HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport of Citizen's Advisory Planning Committee to Board of Education 6/30/1975 Twc Occtc
REPORT OF
CITIZEN' S ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE
to
BOARD OF EDUCATION
*
*
*
*
*
Mamaroneck, New York June 30, 1975
i
TOWN OF NECK
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, N N. Y.
r•-•C ttLC CE'CCYICoe
CHRISTINE K. HELWIG
SUPERVISOR OW 8.8300
July 8, 1975
Mr. John A. Le Van
3 Vine Place
Larchmont, New York 10538
Dear Jack:
I found the excellent result of the Citizen's Advisory Planning Committee
to the Board of Education on my desk when I returned from a long weekend
this morning. It is a tremendous job and a document that I am certain
will be very valuable to School Trustees, officials of the three munici-
palities and to the residents and taxpayers of our community. I commend
you all for your accomplishment.
Obviously I have not had time to do more than glance through this very
detailed document and so I may have missed other references to the material
which we furnished. But I was distressed that my response in behalf of the
Town to your letter of May 13 was not included in the attachments to your
report whereas both Ken Wanderer's and Armand Gianunzio's letters were re-
produced. I am distressed for two reasons : first, it appears that the
Supervisor and the Town were less responsive to your Committee's requests
for information than the other municipal governments; and second, it does
not give credit to our Master Plan Review Committee either for their data
or for the extremely relevant investigations that they are presently en-
gaged in making at the request of the Town Board.
I realize that the report is now completed and bound but it would relieve my
concern if my letter of May 22 and the notes from the April 16, 1975 meeting
of the Master Plan Review Committee (enclosed) could be attached to the report
in some fashion so that it will be clear that the Town did participate fully
in supplying the data (and opinions) you requested. I know from your kind
letter of May 29 that you appreciated what we were able to furnish and am
sure the omission of these documents from the final report was inadvertant.
Sincerely,
Christine K. Helwig
rd
Enc.
TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
We believe the accompanying report is responsive to the Board's charge
to recommend essential planning to deal with declining school enrolment and aging
facilities for the housing of public school students in this District.
We commend the Board of Education for its early recognition of a per-
vasive current national problem in American education - namely, declining school
enrolments. We are just beginning to see recognition by authoritative sources in edu-
cation of the fact that declining enrolments should require new thinking about the
organization of American education.
Our committee has met as a committee of the whole a number of times
during the last three months and has operated through subcommittees between our weekly
meetings. We have gathered as much evidential matter as seemed relevant and feasible
in a three-month period. We have also sought the advice of others. Opinion, of
necessity, must play an important part in any planning activity. For this reason, we
have consulted with local municipal leaders, Albany legislators, State Education De-
partment people, school officials in Mamaroneck and Rye Neck, other local leaders
and limited numbers of citizens of these areas who we thought could provide useful input.
In addition to receiving demographic support from Robert Lapham, we have also called
upon outside architects, real estate experts and engineers for technical advice. Basically,
our investigations have been conducted pragmatically and we have not pursued areas of
study which did not appear to us to be matters which should affect your judgments and
actions.
Committee members were chosen based on their skills and background.
But we have learned much in the past three months. Our intensive factfinding has caused
many of us to change significantly the preconceptions which we carried to our initial
meetings. This fact and our general agreement on our recommendations at the conclusion
of our study give us confidence that the course we propose is correct.
Our report is organized as follows:
I. Recommendations
II. Findings
Iii. Demography (Report of Robert Lapham)
IV. Subcommittee reports:
i. Probable future tax base, projected real estate tax
increases and school cost levels (Report of John A.
LeVan, Carl E. Nagel, Jr., Marlene Kolbert, and
Emmy-Lou Sleeper)
2. Potential for reorganization and consolidation of the
Mamaroneck School District (Report of A. Carleton
Dukess and DeWitt C. Baker)
2
3. Potential impact of Rye Neck on our District (Report
of Lawrence Litchfield)
4. Probable impact of Albany on our District (Report of
Suzi Oppenheimer and Jerry E. Pohlman)
V. Qualifications of committee members (including Henry Allen
who served as general adviser to the chairman)
Our recommendations in Section I are partly derived from the findings
in Section II and are partly our judgments about matters collateral to our charge. Our
findings are the collective judgments of the committee about matters directly related
to our charge and, in effect, pull together the material developed by our demographer
in Section III and by the individual subcommittees in Section IV. In appraising our
report, we thought it might be relevant for you and the public to see the qualifications
of the committee members and have, therefore, included a curriculum vitae for each
member in Section V of this report.
We are grateful for the support we have received from those outside the
committee upon whom we have called for assistance. Special mention should be made of
Robert Lapham, our demographer, and of Maurice Rubinger for his real estate appraisals.
Others who have provided help are mentioned in the subcommittee reports. But special
mention should be made of the support provided by your school administration . . . Otty
Norwood, Paul McDevitt, Mike Tripicco, Joe Barbieri are some of the people who
worked Sundays and overtime to help us.
We hope we have been of assistance to the Board and the Community and
appreciate the opportunity you have given us to serve.
Donald H. Chapin, Chairman
Henry Allen
DeWitt C. Baker
A. Carleton Dukess
Marlene (Colbert
John A. LeVan
Lawrence Litchfield
Carl E. Nagel, Jr.
Suzi Oppenheimer
Jerry E. Pohlman
Emmy--Lou Sleeper
June 30, 1975
s
RECO MMENDATIONS
The Board of Education has asked this committee to recommend essential
planning to deal with declining school enrolment and aging facilities for the housing of
public school students in this District over '-he period to 1980-1981. In pursuing this
charge the committee has tried to maintain objectivity and see the problem in the context
of the interests of the entire community. The prospect of an overall real estate tax in-
crease in the area of 67% in the period from the present until 1980-1981 forced the com-
mittee to recommend what may appear to be drastic steps for the School District and to
step outside its charge to suggest action involving the municipal governments as well.
Such a tax increase is in prospect unless the School District takes full economic advantage
of the projected decline of the school population and all governmental units - including
the Town of Mamaroneck and both Villages - seek new ways to deal with the problem of
real estate taxes.
The committee believes (a) that maintenance of the status quo will result
in the aforementioned tax increases and that such increases are likely to be unacceptable
to the taxpayers and further (b) that the citizens of the District want to maintain an edu-
cational system which continues the present levels of quality for students and property values
for homeowners. Failure to reconcile these two propositions through a process of rational
planning will undoubtedly result in a year-by-year erosion of the educational program of
the District in the annual effort to obtain voter approval of school budgets.
The recommendations and the supporting material elsewhere in this report
represent a plan which offers the potential for reduction of otherwise unavoidable school
tax increases while maintaining the educational program at its present level.
Recommendations supported by the findings of this report are as follows:
1. The Board of Education should adopt a plan to maximize the use of
school buildings. This action would surplu. two elementary schcol buildings and the
School-Town Center, and involve district-wide use of the remaining two elementary
schools and abandoning present elementary school district lines. Chatsworth Avenue
and Mamaroneck Avenue Schools appear to be the most likely schools to close. This step
should save a minimum of $7 on the tax rate in 1980-1981, and greater amounts each year
thereafter. initial steps in this district-wide plan, accompanied by a saving of $3 on the
tax rate might be taken as early as 1976-1977. However, moving this fast might result in
some overcrowding and would not provide sufficient time for community involvement. It
would appear that closing one elementary school (Chatsworth Avenue) and disposition of
the School-Town Center is practicable in 1977-1978. Surplus elementary school properties
should be utilized in ways which would satisfy community needs and hold down the overall
real estate tax rate; the School-Town Center could be sold for a substantial sum.
2. The Board of Education should attempt to negotiate an agreement with
Rye Neck to tuition-in all their students in grades 9 through 12 on a basis which would
share the economic profit of such a move with Rye Neck and maintain the educational
advantages of a broader Mamaroneck High School program. Merger presents unacceptable
uneconomic burdens and therefore is not presently advantageous to the Mamaroneck School
District.
4
3. The Board of Education should take no action with respect to BOCES
membership and should not let the prospect of regionalization affect its long-range plan-
ning to deal with declining school enrolment.
4. The Board of Education need not be concerned about the aging
facilities in this District, although it should be noted that Chatsworth Avenue School has
certain deficiencies and the old section presents a fire hazard. Furthermore, the present
reduced level of maintenance of all school properties is probably not sufficient to preserve
them and this subject should receive attention in the next school budget.
Additional recommendations related to the findings are:
5. The Board of Education should take the lead in involving the municipal
governments in this community whose actions also affect taxes in cooperative long-range
planning and action for the general public good. If taxes can be reduced through munici-
pal consolidation, through joint bargaining with public employees, through municipal
government's use of surplus school buildings, through increased resistance to special
interests on zoning and planning changes, or through other means, they should be reduced;
otherwise essential school services as well as municipal services may need to be cut. The
committee recommends that the Board of Education urge other governmental units to join
it in sponsoring a community-wide planning agency which would have appropriate powers
so that its voice would be effective in the community.
6. The Board of Education should sponsor annual studies similar to that
undertaken by this committee because it is vitally important for the Board to see ahead and
have the latest and best projections possible before making decisions with long-term impact.
Clearly, the demographic projections should be reviewed again just before initial steps are
actually taken to implement the district-wide plan.
7. The Board of Education should provide for community participation in
discussion of the findings of this committee and disposition of the committee's recommenda-
tions. This should be done in the context o the overall real estate tax increases expected
in the future, the effect on the character of the community should these taxes have to be
paid and the options for reducing other taxes that might be developed by the community-
wide planning agency. Unless such an effort be made there is a serious risk that citizens
of the community will not study the problem sufficiently to see the need for the district-wide
plan and Rye Neck tuitioning. After allowing sufficient time and opportunity for community
participation, the Board should formulate a position on the district-wide plan and propose a
referendum for vote in September or October 1976.
The committee's specific recommendations with respect to district-wide use
of schools and Rye Neck tuitioning are intended to put the Mamaroneck District in better
position to maintain present school program which the committee feels might be cut if we
do not take advantage of all opportunities to reduce taxes. Variations on the committee's
recommendations are, of course, possible. For example, the district-wide plan might work
with other combinations of elementary schools but in the committee's judgment with all
factors considered it would not work as well. But the recommendations set forth here and
more fully in the findings and supporting subcommittee reports are the ones chosen by this
committee as the ones it hopes the Board will use as a basis for discussion with the community.
5
The committee is aware of the fact that its report will be controversial,
but the community will recognize that they, and the Board of Education, make the
decisions, not this committee. The Board of Education has had no influence on this
report although a retiring member of the Board has served on this committee and, as far
as the committee knows, the Board is not committed to any particular course of action.
The committee believes that it is time to start talking about the direction
our community should take and the committee is pleased to provide the input of this
report for the Board and the community to consider.
11
FINDINGS
1 . The demographic projections indicate that the District's school population will
decline from 6119 in October 1974 (excluding 69 students from Rye Ridge) to
approximately 5231 in the 1980-1981 school year with the decline continuing
thereafter (at the present rate of decline to a maximum of 4500 to 4800 in the
1980s). The projected 1980-1981 decline is principally the result of the decline
in births which has already occurred and, therefore, although the figures are
subject to error inherent in such projections„ the trend is there and will continue
unless there is a major social change affecting family planning. The specific
demographic assumptions are as follows:
a. The birth rate will remain approximately at its current level
during the next few years. This level, about 14 per thousand
nationally and slightly less in this area, is just over half the
level of the birth rate about 20 years ago. The decrease in
the last 5 years has been especially pronounced.
b. Some new single-family home construction will take place in
the District, bringing an additional 15 children into the public
schools each year.
c. Apartment construction will have negligible impact between
now and 1980.
d. During the period of these projections, no major new housing
development will occur; for example, on golf club property.
e. Property transfers will continue at the same level with the net
effect of such transfers being to add 24 students to district
public schools per year. This is because move-in families tend
to be on the average younger and have more children than move-
out families. But the decreasing birth rate with its effect on
family size results in fewer new students per move-in.
F. Parochial school enrolments will continue to decline from the
current level of 785 to 590 by 1980-1981. This assumes approx-
imate parochial school populations as follows in 1980-1981:
St. Augustine's 0
Sts. John and Paul 400
St. Vito's 150
Holy Trinity (Mamaroneck 40
residents)
590
Essentially, these assumptions contemplate a continuation of present trends and no
radical change in the character of the community.
2. Unless there is a Town-wide reassessment no major change in assessed valuations in
the period to 1980-1981 is expected.
a. Certiorari is a significant negative factor, but much of this
reflects deteriorating rental real estate values.
b. Rent decontrol could be a positive factor, although probably
relatively minor; there are approximately 700 apartments out
of 3,100 still subject to control and the increases which might
occur upon decontrol are limited by economic factors affecting
apartments.
c. Zoning or planning changes which might increase the tax base
substantially are unlikely; past practices and attitudes of
authorities and citizens will probably limit this during the
period in question so that effect will be only a relatively
minor positive factor unless the community as a whole is un-
motivated to push for major changes and then any significant
effect is likely to be felt late in the period or after 1980-
1981.
d. Development of presently underdeveloped properties does not
offer much opportunity for increased assessed valuations, es-
pecially within the planning period 1980-1981.
e. Property sales prices should remain high, offering stability to
our present tax base.
F. The economic and social factors affecting the community should
not significantly affect property values in the period to 1980-
1981, but a major factor in this regard is the ability to maintain
the public perception that we have a high quality school system.
A Town-wide reassessment although it would probably produce a substantially higher
total assessed valuation would only serve to reallocate taxes paid among present tax-
payers to reflect changes in relative va' ,es and correct certiorari and other assessment
mistakes which have developed over the period of time since the last general reassess-
ment. It obviously does not, by itself, increase the real tax base for the District.
3. Non-school real estate taxes are projected to increase approximately 80% in the period
to 1980-1981, principally as a result of general inflation levels running at 6% per year
and the bargaining strength of public employees. Major components of the increase are
the local governments. Preliminary estimates for the Town of Mamaroneck and the
Village of Larchmont indicate increases of 85% and 76%, respectively, from the present
to 1980-1981. The Village of Mamaroneck has made no estimate but should feel similar
effects if inflation continues. But these tax rates assume no change in the level of
municipal service or major cost reducing reorganization or efficiency program. The
school tax rate is projected to increase by 66%, assuming the same general inflation
level of 6% per year, the bargaining strength of the teachers, and certain special
factors affecting the District. The 66% rate reflects declining school populations but
not the reorganization covered under items 5 to 12 below. County and sewer taxes are
also expected to increase, the county tax more slowly because of the expanded county
tax base, and the sewer tax at a higher rate because of additional construction and
8
in light of these expectations for real estate taxes, expected to average out to
approximately 67% in total for all taxing authorities, possible voter rejection
of the school budget because of resistance to the general increase in property
taxes will continue to be a factor to be reckoned with. This suggests that all
government bodies, especially the Board of Education, should try to find new ways
to keep the tex rate down.
4. Additional school operating cost reductions do not seem to offer much opportunity
for tax relief without a major reduction in educational standards, restructuring of
teaching systems, or the reorganization discussed below. The District's per pupil
costs are already quite low in comparison with many other Westchester districts
($175 per child below the median), reflecting our advantages of scale and efficiencies,
rather than a quality disadvantage.
5. The most economical formula for housing approximately 5321 pupils in 1980-1981
(almost 1000 less than today) is indicated by the following configuration which would
entail district-wide elementary schools:
Grade School Required Capacity
K - 2 Central 29 classrooms 36 classrooms
3 - 4 Murray Avenue 24 classrooms 36 classrooms
5 - 7 Hammocks 1191 pupils 1400 pupils
(for these grades)
8- 12 Post Road-Palmer Campus 2459 pupils 2850 pupils
Should all parochial schools close and the 590 students estimated for 1980-1981 be added
there would still be capacity.
Advantageous physical facilities and location are the primary reasons for the choice of
Central and Murray but other schools could be chosen for use in the district-wide plan.
The administration could be housed in Murray or the Post Road-Palmer Campus and
Special Education could be housed in Milroy or Central. The r'ost Road-Palmer Campus
lends itself to separate groupings and the ability to maintain a type of middle school
approach, i.e., grades 8 and 9 in one house and grades 10 through 12 in another.
6. District-wide elementary schools do not appear to be educationally disadvantageous.
There are social factors involved in the elimination of district lines overlaid by emotional
issues relating to change in itself. Reduced taxes and an increased financial capability
to maintain a good school system are offsetting factors and these factors should offset any
effect on property values relating to the elimination of the neighborhood school.
7. The formula outlined in 5 above would make Mamaroneck Avenue School, Chatsworth
Avenue School and the School-Town Center surplus for school purposes. If the District
closed these buildings, it would save annual operating costs presently of at least $650,000
(at 1975 cost levels). This amount includes $470,000 of salaries and benefits of principals,
clerks, aides, custodians, librarians. In addition, the teaching staff could be reduced by
at least 8 (on top of the 28 terminated solely as a result of school population decline in
the period 1980-1981), saving more than $88,000 at present salary costs. This reduction
is possible because of the ability to maintain present class-size standard maximums with
9
much larger numbers of •udents per class in a given building. Additional transportation
necessary to handle the district-wide approach would only cost the district about
$7,500 annually (10% ,f actual cost because of state aid).
8. The District would ha\ a a number of alternatives with respect to the surplus buildings
and property. Disposition on a basis to yield the highest dollar value would probably
provide well over $1,000,000 to the District. Indeed, close to that amount might be
obtained from the sale. and use of the School-Town Center as a commercial property.
This amount could be used to reduce taxes over a period of years or would yield ap-
proximately $60,000 per year to the District if invested at 6%. Feasible alternative
uses of Mamaroneck Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue would provide funds to the District
and serve community needs. The following uses seem to be viable possibilities:
Mamaroneck Avenue - Conversion of upper floors to approximately 50
apartments with provision for community use of
the playground and the basement including its
present gym facilities. Another alternative is
sale and use of most of the property for com-
mercial purposes, reserving some for playground/
park use.
Chatsworth Avenue - Use for Town offices and for the Village-Town
Library (with possible demolition of the old
section depending on need for space) and com-
munity use of an expanded playground/park on
the site. Another alternative is demolition of
the buildings and sale of the property for new
housing.
Use of Chatsworth Avenue for Town offices and a library would forestall other plans
currently under consideration and might save very substantial taxes which would have
to be imposed by the municipal governments to finance these plans; this use seems
most advantageous. Conversion to apartments at Mamaroneck Avenue would provide
some funds for the District but the social advantages would have to outweigh the sub-
stantial economic advantages of commercial use of this property.
9. The district-wide formula mentioned above should reduce the tax levy by a minimum
of $1, 100,000 per year in 1980-1981 calculated as follows:
- Reduction in annual operating costs of buildings . . $ 650,000
- Interest or proceeds of disposition of properties . . 60,000
- Salaries of teachers terminated solely as a result of
the district-wide formula . . . . . . . . s . . . . 88„000
$ 798,000
Less: Transportation costs - 7,500
$ 790,500
Add: Inflationary factors . . . . . . . . . + 309,500
$ 1,100,000
10
This amount represents at least $7.05 per $1,000 assessed valuation and, of course,
would be saved every year after the formula was adopted. Projected school budgets
for the period to 1980:1981 accompany these finding.; and these should be compared
with the budgets in the first subcommittee report (IV - 1) to see the details of the
savings achieved by the district-wide plan.
10. A voter referendum would be required to dispose of school properties (but not to
close them). Such a referendum would also offer a way for the people of the District
to express themselves on the district-wide concept and the possible community use of
properties. Because of previous agreements relating to acreage requirements for the
Post Road-Palmer Campus, State Education Department permission would be required
to dispose of the School-Town Center site.
11 . Timing of the above-mentioned changes is critical, and there would be transitional
problems. These problems would be eased by ending elementary school boundary
lines when the first school, Chatsworth Avenue, was phased out. Such a move would
appear to be preferable to redrawing lines continuously.
12. Realization of much of the savings from the district-wide concept could be obtained
as early as 1976-1977 when the approximately 5870 pupils then expected in our dis-
trict (down about 250 from today) could be housed as follows:
Grade School Required Capacity
K - 2 Central 34 classrooms 36 classrooms
3 - 4 Murray Avenue 30 classrooms 36 classrooms
5 - 6 Mamaroneck Avenue 28 classrooms 30 classrooms
7 - 8 Homrnocks 990 pupils 1200 pupils *
9- 12 Post Road-Palmer Campus 2155 pupils 2850 pupils
* Hommocks capacity above reflects lab and other requirements of pupils in
these grades.
The tax rate could be reduced by approximately $2.66 per $1,000 of assessed valuation
in next year's budget if this district-wide concept could be adopted for the 1976-1977
year.
The administration could be housed in Murray or the Post Rood-Palmer Campus and
special education could be housed in Murray or Mamaroneck Avenue.
13. The Chatsworth Avenue School presents certain physical deficiencies: classroom sizes
in the new section are small; the wood frame construction of the old section presents a
fire hazard and the lavatory and other ancillary facilities are inadequate. The School-
Town Center is limited to use for office space by The State Education Department.
Other school buildings are generally adequate for educational purposes for foreseeable
future use but concern is expressed that the level of maintenance over the last several
years may be inadequate properly preserve and protect these buildings.
