Fiscal impact study for Anytown, USA
I know there's a lot of concern about the ND... particularly the residential component and the net tax benefit to the town. But I'm not sure if any bloggers have actually researched similar projects. By research, I mean just a simple google search of key words, such as:
fiscal impact study retail development
or any similar words.
Anyway, I just googled those words and found some interesting info.
Click here to see a University of Wisconsin fiscal impact study for "Anytown USA." They give you some idea of questions that may be relevant to the proposed ND and some worksheets to analyze the financials.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
18 comments:
Is it true that the town manager will do the review of the W/S impact study? From all he has done, he is a strong advocate for the W/S development. How can his review have any merit?
For Cheshire's sake this should be taken out of the town managers off and assigned to an independent outside consultant. How did they ever come up with only 11 more students from 160 rental units.
W/S has been using their highly inflated net tax to the town of over 2 million to garner support. Don't believe their figures as they are highly skewed in their favor and based on the maximum estimated tax and the lowest cost to the town.
The net tax revenue received for the first full year this development is open and taxable is claimed to be 2 million bucks.In the grand scheme of things; the town budget of 90 mil that amounts to a 2.2% increase in revenue. What that will buy us is not much. Some examples are: one year increase in the BOE budget if we are lucky. 5 1/2 years of subsidizing the cost overruns on the pool. 1 year increase for the municipal side of the budget. The point is once we receive the tax revenue it is all spent. If the the tax increase for the Town and BOE is 5 mil the year this development pays it's first tax bill of 2.2 then the development did in fact offset 2.2 mil of potential tax increases to the taxpayers. The largest problem we have is the lack of desire to curb spending.
The Weiner estimate is between $1.6 to $2.04 million net which is based on 160 apartments adding only 11 students. 11 students? How did they dare to use such a low number. It will be more like 110 students at an minimum $10,000 each will reduce the net to somewhere around $600,000 to $1.04million. Then, if more realistic costs and other costs not included could further substantially reduce the net. Add paid fire department and the project joins the pool.
There just isn't any free meal here.
The 11 students comes from a section in the fiscal impact study produced by a firm hired by WS. The number came from a standard calculation used to determine the amount of students based on the number of homes. On the surface it makes no sense. Everyone should rad the fiscal impact study in detail.
"The number came from a standard calculation used to determine the amount of students based on the number of homes."
Ha, Ha, Ha.. What a bunch of bull.
This is not anything close to a standard calculation. It compared apples to oranges. You can't compare 160 brand new rental properties to 3 existing condominium units that are over 20 years old. Older condominiums have older people whose children are out of school. Is this too difficult to understand.
Get real. They are selling the school system just like the realtors do every day here in Cheshire.
Empty nesters are not going to move to high density living developments that have a lots of children, but famlies with children don't mind and like to have other children around.
There could be over 190 school children and 2 bedrooms is not going to stop it. 190 would cost $1.9 million and there goes any net taxes.
Make the units age restricted and then there is no question of educational cost, but you don't want to do that because then you lose the school premium. It's all about smoke and mirrors and wringing the last cent out, at the expense of the Cheshire taxpayers.
What color are the clouds in your world?
What your promised is not always what you will get. While W/S is expert at terrific presentions and producing showy brochures with artist renderings and selected pictures from some of their other malls, the actual delivery is different. As with Canton, what they were promised in the beginning was one thing, but after the approvals they didn't get the development they were promised and didn't get the promised net revenue either. Maybe this is why the voters replaced the first selectman who was a main proponent of the project in 54% to 46% defeat, and installed the first republican in 22 years. Do we need another disappointment like the pool.
For a reality check, copy and paste the following link. See some of their malls to get an idea of what they do.
http://leversandpulleys.com/cheshiretownpost/
Then click on "The Myth and Reality".
http://leversandpulleys.com/cheshiretownpost/
hey, the rumor mill is saying David Schrumm wants to be appointed Chair of P and Z...but how could he not recuse himself about the North End?
