pupils” (non-resident pupils from Greenwood Lake must be excluded.) Therefore, total aidable pupils would be 737.
If the Tuxedo project has a similar impact as the Pine Plains project on state aid per pupil, it means that The Related Companies would be overstating school aid by $696,465 per year upon full buildout. That $700,000 annual deficit would have to be subsidized by a school property tax increase!
—————————————————————————————-
From: Michael Ndolo
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:37 PM
To: ‘Bruce Murray’
Cc: AICP Bonnie Franson
Subject: Clarification
Bruce,
This email is to ask you for clarification on an assertion made by the Related Companies with respect to your company’s review of certain methodologies used in the DSEIS. I would ask you to confirm whether the Related Companies’ assertion is correct.
Camoin Associates provided certain comments on the DSEIS, two of which are listed as Comment 3-33 and Comment 3-34 of the draft FSEIS. These two comments refer to the importance of calculating the impact of the Project on the amount of state aid provided to the school district, particularly with respect to the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR). We disagreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS in that it ignored changes to the CWR caused by the Project and thus changes to state aid per pupil. In Responses 3-33 and 3-34, the Related Companies provided various counter arguments and, critically, state that,
“[t]he methodology for calculating state aid, which was established in the FEIS, was re-evaluated by RES and confirmed to be accurate.” (See last sentence of Response 4-34 on page 3.3-27).
However, in your memo to Bonnie Franson titled “Draft Initial Review of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” dated March 31, 2010, you state on bullet point 3 that,
“[the analysis does] not appear to consider the potential impact that Tuxedo Reserve will have on the wealth of the Tuxedo Union Free School District. Since wealth is a factor in determining the amount of State Aid a district receives, please consider its impact.”
Given this confusion, I would ask that you please verify whether or not RES Group in fact agreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS for the calculation of state aid to the Tuxedo Union Free School District.
Thank you,
Michael
————————————————————————————————
From: Larry Wolinsky
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Michael Ndolo
Cc: ; Jeffrey C. Marsden; Bruce Murray
Subject: FW: Clarification
Dear Mr. Ndolo:
I am the attorney for the Town of Tuxedo in connection with the Tuxedo Reserve matter. The below e-mail sent by you to Bruce Murray of RES Group was forwarded to me by Town consultants.
I have directed the Town consultants not to respond to your inquiry. Your are a representative of a member of the public. As such, you have the right to review and comment on EIS documents when they are made publicly available. You also have a right to make your comments known to the Town Board. There is no right for you to directly contact and question independent contractors of the Town. Please stop
Thank you for your cooperation.
Larry Wolinsky, Esq.
—————————————————————————————————
From: Michael Ndolo
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
To: ‘Larry Wolinsky’
Cc: Bonnie Franson; ‘Jeffrey C. Marsden’; ‘Bruce Murray’; Robert Camoin
Subject: RE: Clarification
Larry,
RES Group is clearly under no obligation to respond to my question. I hope and trust all parties understand that my request was for a simple clarification so that we might provide accurate comments on the EIS documents. That notwithstanding, we will respect your request and will not contact RES Group further about this matter.
What’s To Hide?
Why has the Town of Tuxedo Put a Gag Order on their Consultants? Maybe because The Related Companies is overstating school aid by $696,465 per year? That $700,000 annual deficit would have to be subsidized by a School Property Tax Increase!
It is no wonder that the Town of Tuxedo is trying to divert the publics’ attention from the environmental impact of Tuxedo Reserve by hiring consultants to focus on the Fiscal & School Study. The irony is that the The Related Companies has extended their pattern of mis-representation to even the Fiscal & School Study.
In response to Camoin Associates’ previous comments, The Related Companies is essentially saying that state aid formulas are too complex, and that the Applicant should just assume per-pupil state aid will remain the same whether or not the project is built. So, The Related Companies has replicated the fiscal analysis assuming that state aid per pupil remains constant.