11
14. Tuitioning all Rye Neck students in grades 9 through 12 offers economic and other
advantages. It would be possible to house these students in the Post Road-Palmer
Campus now and keep them there through 1980 and beyond. The shift of 8th grades
to the Post Road-Palmer Campus in 1980-1981 causes a temporary overcapacity con-
dition if Rye Neck's student population projection (which seems high) for grades 9
through 12 holds true, but this would ec-e in a year or two and should be acceptable.
Also, early graduation and other shifts to off-campus facilities should make more
room in the Post Road-Palmer Campus than has been figured. In 1980-1981 it might
be possible to add other Rye Neck grades housing them in Mamaroneck district
buildings. But (relying on Rye Neck pupil projections) accommodating the entire Rye
Neck school population by 1980-1981 would require Mamaroneck to be held open
past that date. Taking the step of tuitioning Rye Neck grades 9- 12 does not neces-
sarily lead to consolidation.
There is an economic profit of over $400,000 per year to be obtained by tuitioning
all Rye Neck students in grades 9- 12. This is the difference between the out-of-
pocket cost to Mamaroneck to add students in the Post Road-Palmer Campus and the
cost of running the Rye Neck High School (exclusive of Rye Neck present district-wide
costs which might be cut as a result and the proceeds from disposition or other use of
certain Rye Neck schools). This profit should be shared in some fashion with the Rye
Neck taxpayers by negotiating an appropriate per pupil tuition. In addition to the
economic savings for both districts, a tuitioning arrangement would allow Mamaroneck
to continue its broad education program possible with a large number of students and
provide these educational advantages to Rye Neck students.
15. The presently proposed Rye Neck tuitioning referendum will probably fail because of
voter interest in the athletic program, lack of perception of the deterioration in
quality at the high school level, general controversy and division among the voters,
and opposition on economic grounds by the Rye Neck Superintendent. Merger appears
to be even less favored than tuitioning among Rye Neck people. it would seem that
the situation needs to become more critical before Rye Neck will propose either
tuitioning or merger.
16. Merger is much less a likely prospect if Greenhaven, with its higher assessables, can-
not come in with the rest of Rye Neck. This would require that section of Rye Neck
to secede from the City of Rye so that the 2% taxing limit will not apply to the new
consolidated district. Rye City would likely fight secession because of the loss of
assessables from their municipal budget.
Even with Greenhaven, a merger, without some form of state participation either to
force it on Mamaroneck or make it economically attractive to Mamaroneck, is unlikely.
"Incentive aid" presently available to encourage mergers is less than the amount to
cover the difference in taxing power measured by present assessed valuation behind
each child, and is not enough of an incentive to be attractive for Mamaroneck at the
present time, even after allowing for a probable increase in assessed valuations in Rye
Neck as a result of that area enjoying the educational advantages of the Mamaroneck
School District. Special legislation to provide more funds than might be provided under
"incentive aid" would be unlikely to pass the state legislature.
The economic factors may become more favorable as Mamaroneck's school population
continues to decline and low-cost facilities in Mamaroneck become available to
house more students. In the planning period to 1980-1981 merger would delay im-
plementation of the district-wide plan and therefore it is not as advantageous as it
might be later. Some of the other burders of merger not directly economic are the
"costs" of having to absorb senior Rye Neck teachers who are Tenured and add voters
to the District who may be less interested as a group in high quality education than
Mamaroneck District voters. For these reasons it would appear that merger is not
attractive to Mamaroneck at the p:esenttime, and its posture should be to oppose it.
17. BOCES is not presently economically desirable and there do not appear to be com-
pensating educational advc.ntages particularly when the state is forcing BOCES to cut
program and retrench. Little accountability to component districts and inability to
withdraw once membership is taken are major problems and present significant economic
risks since BOCES costs are rising rapidly. Changes in BOCES posture toward component dis-
tricts and changes in financial iecentives could change the District's view of BOCES in
the future. If required to join, Mamaroneck should pursue certain changes in accountability
and quality control and seek the most favorable financial arrangements possible, the optimum
being full assumption by the State of New York of all excess costs to Mamaroneck.
18. The system of inadequately-funded ceilings and flat grants which have been imposed on the
Diefendorf State Aid formula through political pressure will probably continue for the in-
definite future. Both distort the equalizing effect of the formula as do "save harmless"
provisions. "Save harmless" is likely to be put on a per pupil basis rather than a dollar
basis and, in combination with Mamaroneck's declining school population, this will cost
the District money. Given the severe budgetary restraints on the state, the forces push-
ing for greater equality of educational opportunity and the demands for other state services,
it is unrealistic to hope for any significant increase in the percentage of state aid in
general or to Mamaronec!:.
19. Either througL BOCES, the couniy or some larger area, the state may move toward equali-
zation and consolidation - probably by regionalizing the tax base and spending. Court
decisions relating to equality of edeca ional opportunity might accelerate this movement.
If regionalization were to occur in the BOCES 2 area, taxes on Mamaroneck residents
would increase even assuming no change in the total tax funds raised within BOCES 2,
because Mamaroneck's tax rate on true valuations is lower than most of the other BOCES
2 districts. In addition, regionalization might likely lead to increased expenditures per
child thus adding furiher to taxes on Ma,•naroneck residents. But it would appear that the
prospect of regionalization in the BOCES 2 area should not impact decisions by the
District either as to school program or cast reductions. Specifically, the district-wide
plan and Rye Neck tuitioning should not be inhibited by the prospect of regionalization.
13
CITIZEN'S ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI'rrEr,
PROJECTED BUDGETS - 6 YEARS
1975-76 to 1980-81
ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Salaries and Benefits will increase at 3% per year.
2. Fuel and Utilities will increase at 10% per year.
3. All other expenses will increase at 6% per year.
4. The rate of State Aid will remain flat and reflects declining enrollments.
5. The list of assessable property will remain flat.
6. District-wide plan and related changes which reflect the closing of Chatsworth School and
the Annex in 1976 and additionally the closing of Mamaroneck Avenue School in 1980.
SCHOOL YEAR 1974-75 % 1975-76 % 1976-77 % 1977-78 % 1978-79 % 1979-80 % 1980-81 %
of of of of of of of
ENROLLMENT 6119 Total 6001 Total 5870 Total 5722 Total 5587 Total 5417 Total 5231 Total
EXPENDITURE BUDGET
Salaries (1)$ 9,989,013 $10,788,134 $11,271,918 $12,096,559 $12,980,692 $13,914,063
Adjustments Due to Enrollment t 6 1 2.`4 (7 S 3
Change and Reorganizations:
a) Teachers --- (10.5 pos.) (116,025) (6.0 pos.) (71,400) (6.0 pos.) (77,400) (7 pos.) (97,300) (7 pos.) (105,000)
b) Administrative, Clerical
--- (235,148) --- --
--- ---
and Custodial Staff (254,678)
Net Salaries $ 9,989,013 $10,436,961 $11,200,518 $12,019,159 $12,883,392 $13,554,385
Fringe Benefits 2,779,000 2,996,704 3,131,088 3,360,155 3,605,748 3,865,018
$12,768,013 77.7 $13,433,665 78.6 $14,331,606 79.1 $15,379,314 79.7 $16,489,140 80.2 $17,419,403 80.7
Fuel and Utilities $ 772,326 $ 778,972 , $ 856,868 $ 942,555 $ 1,036,810 $ 1,080,706
Principal & Interest on Debt 895,034 877,965 880,815 862,315 848,545 824,235
(As Scheduled)
Capital Acquistions 27,500
Tax Refunds 268,700 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000
$ 1,963,560 11.9 $ 1,906,937 11.1 $ 1,937,683 10.7 $ 1,954,870 10.1 $ 1,985,355 9.7 $ 2,004,941 9.3
All Other 1,708,499 1,747,401 1,852,245 1,963,380 2,081,183 2,161,347
Additional Transportation (Net) --- 13,342 4,270 4,526 4,798 10,675
$ 1,708,499 10.4 $ 1,760,743 10.3 $ 1,856,515 10.2 $ 1,967,906 10.2 $ 2,085,981 10.1 $ 2,172,022 10.1
TOTAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET - $15,565,967 100.0 $16,440,072 100.0 $17,101,345 100.0 $18,125,804 100.0 $19,302,090 100.0 $20,560,476 100.0 $21,596,366 100.0
$ Increase from Previous Year --- $ 874,105 $ 661,273 $ 1,024,459 $ 1,176,286 $ 1,258,386 $ 1,035,890
% Increase frau Previous Year --- 5.6 4.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.0
14
SCHOOL YEAR 1974-75 % 1975-76 % 1976-77 $ 1977-78 % 1978-79 $ 1979-80 % 1980-81 %
of of of of of of of
ENROLLMENT 6119 Total 6001 Total 5870 Total 5722 Total 5587 Total 5417 Total 5231 Total
REVENUE BUDGET
State Aid $ 2,703,000 $ 2,639,400 $ 2,582,000 $ 2,516,700 $ 2,458,100 $ 2,382,300
Revenue-Other Districts 36,000 38,340 40,832 43,486 46,312 49,090
Local Revenue 69,600 74,124 78,942 84,073 89,538 94,910
Interest Earned 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
Carryover Fran Prior Budget 600,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
$ 3,591,483 23.1 $ 3,513,600 21.4 $ 3,156,865 18.5 $ 3,006,774 16.6 $ 2,949,259 15.3 $ 2,898,950 14.1 $ 2,831,300 13.1
Tax Levy 11,974,484 76.9 12,926,472 78.6 13,944,481 81.5 15,119,030 83.4 16,352,831 84.7 17,661,526 85.9 18,765,066 86.9
$15,565,967 100.0 $16,440,072 100.0 $17,101,345 100.0 $18,125,804 100.0 $19,302,090 100.0 $20,560,476 100.0 $21,596,366 100.0
Assessed Valuation $156,016,371 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412
Tax Rate per $1,000 76.75 82.63 89.14 96.65 104.54 112.90 119.96
$ Increase Fran Previous Year --- 5.88 6.51 7.51 7.89 8.36 7.06
% Increase From Previous Year --- 7.7 7.9 8.4 8.2 8.0 6.3
Tax Rate per $1,000 Before 76.75 82.63 91.80 100.50 108.80 117.51 127.01
Adopting District-wide Plan
(See Sub-Committee Report IV-1,
Attachment "D")
Savings on the Tax Rate per $1,0'00
as a result of the District-wide
Plan. --- --- 2.66 3.85 4.26 4.61 7.05
Tax Rate Per $1,000 (As Above) 76.75 82.63 89.14 96.65 104.54 112.90 119.96
(1) This reflects staff reductions and reorganization in the 1975-76 Budget.
15
ill
DEMOGRAPHY
SCHOOL POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1975-1976 to 1980-1981
MAMARONECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Report of Robert Lapham
INTRODUCTION
The charge for this report is to project the Mamaroneck public school
population through 1980-1981, by grade, on the basis of the best techniques
available and by making reasonable assumptions concerning community trends.
A projection formula developed in an earlier school projections report (Citron and
Lapham, 1971) is used as the basic projection mechanism in this report. In effect
this mechanism looks individually at various components such as parochial school
enrolment trends, construction trends for houses and apartments, effects of families
moving into and out of the community, the birth rate, and so on, and then adds these
components into a summary projection for each year.
Previous school projections appear in the "Mamaroneck Citizens
Advisory Committee on Property and Building Needs Report - 1962", the "Mamaroneck
Citizens Advisory Committee Report - 1968", and the above-noted 1971 report.
The 1971 report projected a decline in school enrolments during the 1975-1980
period, and the evidence now available suggests that this decline will be much
greater than projected five years ago. However, this point is important because
it underscores the difficulty of school population projections and the inherent
necessity to base the projection on a set of assumptions.
Several people have assisted in the development of this report.
Mr. John LeVan, Mr. Carl Nagel, and Mr. Donald Chapin helped produce the basic
assumptions, and Mr. Chapin has provided helpful advice on tables and text. Dr. Otty
Norwood and his school staff, especially Paul McDevitt, have been most helpful in
assembling basic statistics, and the four parochial schools have kindly provided their
enrolment figures. The Town office put together the data on building permits issued
in recent years. For typing assistance, I want to thank the school administrative staff,
particularly Mrs. Shields, and also my daughter, Sue, who just graduated from
Mamaroneck High School, for struggling with the typing of early drafts of difficult
tables. All members of the Citizens Advisory Planning Committee reviewed a final
draft of this report, and provided suggestions for further clarity and interpretation.
Thanks and appreciation are expressed to all. Faults and the final product remain
the responsibility of the author.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The school population reached a peak size of 6,421 students in 1969-1970
and stood at 6, 119 in October 1974 (not including the Pre-Kindergarten class in the
former year and the 69 Rye Ridge students in the latter year). The projection shows
a continuing decline through 1980-1981, as follows, with the smaller class sizes
more pronounced in the elementary grades:
Total K-6
1975-1976 6001 2716
1976-1977 5870 2628
1977-1978 5722 2519
1978-1979 5587 2441
1979-1980 5417 2340
1980-1981 5231 2211
The details of the projection formula figures appear in Table 1 , and
the distributions by grade in Table 2 and 3. During the next six years, the size of
incoming kindergarten classes will decrease to less than 300.
SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS
1 . The birth rate will remain approximately at its current level during
the next few years. This level, about 14 per thousand nationally and slightly less in
this area, is just ov :r half the level of the birth rate about 20 years ago. The decrease
in the last five years has been especially pronounced.
2. Some new single family home construction will take place in the
District, bringing an additional 15 children into the public schools each year:
3. Apartment construction will have negligible impact between now
and 1980.
4. During the period of these projections, no major new housing
development will occur; for example on golf club property.
5. Property transfers will continue at the same level with the net effect
of such transfers being to add 24 students to District public schools per year. This is
because move-in families tend to be on the average younger and have more children
than move-out families. But the decreasing birth rate with its effect on family size
results in fewer new students per move-in.
6. Parochial school enrolments will continue to decline from the current
level of 785 to 590 by 1980-1981 . This assumes approximate parochial school population
as follows in 1980-1981:
St. Augustine's 0
Sts. John and Paul 400
St. Vito's 150
Holy Trinity 40
(Mamaroneck residents)
590
17
THE PROJECTION FORMULA AND ASSUMPTIONS
The projection formula consists of factors important for public
school population projections in the Mamaroneck School District.
The formula can be expressed as follows:
A = B - C + D - E -FFa + Fb + G - H - J + K
(A) (B) (C)
The School Population The School Population The Graduated
Projection for a = in the Previous Year - Twelfth Grade
Given Year
(D) (E) (Fa)
+ Estimated Incoming Estimated Kindergarten Estimated First to
Kindergarten + to First Grade Shift + Twelfth Grade Shift
- of Children Between - of Children Between
Public and Parochial Public and Parochial
Schools Schools
(Fb) (G) (H)
Estimated Number of Estimated Children Estimated Children Due
Extra Parochial Students .+ from Previous Year's 4- to House Transfers in
+ Entering Public School New Home Construction - the Previous Year
at the Ninth Grade
Level
(J) (K)
Estimated Children Due Estimated Children
+ to Apartment Transfers from Previous Year's
- in the Previous Year + New Apartment
Construction
The detailed explanation for each factor and the accompanying assumptions
are listed below:
(A) The year for which a projection is made is designated (A).
(B) When doing a projection for a current year, e.g. , 1975-1976, (8)
represents the population for the previous year, e.g. , 1974-1975 (actual or previously
projected).
18
(C) This represents the loss (due to graduatiori of the 12th grade from
the previous year.
(D) This is the estimated kindergarten class in the year being projected.
It takes into account the following:
a. The number of birth in the District in tF;e fifth year
prior to the year being projected, multiplied by the
percent of those births who remain in the District to
enter kindergarten. (See Tables 5 and 6.)
ASSUMPTION - Fifty percent of the District births remain
in the District to enter kindergarten five years later.
b. The mean number of preschoolers per move-in into existing
single family dwellings multiplied by the number of move-
in families during the past year.
ASSUMPTION - A constant move-in number of 285 families
per year through 1980-1981, among which 240 is the net
number of new families in the District. The total number
of preschool children per move-in will decrease from 0.5
to 0.4 between 1975-1976 and 1980-1981 . (See Table 10.)
c. The mean number of preschoolers in new houses multiplied
by the number of new houses built in the prior year.
ASSUMPTION - There will be 0.4 preschoolers per new house
(based on the 1970 survey) and approximately 15 new houses
per year in the district between now and 1980.
d. The mean number of preschoolers in new apartments multiplied
by the number of r :w apartments built i the prior year.
ASSUMPTION - There will be no (or an insignificant amount)
of new apartment construction between now and 1980.
e. The estimated number of children entering kindergarten who
live in apartments but who were not born in the District, i.e.,
the families of these children moved into apartments in the
District after these children were born. The figure of 70 has
been estimated on the basis of an analysis of known projection
formula components in the composition of incoming kindergarten
classes in recent years with the residual being ascribed to
apartment transfers. It is assumed that this number will decrease
slightly over the next few years because of smaller family size trends.
19
f. The estimated number of children entering public school
kindergarten who in previous years would have gone to
parochial schools.
ASSUMPTION - Over the next years this number will be
reduced from about 10 to 0.
Therefore, (D) = Da + Db + Dc + Dd -3- Df
(E) This represents the kindergarten-to-first grade shift of children
between public and parochial schools. It is the net number of children coming into
public school first grade from parochial and private school kindergartens after allowing
for the number of children in the previous year's public school kindergarten who transfer
to first grade in parochial schools. Historically, the first grade class in public school
has been smaller than the kindergarten class of the preceding year, but in recent years
the trend is toward similar kindergarten and first grade sizes.
ASSUMPTION - A small net loss from the public school kindergarten
of one year to the first grade class of the next year,
decreasing from 10 to 5 in two years.
(Fa) This represents the shift of children between public and parochial
schools in the first through twelfth grades. In the Mamaroneck District, this represents
a flow from the parochial schools to the public schools between the first and eighth
grades. (See Table 9.)
(Fb) This represents the extra shift of children into the ninth grade in
District public schools from eighth grade in parochial schools. This occurs because
area parochial schools do not go beyond eighth grade and not all students graduating
from eighth grade in parochial schools go to parochial high schools. A review of
District grade sizes in the past five years shows that the proportion of ninth grade size
to eighth grade size in the District is 1 .07. Of this amoent, .01 is attributed to the
"normal " gain experienced in grades two through eight, due to in-migration, new
construction, etc. The remaining .06 is due to the incoming students from parochial
eighth grade classes. Therefore, the projections For (Fie) are obtained by taking
approximately 6% of the previous year's: eighth grade size in the District, and reducing
this slightly over the next five years.
(G) This represents the number of new houses built in the District in
the prior year multiplied by the mean number of children in Grades 1 * 12 per new home.
ASSUMPTION - The 1970 survey showed an average of 1 .2 children
entering pubic schools per new house. Because of smaller
family size an average of 1 .0 children per new house is
assumed, and an average of 15 new houses per year.
20
(H) This represents the number of single-family private-dwelling
ownership transfers multiplied by a factor representing the net gain or loss in the number
of public school children, Grades 1 - 12, per house transfer in the previous year.
ASSUMPTION - As shown in Table 10, the number of
transfers will be 285 per year, among whom 240 represent
the net number new in the District. The average gain is
0. 1 public school child per new move-in family, or 24
children per year.
This figure is based on the 1970 survey.
(J) This represents the number of apartment transfers multiplied by a
factor representing the gain or loss of public school children in Grades 1 - 12 per
apartment transfer in the previous year.
ASSUMPTION - Because of the lack of data on apartment
transfers, and given fairly constant apartment sizes in
which children would be resident, the mean number
of move-in children will equal the mean number of
move-out children. This means a 0 in this column.
(K) This represents the number of new apartments built in the previous
year multiplied by the mean number of children in Grades 1 - 12 per new apartment.
ASSUMPTION - There will be no (or an insignificant amount) of
apartment construction in the District between now and 1980.
DISTRIBUTION BY GRADE
In order to obtain yearly projections by grade, it is necessary to determine
the total number of children to be distributed among the grades for each year and then
allocate these children to each grade.
(A) Determination of Total Number of Children for Allocation
This total number is comprised of the number of children
gained or lost in each grade in the process of going from
Grades K - 11 in one year to 1 - 12 in the next year,
i.e. , 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc.
Since the projection formula has established the size of
the kindergarten and first grade for each year of the
projection, the number of children to be allocated each
year is the number of children going from Grades 1 - 11
in the year (N) to Grades 2 - 12 in the next year (N+1).
21
For example: To determine the total number of children
to be allocated between Grades 2-12 in 1975-1976,
the following procedure is used:
1974-1975 (N) actual population was 6119
less Special Education classes - 93
less Grade 12 - 554
less Kindergarten - 351
5121
1975-1976 (N+1) total projection is 6001
less Special Education classes - 95
less Kindergarten & Grade 1 - 688
therefore, Grades 2-12 5218
Total additional number to be allocated in Grades 2-12
in 1975-1976 is 97, i.e., 5 218 - 5121 = 97.