He would not be able to vote on this so calm down. He might ask some good questions and make this applicant come up with real answers and not just presentations answers as they are given now. White roofs and bike racks waste the P&Z'S time. We need go old honest answers.
Doesn't Mr. Schrumm have to be on the PZC to be considered for it's chair?
"but how could he not recuse himself about the North End?"
If he were on P&Z which he isn't, he would have to recuse himself as he has always been against this massive sprawl which will not yield one net cent to the town after all the real expenses start coming in.
Your point is a good one and using this as an example then Marty Coburn, Patti Flynn, Harris, Levy, Strollo, and Kurtz should have recused themselves. As for the town council, the Democrats should have recused themselves from the very beginning as it was part of the Democrats agenda to push this through even before it arrived at the council.
What color are the clouds in your world?
Well, you are either deaf, dumb and blind or your are connected with the developers.
Using the 9 members of the Town Council as an example of how many more chidren the mall residential will produce, yields 190 for 160 apartments. The 9 members have 11 children, or 1.2 per council person. 1.2 times 160 yield 190 or a cost of over $1.9 million. There goes the net to the town.
Please note that these are standard calculations.
Anon previous.
Do any of the town council persons you refer to live in a 2 bedroom house? I think that has to be part of the "standard calculation".
A 2 bedroom unit means nothing. You can get 2 children in one of the bedrooms and if you want more you can have one sleep on a pullout couch or you can convert one of the other rooms. 2 bedrooms is a bunch of baloney.
Plus, it matters what happens in the master bedroom.
Your not going to get empty nesters where there are children and empty nesters can find better and cheaper in neighboring towns that don't have good school systems. Empty nesters don't care how bad a school system is.
anon previous.
I'm opposed to the mall and the housing but I think your number on the kids is crazy. Putting what goes on in the master bedroom aside you did not answer the fundamental question regarding a typical Cheshire household living in a two bedrrom house...do they have 1.2 kids or 2 or three or how many? There are five bedroom home in this town with one child or none for that matter.
I think your asumptions are as whacky as the 11 students predicted by WS.
Not wacky at all. Take your 5 bedroom house what do you think it would sell for? $599,000? Now take a supposed 2 bedroom condo selling for $321,000 which can easily house 2 children in one room and if more room is needed then one of the additional rooms can house more. And you could have a pull out couch. It's not that difficult for people that already have houses in neighboring towns to afford the $321,000. So, it is very attractive to move to these units so that the children can have one of the best educational opportunities in this region.
You appear to be either a developer or an individual that will profit from this project. You have not made any case to discredit up to 190 students added to the Cheshire school system.
Your friends don't want to make it age restricted because they know they can make a lot more money selling the Cheshire school system.
Thy're selling the Cheshire school system plain and simple, just like the realtors do every day.
Previous anon.
You are now a confirmed whack. I'm about as distant from a profit motive on this project as you are. I live in a three bedroom house valued at about 300K.
The homeowners you speak of that are clamouring to move to Cheshie for the excellent schools are looking for the 4 bedroom colonial. Chances are they are mid-forties professionals, mom and dad have decent incomes and they may have as many as three kids. They're looking at Woodpond, South Pond or any number of places like that in Cheshire.
You are probably reflecting back on your own experience, 3 or 4 kids in a 3 bedroom. Worked for you and me so why not everyone else that wants to come to town. Very few folks in this town are rolling out the convertible sofa for everyday sleeping arrangements.
I'm still opposed to this project but your irrational numbers and staed logic make your case look more foolish than credible and you cannot substantiate it in any neighborhood in Cheshire.
Who cares how many children come to town? Residential should not be allowed in the I/C or whatever it's called zone. It's a bad mix on one parcel of land. It raises many legal issues which have not been addressed. Where is our legal council???
Post a Comment