Camoin Associates worked on a similar peer review two years ago for the Town of Pine Plains. As with Tuxedo, the proposed project was a similar housing development that would significantly change the population of the host Town. The developer commissioned a study into the state aid question titled, “State Aid to the Pine Plains Central School District Projection Methodology,” dated January 11, 2008. After 25 pages, the study concluded:
However, the summary continues by saying that some of that decrease may be attributable to other factors including trends in population and wealth happening irrespective of the development. The analysis then projects that the difference between state aid with the development and without the development is $945 per pupil. (See Table B.21, Summary of Impacts to State Aid, line “Projected State Aid/Pupil” in the aforementioned document).
So, what could this mean for the Tuxedo School District? The Tuxedo Reserve project is slated to add 427 pupils to the school districts’ 310 “aidable pupils” (non-resident pupils from Greenwood Lake must be excluded.) Therefore, total aidable pupils would be 737.
If the Tuxedo project has a similar impact as the Pine Plains project on state aid per pupil, it means that The Related Companies would be overstating school aid by $696,465 per year upon full buildout. That $700,000 annual deficit would have to be subsidized by a school property tax increase!
—————————————————————————————-
From: Michael Ndolo
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:37 PM
To: ‘Bruce Murray’
Cc: AICP Bonnie Franson
Subject: Clarification
Bruce,
This email is to ask you for clarification on an assertion made by the Related Companies with respect to your company’s review of certain methodologies used in the DSEIS. I would ask you to confirm whether the Related Companies’ assertion is correct.
Camoin Associates provided certain comments on the DSEIS, two of which are listed as Comment 3-33 and Comment 3-34 of the draft FSEIS. These two comments refer to the importance of calculating the impact of the Project on the amount of state aid provided to the school district, particularly with respect to the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR). We disagreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS in that it ignored changes to the CWR caused by the Project and thus changes to state aid per pupil. In Responses 3-33 and 3-34, the Related Companies provided various counter arguments and, critically, state that,
“[t]he methodology for calculating state aid, which was established in the FEIS, was re-evaluated by RES and confirmed to be accurate.” (See last sentence of Response 4-34 on page 3.3-27).
However, in your memo to Bonnie Franson titled “Draft Initial Review of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” dated March 31, 2010, you state on bullet point 3 that,
“[the analysis does] not appear to consider the potential impact that Tuxedo Reserve will have on the wealth of the Tuxedo Union Free School District. Since wealth is a factor in determining the amount of State Aid a district receives, please consider its impact.”
Given this confusion, I would ask that you please verify whether or not RES Group in fact agreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS for the calculation of state aid to the Tuxedo Union Free School District.
Thank you,
Michael
————————————————————————————————
From: Larry Wolinsky
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Michael Ndolo
Cc: ; Jeffrey C. Marsden; Bruce Murray
Subject: FW: Clarification
Dear Mr. Ndolo:
I am the attorney for the Town of Tuxedo in connection with the Tuxedo Reserve matter. The below e-mail sent by you to Bruce Murray of RES Group was forwarded to me by Town consultants.
I have directed the Town consultants not to respond to your inquiry. Your are a representative of a member of the public. As such, you have the right to review and comment on EIS documents when they are made publicly available. You also have a right to make your comments known to the Town Board. There is no right for you to directly contact and question independent contractors of the Town. Please stop
Thank you for your cooperation.
Larry Wolinsky, Esq.
—————————————————————————————————
From: Michael Ndolo
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:19 PM
To: ‘Larry Wolinsky’
Cc: Bonnie Franson; ‘Jeffrey C. Marsden’; ‘Bruce Murray’; Robert Camoin
Subject: RE: Clarification
Larry,
RES Group is clearly under no obligation to respond to my question. I hope and trust all parties understand that my request was for a simple clarification so that we might provide accurate comments on the EIS documents. That notwithstanding, we will respect your request and will not contact RES Group further about this matter.
Cordially,
Michael