It should be noted that the net change in school enrolment
between 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 is -118. The bridge from this -118 to the
+97 which is allocated between grades for 1975-1976 can be shown by addressing
the changes which occur between 1974-1975 and 1975-1976:
1974-1975 lass of Grade 12 -554
1975-1976 new Kindergarten +347
1975-1976 loss from Kindergarten to Grade 1 - 10
1975-1976 net gain cols (Fa) through (K),
Table I (=total number to be
allocated, Groes 2-12 and to
increase in size of Special
Education classes). + 99
-118
Table II shows the number of children to be allocated among
Grades 2-12 for each year of the projection. The method of allocating the specific
number to each grade within the year is discussed below.
(B) Method of Allocating Total Number of Children Between Grades
1 . Kindergarten, Grade 1 and PreKindergarten grade
sizes are determined directly by the Projection Formula.
2. The Special Education class size is assumed to
increase slightly, to 100.
22
3. For Grades 2-12, the period 1969-1970 through
1974-1975 is used as the base to obtain the
proportional changes in grade sizes from one year
to the next (See Table 12).
For example: The average change frorr Grade 3 to
Grade 4 during the period 1969-1970 to 1974-1975
is +2%, (or a proportion of 1 .02). Note on Table 12
that the changes between several grades are negligible
(proportions of 1 .00).
A NOTE ON THE FUTURE
It is likely that the decline in enrolments will continue in the 1980's.
We might venture a guess, assuming some construction of houses and/or apartments in
the District, that incoming kindergarten classes might average 300. There tends to
be some growth of each chart as it progresses through the grades over the years,
especially given the additions at seventh and ninth grades. Thus, one can evisage
high school grade sizes of perhaps 400 in the late 1980's. This would mean a
total school population in the range of 4000 - 4300, and even if all parochial
school students were to transfer to public schools the total public school enrolment
would range around 4500 - 4800 in the 1980's.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Lapham
23
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citrone, Saul; and Lapham, Robert. "Report of the
Subcommittee on School Population Projection
for the Mamaroneck Union Free School District No. 1, "
(April, 1971).
"Mamaroneck Citizens Advisory Committee on Property
and Building Needs Report, " (1962).
Forger, Alex; et al. "Mamaroneck Citizens Advisory
Committee Report, " (1968).
24
CURRICULUM VITAE
Robert Lapham Associate Director, Technical Assistance
Division, The Population Council, where
he is involved in international popula-
tion work as a professional sociologist/
demographer.
Previously involved in community develop-
ment work and population work overseas.
Member of several professional organizations,
and has about 20 professional publications.
Graduate of the University of Michigan
(B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.), all in
Sociology.
Active in local cub scout and boy scout
groups.
Resident of District for six years.
MAMARCNECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK TABLE 1
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLL PROTECTION MATRIX
1975-1980
A B* C* Da* Db* . Dc* Dd* De Df D* E* Fa* Fb* G* H* ' J* K* TOTAL
(a)
1974-75
6119
1975-76 6119 -554 141 120 6 0 70 10 347 -10 30 30 15 24 0 0 6001
1976-77 6001 -552 125 120 6 0 70 10 331 -10 30 31 15 24 0 0 5870
1977-78 5870 -545 118 108 6 0 65 5 302 - 5 30 31 15 24 0 0 5722
1978-79 5722 -524 116 108 6 0 65 5 300 - 5 27 28 15 24 0 0 5587
1979-80 5587 -535 115 96 6 0 60 0 277 - 5 26 28 15 24 0 0 5417
1980-81 5417 -551 116 96 6 0 60 0 278 - 5 27 26 15 24 0 0 5231
(
(a) Includes "special" student Classes
*Fa 1-12 public/parochial shift
* B Population previous years Fb Extra public/parochial at grade 9
C Graduating 12th grade G Gain from new houses
Da-Dd Kindergarten elements H Transfers old houses
D Total new K J Apartment Transfers (~'
E K-1 public/parochial shift K New apartments
co
TABLE 2
MAMAR NECK UNICN FEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE
1975-76 to 1980-81
(and actual enrollment for 1974-75
Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Ed.*. 'DOTAL
1974-75 351 402 372 373 418 436 488 513 498 524 545 552 554 93 6119
1975-76 347 341 402 372 386 432 436 521 513 535 524 545 552 95 6001
2tS
1976-77 331 - 337 341 402 386 399 432 s 469 521 551 535 524 545 97 5870
1977-78 302 -326 337 341 415 399 399 465 469 559 551 535 524 100 5722
�zz
1978-79 300 1 -297 326 337 +354 428 399 432 465 504 559 551 535 100 5587
1979-80 277 - 295 297 326 + 350 - 367 428 431 432 500 504 559 551 100 5417
1980-81 278 - 272 295 297 '339 =-363 367 461 431 465 500 504 559 100 5231
Zit
IN
*Special Education class size is assumd to increase slightly during the projection period.
- 4 T£ZS 001 8ZOZ Z68 TTZZ ££6T 8LZ T8-0861
LItS 001 PTTZ £98 ()KZ £90Z LLZ 08-6L61
L8SS 001 6VTZ L68 Tt'i7Z TVIZ 00£ 6L-8L61
ZZLS 001 691Z V£6 6ISZ LTZZ Z0£ 8L-LL6I
0L8S L6 SSIZ 066 8Z9Z L6ZZ T££ LL-9L61
; +
•- 1009 56 9SIZ 6£OT 9TLZ 69£Z LVE 9L-SL61
A6119 £6 SLI TTOT 0I'8Z 68tZ ISE SL-'L6T
UMW,'L' TPTDeIS Z1-6 8-L 9-X 9-T X apex
SL-$L61 .0 LTA Teff 3 Pu.)
18-086T 04 9L-SL6T
same) S XS mamma SJIHLSIQ OSIDEWOdd
DISTRICT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT RY GRADE TABLE 4
1955-56 tO 1974-75
iSTRACT SCHoC L ENI RC1-t- C'1 k-Ni T 13Y Cz (2f}D
Year K 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 , 9 10 11 12 PreK Special Total
1955-56 353 391 360 378 392 342 335 362 342 326 267 230 280 11 4,369
1956-57 335 355 393 361 378 395 348 338 359 355 316 283 204 9 4,429
1957-58 373 335 352 378 360 368 397 325 324 358 362 309 265 16 4,522
1958-59 345 379 348 367 391 363 378 403 329 329 364 339 307 20 4,662
1959-60 343 355 390 364 376 407 375 381 406 353 338 348 352 23 4,811
1960-61 363 342 341 401 379 379 406 388 398 444 367 346 346 24 4,924
1961-62 377 392 372 ` 377 427 393 419 420 387 444 465 364 352 23 5,212
`N
1962-63 372 368 402 375391 439 388 449 428 416 464 472 350 23 5,337
1963-64 436 366 392 418 395'4 7 439 411 434 479 449 463 441 26 5,566
1964-65 51343N 373 400 421 471 416 447 407 456 496 429 466 25 5,693
1965-66 506 418' 446 399 418 445 419 427 461 458 445 463 441 31 5,777
1966-67 504 445 422 472 440 450 471 436 441 510 466 460 450 60 54 6,021 (b)
1967-68 523 434 430 436 -476 449 456 470 449 49.6 514 478 461 60 45 6,117 (b)
1968-69 504 445 460 436 464 508 454 , 494 473 469 44 507 480 60 64 6,262 (b)
1969-70 469 482 452 481 448 479 529 502 513 511 476 496 526 58 57 6,421 (b)
Nt
1970-71 425 411 464 458 485 454 482 540 514 550 498c 45203 r 59 66 6,361 • (b)
1971-72 393 390 401 459 451 489 453 502 528 555 554c 461c 491�� -- 61 6,188
1972-73 368 355 375 393 463 447 482 482 514 554 541c 536c 456c 86 6,052
1973-74 404 360 373 395 419 488 462 502 488 555 579 508c 538c -- 97 6,168
1974-75 351X402 372 373 418 436 488 513 498 524 545 552 554c -- 93 6,119
�il{ SI 101 % 2 115
Notes for Table 4
(a) As of October each year.
(b) Total does not include pre-Kindergarten class.
(c) Does not include Rye Ridge students as follows:
Grade
Year 10 11 12
1970-71 63 --
1971-72 75 62 --
1972-73 70 75 62
1973-74 -- 70 65
1974-75 -- -- 69
TABLE 5
RESIDENT LIVE BIRTHS - 1956-1972
Mamaroneck Mamaroneck Town
Year Village(a) and Larchmont Village(b)._ Total
1956 356 308 664
1957 341(c) 270(c) 611(c)
1958 396 258 654
1959 398 272 670
1960 346 285 631 x
1961 390 272 662
1962 378 264 642
1963 406 255 661
1964 343 271 614
1965 280 264 544
1966 293 224 517
1967 259 208 467
1968 291 156 447
1969 212 142 345
1970 222 166 388
1971 193 129 322
1972 182(d) 114(d) 296(d)
NOTE: (a)Entire Village of Mamaroneck in both Towns - Rye and Mamaroneck
(b)Includes live births for that part (northwestern edge) of Town
of Mamaroneck which lies in the Scarsdale School District
(c)Estimated
(d)Perhaps not complete
1956-1967 Data secured from County of Westchester, Department of Health
1960-1967 Data secured from State of New York, Department of Health
1968-1972 Data secured by School Administration
Table 6
Reported Number of Resident Live Births 1970-1972,
Projection of Resident Live Births 1973-1975, and
estimated number of children born in the district
who will enter kindergarten in the district 1975- 1980.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Estimated Number of
Total Live Births (a) Estimated Total Children Born in District
Town/Village of Mamaroneck Live Births in Who Will Start School in
'_`ear Villa.e of Larchmont School District b District Year Shown c
siv
1970 388 282 ., 1975 - 141
1971 322 (d) 250 1976 - 125
1972 . 296 (d) 237 1977 - 118
1973 320 (e) 231 1978 - 116
1974 320 (e) 231 1979 - 115
1975 320 (e) 231 1980 - 116
(a) See Table 5 - Total Column
(h) Approximately one-half of the births in Column (2) occur in the Village of
Mamaroneck. About one-half of the dwellings in the Village of Mamaroneck are
outside of the School District. Therefore, it is assumed that 25% of the births
in Column (2) occur in that part of the Village of Mamaroneck that is outside of
the School District. In addition, 37 is subtracted from the remaining number of
births to account for those dwellings in the Town of Mamaroneck where children go
to the Scarsdale Schools.
(c) Column (3) has been multiplied by .5, a factor which represents the proportion of
live births in the District who remain in the District and enter public school
five years later. This factor was .45 in a 1970 survey of all public school
kindergarten children as to family residence at time of their birth and an analysis
of grade sizes versus the numbers of births for the birth years of the children in
those grades . Assuming a slightly more stable community in terms of in/out mi-
gration, this factor has been increased to .5 for these projections.
(d) These figures seem incomplete. Therefore 22 has been added to the 1971 number
and 30 to the 1972 number.
(e) Estimated.
Table 7
The Number of Building Permits Issued for Single Family Homes,
by Year, 1967-1974
1967 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Total
Town of
Mamaroneck 36 25 15 13 7 8 14 7 125
Village of
Larchmont 9 5 1 4 0 3 2 0 24
Village of
Mamaroneck 7 10 5 8 9 9 14 8 70
TOTAL 52 40 21 25 16 20 30 15 219
Town of Mamaroneck figures include that part of the Town which exists in
the Scarsdale School District
Table 8
Total Parochial School Enrollment
1965-66 to 1974-75 and Anticipated for 1975-76
St. Sts. St. Holy
Year Augustine`s John and Paul Vito Trinity Total
1965-66 631 616 254 -- 1501
1966-67 549 607 295 -- 1451
1967-68 542 569 328 -- 1439
1968-69 456 528 292 -- 1276
1969-70 383 504 290 -- 1177
1970-71 340 500 261 78a 1179
1971-72 309 467 253 50 1079
1972-73 316 409 255 50 1025
1973-74 186 426 189 50 851
1974-75 127 426 182 50 785
Anticipated
1975-76b 110 425 170 54 759
aMamaroneck residents in a school population of 234.
bThe figures in this column were supplied by the schools.
Table 9
Projection of Parochial School Enrollments (grades K-8).,
and Net Transfers to Public Schools 1975-1980
Total in-district other parochial Total Net
parochial and private non-public transfer
school schools population school to public
School Year population (a) (estimated) population schools (b)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1974-1975 785 130 915
1975-1976 753 125 878 30
1976-1977 720 120 840 30
1977-1978 688 115 803 30
1978-1979 655 110 765 27
1979-1980 623 105 728 26
1980-1981 590 100 690 '' 27
a) Includes Mamaroneck School residents in St. Augustine's, Sts. John and Paul,
St. Vito and Holy Trinity.
b) .8 of the net decline (and .7 from 1978 on) because the parochial school
populations will have some natural decline also due to smaller family size.
Note:
There has been a 487 decline in the in-district (4 schools - column 2) parochial
school population in the past ten years, from 1501 to 785. It's assumed that the
parochial school population will decrease to 590 by 1980-81. For these projections
this decline has been calculated linearly.
The estimate for the number of K-8 students attending other parochial and private
schools is estimated on the basis of bussing lists.
Table 10
Estimated Average Number of Preschool Children per Single-Family Private
Dwelling Move-In during the Period 1975-76 to 1980-81 and Total Number of
Children Entering Kindergarten from these Move-In Households
Mean Number of Estimated Annual Net
Preschool Number of Number Number of Children
Children per Move- Ins New in from these Households
Move-In District who Enter Kindergarten
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Year
1975-76 .50 285 240 120
11f76-77 .50 285 240 120
77-78 .45 285 240 108
-L97 -79 .45 285 240 108
.a 79-80 .40 285 240 96
1930 81 .40 285 240 96
Note: The 1970 Survey of 1968 and 1969 property transfers showed an average of .66
preschool children per single family private dwelling move-in. It is assumed that this
a7er.age has declined and will continue to decline to .40 by 1980-81 because of smaller
family size (column 2) ,
Thi, estimated number of move-ins (column 3) i based on the 1970 survey and
discussions with local realtors regarding the extent of property transfers in more
recent years. These discussions also indicate that some property transfers- involve
Families who move but stay within the community. Hence column (4) provides an estimate
of the net number of new families per year in the school district.
Column (5) is the result of multiplying column (2) by column (4) .
TABLE 11
ALLOCATION BY GRADE OF CHILDREN IN GRADES 2-12 FOR EACH
PROJECTION YEAR
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 ' 1979-80 1980-81 i
Total Number of Public School T-- —' -�r
Children Shifting between 97 98 97 94 93 92
t"Rr.xdes 1-12
Less Incoming 9th Grade
Students from Parochial 30 31 31 28 28 26
8th_Grade
Total Children to be
Allocated Grades 2-12 67 67 66 66 65 66
!. - •---
Grade Percent
Shift Distributiona
1-2 - - - _ - _ -
2-3 - - - - - - -
i'
1 3-4 20 13 14 13 13 13 13
I
[ -
1 4-5 20 I 14 13 13 13 13 13
5-6 - - - - - - -
6-7 50 1 33 33 33 33 32 33
7-8 - - - - _ - -
1
1 8-9 b 10 7 7 7 7 ' 7 7
(plus Fb ) (30) (31) (31) (28) (28) (26)
8-9 Total 37 38 38 35 35 33
9-10 - - - - - - -
10-11 - - - - - - -
11-12 - - - - _ - -
TOTAL 100 97 98 97 94 93 92
a See Table 12
b Pius the projection Factor Fb - Sec Table 1
TABLE 12
AVERAGE SHIFT CHANGES AS CLASSES
SHIFT FROM GRADE TO GRADE
1969-70 to 1974-75
Percentage Distribution
Grade Shift Proportiona Proportional Changeb Proportional Change
lto2 1.00 -
2 to 3 1.00 -
3 to 4 1.02 .02 20
4 to 5 1.02 .02 20
5 to 6 1.00 -
6 to 7 1.05 .05 50
7 to 8 1.00 - -
8 to 9c 1.01 .01 10
9 to 10 1.00 - -
10 to 11 1.00d - -
11 to 12 1.00d - -
.10 100
aCalculated by: 1970-71 through 1974-75
1969-70 through 1973-74
Example (Fran Table 4) :
Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6
1969-70 469 482 452 481 448 479 529
1970-71 425 411 464 458 485 454 482
1971-72 393 390 401 459 451 489 453
1972-73 368 355 375 393 463 447 482
1973-74 404 460 373 395 419 488 462
1974-75 351 402 372 373 418 436 488
2186 2236
2236 = 1.02 or a proportional gain of .02 from Grade 3 to Grade 4
2186 Changes of less than 1 percent are considered to equal zero.
I`he changes frau Kindergarten to First Grade are not reflected because they
were calculated in the Projection Formula.
CThe 8 to 9 grade shift is comprised of two groups of students:
(1) Those caning from parochial 8th grades and shown under Column (Fb) in Table 1.
(2) Those caning frau in-migration, new construction, etc.
The average proportion of 9th grade over 8th grade for the past five years was 1.07. .
Of this amount, .06 appears to be above the "normal" gain frau grade to grad- of .01
TABLE 12
(Continued)
which is the average experienced in the the other grade level shifts. Therefore,
a shift of .01 is shown above for the 8 th to 9th grade shift while the .06,
which represents the students corning from parochial 8th grades, is treated
separately in the Projection Formula (see Column Fb, Table 1 and the Projection
Formula explanation) .
dThe actual shift proportions for the years indicated are .95 and 1.04 for 10
to 11 and 11 to 12, respectively. It is assumed that these are temporary
aberrations that will not necessarily be reflected in future years, i.e. ,
always a size decrease fioiu grade 10 to 11 and an increase from grade 11 to 12.
Hence, it is assumed that these grade shifts will average zero over time.
Total Average No. Children
Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Per District
With Children Without Children Units Dwelling Unit
No. Units No. Children Average
1969
Houses 3,875 9,617 2.5 2,595 6,470 1.5
Apartments 1,037 1,859 1.8 1,951 2,988 0.6
TOTALS 4,912 11,476 2.3 4,546 9,458 1.2
1974
Houses 3,770 8,833 2.3 2,691 6,061 1.3
Apartments 1,000 1,795 1.8 2,287 3,287 0.5
TOTALS 4,770 10,628 2.2 4,978 9,348 1.1
Sources: Mamaroneck Public Schools Census, 1969 and 1974.
Note: The 1974 figures show a decrease in the number of houses and an increase in apartments when compared
with 1969. These anomalies are not consistent with general knowledge of the distrct, and suggest slight
problems with the accuracy of the school census. This probably does not affect the average number of
children per dwelling unit, which seems to be declining for houses (1.5 to 1.3 children per house, 1969 to
1974), and for apartments (0.6 to 0.5) .
H
m
C
1--
m N
N
43
25
IV - 1
PROBABLE FUTURE TAX BASE, PROJECTED REAL ESTATE TAX INCREASES
AND SCHOOL COST LEVELS
Subcommittee Report of John A. LeVan, Carl E. Nagel, Jr., Marlene Kolbert
and Emmy-Lou Sleeper
This report is divided basically into two sections, each with its own set
of attachments titled Assessables and Tax Rates.
ASSESSABLES
In addition to the views of community leaders who appeared at early
sessions of the Advisory Committee, of real estate brokers and members of the Advisory
Committee, we sought the best judgment of the Mayors and the Supervisor of the three
communities (see letter dated May 13, 1975 marked Attachment 1).
With respect to those factors which have the potential to increase or de-
crease significantly the total assessed valuations in the School District, the subcommittee
submits the following:
1 . Certiorari Proceedings - There are presently pending certiorari pro-
ceedings for 34 properties in all three communities (Attachment 2). Ten such cases have
been settled, resulting in a decrease in assessed valuation in each instance. The total
reduction of $545,000 is approximately 25% of the original assessment (Attachment 3).
As other pending cases are settled or adjudicated between now and 1980-1981 it is
reasonable to assume that a significant reduction in assessed value will result from abate-
ment, as well as increased expenditures for rebates. (See letters of Messrs. Wanderer,
Doyle and Gianunzio - Attachment 4).
2. Rent Decontrol - The issue of rent decontrol is currently being debated,
and the outcome certainly cannot be predicted at this time. if rent control is retained,
the certiorari problem will be magnified, but even if rents are ulrimately decontrolled,
any positive effect on assessed valuations during the period in question would be minor.
(see also Paragraphs a and e of Attachment 4).
3. Zoning or Planning Changes - The subcommittee predicts there will
not be any significant changes in the substantive provisions of the planning or zoning
ordinances before 1980, nor will there be any significant change in the administration of
such ordinances. Accordingly, there probably will not be any general increase in assessed
values from down-zoning, nor will there be much increase due to changes in the uses
owners are allowed to make of their properties. This conclusion does not lend itself to
documentation, but is largely based on past and present practices and attitudes toward the
zoning process, both of administrators and of citizens owning adjoining or neighboring
properties. We predict such practices and attitudes will not change markedly before 1980-
1981. In addition, there would be a lag of several years between any relaxation of zoning
restrictions and a reflection thereof in assessed value.
26
4. Develo.ment of Undevelo.ed Properties - There are very few un-
developed properties t at are or wou d .e zoned for of er than multi- or single-family
dwellings. Large tracts which could at some time be subdivided for residential devel-
opment are limited and their present owners have shown no inclination to develop such
properties. A change in ownership by sale or inheritance could affect this situation, but,
again, even if development should commence in the next few years, the effect on assessed
values would not be significant prior to 1980-1981 . The only other major factor is the
various private golf and beach clubs and public recreational areas in the community. For
purposes of this study, we have assumed the clubs and recreation areas will retain their
present use and character. If any club should terminate its existence, it is possible the
property might be acquired for community recreational purposes, which would remove it
from the assessment rolls.
