At the February 14th New Rochelle City Council meeting there was a lengthy discussion about the Main Street Core project which proposes to add 500 residential units to our downtown while also dramatically upgrading the parking facilities in the area.
It’s a complicated deal due to the conflict between the City’s desires (better parking, affordable housing and tax revenue) and the developer’s need to earn a reasonable return on investment. Our Commissioner of Development, Michael Freimuth, is working hard to structure a deal that works for all the parties involved. As part of his efforts, he sat down with the School Administration’s finance team to find out how much tax revenue would be required to support a possible inflow of new students from this project.
Mr. Freimuth is to be commended for this, showing once again that he will try his best to get to the right answer on development issues, rather than the politically expedient answer.
The number they came up with was $13,500 per student. Apparently the School Administration determined this to be the marginal cost of a new student entering the school and it is my opinion that the number they gave is far too low.
Using marginal cost assumes we just need a few more teachers and staff to support additional students. But that is not the case when our classrooms are already filled. One should only use marginal cost assumptions when there is excess capacity that needs to be used.
So what is the right number? Is it the roughly $20,000 per student average cost of the system? No, that is also too low because it, too, assumes that we have sufficient facilities to service an inflow of students when we do not. Faced with the prospect of unreasonably large class sizes, some parents might say that no amount of money is enough. And City Council would be wise to consider the negative impact on New Rochelle’s economy if the school system develops a reputation for being overcrowded,
The true cost of additional enrollment on the school system would appropriately factor in an expansion of our facilities as we should seek to maintain or shrink class sizes. This would entail buying land, building facilities, and hiring staff. It would be a significant financial undertaking that would dramatically increase the average cost per student across the system. And that means the marginal cost of these added students would be substantially higher than $20,000 per student.
If we are going to improve the finances of the school system and the City, we need to demand that new development projects add significant revenue to the budget in addition to other benefits they may bring to New Rochelle. Targeting a “neutral” impact to our schools, using unreasonably low cost assumptions, will leave us stuck with a struggling City for years to come.
Factual review from Adam
Adam, it is great to have someone of you caliber contributing on TOTS. For those who may not know you, Adam revealed thousands of EXTA DOLLARS hiding in the Maple Avenue Senior Citizen Building renovation which Commissioner Fremuth negotiated into the final Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Fremuth is accomplished in his field and, as a non-New Rochellian void of political patronage, therefore secure in allowing the expertise of Adam to enter into the process. This type of citizen participation has been frowned on in the past and may well be the only hope for New Rochelle moving forward.
About the studies, I would like to add that the studies are severely flawed and slanted. Developers pay for the studies and the city choses the same firms, some of which made political contributions to current and past members, to perform them with a pre-conceived outcome. There has not been one major project in New Rochelle with a negative impact according to these studies. The Avalon study projected 58 students from 1,000 units and we have seen double that (115) in reality. I agree $20,000 per student is much too low in a school system that is currently bursting at the seams. Furthermore, developers are allowed to “update” previous studies lowering their costs and not allowing the true impact of the project to be realized. I suggest limiting the “shelf life” of all studies to 5 years. This also would include comparing projects of similar size and scope. If Albanese is allowed to update the Trump or LeCount studies which were updates of the Avalon studies, we will not come close to predicting the actual impacts. Once a study reaches the 5 year shelf life it is void and a new study must be performed starting from square one. It was not until after Avalon, New Roc & Trump were built that city realized the all-encompassing impacts on first responders; police, fire & sanitation.
Adam, please continue to contribute as yours in an insight that has been lacking for far too long and I hope others with expertise in other fields follow your lead. Many, myself included, cite the north/south divide and many hope for a united city. It is people like Adam, and others participating on TOTS, who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and get involved, who have the ability to make this city one.
Overcrowding in Schools
Adam-You are the one person that has the knowledge of the school district’s finances. Even if the $13,500 was correct, did they take into consideration special needs students and the students that the New Rochelle schools cannot educate and have to be sent to schools out of the district. I think not. With any development, the school administration should be at the table with city council. I for one think any viable city should be investing in their future and that means educated and involved people.
Why does the city (particularily the mayor) buy into this BS?
Adam, very well written, but its not just the Albanese project, this applies to every residential project.
Our schools are bursting at the seems. I read recently about the overcrowding at Davis Elementary School where the 5th graders have 28 to 32 kids in a class.
I’ll bet anyone out there the environmental impact study says only 20-30 students will be added to the district when the 550 apartments are finished so that the school district doesn’t need any of the pilot (payment in lieu of taxes) money. That’s what happens when the city allows developers to write up their own impact studies, they’re all slanted/biased towards the ulitimate goal of getting final approval. It doesn’t really matter to them if they’re right or wrong.
And isn’t this the same developement that is allocating only 1 parking spot for each unit? That’s another weak link to the plan as at least 2 parking spots should be required. Why does the city (& particularily the mayor) buy into all this BS?