5. Effect of Recent Property Sales - Assessed values are normally not ad-
justed to reflect current sales price. it is apparent, however, that actual sales prices of
properties in the District are remaining high, which should prevent significant reduction
in assessables in the event of a revaluation. The last revaluation occurred in 1968 and
another revaluation in the next few years is currently being given serious consideration.
6. Trend of Ratio of Assessed Values to Sales Price - Based on an assumption
that sales prices win not decline, but will increase, this ratio will continue to decrease
until a revaluation is implemented.
7. Economic and Social Trends - There are countless economic and social
factors that could affect assessed valuations. To name only a few, trends in age groupings,
income levels, maintenance of existing structures, recreational facilities, quality of police
and fire protection and changing commutation patterns all can have an effect. Our assump-
tion is that over the time period any such influences, positive or negative, would tend to
cancel each other out and that any effect on assessed valuations would be minimal. How-
ever, at the risk of being labelled pro-quality education advocates, we feel that the single
most significant factor in maintaining assessed value, or in reducing it, is in fact the
quality of the school system. This conclusion is strongly supported by real estate brokers,
and the effect of uncertainty in the Rye Bieck School District on in- migrationand residential
property values is evidence of the validity of this view. There is attached as Attachment 5
an interesting commentary on the "'Master Plan" for the only unincorporated area prepared
by the Westchester County Department of Planning, which contains interesting statistics on
trends in that community. Unfortunately, such an analysis is not available for the two
Villages and time does not permit an independent study. The last three pages of Attachment
5 presents for all three municipalities for 1960 and 1970 a housing profile by age groupings
and housing characteristics and a 1973 estimate of housing needs.
The economic status of the district should follow that of the nation as a
whole, and for that we can only rely on the prognostications of economists. The current
consensus of most economists is for a slow recovery from the current recession and another
possible downturn later in the decade.
In conclusion, your subcommittee feels justified in assuming there will be no
significant increase or decrease in the assessed valuations in the district (barring, of course,
a revaluation). The trend in the past six years has been toward smaller increases and the
1974-1975 assessed valuation showed essentially no increase over that of 1973-1974. (See
Attachment 6).
ATTACHMENT 1
May 13, 1975
Hon. Christine He(wig
Supervisor, Town of Mamaroneck
Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
Hon. Arthur C. Phillips, Jr.
Mayor, Village of Mamaroneck
169 Mt. Pleasant Avenue
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
Hon. Kenneth H. Wanderer
Mayor, Village of Larchmont
8 Prospect Avenue
Larchmont, New York 10538
The Board of Education has requested the Citizens Advisory Planning
Committee to examine what realty-based taxes in the School District are likely to do
in the period 1975 through 1980. The Planning Committee feels that in formulating
the Committee's assumptions the best estimates of the Mayors and the Supervisor of the
communities comprising the District should be included with other opinions. Accordingly,
we have set forth below several questions with respect to which we would like to have
your best judgment. I should emphasize that the Committee fully realizes that any five-
year forecast will not be accurate, and that events which cannot be foreseen today can,
and probably will, significantly affect any such projection. The time for collecting this
and other data from which our final report will be prepared is extremely short, so we
urgently need your answers by May 23. You may prefer to respond in writing, but if
you wish to meet with members of the Committee, a subcommittee of Carl Nagel,
Marlene Kolbert and I ce prepared to meet with you at your convenience. If you
would communicate your wishes in this regard to me, I will be pleased to arrange such
meetings betw en now and May 23.
The questions concerning your respective municipalities are as follows:
(1) What is the likely tax base in your community in 1980 based on existing conditions,
such as zoning, rent control, etc.?
(2) What is the potential for significantly raising or lowering the tax base between now
and 1980 of:
a) certiorari proceedings,
b) zoning or planning changes,
c) rent control or decontrol,
d) development of presently undeveloped properties,
e) changes in assessed valuations based on recent sales of properties,
f) the trend in the ratio of assessed valuation to actual sales prices
of properties,
g) economic or social trends which might significantly affect real
property values?
Attachment 1 cont'd
Hon. Christine Helwig -2- May 13, 1975
Hon. Arthur C. Phillips, Jr.
Hon. Kenneth H. Wanderer
The Committee greatly appreciates your participation in its early
orientation sessions, and we are sure your best judgment concerning the above questions
will be a significant factor in the validity of our projections.
If I may be of any assistance, my office telephone is: 212-551-4091
and my home telephone is: 834-1074 or 834-6781.
Sincerely,
John A. LeVan
/cb
ATTACHMENT 2
CERTIORARIS PENDING
YEARS
BLK PAR ADDRESS ASSESSED VALUE PENDING
127 108 16 North Chatsworth Avenue $ 576,400 3
127 152 14 North Chatsworth Avenue 300,000 9
133 514 21 North Chatsworth Avenue 428,900 10
133 599 2 Washington Square 643,900 3
224 504 7 Stratford Road 36,400 3
333 17 2 Wagon Wheel Road 25,400 5
409 131 11 Alden Road 376,900 4
412 596 25 Rock Ridge Road 15,400 7
505 82 2451-53 Boston Post Road 99,400 7
602 392 1975 Palmer Avenue 47,800 6
602 791 5 East Avenue 275,000 1
O 606 319 235-237 Larchmont Avenue 67,800 4
606 446 1920-22 Palmer Avenue 93,400 6
613 273 10-12 Chatsworth Avenue 54,000 4
613 291 1 Addison Street 52,000 4
601 444 2141 Palmer Avenue 191 ,300 2
601 486 2141 Palmer Avenue 87,100 2
1 613 368 137-139 Larchmont Avenue 36,100 1
613 113 1825-33 Palmer Avenue 376,500 1
707 177 27 Boston Post Road 57,200 10
727 97 100 Park AVenue 49,500 2
816 99 1008-24 Mamaroneck Avenue 153,800 4
825 513 510 Fenimore Road 233,000 8
825 615 460 Ogden Avenue 187,200 8
825 725 520 Fenimore Road 83,900 2
826 765 Ogden Avenue 57,100 8
903 181 304-320 Fenimore Road 205,800 10
905 54 845 Palmer Avenue 1 ,520,800 5
906 68 239-245 Mamaroneck Avenue 72,900 5
908 1 151 Fenimore Road 296,100 1
914 15 Boston Post Road (Beekman Estates) 35,900 2
914 331 Boston Post Road (Beekman Estates) 25,100 2
921 24 1003-1015 Old Boston Post Road 799,300 7
913 227 100-102 Mamaroneck Avenue 82,500 2
May, 1975
ATTACHMENT 3
CERTIORARIS SETTLED
BLK PAR ADDRESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ADJ. REDUCTION
132 609 5 Fifth Avenue $ 114,500 $ 77,000 $ 37,500
133 148 Adams & Madison Avenues 126,200 35,500 90,700
133 449 3 Washington Square 1 ,032,400 867,900 164,500
133 652 172 Myrtle Blvd. 73,000 60,500 12 ,500
602 423 6 West Street 121 ,000 83,600 37,400
602 791 5 East Avenue 381 ,400 275,000 106,400
606 302 70-76 Wendt Avenue 96,500 76,700 32,300
613 28 132 Boston Post Road 53,000 36,800 16,200
613 218 102-4 Boston Post Road 25,500 20,100 5,400
908 1 151 Fenimore Road 296,100 254,000 42,100
TOTAL $545,000
May, 1975
ATTACHMENT 4
OFFICE OF r MUNICIPAL BUILDING
KENNETH H. WANDERER ?' ° c a LARCHMONT, N. Y. 10538
MAYORi�'P � ` 0
11
y ' TEnnyson 4.6200
June 23, 1975
Mr. John A. LeVan
Board of Education
Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York
Dear Mr. LeVan:
1. Likely tax base in 1980 based on certain conditions. By this I mean
no changes in zoning, rent control, assessments, certiorari proceedings,
etc. I am also assuming no effect of inflation -- $38,700,000.
2. a & c. I am assuming that rent control will be eliminated during the
next three years. We will lose some assessments from pending certioraris,
but in the future there should be a much reduced effect. My guess is a
loss during five years of 3/4 of the value claimed on present certioraris
or $1,312,950.
b & d. I am assuming some zoning change to allow for development of
the nursery property and the Post Road property between Beach Avenue and
Manor Place. I am assuming a potential increase of $2,000,000.
e & f. Changes in assessed valuation based on recent sales of properties
and the trend in the ratio of assessed valuation to actual sales price of
properties. I am assuming that we will go to assessments at 100% of true
market value during the period, but the effect will be to change the "numbers"
and redistribute the values between properties and kinds of properties.
Inherent values will not be affected, nor will actual dollars of tax payments
change. For example, if our projected 1975-1976 valuation were doubled from
$38,702,000 to $77,404,000 because of a reassessment, the tax rate would drop
to 1/2 of $51.35 to $25.67. If we reassessed each year to true market, the
assessment would reflect inflation and keep pace with expenditures so that
the rate would stay relatively constant but the dollars of payment would go
up in proportion to the increased costs.
Attachment 4 cont'd
Mr. John A. LeVan - 2 - June 23, 1975
g. Economic and social trends -- This is difficult. The trend towards
smaller families and increased costs of energy and repairs will make the older
larger homes less attractive and hence their sales prices will be depressed.
We are an "island" of prime real estate bordered by declining communities to
the south and east. This will be deleterious. We do have some things going
for us, such as the middle class exodus from the city and the virtue of
excellent transportation and location on the water. The net of all this, I
think, will be some slow decline in relative property value. I can't guess
at a number.
Jack, Carl, Marlene, Jim -- sorry about the tardiness of this. Problems
of fighting to keep the tax base up have kept me busy. I'll be happy to
discuss or amplify this face to face if you wish.
Regar s,
Kenneth H. Wanderer
Mayor
KHW:bw
cc: Paul McDevitt
R
ATTACHMENT 4
May21, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO: Christine K. Helwig, Supervisor
FROM: Neal Doyle, Assessor
SUBJECT: Potential for Tax Base from Present to 1980
(a) Settlement by the courts or through negotiation on pending certiorari cases (apartments,
commercial and industrial properties) will have an adverse effect on the assessed value.
Past experience in settlement of these cases indicates a decrease of assessment.
(b)
(c) It is obvious that decontrol of rents will either stabilize or increase existing assessed
values. Much depends on operating costs as this type of property is valued on the
capitalization of net income.
(d) Needless to say, the future development of undeveloped property will tend to increase
assessed value and decrease the tax rate.
(e) Transfers (sales) of property will not have an effect on changes in assessed value (spot
assessing) until such times as a revaluation of all properties is completed by the Town.
Assessed values will then be based on the true market value of the real estate as of
that date. (Last Town revaluation completed in 1968)
(f) Until such time as a revaluation is completed, the ratio of assessed value to sales
price (market) will tend to decrease.
(e) Provided economic and social trends continue on the present level, property values
will not be affected. Future trends from the present to 1980 are most difficult to
forecast.
NEAL DOYLE (signed)
ATTACHMENT 4
VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK
Village Hall
Mamaroneck, N. Y.
Office of the Telephone
Village Manager OWens 8-7400
Mr. Carl E. Nagel, Jr.
430 Oriente Avenue
Mamaroneck, N. Y. 10543
Dear Mr. Nagel:
Mayor Phillips forwarded a letter written by Mr. LeVan requesting information re-
garding the future of the Village of Mamaroneck's tax base. To the best available
information, at the present date, the following are answers to questions asked in Mr.
LeVan's letter:
1. The likely tax base in the Village in 1980 is unpredictable. The present figure is
as accurate as anyone can give you. For instance, several factors re a revaluation
could change the whole relationship of figures unless the Village of Larchmont and
the Town of Mamaroneck went along on a uniform basis. The State Board of
Equalization may change policy regarding status of utilities re franchise taxes
which could drastically affect the assessed valuation. The ratio of properties owned
by Senior Citizens and by Veterans and any other exempt person could fluctuate
either way, depending upon social and economic conditions influenced by factors
beyond our control such as international affairs.
2. The potential for significant raising cr lowering of the tax base between now and
1980 of:
a. Certiorari Proceedings. We feel this is a big factor. The
strong pressures for control of rents, rising taxes and fuel
and energy charges for apartment house owners are reducing
the net income. This is the basis for successfully proceeding
on behalf of the apartment house owners which inevitably
results in reductions. We see this as a continuing trend in
the immediate future.
b. Zoning or planning changes. There is little, if any, room
for adding to the tax base by new construction. We are in
the process of evaluating the present zoning which would en-
courage a higher percentage of use of the existing properties
which could be a factor in increasing the tax base.
c. Rent Control or Decontrol. It is our opinion that because of
the law of supply and demand and the pressures for more housing
and the zero vacancy rate the rent control laws will remain in
effect for the period of projection. As a result, we feel the tax
base will be adversely affected.
Attachment 4 cont'd
Mr. Carl E. Nagel, Jr. -Page 2- June 4, 1975
d. Development of presently undeveloped properties is limited.
At the present time, there is one parcel of undeveloped
property which is owned by a tax exempt organization.
Should they be successful, this parcel will be placed on the
exempt rolls.
e. and f. Changes in assessed valuations based on recent sales
of properties and the trend in the ratio of assessed valuation to
actual sales prices of properties. The most outstanding factor,
having the greatest impact is the sale of private homes. This
area enjoys an excellent market. Each year, private homes are
selling for amounts far in excess of what was paid by the previous
owners. These high sales affect the tax base in several ways.
The private home owner is affected indirectly in that the equali-
zation rate has been a factor and has reduced by a considerable
amount the assessed value of apartment houses and other commercial
properties in Certiorari Proceedings. The high sales factor has
pushed the equalization rate lower and this lower rate also is being
used today to affect the utility franchise taxes. Lowering of these
taxes naturally places a burden on the individual home owner.
Should a revaluation take place, the obvious conclusion would be
that the private home owner would be bearing a greater proportion
of the total assessment than he does on the present roll.
g. Economic or social trends which might significantly affect property
values. Social trends can have a drastic effect on real property
values. This administration has recognized this fact for many years
and has been orienting its energies and resources to the human needs
of the community. We feel that the soundness of the social basis is
as necessary as the tax base; they are interrelated and one affects
the other. We have on-going programs in Senior Citizens to Pre-
Kindergarten youth; we are involved in prevention of drug and
alcoholic abuse; youth delinquency programs; etc., all aimed at a
better quality of life.
Close proximity with the business community is maintained. Capital improvements, or
any other regulatory measures, are always reviewed and discussed with the business and
industrial community to insure their economic stability and growth. Zoning ordinances
are being reviewed to encourage more productive expansion of business and industry with-
out hurting the overall character of the community.
The subject matter being covered is one of such great magnitude that volumes could be
written.
We hope that we have given you some insight into how the Village relates to the questions
Attachment 4 cont'd
Mr. Carl E. Nagel, Jr. -Page 2- June 4, 1975
asked. Should you have any additional question, please feel free to call me, or the
Assessor, or any other staff members whom you feel could give you additional input
in the search for an answer to your questions.
Sincerely,
A. J. GIANUNZIO (signed)
Village Manager
AJG:rf
CC: Village Engineer
Building Inspector
Clerk-Treasurer
Assessor
T.._. _
•
MAMARONECK740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
PUBLIC SCHOOLS MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 10543 • TEL. 914 698-9000
PAUL R. McDEVITT
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR •
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
July 9, 1975
REPORT OF CITIZEN'S ADVISORY PLANNING CC 4ITTEE
TO
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Attached are two documents which were inadvertently
omitted from the final report. They should be
inserted as Attachment 4, behind Subccarmitte
Report IV-1.
•
• MAMARONECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT •
SERVING LARCHMONT AND MAMARONECK
ATTACHMENT 4
Master Plan Review
Committee
Notes from meeting on April 16th, 1975
Present: Mary Carlson, Chairman
George Carl
Fred Maggini
Mardie Munzer
Maria Russell
Bill Steinam
Christine Helwig, ex-officio
Following discussion of the purposes of the Master Plan Review and of the
updated information received from the County Planning Department, the
priorities for the Committee stated by those present are:
1 . What changes are taking place in our community? Should there
be a change in the goals and objectives of the Master Plan to
incorporate these new trends? What are our alternatives?
2. Are the needs of our residents changing with the demographic
shifts? What facilities are needed -- both public and private?
What housing needs are evident -- for senior citizens - for
people of limited means? Should we encourage low cost hous-
ing which might attract in-migration of seniors or should we
plan only for present residents? What capital projects will be
essential to maintain public services?
3. How can we strengthen the tax base and reverse the erosion
that has taken place? Is new development the answer? If so,
what kind of development? What can be done to reverse losses
on certioraris?
In discussing the organization of the Committee, it was agreed,that resi-
dents with special qualifications could be co-opted or appointed. 'The
Committee will study the Unincorporated Area only and present members
represent various Commissions, Boards and Committees of the Town.
Others might be asked who represent the School District or who have
special expertise and knowledge (Edward White was one name proposed).
Such individuals can be consulted and all Department Heads Of the Town
are at the call of the Review Committee for any information needed.
7
Master Plan Review Committee
Notes on April 16th Meeting
pag.e 2 --
May
Mrs. Carlson requested a map of the unimproved or open land 1
in the Unincorporated Area and a list of those properties on
witch the Town holds tax liens at the present time.
Mrs. Munzer reported that the proposed development for the Mr.
Larchmont Nursery Property would be the subject of a special 3 Vi
Lar<
program -- Land Use - A Case Study --- to be presented on
Tuesday evening, May 20th, at 8 p.m. at the Ethical Culture
Society of Westchester, 7 Saxonwood Road, White Plains. Deal
Next meeting of Review Committee set for: I arr
resr
Wednesday - April 30th
3:30 p.m. Neal
in the exce
Supervisor's Office Doyl
uati(
tati‘
Fun(
by
In rE
Christine K. Hetvvig a Cc
The
the l
Note : Please try to attend the meeting on: sent
Open Space Policy for Westchester the
April 30th -- 8 p.m. and
Glen Island Casino for 1
Irct<
of tF
LAS
tees
s.am
invii
May
the
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
15$ WEST BOSTON POST ROAD ATTACHMENT 4
MAMARONECK. N. Y. 10543
May the 22nd
id 1 9 7 5
Mr. John A. LeVan
3 Vine PIace
Larchmont, New York
Dear Jack:
I am sending you the enclosed hastily assembled material in
response to your letter of May 13th.
Neal Doyle's memo is directly responsixeto your questions
except that concerning zoning and planning changes. Mr.
Doyle has recommended that the Town authorize a re-eval-
uation of all properties In the Town in 1976 and we have ten-
tatively planned to use $50,000. of Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds to do the job.
In relation to zoning and planning changes, we presently have
a Committee at work on a review of our 1968 Master Plan.
The priorities that this Committee has set are contained in
the Notes of April 16th meeting which I enclose. I am also
sending you some of the material that has been prepared for
the use of the Committee by the County Planning Department
and that reflects demographic changes of cpnsiderade import
for fixture planning.
Ircidenttally, I had suggested to Paul Abramson that a member
or the Citizen's Advisory Planning Committee would be most
rretdDrt tot participate in the Master Plan Review Commit-
tees' deliberations since we are all trying to gaze into the
same clouded crystal ball -- and I reiterate to you this same
invitation! Our next Committee meeting is set for Thursday,
May 29th, at 3:30 p.m. in my office to consider land use in
the Town as a whole.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
15R WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK. N. Y. SO843
Mr. John A. LeVan
May 2 P.x ,1975
-- page two;
I am also enclosing some information on tax rates, assessed
valuation of the School District (which is lower than that cf
the entire Town) and a list of pending and completed certi-
orari proceedings. I hope you will excuse the state of these
copies which come from my own files and have carious
scribbled annotations for my own information.
I hope you will have what you need. I will be glad to meet
with you or to send further Information -- just let me know.
Best,
•
Christine K. Heiwig
Supervisor
b)
enclosures
1 . Memo from Neal Doyle 5/21/75
2. Schedule 15A - Tax Rates from 1975 Budget
3. Taxable Assessed Value, Union Free School District No. 1
and list of Certioraris Pending & Certioraris Settled
4. Master Plan Review Committee Notes of April 16, 1975 meeting
with Housing P'-ofile Changes in Population by Municipality 1960-
and Tri-State 9gional Planning Commissiok 1973 Housing Neec
and Housing Characteristics by Municipality
5. Town of Mamaroneck Estimated Projected 5-Year Budgets
1
ATTACHMENT 5
Helwig
POPULATIO N
Town of Mamaroneck
Unincorporated Area
1950 9,922
1960 11 ,763
1965 . . . . . . . . . 12,357
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,002
1974 (Est. )* 12,500
*Westchester County Department of Planning
The Town of Mamaroneck grew by about 10 percent during the period
1960-1970, a rate of growth approximately double that of the county as a whole
during the same time period. Recent Westchester County Department of Planning
population estimates indicate, however, that the population of Mamaroneck has
begun to decline slightly. This population decrease is closely related to the
very low rate of residential construction in Mamaroneck; while at the same
time household size has been decreasing (average househould size was 3.3 in
1960, 3.1 persons in 1970) . Thus it takes an increasingly larger supply of
housing to house a population of constant size as young people establish their
own residences earlier in life and senior citizens maintain their residences
longer. (See housing section for further discussion of housing construction. )
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
Population by Race - 1960 & 1970
Town of Mamaroneck Westchester County
Number Percent Number Percent
1960
Total Population 11 ,763 100.0 808,891 100.0
White 11 ,522 98.0 746,406 92.3
Black 214 1 .8 60,455 7.5
Other Non-White 27 .2 2,030 .2
1970 -
Total Population 13,002 100.0 894,104 100.0
White 12,712 97.8 802,722 89.8
Black 198 1 .5 85,041 9.5
Other Non-White 92 .7 6,341 .7
Source: U.S. Census (1960 & 1970)
As the above chart indicates , the racial composition of Mamaroneck
has remained virtually unchanged since the 1960 census. A higher proportion
of Mamaroneck's population is white than is true of the county as a whole. In
addition, Mamaroneck's black population declined since 1960; while Westchester
County's black population grew by about 25,000 during that ten-year interval .
AGE STRUCTURE
Town Mamaroneck Westchester County
1950 1960 1970 -. 1970
(Vo. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
Under 5 938 9.4 1 ,017 8.7 908 6.9 66,286 7.4
5-14 1 ,469 14.8 2,210 18.8 2,692 20.7 165,924 18.6
15-19 494 5.0 701 6.0 1 ,001 7.7 74,638 8.3
20-24 473 4.8 406 3.5 574 4.4 57,373 6.4
25-34 1 ,280 12.9 1 ,145 9.7 1 ,265 9.7 103,814 11 .6
35-44 1 ,818 18.3 1 ,721 14.6 1 ,798 13.8 114,098 12.8
45-54 1 ,723 17.4 1 ,900 16.1 1 ,775 13.7 117,219 13.1
55-64 1 ,021 10.3 1 ,544 13.1 1 ,567 12.1 99,821 11 .2
65 and
over 709 7.1 1 ,119 9.5 1 ,422 10.9 94,931 10.6
Totals 9,922 11 ,763 13,002 894,104
Source: U.S. Census (1950, 1960 & 1970)
The greatest population changes in Mamaroneck since 1960 appear
to have occurred in the youngest and oldest age groups. As the birth rate
-2-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
continues to drop, the Under 5 age group accounts for a smaller proportion
of the population.
At the same time the 65 and over age group has been growing larger
both in number and proportion. A comparison of theoretical population estimates
(performed by aging the Mamaroneck population through the cohort survival
method) and actual 1970 census figures indicates that no net in-migration
occurred in that age group. However, there appears to have been net in-
migration in the 25-44 age group (prime house buying years) and in the 5-14
age group (the children of the 25-44 year olds) . Net out-migration also seems to
have taken place in the 15-19 and 20-24 year old age groups. This occurs com-
monly as young people go out of town to school , to the military or to urban
areas which offer larger selections of rental housing and employment.
In general , the age structure of the Town of Mamaroneck is quite
similar to that of Westchester County as a whole. If the birth rate and housing
construction rate remain as low as they are currently, both Mamaroneck and the
County can expect continuations of the age trends seen in 1960-1970.
INCOME
At the time of the 1970 census , the income distribution for the
Town of Mamaroneck and for Westchester County were as follows :
-3-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
FAMILY INCOME (1969)
Income Bracket Number of Famil = s Percent Distributions
(Dollars) Mamaroneck County Mamaroneck County
None, 1-2,999
or less 85 11 ,377 2.4 4.9
3,000-3,999 45 5,134 1 .3 2.2
4,000-4,999 71 5,486 2.0 2.4
5,000-5,999 78 7,003 2.2 3.0
6,000-7,999 139 18,228 3.9 7.8
8,000-9,999 200 22,855 5.7 9.8
10,000-14,999 588 59,774 16.6 25.7
15,000-24,999 1 ,014 62,570 28.7 26.9
25,000-49,999 909 30,718 25.7 13.2
50,000 and over 406 9,492 11 .5 4.1
3,535 232,637 100.0 100.0
Source: U.S. Census (1970)
Median Family Income (1969) Town of Mamaroneck $20,538
Westchester County $13,784
In general , a much higher proportion of the Town of Mamaroneck
families were clustered in the upper income groups than was true of the county
as a whole. Similarly, relatively few Mamaroneck families were in lower
income groups. The Westchester County Department of Planning has estimated
1973 median family income in Mamaroneck to be in the $26-$27,000 range;
while Westchester County median family income was about $18,000 for that year.
-4-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
OCCUPATION
Occupation of Town of Mamaroneck and Westchester County Residents
(16 years old and over)
Mamaroneck County
Number Percent Number Percent
Professional , Technical and
Kindred Workers 1 ,468 28.8 78,875 21 .1
Managers and Administrators ,
except farm 1 ,050 20.6 47,175 12.6
Sales Workers 746 14.6 33,219 8.9
Clerical and Kindred Workers 889 17.5 78,672 21 .1
Craftsmen, Foremen, and
Kindred Workers 317 6.2 40,223 10.8
Operatives , except transport 149 2.9 26,909 7.2
Transport equipment operatives 64 1 .3 10,038 2.7
Laborers, except farm 61 1 .2 11 ,773 3.2
Service Workers 226 4.4 36,691 9.8
Private househould workers 118 2.3 8,475 2.3
Farm Workers 5 0.1 1 ,067 0. 3
TOTAL EMPLOYED 5 ,093 373,117
41
Source: U.S. Census (1970)
A much larger proportion of Town of Mamroneck residents than
Westchester County residents is employed in professional , technical , managerial
or administrative positions -- about one-half of the Mamaroneck labor force as
compared to one-third of the county's labor force. This correlates with the
higher median income found in Mamaroneck than in Westchester County. As would
be expected, a much smaller proportion of Town of Mamaroneck residents is
employed as blue-collar or service workers than is found in Westchester County as
a whole.
Commuting to Manhattan is also much more prevalent in the Town
of Mamaroneck than in Westchester. As of the 1970 census , 28.8% of the
Mamaroneck labor force were employed in Manhattan as compared to 18.9% of
the county labor force.
-5-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
EDUCATION
Years of School Completed
Town of
Mamaroneck Westchester County
� 960 1970 1960 1970
Persons 25 and over 7,455 7,812 495,282 529,841
Percent Completing:
4 years elementary school or less 2.6 1 .5 5.2 3.9
4 years high school 25.8 27.3 26.9 32.0
College 1-3 years 17.9 17.9 11 .0 11 .5
College 4 years or more 31 .4 37.3 16.7 21 .0
*Median 12.2 12.5
Tract 69 13.2 13.9
Tract 70 12.9 13.8
Source: U.S. Census (1960 b 1970)
In general , Town of Mamaroneck residents have completed more years
of schooling than has the average county resident. In addition, the median level
of education of Mamroneck residents has increased since 1960 when the previous
census was taken.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Non-Residential Floor Space and Percentage Change 1963-1972
(Figures x 10,000 square feet)
Commercial Public Total Percent Change
1963 1972 1963 1972 1963 1972 Commercial Public
Mamaroneck
Town 34 35 19 37 53 72 3 95
County 8,206 10,460 5,702 6,960 13,908 17,420 26 22
Source: Westchester County Department of Planning, The Pattern of Growth:
Commercial and Public Construction in Westchester County (Summary
Report - April 1974).
In general Mamaroneck experienced almost no commercial growth during
the years 1963-72, but had a moderate amount of public or quasi-public con-
struction during that time period, nearly doubling the Mamroneck total .
-6-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont.)
HOUSING
The housing stock of the Town of Mamaroneck for 1960 and 1970 as in-
dicated by the U. S. Census is as follows :
Units in Structure 1960 1970
1 2,469 2,725
2 65 115
3 and 4 116 121
5 and more 1 ,122 1 ,261
Total 3,772 4,222
Relatively little housing was constructed in Mamaroneck during
that ten-year period and almost all of it was single family. The increase in
two-family homes appears to be primarily a function of conversion of single
family homes rather than new construction. Building permits were filed for
only 9 two-family homes (18 units) during the years 1960-69, yet the census
records an increase of 25 two-family homes (50 units) . Since the 1970 Census ,
very little housing has been constructed -- permits had been filed for only
43 single-family units as of year end 1973.
Age of Housing Units
Mamaroneck Westchester Co.
Year Housing Built No. Percent No. Percent
1969 to March 1970 17 .4 5,744 2.0
1965 to 1968 203 4.8 19,519 6.7
1960 to 1964 230 5.4 25,636 8.8
1950 to 1959 658 15.6 62,932 21 .7
1940 to 1949 566 13.4 27,280 9.4
1939 or earlier 2 ,548 60.4 149,266 51 .4
Total 4,222 290,377
Source: U.S. Census (1970)
Almost three-fourtns of the housing in the Town of Mamaroneck is
at least twenty-five years old, a much higher proportion than is found in West-
chester County as a whole. However, the value ranges of owner-occupied housing
in Mamaroneck indicate that much of it is in good condition.
-7-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units , 1970
Mamaroneck Westchester County
0: Percent No. Percent
Less than $5,000 0 0.0 113 0.1
$ 5,000 to 9,999 2 0.1 724 0.6
10,000 to 14,999 10 0.4 1 ,863 1 .6
15,000 to 19,999 23 0.9 4,845 4.2
20,000 to 24,999 63 2.5 9,825 8.5
25,000 to 34,999 344 13.7 27,588 23.9
35,000 to 49,999 716 28.5 35,060 30.3
50,000 or more 1 ,358 54.0 35,604 30.8
TOTAL 2,516 115,622
Source: U.S. Census (1970)
Median house value in 1970 was over $50,000 as compared to a
county median of $40,500. The median rent at that time was $149 as compared to
a county median of $129.
There are, however, some traditional indicators of substandard
housing in a small proportion of the housing stock in the Town of Mamaroneck.
Some degree overcrowding was recorded in three percent of the dwelling units
in Mamaroneck as compared to six percent of the units in the county. In addi-
tion, 21 units (about one-half of one percent of the housing stock) were lacking
some or all plumbing facilities as compared to slightly more than two percent
of the county's housing units.
A number of the statistics that appear in this compilation in-
dicate a housing shortage in Mamaroneck including the conversion of single-
family houses to multi-family units , the decline in population and the high
house values. In addition, the Town of Mamaroneck had an extremely low
vacancy rate at the time of the 1970 census. Current construction levels in
both Mamaroneck and the county point toward a continuation of this housing short-
age for the foreseeable future with related population decline and increase in
median age of the population.
-8-
ATTACHMENT 5 (cont)
A A 1973 study by the Westchester Planning Department lists
141 ,328 county residents as aged 60 or older. This represents 15.8 percent
of the total county population, a figure almost exactly the same as the ratio of el-
derly to total population in the state.
Estimates based on the 1970 census information approximate that 17,141
1 of Westchester's elderly are poor. The findings:
60 or over PC area pap. Est. poor
Area
Yonkers 35,702 17.5 5,016
Mount Vernon 13,337 18.3 2,133
New Rochelle 13,260 17.6 1 ,739
White Plains 9,841 19.6 1 ,201
Port Chester 4,342 16.8 738
Peekskill 3,103 16.1 459
Ardsley 404 9.0 14
Bedford 1 ,960 12.8 185
Briarcliff Manor 682 10.4 71
Bronxvi l l e 1 ,537 23.0 191
Buchanan 368 17.4 37
Cortlandt 3,408 13.7 412
Croton 1 ,061 14.1 137
Dobbs Ferry 1 ,285 13.3 133
Eastchester 4,427 18.6 334
Elmsfo,'d 625 15.9 68
Greenburgh 4,682 11 .5 327
Harrison 2,874 13.3 409
Hastings 1 ,473 15.5 224
Irvington 847 14.4 122
Larchmont 1 ,215 16.8 101
Lewisboro 644 9.7 67
Mamaroneck Town 2,198 17.0 148
Mamaroneck Village 2,926 15.4 356
Mount Kisco 1 ,306 15.9 165
Mount Pleasant 3,009 13.4 190
New Castle 1 ,440 9.8 138
North Castle 1 ,090 11.3 41
North Pelham 973 18.7 115
North Salem 560 14.6 42
North Tarrytown 1 ,440 17.2 251
Ossining Town 494 10.2 81
Ossining Village: 3,199 14.8 356
Pelham 351 16.9 --
Pelham Manor .2 ,238 18.5 61
Pleasantville 1 ,147 16.1 114
Pound Ridge 416 10.9 51
Rye City 2,469 15.5 180
Rye Town 962 10.0 56
Scarsdale 2,717 14.1 113
Somers 1 ,205 12.8 107
Tarrytown 1 ,868 16.8 243
Tuckahoe 1 ,034 16.5 215
-9-
ATTACHMENT 6
HISTORY OF TOTAL ASSESSABLES IN THE MAMARONECK SCHOOL DISTRICT
1963 - : 975
RATE/$1 ,000
YEAR OF ASSESSMENT VALUATION TAX LEVY
1963 - 64 $33.2958 $118,816,110 $ 3,956,000
1964 - 65 35.2999 122,634,263 4,312,160
1965 - 66 37.1901 123,159,263 4,597,975
1966 - 67 40,1440 125,847,470 5,052,030
1967 - 68 43.8556 128,161 ,485 5,647,275
1968 - 69 51 .7134 129,619,621 6,703,000
M 1969 - 70 * 53.1650 150,848,604 8,019,775
1970 - 71 59.0205 152 ,251 ,512 8,985,794
1971 - 72 63.0802 153,776,328 9,700,086
1972 - 73 75.7218 154,096,415 10,127,422
1973 - 74 70.6259 154,992,374 10,946,367
1974 - 75 76.7516 156,016,371 11 ,974,484
*Year of reassessment
J.J.B. 4/8/75
i
27
TAX RATES
There are attached projections of tax rates through 1979-1980
for the Town of Mamaroneck (Attachment A) and the Village of Larchmont
(Attachment B). At the date of this subcommittee report no projection had been
made available by Village of Mamaroneck. The Mamaroneck School District
(Attachment D) covers the planning period to 1980-1981 . With respect to Mamaroneck
Valley Sewer Tax, there is no perceptible trend, but some building is expected so
the rate for 1980-1981 is projected at $4.00 up from approximately $2.00 at
present. There also is no significant trend in Westchester County Tax, but
increasing county services indicate that the present rate of $20.00 should be
increased; a rate of $25.00 is assumed for 1980- 1981 .
The tax rates projected by the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of
Larchmont have been extended one year by the subcommittee on the basis of the
trend shown for the preceding five so that they cover the planning period to
1980-1981 , A. Village of Mamaroneck rate for 1980-1981 has been approximated
based on the assumption that Mamaroneck Village will experience the same
inflationary factors as the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont.
These are summarized below:
1980- Dollar Percent
Present 1981 Increase Increase
School 76.75 127.01 50. 26 65.5
County 18.22 25.00 6.78 37. 2
Sewer (Unincorporated Town and
Village of Mamaroneck) 1 .99 4.00 2.01 100.0
Sewer (Village of Larchmont) 3. 10 6.20 3. 10 100.0
Town of Mamaroneck 36.74 67.82 31 .08 84.6
Village of Larchmont 49,98 88. 16 38. 18 76.4
Village of Mamaroneck 41 .49 75. 10 33.61 81 .0
Total Tax for Resident of:
Unincorporated Area of Town 133.70 223.83 90. 13 67.4
Larchmont Village 148.05 246.37 98.32 66.4
Mamaroneck Village 138.45 231 . 11 92.66 66.9
The municipalities' rates have been predicted by assuming roughly the
same services and including some factor for inflation - 8 to 9% has been assumed. This
is what has been done by the municipalities and by the subcommittee for the Village
of Mamaroneck. The subcommittee is not aware of any other major factors it should
take into consideration. Revenue sharing for local government could be a factor
but no value has been placed on it by the subcommittee. The school tax rates have
been projected on the basis shown in Exhibit "D". The key difference between the
school projection and those for the municipalities which shows up in the lower rate
of increase is the reflection of anticipated declining school enrolments. The school
28
tax rate is before reflecting the savings obtainable from the district-wide plan described
in the subcommittee report on the potential for reorganization and consolidation of the
Mamaroneck School District.
The key point to be made from the statistical material on tax rates is not
that they are what will happen to the precise dollar but that they are indicative of
what can happen in our labor intensive governmental units in an inflationary period.
In fact, the bargaining power of employees of the School District and the municipalities
appears to be growing stronger and such groups have in the past done better than
compensate for inflation. Our community faces this situation in the future but by seeing
this prospect can start now to seek new ways to minimize these tax increases without
reducing essential government services.
The tax rates are most sensitive to changes in assessed valuations and
thus a revaluation of all property on the assessment rolls which would more nearly approach
"current market values" could radically affect all of the tax rates. The rates will be
sensitive to major certiorari abatements or rebates. The school tax rate, for example,
increases $.05 for each $100,000 abatement of assessed value. (See letter dated
May 14, 1975 from Mr. J. J. Barbieri - Attachment F.)
The economic wealth of the community should remain relatively constant
in relation to the effects of inflation on the tax rates. The major factor in the budget
projections is that of predicted inflation and, presumably, incomes will increase in
reaction to inflationary pressures. The ability to pay and willingness to pay, however,
are two different subjects. Taxpayer "revolts" have become less rare, but they seem more
likely to be addressed to school tax rates than to municipal tax rates. In our system this
should be particularly true, since municipal budgets and therefore municipal tax rates
are not subject to referendum. The only tax payer protest possible with respect to
municipal tax rates is through municipal official elections (taxes have not yet been a
key issue in municipal elections) and through migration from the community.
The School District budget and tax rate, however, is voted upon directly
every year, and it is not related to any candidate or political party. Willingness to
pay higher school tax rates has demonstrated limits in this community (Attachment G),
and history shows that an increased school budget coupled with another issue which
stirs the emotions such as redistricting can result in defeat of the school budget. On
the other hand, one should not conclude that this community will not pay more to
maintain high quality educational standards. The total expenditure per WADA in
Mamaroneck has always been ranked lower in comparison to other Westchester School
Districts, than our rank in true value per RWADA. This could indicate that per pupil
expense is supported by higher property values than in many Westchester districts
(Attachment H). It could also indicate that our District cannot reduce expenditure
per pupil much more without seriously jeopardizing the high quality standard of education.
In summary, the presence of other issues seems to be as important as a
substantial increase in school tax rate, and therefore, prediction of the "breaking point"
for taxpayers' support of increased rates is virtually impossible. However, such an
eventuality should be considered in any intelligent planning process.
. TWN OF MAMARONECK
GENERAL FUND - TOWN WIDE ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
1975 /976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries 6, Fringes 619,120. 671,358. 728,045. 789,565. 856,335.
Total Debt Service 99,670. 99,670. 99,670. 99,670. 99,670.
Total All Other 432,340. 466,927. 504,281. 544,624. 588,194.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 1,151,130. '1,237,955. 1,331,996. 1,433,859. 1,544,199.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 830,900. 845,350. 835,850. 825,850. 815,850.
Tax Levy 320,230. 392,105. 496,146. 608,009. 728,349.
Assessed Valuation 160,237,362. 160,237,362. 160,237,362. 160,237,362. 160,237,362.
iv.>
Tax Rate 2.00 2.45 3.10 3.79 4.55
•
10.1)\-2,.. OwtiN4 1Aci f1r 41,tp' 1 ,10 6'o►C3 SS. cS ' 61, 4cf • �'
TORN OF MAMARONECK
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
GENERAL FUND - TOWN OUTSIDE VILLAGES
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 1,077,915. 1,170,678. 1,271,515. 1,381,138. 1,500.320.
Total Debt Service 16,410. 16,410. 16,410. 16,410. 16,410.
Total All Other 351,505. 379,625. 409,995. 442,795. 478,219.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 1,445,830. 1,566,713. 1,697,920. 1,840,343. 1,994,949.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 202,400. 198,050. 188,050. 178,050. 168,050.
Tax Levy 1,243,430. 1,368,663. 1,509,870. 1,662,293. 1,826,899.
Assessed Valuation 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544.
Tax Rate 18.02 19.83 21.87 24.08 26.47
g
TWN OF MAMARONECK
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
STREET LIGHTING
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 4,140. 4,471. 4,829. 5,215. 5,632.
Total Debt Service -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
Total All Other 57,400. 61,992. 66,950. 72,307. 78,092.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 61,540. '66,463. 71,779. 77,522. 83,724.
REVENUES
Notal Revenues (Including F.R.S.) -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
lax Levy 61,540. 66,463. 71,779. 77,522. 83,724.
_.ssessed Valuation 70,174,844. 70,174,844.. 70,174,844. 70,174,844. 70,174,844. >
Tax Rate .88 .95 1.02 1.10 1.19 4
ct
•
TORN OF MAMARONECK
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
PARK DEPARTMENT
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 82,420. 89,428. 97,037. 105,300. 114,277.
• Total Debt Service -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
Total All Other 14,085. 15,212. 16,430. 17,743. 19,163.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 96,505. 104,640. 113,467. 123,043. 133,440.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 200. 200. 200. 200. 200.
•
l'ax Levy 96,305. 104,440. 113,267. 122,843. 133,240.
Assessed Valuation 66,667,344. 66,667,344. 66,667,344. 66,667,344. 66,667,344. 0
Tax Rate 1.45 1.57 1.70 1.84 2.00
g
• rt
TOr3N OF MAMARRONECK
HIGci+7AY DEPARTMENTESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BURETS
;i
:s
APPROPRIATIONS
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Total Salaries & Fringes 409,530. 443,916,
481,216. 521,678. 565,574.
Total Debt Service 11,950. 11,950. 11,950.
11,950. 11,950.
Total All Other 72,800. 78,624. 84,914.
' 91,707. 99,044.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 494,280.
534,490. 578,080. 625,335. 676,568.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 35,200. 30,200.
25,200. 26,200, 15,200.
Tax Levy 459,080.
504,290. 5522880, 605,135. 661,368.
Assessed Valuation 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544. 69,027,544.
Tax Rate 7,544.
6.65 7.31 ' 8.01 8.77 9.58
•
n
o
rt-
.
•
TOWN OF MAMTARONECK
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
SEWER DISTRICT
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 3,000, 3,240. 3,500, 3,780. 4,082.
Total Debt Service 55,510 55,510. 55,510. 55,510. 55,510.
Total All Other 25,250. 27,270. 29,452. 31,808. 34,352.
Total Appropriations (Including F.A.S.) 83,760. 86,020. 88,462. 91,098. 93,944.
•
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 25,250. 20,250. 15,250. 10,250. 5,250.
Tax Levy 58,510, 65,770. 73,212. 80,848. 88,694.
Assessed Valuation 65,460,444. 65,460,444. 65,460,444. 65,460,444. 65,460,444.
Tax Rate .89 1.00 • 1.12 1.24 1.35
TOJN OF 11AMARONECI:
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
t:
GARBAGE DISTRICT i .
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 6,000. 6,600. 7,260. 7,986. 8,785.
. Total Debt Service -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
. Total All Other 434,567. 469,332. 506,879. 547,429. 591,224.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 440,567. • 475,932. 514,139. 555,415. 600,009.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 32,187. 30,187. 28,187. 26,187. 24,187.
Tax Levy 408,380,. 445,745. 485,952. 529,228. 575,822.
Assessed Valuation 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844.
t
Tax Rate 5.82 6.35 6.93 7.54 8.21
• g
rr
TOWN OF MAMARONECK
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
APPROPRIATIONS
Total Salaries & Fringes 342,900. 372,456. 404,589. 439,526. 477,515.
Total Debt Service 7,880. 8,000. -0- -0- -0-
Total All Other 70,460. 76,097. 82,185. 88,759. 95,860.
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 421,240. 456,553. 486,774. 528,285. 573,375.
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 6,000. 5,000. 4,000. 3,000. 2,000.
•
,Tax Levy
415,240. 451,553. 482,774. 525,285. 571,375.
Assessed Valuation 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844. 70,168,844.
21
i ; Id
Tax Rate
5.92 6.44 6.88 7.49 8.14
il
n
8
.
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT
ESTIMATED PROJECTED 5YR BUDGETS
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80
APPROPRIATIONS .
Total Salaries & Fringes 1,583,956 1,719,840 1,867,525 2,027,524 2,201,924
Total Debt Service 159,788 160,500 160,500 160,500 160,500
Total All Other 706,697 763,232 824,290 890,233 961,451
Total Appropriations (Including F.R.S.) 2,450,441 2,64:3,572 2,852,315 3,078,257 3,323,875
REVENUES
Total Revenues (Including F.R.S.) 462,881 426,500 416,500 406,500 396,500
Tax Levy 1,987,560 2,217,072 2,435,815 2,671, 757 2,927,375
Assessed Valuation 38,702,349 :8,702,349 38,702,349 38,709,342 38,709,342ig.7
Tax Rate 51.35 57.20 62.94 69.03 75.63
w
CITIZEN'S ADVISORY PLANNING COMMnath ATTACHMENT "D"
PROJECTED BUDGETS - 6 YEARS
1975-76 to 1980-81
ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Salaries and Benefits will increase at 8% per year.
2. Fuel and 1tilities will increase at 10% per year.
3. All other expenses will increase at 6% per year.
4. The rate of State Aid will remain flat and reflects declining enrollments.
5. The list of assessable property will remain flat.
6. School Organization will remain as it is today.
SCHOOL YEAR 1975-76 % 1975-76 % 1976-77 % 1977-78 % 1978-79 % 1979-80 % 1980-81 %
of of of of of of of
ENROLLMENT 6119 Total 6001 Total 5870 Total 5722 Total 5587 Total 5417 Total 5231 Total
EXPENDITURE BUDGET
Salaries (1)$ 9,989,013 $10,788,134 $11,591,515 $12,499,558 $13,415,931 $14,384,121
Adjustment due to --- (5.0 pos,) (55,250) (1.5 pos.) (17,850) (6.0 pos.) (77,400) (7.0 pos.) (97,300) (9.0 pos.) (135,000)
Enrollment Change
Fringe Benefits 2,779,000 2,996,704 3,219,865 3,472,100 3,726,647 3,995,589
$12,768,013 77.7 $13„729,588 78.4 $14,793,530 79.0 $15,894,258 79.6 $17,045,278 80.1 $18,244,710 80.4
Fuel & Utilities $ 772,326 $ 849,559 $ 934,514 $ 1,027,965 $ 1,130,762 $ 1,243,838
Principal & Interest on Debt 895,034 877,965 880,815 862,315 848,545 824,235
(As scheduled)
Captial Acquisitions 27,500
Tax Refunds 268,700 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 100,000
$ 1,963,560 11.9 $ 1,977,524 11.3 $ 2,015,329 10.8 $ 2,040,280 10.2 $ 2,079,307 9.8 $ 2,168,073 9.5
All Other $ 1,708,499 10.4 $ 1,811,009 10.3 $ 1,919,670 10.2 2,034,850 10.2 2,156,941 10.1 2,286,357 10.1
TOTAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET - $15,563,967 100.0 $16,440,072 100.0 $17,518,121 100.0 $18,728,529 100.0 $19,969,388 100.0 $21,281,526 100.0 $22,699,140 100.0
$ Increase from Previous Year --- $ 874,105 $ 1,078,049 $ 1,210,408 $ 1,240,859 $ 1,312,138 $ 1,417,614
% Increase from Previous Year --- 5.6 6.6 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.7
ATTACHMENT "D" (Continued)
SCHOOL YEAR 1974-75 % 1975-76 % 1976-77 % 1977-78 % 1978-79 % 1979-80 % 1980-81 %
of of of of of of of
ENROLLMENT 6119 Total 6001 Total 5870 Total 5722 Total 5587 Total 5417 Total 5231 Total
REVENUE BUDGET
State Aid $ 2,703,000 $ 2,639,400 $ 2,582,000 $ 2,516,700 $ 2,458,100 $ 2,382,300
Revenue-Other Districts 36,000 38,340 40,832 43,486 46,312 49,090
Local Revenue 69,600 74,124 78,942 84,073 89.538 94,910
Interest Earned 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
Carryover frau Prior Budget 600,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
$ 3,591,483 23.1 $ 3,513,600 21.4 $ 3,156,865 18.0 $ 3,006,774 16.1 $ 2,949,259 14.8 $ 2,898,950 13.7 $ 2,831,300 12.5
Tax Levy 11,974,484 76.9 12,926,472 78.6 14,361,257 82.0 15,721,755 83.9 17,020,129 85.2 18,382,576 86.3 19,867,840 87.5
$15,565,967 100.0 $16,440,072 100.0 $17,518,121 100.0 $18,728,529 100.0 $19,969,388 100.0 $21,281,526 100.0 $22,699,140 100.0
Assessed Valuation $156,016,371 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 $156,432,412 %156,432,412 $156,432,412
Tax Rate per $1,000 76.75 82.63 91.80 100.50 108.80 117.51 127.01
$ Increase Fran Previous Year --- 5.88 9.17 8.70 8.30 8.71 9.50
% Increase Fran Previous Year --- 7.7 11.1 9.5 8.3 8.0 8.1
(1) This reflects staff reductions and reorganization in the 1975-76 Budget.
MAMARONECK
VECK AT .ffi�1T F
MAMARONECK. NEW YORK 10543 • TEL. 914 696-9000
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
J. J. BARBIERI
DISTRICT TREASURER
SUPERVISOR OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING May 14, 1975
TO: Mrs. Kolbert
FROM: J. J. Barbieri
SUBJECT: Reply to your questions on Tax Refunds
Q. What would the tax rate have been if this year's cases
did not go against us?
A. I assume this year means the 1974-75 school budget year.
In this year's budget we have $121,700,00 for tax refunds
or abatements. As yet we have not refunded any taxes. If
the $121,700.00 was not in the budget, the rate for 1974-75
would have been $. 78 less.
Q. What is the impact On the tax rate of pending cases?
A. I have attached a list of Pending Certiorari Cases as
reported by the town assessor. There are 3 pending cases
and if the taxpayers filing notices were to be granted a
100% of their request, the assessment rolls would be reduced
by $827,150.00. For the 1974-75 year the tax rate would
• have increased by $.41. ($156,016,371.00 less $827,150.00
equals $155,189,221.00. Tax Levy of $11,974,484.00 divided
by $155,189,221.00 equals $77.1605 per M of assessed valuation.)
The 1974-75 tax rate is $76. 7516.
For each $100,000.00 of assessed valuation lost to the district,
the tax rate is increased about $.05.
JJB:rd
• MAMARONECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT •
SERVING LARCHMONT AND MAMARONECK
9
F-
.
$1 ,400,000 r
cn
1 ,300,000 ••
1 , 100,000 -.- A
1 ,000,0 0 0 _.ga.___., I �...., f-
..... w
900 ,000 -
800 ,000 _ .. .
__ _.
700,000 ______._ ._._
. . w
. w
600 ,000 �. _ A --
t-
500,000 .� u j
____.._J ,.-._- Q
c
1.
400,000 -g E- -----
0
300,000 .....1. --
•
4.0 CO N. rte. N . N. N. ' � N.
t I I t I t I t t i
t...0
N. co G*1 Q * i N M ." L11
Lf> t0 Lo tri N. N. 1‘... N. N. N.
ATTACHMENT G (Cont.)
ACTUAL INCREASES IN STATE AID
. BASIC FORMULA AID --
(Building , Transportation .
Flat Grant)
$500 ,000
AND
BASIC
TEXTBOOK AID FORMULA TEXTBOOK
AID AID
40 .000
"`00 .000
' ' Ill ,
[I
•
_ •
200 .000 [ .
r
400,000
j
i III It
•
400,000
•
e.
• fh CO
• Co tib 10 P.. IN. N. N. N. . to
I- . I I I I I I 1
Co)
40 op
r
,.,........,- . TAX RATE ON TRUE. PROPERTY vALJE
• . . _
WESTCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOLS .
. ,
Rate Per . • . .
$1 ,000 On
True Value , .
11111111111 . .
•
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII .
, all
1. 1111111111111M 7-44-1 •
30 . • - f
29 imus=11111111 -
mom
18
• • aill
• .a. -41-
2 7 . . 1111111111111
/
' .
• -
1111M D I AN IMIL 1111111
. ' ‘fl . •
. all
' .. *T <MAtlARO.NEC
1M
, 1 .
2 2 .
1:07;-
2 0
.- nil
1 9 .
1 8 : ./'''" NM MEM 111
,..
....
. •
1 7 . .„0,..s-;,- • . .
11111 , .
„ r4
1 /1
i I i IIIIIIIIIIIIII_ . .. ,
I
4
1 4 . .. .. ... . . .
r..... CD cn CD r.--1 Cs..1 NI ..zr VI
LO UD (c) CZ, LO LID f,„,c) N. N... r-,„ r.-..... r.... N,
.
NI zr L.r) •. N. 00 • CI (=If <-4 CNI NI .zr
..$1,
CID LO 6.0 4,,i.A. L. UD 4.1D UD N. i-,.., N... r•-.... N.
i..)
- • .
•
' --i_.____________ _
______
...
. . :_______: . ,
A_
. .
______________
. . , , .
1
. .
_�..___---. .•f.r__�__..._�_.__.u_..__.._...
.,z,
____
3 W CT
LD N 1•-. 70
C Cr) 2
______ $508,417.,417. ;_.
-33
w 7,
......1
TOWN GOVERNMENT - UNINCORPORATED - - - r n
s :�
D::.
X209.,_..12, i:"
I \ITI nJ^C OF nnr�'�e�r1iT t '
CT •a_LAGE 1 L_Af:Ci u t it ►. _
■en.. r w e ■ear Q ex ese .1)•--9. }--1
C-)
.. . .
----- -- ------ ----- --- -- -- - -
-
rrnn
1 .. -
0
.._._ - - _ _ . _ - .- _ _ N -... . _.. �,,. .
V . VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK - - co
a
-
-1
><
$274 , 105,
c
Lo
k..n
MAMARONECK PUBLIC '�
y I SCHOOLS C/3
al
ATTACHMENT H
'ME VALUE
TOTAL EXP. PER
PER WADA RANK 1ADA
1974-75 2594 33 71,868
1973-74 2251 24 NA
1972-73 1972 29 66,739
1971-72 1927 23 52,739
1970-71 1788 26 53,884
1969-70 1624 20 47,743
1968-69 1511 21 45,002
I
TRUE VALUATION
TV PER
RWADA RWADA
DISTRICT 1968-1969 1969-1970 INCREASE DECREASE 1968-1969 1968-1969
Ardsley 85,304,000 87,879,600 2,575,600 2,758.80 30,921
Bedford 231,702,920 255,087,738 23,384,818 4,384.44 52,846
Briarcliff Manor 51,840,466 51,566,073 274,393* 1,378.10 37,617
Bronxville 101,964,678 102,275,799 311,121 1,438.50 70,883
Byram Hills 97,893,221 119,687,954 21,794,733 2,290.63 42,736
Cedar Knolls DOES NOT APPLY 421.66
Chappaqua 137,301,244 148,788,899 11,487,655 3,778.64 36,336
Cottage School DOES NOT APPLY 232.25
Croton-Harmon 75,802,107 87,934,133 12,132,026 1,883.87 40,237
Dobbs Ferry 61,470,343 62,813,884 1,342,884 1,708.26 35,984
Eastchester 173,489,040 174,510,481 1,021,441 3,516.66 49,333
Echo Hills DOES NOT APPLY 305.65
Edgemont 82,937,121 85,190,000 2,252,879 1,833.85 45,226
Elmsford 53,944,732 54,883,825 939,093 1,523.47 35,409
Garden City 319,827,586 330,647,846 10,820,260 5,206.44 61,429
Graham DOES NOT APPLY 180.93
Greenburgh 163,950,224 176,195,606 12,245,382 3,820.56 42,912
Harrison 116,904,050 226,226,334 109,322,284 2,644.32 44,209
Hastings 69,287,340 69,779,242 491,902 2,127.11 32,573
Irvington 73,081,045 76,121,500 3,040,455 1,721.75 42,446
Katonah 111,602,786 123,957,658 12,354,872 3,251.74 34,320
Lakeland 135,668,798 143,104,365 7,435,567 7,358.38 18;437
Mamaroneck 288,043,602 301,697,208 13,653,606 6,400.58 45,002
Montrose _~ 168,080,186 211,299,063 43,218,877 2,942.27 57,126
Mount Pleasant '85,163,137 102,191,807 1,702,670 2,773.01 30,712
Mount Vernon 392,677,990 410,931,683 18,253,693 11,503.91 34,134
New Rochelle 503,785,977 521,962,136 18,176,159 12,259.38 41,093
North Salem 40,104,165 45,522,845 5,418,680 1,150.01 34,873
Ossining 199,002,141 209,419,553 10,417,412 5,583.06 35,644
Peekskill 79,734,872 80,941,011 1,206,139 3,403.54 23,427
Pelham 141,539,210 141,657,724 118,514 3,155.65 44,852
Pleasantville 63,814,258 64,443,145 628,887 1,816.30 35,134
Pocantico Hills 65,434,755 71,971,094 6,536,339 576.94 113,417
Port Chester 191,219,451 188,930,883 2,288,568 4,827.88 39,607
Ridge Street 53,027,746 50,985,132 2,042,614 1,212.81 43,723
Rye 147,575,691 159,700,627 12,124,936 3,117.45 '47,338
Rye Neck 75,749,648 80,661,277 4,911,629 1,936.07 39,125
Scarsdale 256,795,786 271,988,776 15,192,990 5,415.42 47,419
Somers 68,459,000 72,743,622 4,284,622 1,960.62 34,917
Tarrytown 171,456,596 182,350,789 10,894,203 ' 3,137.15 54,653
Tuckahoe 63,828,252 62,394,800 1,433,452 1,176.89 54,235
11
White Plains 7,031,391 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Yonkers 1,283,043,386 DATA NOT AVAILABLE 29,802.07 43,052 x
Yorktown 121,435,513 132,681,199 11,245,686 5,058.45 24,006 A
gi
TOTAL 410,938,014 6,039,027 fy.
AVERAGE CHANGE 10,655,237
*Decrease due to use of County equalization rate last year.
ATI'ACfr H (Cont.)
1968-69 1968-69 RANKED
PER WADA PER WADA PER WADA
DISTRICT OPER. EXP. TOTAL EXP. TOTAL EXP.
Ardsley 1,204 . 48 1 ,376 .60 33
Bedford 1,473 . 10 1 ,661 . 09 13
Briarcliff Manor 1,496 . 47 1 ,601 . 36 14
Bronxville 1,526 .74 1 ,670 .57 11
Byram Hills 1 , 528 . 69 1,742 .89 8
Cedar Knolls 3 , 472 .40 3 ,608 .36 4
Chappaqua 1,416 . 81 1,583 . 25 15
Cottage School 4 ,527 . 23 4 , 982 .47 2
Croton-Harmon 1,401 .91 1 ,503 .48 23
Dobbs Ferry 1,400.83 1, 481 .27 26
Eastchester 1,368 . 84 1,496 .86 24
Echo Hills 3 ,963 .01 4 ,260 .06 3
Edgemont 1 ,358 . 53 1,549 .04 16
Elmsford 1,356 . 07 1 ,512 .93 20
Garden City 1,373 . 03 1 ,495 .31 25
Graham School 6,443 . 64 6 ,731.64 1
Greenburgh 1,763 . 26 1,923 .37 6
Harrison 1 ,375.75 1,479 . 26 27
Hastings1,318 . 84 1,414 .42 30
Irvington - 1,242 .14 1,420 .72 29
Katonah 1 ,359 .07 1,543 . 81 18
Lakeland 1,213 . 95 1 ,385.90 32
Mamaroneck 1,318 .60 1,511.04 21
Montrose 1 , 338 . 85 1,547 .94 -17
Mount Pleasant 1,187 .95 1 ,337 .70 37
Mount Vernon 1 ,220. 94 1 ,3.08 .43 39
New Rochelle 1,662.70 1 ,832 .00 7
North Salem 1,464 . 17 1,714 .89 9
Ossining 1,344 . 37 1 ,458.49 28
Peekskill 1 ,186 . 82 1,265 . 83 40
Pelham 1 ,257 .02 1 ,371.07 35
Pleasantville 1,290 . 99 1,351.06 36
Pocantico Hills 2, 065. 59 2 ,659 .14 5
Port Chester 1,178 . 92 1,222 . 03 42 .
Ridge Street 1 ,081.58 1 ,255.93 41
Rye City 1 ,281 . 27 1,395.74 31
Rye Neck 1 ,251 . 32 1,326 .48 38
Scarsdale 5,415 . 42 . 1 ,682 . 99 10
Somers 1,278 . 94 1 ,509 . 81 22
Tarrytown 1,403 . 45 1 ,517 . 25 19
Tuckahoe 1,505 .99 1 ,666 . 84 12
White Plains * *
V"onkers 904•.60 1 ,089. 20 43
Yorktown Heights 1,214 .80 1,371.33 34
* No data available
A'11'ACHIMENT H (Cont.)
RWADA TRUE VALUE.
DISTRICT FULL VALUATION 1969-70 PER RWADA
Ardsley 95,003,476 2,716.83 34,968
Bedford 269,003,449 4,657.78 57,753
Brewster 84,367,961 2,377.64 35,483
Briarcliff Manor 54,168,070 1,414.77 38,287
Bronxville 102,514 ,740 1,466.32 69,912
Byram Hills 115,108,983 2,404.00 47,882
Carmel 105,616,539 3,716.60 28,417
Chappaqua 152,409,991 3,971.09 38,379
Croton-Harmon 81,930,577 1,934.65 42,349
Dobbs Ferry 65,994,412 1,710.75 38,576
Eastchester 188,589,828 3,516.15 53,635
Edgemont 94,629,015 1,836.42 51,529
Elmsford 58,545,357 1,509.81 38,776
Greenburgh 190,370,952 3,650.78 52,145-
Haldane 29,468,061 883.51 33,353
Harrison 257,222,726 4,058.25 63,382
Hastings 73,373,809 2,135.38 34,361
Irvington 83,328,079 1,829.03 45,558
Katonah-Lewisboro 129,641,073 3,483.25 37,165
Lakeland 158,474,236 7,762.16 20,416
Mahopac 213,367,045 4,162.48 51,259
Mamaroneck . 310,717,371 6,508.00 47,743
- -----------
Montrose _--- -- _ 212,080,392 3,071.51 69,047
Mount Pleasant 96,562,111 2,890.43 33,407
Mount Vernon 424,713,352 11,212.00 37,880
New Rochelle 585,258,304 11,912.46 49,129-
- North Salem 49,153,061 1,267.07 38,792 ,
Ossining 212,259,578 5,581.19 38,031
Peekskill 83,840,379 3,471.90 24,148
Pelham 145,004,920 3,213.21 45,127
Pleasantville 67,528,833 1,894.21 35,650
Port Chester 206,580,872 4,875.43 42,371
Rye City 168,606,181 3,227.28 52,244
Rye Neck 84,123,950 1,947.17 43,203
Scarsdale 289,763,658 5,391.78 53,741
Somers 72,175,346 1,960.61 36,812
Tarrytown 174,162,594 3,002.72 58,001
Tuckahoe 67,429,171 1,191.93 56,571
White Plains 588,097,820 8,296.29 70,886
Yonkers 1,356,882,776 29,521.31 45,962
Yorktown Heights 137,688,462 5,231.33 26,319
Cedar Knolls DOES NOT APPLY 283.03
Cottage School Ii 'f II
Echo Hills « it 304.05
Graham School " u " 166.36
Garrison 15,058,883 341.65 44,076
Pocantico Hills 83,479,311 599.24 139,306
Putnam Valley 45,219,286 1,306.76 34,604
Ridge Street 63,900,272 1,260.37 50,699
Garden City 325,696,077 5,320.12 61,219
ATTACHMENT H (Cont.)
1969-70 1969-70 RANKED
PER WADA PER WADA PER WADA
DISTRICT OPER. EXP. TOTAL EXP. TOTAL EXP.
Ardsley 1,391.47 1,577.32 24
Bedford 1,552.14 1,753.50 13
Brewster 1,386.00 1,532.60 30
Briarcliff Manor 1,597.30 1,905.26 3
Bronxville 1,754.51 1,903.12 4
Byram Hills 1,750.79 1,966.35 2 _
Carmel 1,400.55 1,626.35 19
Chappaqua 1,552.94 1,711.78 15
Croton 1,548.31 1,639.45 18
Dobbs Ferry 1,495.60 1,565.91 27
Eastchester 1,520.62 1,647.33 17
Edgemont 1,543.41 1,756.46 12
Elmsford 1,583.28 1,767.00 11
Greenburgh 1,994.95 2,125.46 1
Haldane 1,242.79 1,325.90 37
Harrison 1,607.42 1,844.92 7
Hastings 1,488.56 1,599.54 23
Irvington 1,363.62 1,521.42 31
Katonah 1,421.44 1,501.51 21
Lakeland 1,378.08 1,548.08 29
Mahopac 1,011.24 1,180.03 39
Mamaroneck 1,438.59 1,624.24 20
Montrose 1,576.05 r 1,796.72 9
Mount Pleasant 1,279.81 1,476.61 32
Mount Vernon 1,179.34 1,334.96 36
New Rochelle 1,377.26 1,562.39 26
North Salem 1,599.75 1,833.80 8
Ossining 1,488.37 1,600.29 22
Peekskill 1,244.80 1,412.12 34
Pelham 1,458.23 1,562.92 25
Pleasantville 702.85 734.43 41
Port Chester 1,169.36 1,260.72 38
Rye City 1,347.51 1,452.60 33
Rye Neck 1,295.48 1,377.37 35 .
Scarsdale 1,693.76 1,850.44 6
Somers 1,624.20 1,861.55 5
Tarrytown 1,549.25 1,772.51 10
Tuckahoe 1,573.94 1,726.09 14
White Plains 1,537.82 1,656.90 16
Yonkers 974.82 1,155.19 40
Yorktown 1,388.18 1,556.45 28
Cedar Knolls 4,199.97 4,470.56 4
Cottage School 5,748.09 6,165.08 2
Echo Hills 4,518.94 4,810.23 3
Graham School 7,729.83 7,981.20 1
Garrison 1,612.55 2,015.03 2
Pocantico Hills 2,257.80 2,897.91 1
Putnam Valley 1,506.84 1,831.14 3
Ridge Street 1,180.67 1,622.27 4
Garden City 1,522.18 1,647.29 -
ATTACHMENT H (pant.)
RWADA TRUE VALUE
DISTRICT FULL VALUATION 1970-1971 PER RWADA
Ardsley 107,215,245 2842.00 37, 725.27
Bedford 305,677,008 4792.03 63, 788.62
Brewster 94,776,098 2567. 23 36,917.64
Briarcliff 63,075,163 1422.00 44,356.65
Bronxville 109,928. 253 1414.99 77,688.36
Byram Hills 135,453,512 2437.16 55,578.42
Carmel 123,508,826 4290.16 28,788.86
Chappaqua 177,916,550 4016.53 44, 296.00
Croton Harmon 87,910,992 1980.49 44,383.50
Dobbs Ferry 73,281,894 1694.10 43, 257.12
Eastchester 212,744,377 3547.56 59,969. 21
Edgemont L08,320,350 I875.31 57,761.30
Elmsford 66, 207,938 1415.61 46, 769.83
Greenburgh 217,643, 245 3712.87 58,618.60
Haldane 36,516,579 972.60 37,545.32
Harrison 322,973,496 - 3965. 73 81,441 .12
Hastings 81,648,333 2113.03 38,640.40
Irvington 95,370, 245 1903.05 50,114.41
Katonah 156,245,042 3596.43 43,444.48
Lakeland 180,550,863 8131.62 22,203.55
Mahopac 132,422,181 4999.79 26,485.54
_Mamaroneck- ---- '349,491 .654_ - LA 8f/A4_ - 8 67 fir.*'-, iv.
Montrose 253,448;891 3261 .11 77,718.59
Mt. Pleasant 111,306,976 2938.12 37,883.74
Mt. Vernon 456,821,041 11273.31 40,522.35
:New Rochelle 636,525, 736 11851 .10 53, 710.26
North Salem 59,724, 261 1352.35 44,163.31
Ossining 244,852,990 5660.39 43,257.26
Peekskill 90,970,029 3595.07 25,304.15 .
Pelham 161,943, 773 3227.58 50,174.98
Pleasantville 75,677,037 1918.86 39,438.54
Port Chester 236, 260,021 4889.52 48, 319.67
Rye City 189,030,379 3263.00 57,931.00
Rye Neck 95,230, 326 2007.29 47,442.23
Scarsdale 331,749,516 5443.02 60,949.53
Somers 91,613,055 2466.78 37,138.72
Tarrytown 196,797, 219 2996.55 65,674.59
Tuckahoe 75,146, 320 1223.93 61,397.56
White Plains 673,064, 739 8419.39 79,942. 22
Yonkers 1,550,615, 100 29715.06 52,182.80
Yorktown 1.58,918, 714 5467.59 29,065.58
Blythedale DOES NOT APPLY
Cedar Knolls " " "
Cottage School " " "
Echo Hills " "
Graham School "
St. Christopher' s School " " "
Garrison 17,982,526 355.61 50,568.11
Putnam Valley 56,235, 887 1409.30 39,903.41 .
Pocantico Hills 113,488,161 575.17 197,312.37
Ridge Street 71,031,481 1313. 75 54,067. 73
/
EXPENSES PER WADA BY MAJOR FUNCT N (cont'd)
TOTAL EXPENSE PER WADA
)IS1RICT 1970-71 1971-72
lydsley 1,853.29 2,113.23
3edford 2,067.21 2,238.53
3rewster 1,733.21 1,931.95-
3riarcliff 2,182.00 2,445.00
3ronxville 2,022.43 2,224.05
3yram Hills 2,169.95 2,589.29
,armel 1,825.42 1,831.49
3happagua 2,087.87 2,433. 20
;rotors-Harmon 1,944.33 2,058.79
)obbs Ferry 1,840.76 2,083.64
Eastchester 1,795.00 1,876.00
Edgemont 2,076.33 2,276.81
Elmsford 2,195.58 2,548.52 .
;reenburgh 2,360.64 2,402.71
ialdane 1,579.74 1,653.26"
iarrison 2,021.81 2,147.78
-Iastings 1,816.40 1,948.77
Crvington 1,739;49 1,934.00
Zatonah 1,777.22 1,911.44
..akeland 1,608.08 1,780.76
fahopac 1,517.27 1,616.25
1am_.tones 1S._ ._1,.7 tiaO Rnuic 2 C. 1,926.t31. Q2n.Jis 23 '
Son tro5c 1,885.00 2,053.43.
4t. Pleasant 1,598.52 1,707.15
It . Vernon 1,495.68 1,580.63 -
vew Rochelle 1,833.64 1,949.02
forth Salem 2,012.54 2,093.66
)ssining 1,797.90 1,817.72
Peekskill 1,703.75 1,787.98
Pelham 1,549.74 1,653.30
Pleasantville 1,576.84 1,747.72
Port Chester 1,470.08 1,426.46 '
lye City 1,619.00 1,728.00
lye Neck 1,532.35 1,712.07
Scarsdale 2,051.51 2,185.34
Somers 1,851.98 1,967.75
Tarrytown 2,042.17 2,156.76
Packahoe 1,870.26 2,077.57
dhite Plains 1,862.36 2,033.63
i?onkers 1,383.04 1,424.50 -
forktown 1,845.28 1,838.04
No f,,/C.e.c4t,c£.
3lythedale 0 6,741.64
:eclat- Knolls 5,299.18 6,161.95
:,ottage School 6,132.93 6,850.00
Echo Hills 5,084.38 5,618.28
3raham School 8,859.54 9,899.74
3t. Christopher' s 6,104.2.0 7,297.81
arrison 2,364.51 2,490.90
Putnam Valley 1,965.58 2,203.14
Pocantico Hills 3,087.57 3,80189, .
Ridge Street 1,568.23 1,910.96
-? 1,,,-.13 ATTACHMENT NT H Mont.)
EXPENSES PER WADA BY MAJOR FUNCTION
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
INTER-FUND TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION
ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BT
DISTRICT 1971-72 1972-73 1971-72 1972-73 RANK
ARDSLEY $ 8.23 $ 4.95 $1 ,979.08 $2,295.03 14
BEDFORD 37.66 0 2,322.95 2,390.58 10
BREWSTER 0 2.91 1,872.67 2,215.07 20
BRIARCLIFF 3.59 3.49 2,537 .47 2,566.2.3 4
BYRAM HILLS 3.98 11.96 2,359.24 2,549.51 5
CARMEL 0 0 1 805.30 1,772.06 39
CHAPPAQUA 18.74 13.36 2,379.96 2,245.68 18
CROTON-HARMON 52.65 0 2,115.99 2,216.04 19
DOBBS FERRY 6.62 7 .37. 2,015.48 2,348.09 12
EASTCHESTER 0 2.85 1,859.07 2,092.04 22
EDGEMONT 2.67 18.39 2,236.36 2,422.73 9
ELMSFORD 28.88 8.11 2,369.00 2,647.10 2
GREENBURGH CENTRAL 9.09 23.67 2,446.28 2,515.48 6
IHALDANE 0 0 1,635.83 1,707 .87 42
HARRISON 6.47 7.64 2 ,080.80 2,377.21 11
HASTINGS 2.32 1.41 1,908.29 2,076.68 23
IIAWTHORNE-THORNWOOD 0 0.85 1,721.38 1,798.73 38
IRVINGTON 0 0 1,955.72 2,053.00 24
KATONAII 6.16 0 1,894.50 2,032.87 25
LAKELAND 0 0 1,745.99 1,817 .12 36
1 .. ...
e.aAii o r=
A. •,J L•J V 1,6:,1.!)0 ,IJV.1-U `,V
MAMARONECK 4.84 5.54 1,886.81 1,971.86 29
MONTROSE 4.66 0 2,063.50 2,472 06 8
MOUNT VERNON 10.69 11.18 1,642.71 1,730.52 41
HEW ROCHELLE 70.77 51.99 1,920.38 2,029.29 26
NORTH SALEM 0 0 2 ,136.11 2,282.17 16
nSSINING 12.51 10.11 1,891.69 1941.41 32
FLEYSKILL 73.82 7.52 1,673.14 1,873.51 34
PELHAM 3.13 0 1,711.47 1,905.24 33
_FI_r.ASANTVILLE 66.39 55.27 1 ,761.90 1,952 .52 31
POCANTICO HILLS* 1,355.69 34.12 5,848.60** 7,634 .65** 1
PORT CHESTER 0 0 1,464 .82 1,672.46 43
PUTNAM VALLEY* 19.71 4.17 2,278.45** 2,486.33** 7
RIDGE STREET* 0 0 2,138.56** 2,607 ,43** 3
RYE CITY 71.32 65.49 1,703.75 1,845.66 35
RYE NECK 1.01 5.03 1,727.87 1,812.99 37
SCARSDALE 9.92 14.11 2,138.69 2,318.75 13
SOMERS 2.37 2.20 1,980.45 2,124 .08 21
TARRYTOWN 19.89 16.23 2,186.30 2,283.11 15
TUCKAHOE - 13.20 10.14 2,014 .66 2,00.5.59 27
VALHALLA 0 4.48 1,746.23 2,002.58 28
WHITE PLAINS 86.85 70.02 2,036.02 2,281 .33 17
YONKERS
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS 0 0 1,922.32 1,966.04 30
*These districts contract their secondary students out.
Number of Districts With Data - 43
*=Please see page 9
.-)V-7 3 ATTACHMENT H (Cont.)
•
RWADA TRUE VALUE
TSTRICT FULL VALUATION 1971-72 PER RWADA RANK
ARDSLEY $115,927,000 $ 2,710.20 $ 42,774.33 32
BEDFORD 334,577,716 4,972.54 67,285.07 7
IE STER 102,941,165 2,673.33 38506.72 37
BRIARCLIFF 69,524,658 1,369.59 50,763.11 22
BYRAM HILLS 139,205,638 2,535.33 54,906.32 16
CAnNEL 132,964,158 4 ,448.08 29,892.48 40
CHAPPAQUA 196,001,986 4,037.33 48,547.42 27
CROTON-HARMON 96,262,278 1,952.48 49,302.57 ' 24
Do BBS FERRY 78,815,905 1,618.66 48,692.07 25
EASTCHESTER 217,436,600 3,545.66 61,324.72 12
EDGEMONT 117,943,773 1,913.56 61,635.79 11
ELMSFORD 73,023,043 1,355.99 53,852.20 18
(REENBURGH CENTRAL 236,567,169 3,766.62 62,806.22 10
HALDANE 37,502,082 899.57 41,688.90 33
HARRISON 334,322,229 4,016.75 83,232.02 4
HASTINGS 87,718,207 ` 2,113.03 41,512.00 34
HAHT.HORNE-THORNWOOD 111,318,086 2,938.12 37,887.52 38
IRVINGTON 103,957,339 1,872.45 55,519.42 15 °
KATONAH 177,381,218 • 3,650.01 48,597.46 26
L.'1KILAN1) 198,246,737 8,315.24 23,841.37 43
1AHOPAC 147,767J519 5,380.97 27,461.13 41
tMAMARONECK 336,896,226 6,393.42 52".,_694_21 19
tf ��1(1V 511
0 TROSE, 330,329,926 3,256.16 101,447.69 2
MflUrtT, VERNON 1.96,642,409 11,300.21 43.`')49.84 11
NEW ROCHELLE 679,680,023 11,851.10 57,351.64 14
NORTH SALEi1 68,101,808 1,474.27 46,193.58 29
OSSINING 264,052,580 5,727.37 46,103.64 30
PEEKSKILL 95,948,080 3,655.97 26,244.22 42
PELHAM 173,507,039 3,204,34 54,147.51 17
PLEASANTVILLE 76,741,159 1,954.77 39,258.41 36
POCANTICO HILLS 129,920,314 68.56 228,507.66 1—
PORT CHESTER 240,066,512 4,634.11 51,804.23 20
PUTNAM VALLEY 67,769,063 1,460.93 46,387.62 28
RIDGE STREET 78,613,034 1,307.04 60,145.85 13
RYE CITY 206,300,604 3,240.81 63,657.11 9
RYE NECK 99,359,858 2 004.56 49566.92 23
SCARSDALE 342,053,065 5,273.50 64,852.63 8
SOMERS 106,628,540 2,583.18 41,278.01 35
TARRYTOWN 209,864,248 3,037.32 69,095.20 6
TUCKAHOE 84,502,765 1,130.38 74,756.07 5
VALHALLA 117,317,446 2,265.01 51,795.55 21 -
{RITE PLAINS 793,078,771 8,139.36 97,437.49 3
YONKERS
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS 167,146,624 5,396.06 30,975.68 39
Full Valuation - 1971 Rolls and 1971 State Equalization Rates
Number of Districts With Data - 43
ATTACHMENT NT H {Cont.)
EXPENSES PER WADA BY MAJOR FUNCTION
INTER-FUND TRANSFERS TOTAL GENERAL FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET
_ 1972-73 1973-74 1972-73 1973-74 RANK
ARDSLEY $ 4.88 $ 5.02 $2,240.14 $2,435.66 17
BEDFORD - - 2. 394.40 2,574.58 12
BLIND BROOK .66 - 2,518.07 2,663.69 6_
BREWSTER 2.97 - 2,178.78 2.356.76 20
BRIARCLIFF 3.52 3.39 2,560.26 2,657.49 7
BYRAi•1 HILLS 1.05 2.07 2,52.8.38 2,826.25 3
CARMEL - - 1,824.32 1,927.33 39_
CHAPPAQUA 10.33 9.23 2,483.90 2,617.74 8
CROTON-HARMON - 17.29 2,267 .31 2,423.30 18
DOBBS FERRY 7.22 8.40 2,2,2.54 2 ,765.22 5_
EASTCHESTER 2.93 4 .15 2,090.47 2,341.48 21
EDGEMONT 22 .04 2.58 2 ,390.402,585.01 11_ _
ELMSFORD 8.01 - 2,531.98 2,939.61 2
GREENBURGH 8.08 13.96 2,545.11 2,783.56 4
HALDANE 1.13 .95 1,764.69 1,889.39 41
HARRISON 10.53 5.26 2,392.53 2,601.15 9
HASTINGS 1.43 4.80 2,108.61 2,235.86 26
H) NDRICK HUDSON _ - 2,343.14 2,568.05 13
IRVINGTON - - 2,068.29 2,306.30 23
KATONAH 3.37 ' - 2,049 .60 2,190.19 31
LAKELAND - - 1 ,872.29 1,938.81 37
NAHOPAC .45 _____ 1.76 1,774.42 1,932.88 38
_ M= NA7.10NECK 5.65 5.94 1,963.83 2,251.19 24
MOUNT V RNON 14.18 16.43 _ 1,844.67 1,911:82 40
N.T. PLEASANT - .85 1,702.69 1,865.19 42
NEW ROCHELLE 45.32 47.15 2,059.20 2,244.57 25
ria TH SALEM - 4 .03 2 ,280.17 2,401.50 19
03SINING 9.46 6.52 1,972.26 2,156.06 27
PEEKSKILL 7.74 - 1,769.53 2,057.09 34
PEL A.N - - ".,942.1; 2,070.41 33
PLEASANTVILLE 55 .53 30. W3 1,927.04 2,194.66 30
PC:CANTICO HILLS 34.51 34.91 ',698.50 6,630.86 1
PORT CNESTFR 6.06 - 1,651.55 1,626.11 44
PU'1TAM VALLEY 2 .51 5.27 2,=}39.35 2,588.54 10
RYE CITY 70.61 35.92 1,848.25 2 ,006.65 35
RT,'E NECK 5.08 - 1 ,840.08 1,580.95 36
2CARSD4LE - - 2,255._ 02 2,438.34 16
SCiti.ERS 2.21 2.72 2 ,159.35 2,152.83 29
TARRYTOtiNS 9.47 _ 12 .58 2,161.10 2,515.19 14
TUCKA !CE 10.36 15.89 2,0,9.13 2,156.Ou 28
VALHLLLA 2.19 - 1,342.69 2,306.88 22
WHITE PLAINS 119.13 111.98 2 135.00 2,460.50 15
YOI1KERS 15.64 - 1,608.31 1,760.16 43
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS .93 .94 2,003.53 2,111.97 32
8
A rAC MENT H (Cont.)
EXPENSES PER WADA BY MAJO7 FUNCTION
WADA BOARD OF EDUCATION
ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET
1972-73 1973-74 1972-73 1973-74
ARDSLEY 2,702.30 2,633.37 $16.68 $15.76
BEDFORD 4,799.66 4,798.60 8.48 6.63
BLIND BROOK 1,043.18 1,153.22 9.32 9.69
BREWSTER 2,696.30 2,869.51 19.06 18.27
BRIARCLIFF 1,420.00 1,474.56 6.67 6.39
BYRAM HILLS 2,431.38 2,405.78 _ 24.86 26.99
CARMEL v 4,763.71_ 4,976.24 1.1.45 10.49
CHAPPAQUA 4,114.14 4,223.76 12.87 11.83
CROTON-HARMON 1,876.11 1 ,850.06 15.90 14.42
DOBBS_ __FERRY 1,641.51 _ 1,548.25 9.71 10.71
EASTCHESTER 3,411.21 3,373.69 16.24 9.92
,DGEMONT _ 1,871.20 1 ,936.57 10.90 7.46
ELMSFORD 1,247.61 1,144.80 21.09 29.26
GREENBURGH 3,635.86 3,581.07 * 33.55 14.98
HALDANE 1,050.391,057.67 23.81 19_.03
HARRISON 3,862.03 _ 3,802.27 * 16.80 15.95
HASTINGS 2,097.36 2,067.49 9.94 10.46
HENDRICK HUDSON 3,205.583,239.82 11.34 9.59
IRVINGTON 1,878.34 - 1,$45.3_0 6.51 9.73
KATONAH 3,722.46 " 3,753.36 10.49 1.1.42
LAKELAND 8,518.53 8,946.11 5.65 5.35
MAHOPAC 5,585.78 5,945.32 9.01 5.26
MA.MARONECK 6,545.99 6,228.00 7.98 10.80
MOUNT VERNON ___ 024.00 11,137.00 6.69 r. 8.09
MT. PLEASANT � 2,953.48 2,925.51 12.53 15.59
NEW ROCHELLE 11,648.22 11,400.00 15.50 12.95
NORTH SALEM 1,436.67 1,489.54 12.38 12.04
CSSINING 5,432.23 5,505.94 10.68 8.94
PEEKSKILL 3,556.00 3,550.68 6.93 6.09
PELHAM 3,193. 76 3,160.00 3.41 5.12
PLEASANTVILLE 2,005.31 I.,951.91 .2.1.14 25.08
POCANTICO HILLS ** 376.72 405.29 46.14 40.27
PORT CHESTER 4,634.11 4,635.08 7.29 _ 7.67_
PUTNAM VALLEY ** 1,573.58 1,233.50 21.48 - 13.58
RYE CITY 3,227.16 3,252.79 13.64 10.64
RYE NECK 1,966. 75 _ 1,950.10 17.28 14.15
SCARSDALE 5,292.43 5,299.31 8.01 7.98
SOMERS 2,711.31 2,942.54 9.67 8.07
TARRYTOWN 3,376.42 3,228.08 6.85 11.24
TUCKAHOE 1,158.43 1,177.21. 17.49 17.67
VALHALLA 2,279.87 2,106.90 5.75 10.37
WHITE PLAINS 8,502.53 8,231.63 11.64 13.39
YONKERS 29,162.44 28,697.87 6.15 6.72
YORx(TOWN HEIGHTS 5,403.33 5,327.59 * 7.66 6.30
* Estimates because of strike in September.
-r These schools contract their secondary students out.
ATTACHMENT H (Gant.)
TRUE VALUE PER PUPIL AS RELATED TO .
EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL��jjIN WESTCHESTER SCHOOLS
ITRUE VALUE BEHIND EXPENSES
DISTRICT RANK EACH PUPIL PER PUPIL RANK DISTRICT
POCANTICO HILLS 1 $ 279,933 $ 7,077 1 POCANTICO HILLS
HENDRICK HUDSON 2 152,733 3,697 2 ELMSFORD
HARRISON 3 120,171 3,466 3 DOBBS FERRY
WHITE PLAINS 4 106,629 3,363 4 BYRAM HILLS
BEDFORD 5 92,751 3,346 5 BRIARCLIFF
SCARSDALE 6 88,037 3,293 6 GREENBURGH
TARRYTOWNS 7 86,100 3,217 7 HARRISON
TUCKAHOE 8 82,423 3,203 8 BEDFORD
GREENBURGH 9 81 ,336 3,164 9 TARRYTOWNS
EASTCHESTER 10 80,457 3,132 10 EDGEMONT
ELMSFORD 11 79,781 3,114 11 CHAPPAQUA
BYRAM HILLS 12 79,689 3,104 12 HENDRICK HUDSON
RYE CITY 13 2 76,997 3,042 13 WHITE PLAINS
EDGEMONT 14 75,634 2,995 14 CROTON-HARMON
NEW ROCHELLE 15 72,121 2,937 15 SCARSDALE
MAMARONECK 16 71,868 2,913 16 ARDSLEY
IRVINGTON 17 71 ,084 12,864 17 EASTCHESTER
GARRISON 18 69,727 2,913 18 • NEW ROCHELLE
YONKERS 19 68,688 12,817 19 BLIND BROOK
°LIND BROOK 20 68,233 2,794 20 NORTH SALEM
CROTON-HARMON 21 68,030 2,768 21 IRVINGTON
PELHAM 22 67,885 2,762 22 VALHALLA
PORT CHESTER 23 67,640 2,751 23 PUTNAM VALLEY
DOBBS FERRY 24 65,075 2,740 24 BREWSTER
KATONAH 25 64,189 2,729 25 GARRISON
VALHALLA 26 63,796 2,716 26 HASTINGS
CHAPPAQUA 27 61 ,676 2,673 2.7 OSSINING
RYE NECK 28 60,553 2,657 28 KATONAH
BRIARCLIFF 29 60,664 2,640 29 PLEASANTVILLE
NORTH SALEM 30 60,005 2,640 30 PELHAM
OSSINING 31 59,390 2,621 31 RYE NECK
HALDANE 32 53,201 2,598 32 TUCKAHOE
ARDSLEY 33 52,987 2,594 33 MAMARONECK
MOUNT VERNON 34 51 ,423 2,547 34 YORKTOWN HEIGHTS
MOUNT PLEASANT 35 51 ,223 2,538 35 SOMERS
SOMERS 36 51 ,169 2,494 36 PEEKSKILL
HASTINGS 37 51 ,055 2,443 37 RYE CITY
PUTNAM VALLEY 38 50,106 2,417 38 LAKELAND
PLEASANTVILLE- 39 49,466 2,329 39 MOUNT VERNON
BREWSTER 40 48,315 2,266 40 PORT CHESTER
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS 41 43,600 2,256 41 MOUNT PLEASANT
CARMEL 42 40,795 2,248 42 CARMEL
MAHOPAC 43 .. 36,013 2,234 43 YONKERS
PEEKSKILL 44 32,72.9 2,227 44 HALDANE
LAKELAND 45 32,514 2,223 45 MAHOPAC
LAST YEAR MAMARONECK RANKED 29 IN EXPENDITURES AND '
14 IN TRUE VALUE PER PUPIL
3dlQr7c lip
ATTACHMENT H Mont-)
TRUE TAX TRUE TAX
DISTRICT FULL VALJATION* TAX LEVY RATE RANK
ARDS-LEY - $ 1291466058 $ 4 ,208,276 $32.505 11
BEDFORD 387,301,869 8,960,152 23.135 37
BLIND BROOK 84,593,570 2,322,761 27.458 23
BREWSTER 119,808,733 4,020,098 33.554 6____
BRIARCLIFF 76,665,066 2,805,514 36.594 ' 2
BYRAM _HILLS 169,020,731 4,990,748 29.527 17
CARMEL 163,986,057 5,270,290 32.139 12
CHAPPAQUA 229,429,232 8,400,000 36.613 1
CROTON-HARMON _ 106,861,484 _3,334,830 31.020 15
DOBBS FERRY 87,090,271 2,945,585 33.822 5 ____
EASTCHESTER 240,831,012 5,950,414 24.708 34
EDGEMONT 130,672,083 3,869,020 29.563 16
ELMSFORD 82,8C.',6i5 2,313,949 27.924 21
GF.EE`BURGH 263,654;1.66 7,411,687 28.110 19
HALDANE 45,26+,092 1,148,169 25.367 30
'r:ARRISON 417,445,944 7,695,300 18.434 42
CASTINGS 97,298,541 3,205,372 32.944 10
BENDRICK HUDSON 395,599,534 6,714,400 16.845 43
IRVINGTON 118,277,791 J 3,205,372 27.100 24
KATONAH 2.10,731,017 5,801,895 27.532 22
LAKELAND 23'.,8C2,167 7,922,840 33.371 7
MAHOPAC . 182,675,639 6,069,708 33.227 8
MAMARONECK 418,898,308 10,946,367 26.131 27
MOUNT VERNON 521,875,385 14,665,428 28.101 20
MT. PLEASANT 133,501,098 3,352,766 ^ 25.114 31
NEW ROCHELLE 731,115,683 19,242,351 26.319 26
NORTH SALEM50,545,384 2,535,911 31.445 14
_
OSSINING 292,143,642 7,242,083 24.789 33
PEEKSKILL 104,365,985 3,548,795 34.003 4
PELHAM 198,339,844 5,078,421 25.598 28
I'LEASANTVILLE 84,677,836 2,893,026 34.165 3
P3CANTICO HILLS 147,167,537 2,218,695 15.076 44
roaT C1ESTER 243,643,147 5,698 034 23.38736
11TNAM VALLEY 74,466,610 1,989,524 26.717 25
RYE CITY 228,914,195 4,915,986 21.475 38
PYE NECK 107,852,128 2,748,105 25.480 29
SCARSDALE 413,555,368 10,325,104 24.967 32
SO:•MERS 122,992,774 3,933,404 31.981 13
1".RRYTOWNS _ 230 ,548,724 5 576 500 24.188 35
IUCKAHOE i 87,213,406 1,860,247 21.330 39
'JALfALLA 117,39,321 3,321,655 28.315 18
V4ITE PLAINS788,328,354 15,991,094 20.285 41
YONF ERS , 1,347,023,046 37,936,750 20.539 40
YORKTOR'N HEIGHTS 19b,209,595 _� 6,562,897 33.111 9
•• These tax rates were computed by using the 1972 Assessment Rolls and
the 1972 State Equalization Rates, and the 1973-74 Tax Levy
Total number of districts in st-Ay - 44
29
IV - 2
POTENTIAL FOR REORGANIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE
MAMARONECK SCHOOL DISTRICT
Subcommittee Report of A. Carleton Dukess and DeWitt C. Baker
The assignment given us was to examine ways possible to reorganize and/or
consolidate our physical plant for its most economical use under our projected student
population (through 1980-1981) without regard to educational impact. If we found that
there was, or would be, excess plant, we were to suggest means of dealing with it, estimate
its value and determine what the district legally could do with it. Concurrently, we were
to examine the Rye Neck plan with a view as to its best use if a merger or tuitioning plan
was to be contemplated.
BUILDINGS
We read the Forger Report, the report of the 1970 Long-Range Building
Needs Committee and an updating of the physical conditions reported therein prepared
for us on April 3, 1975 by Michael Tripicco, Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds
(Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively). We studied the costs of operation of the
individual buildings and then inspected the buildings, both on weekends while they were
empty and during school hours when undergoing normal use. We conducted visual
evaluations of the Rye N eck buildings and tabulated the capacities of all of the
buildings we were to study based on current class size standards of our district. (See
Exhibit "C".)
We researched the facilities of the various parochial schools in our
district with particular emphasis upon St. Augustine's in the Village of Larchmont as a
result of the recent well-publicized discussion over the continuation of that school.
In a meeting with Father Reynolds, Pastor of St. Augustine's, we
learned that their school annex was closed and out of use, their main and annex buildings
were both excellent and modern education facilities, and that it probably would be
feasible for the district to lease the main building and/or the annex shortly after the
close of the 1975-1976 school year if (a) arrangements could be made for the Parish to
maintain its after-school programs (which center primarily in the gym) and, insofar as
the annex is concerned, (b) the Larchmont Library does not purchase it for expansion,
the possibility of which is presently under discussion. Father Reynolds emphasized that
the ultimate decision on such actions was not his and that the foregoing constituted his
best opinion of what such decisions would be. He indicated, however, that such a lease
or purchase proposal made by the District to the Parish would tend to alleviate certain
Parish problems which in turn would motivate an affirmative reaction.
The facts given us together with our personal inspections made clear
that the District was burdened by two significant plant deficiencies: (1) the School-Town
Center was unavailable for teaching use as the result of the prohibition of The State
Education Department, and (2) the Chatsworth Avenue School demonstrated significant
problems of structure, room size and scope of facilities. The old wing of Chatsworth Avenue
30
is of wood frame construction; the new wing, although of masonry construction, suffers
from inadequate room size and the entire school lacks adequate lavatories, playground,
gym and ancillary facilities. Of these problems, the one most impressive was the older
wing's wood frame construction combined with what appeared to us as difficult egress
in the event of fire.
We obtained the services of Beyer, Blinder, Belle, P.C., architects
and planners, who examined the architectural plans and the buildings and systems of
both the Chatsworth Avenue and Mamaroneck Avenue Schools. Their report is attached
as Exhibit "D". In substance, they told us that it would not be a major job to demolish
the old wing of Chatsworth Avenue (and continue the use of the new wing) as all the
utilities and mechanical services of the entire school either fed into or were housed
in the new wing. They estimated the cost to be approximately $100,000. Further, they
proposed feasible alternate uses of the Mamaroneck Avenue School building and property.
(See 'What Do We Do With The Real Estate?", infra.)
We further determined that although the Town of Mamaroneck leases
from the District a substantial portion of the space at the School-Town Center, the lease
provides for a simple, inexpensive method of terminating those arrangements, The
existence of that lease is not a material factor in the consideration of alternate uses
or disposition of the School-Town Center. More significant, perhaps, is the fact that
the Center and its land, for the purpose of calculating the size of the high school site,
is considered part of the high school campus. The State Education Department guidelines
for campus size indicate that the high school is too large for its site and permission to
build the connecting wing was given by the Department in reliance on the continued
availability of the lamd surrounding the Center. We concluded, however, that if
disposition of that land and/or building was determined to be in the best interests of the
District, State approval could be obtained. Experience has established that the topography
prevents all but an infinitesimal use of that land by students at the high school and in our
judgment the financial benefits of disposition would outweigh by far the benefit (if any)
of such use. Many modern high schools in the State place far more students on much
less land than does Mamaroneck High School.
DEMOGRAPHY
While we were engaged in the activities described, the demographic
projections were being prepared. When the apparent demographics were received by us
(Exhibit "E") the projected decline in school population was far greater than we anticipated.
Although not a part of our assignment, we attempted independently to verify the demography
and found that it appeared reasonable, notwithstanding the fact it projected a drop from
the present year (1974-1975) of 6,119 in October (excluding 69 students from Rye Ridge)
to 5,746 in 1977-1978 and to 5,260 in 1980-1981, or almost 900 fewer students than
at present.
The forecast shown in Exhibit "E" contemplates a continuing shift of
students from parochial to public schools as well as significant "in migration" of students
to existing and new housing in each of the years covered. Nevertheless, the trend
31
and results are clear and unmistakable. Mamaroneck finally has been swept into
the nationwide tide of dramatic declining school enrolment. Although the phenomenon
is not peculiar to Mamaroneck, the present planning for it would appear to be. See
Exhibit IFEducation U.S.S., Vol . 17, No. 39, May 26, 1975.
RYE NECK
At about the same time as the demography was received, the sub-
committee on Rye Neck delivered its draft report. That report and the committee
discussion of it made it clear that merger with Rye Neck was not an attractive measure
for Mamaroneck. We nevertheless were cognizant of the possibility that a merger
might be forced on us in the future. We therefore obtained information on the Rye Neck
physical plant (Exhibit "C ") and Rye Neck's projected student population (Exhibit "E-1 ").
The committee having concluded that merger was to be resisted, we,
did nothing further than to determine that if it came, it could be accomplished physically
in 1980-1981 by retaining any one of our otherwise surplus elementary schools and using
(at most) one of Rye Neck's elementary schools.
We also found that combining the Rye Neck projections with our own
demonstrated that at all times during the period studied, our Palmer Avenue-Post Road
Campus could accommodate the Rye Neck High School students in grades 9 through 12
on a tuition plan, although the 1980-1981 year would be tight due to the transfer in of
our 8th grade students. However, trends that are not included in our demographics,
such as early graduation (29 juniors departed this June), more use of BOCES vocational
facilities, more students taking classes at local colleges in their senior year, and on-the-
job training all have the effect of reducing the daily population of the Palmer Avenue-
Post Road Campus.
POSSIBLE WAYS TO GO
The compelling and dram, ic results of the dere-)graphy rendered many
of our earlier concerns irrelevant and/or immaterial. For example, after finding that
within about five years two of four elementary schools would be unnecessary, there was
no longer any need to deal with the problem of the old wing at Chatsworth Avenue.
We found that by about 1976 we could close one elementary school and
by about 1980, another. Analysis demonstrated that the Palmer Avenue-Post Road Campus
and the Hammocks School would be substantially underutilized in their present configurations
and would be more than adequate for their potential populations even after accommodating
the class shifts we ultimately came to suggest.
Nevertheless, our inclination was to recommend the continuation of
our four neighborhood elementary schools which have served the District so well for so
many years. Our assignment, however, was to consider possible reorganization and/or
consolidation in order to achieve maximum cost savings. When tested against the assign-
ment, our inclination failed totally.
32
Energy costs, duplicative administrative, professional and custodial
staff together with the inability efficiently to place the teachers where the students
would be, rendered the status quo unacceptable to our assignment.
Thus we approached the possibility of operating the District with only
three elementary schools in about 1976 with nowledge that we wLuld be using only two
in about 1980. There were two possible ways to go: redistricting the elementary school
lines twice in about a three-year period (once in 1976 and again in 1980) or converting
our system into one in which entire grade levels were in a common location.
Experience has taught us that redistricting is traumatic and disruptive.
Those who suffer most are the students who, in many cases, become vehicles used for
the expression of parental emotion. To compound the trauma with a programmed repetition
in three years would make both experiences more difficult. Moreover, redistricting also
fails to meet the economic mandate of our assignment. Clearly, for example, if an entire
grade level consists of 300 children and a class size standard of 25 is applicable, there
is a need for 12 teachers and 12 classrooms if all 300 are in the same building. If,
however, the 300 are divided among three buildings with 105, 102 and 93 in each, then
there is a need for 5 teachers and classrooms in the first and second and 4 in the third
for a total of 14 teachers and classrooms - a 16.6% increase in teaching staff and space
needs for one grade level.
The added space efficiency also shortens the period within which we can
commence to eliminate schools. Thus, the transportation necessary to operate three elem-
entary schools would be substantially the same as that necessary to operate two. The
transportation cost to the District is minimal since the state rebates ninety per cent of it.
Thus it seemed to us inescapable that we recommend a systemwide
approach and reject the one of redistricting.
In arriving at our population distribution methodology we looked at the
facilities for the lower grades on the basis o. number of rooms wito students assigned at
present maximum contract class sizes, i.e., K-2. . 25; 3-4. . 27; 4-6. . 30.
At this point, although our assignment excluded an evaluation of the
educational pros and cons of our options, we decided to have them checked. Specifically,
we wanted to know the educational soundness of the placement of all classes at each
grade level in a common building and also the educational soundness of our approach to
the class size subject. Frankly, the conclusions we were reaching were so far from where
we thought we were going when we started that we felt justified in going beyond the
scope of our assignment. To do this we called upon Dr. Norwood and his staff.
They responded as follows:
"The quality of education provided each student is obviously
related to class size. Present class size standards are
adequate except where small classrooms dictate class size. "
"Class size cannot be considered by itself as a measure of
quality. A better measure of quality would be the adult-
pupil ratio rather than the teacher-pupil ratio. Any discussion
on class size would have to include the impact of other
adults, teacher aides, volunteers on program. "
"There is no evidence that would support any one form of
school organization. The major factor determining grade
organization has been the size and nature of available school
buildings. From a social standpoint, the two-year middle
school has been a concern. It is difficult to develop an
identification with the school. One of the issues with which
we are currently dealing is interaction among students in the
four elementary schools prior to coming to Hommocks. "
With those concerns thus allayed, we calculated the costs of operating
the buildings proposed for closing (Exhibit "H ") and found that they exceeded $650,000
in the 1974-1975 school year! In addition the staff efficiencies just referred to result
in additional savings of more than $88,000 assuming that all teacher positions eliminated
had been filled by entry-level personnel (lowest compensation scales) being paid at
current salary schedules in 1975 dollars.
The total estimated savings in 1980-1981 are Si, 100,000 or $7.03 per
$1,000 of present assessed value. This saving would increase each year.
THE WAY WE COULD LOOK
In 1976-1977 our students could be housed as follows:
Grade School # of Classrooms Classrooms Required
K - 2 Central J6 34
3 - 4 Murray Avenue 36 30
5 - 6 Mamaroneck Avenue 30 28
7 - 8 Hammocks Capacity - 1200 Population - 990
9 -- 12 High School Capacity - 2850 Population - 2155
Administration - Murray Avenue or the Palmer Avenue-Post Road Campus
Special Education (elementary - Murray Avenue or Mamaroneck Avenue)
In the 1980-1981 school year, we could look like:
Grade School # of Classrooms Classrooms Required
K - 2 Central 36 29
3 - 4 Murray Avenue 36 24
5 - 6 - 7 Hommocks Capacity - 1400 Population - 1191
8 - 12 High School Capacity - 2850 Population - 2459
Administration - Murray Avenue or Central
Special Education - Murray Avenue or Central
The foregoing constitutes our recommendation for reorganization.
u4
WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE REAL ESTATE?
Property in our District is valuable and salable. Our realty consultant
has appraised the properties proposed to be released by the School District as follows
(Exhibit "G"):
Chatsworth Avenue School . . . . $ 254,000
School-Town Center 975,000 to $ 475,000
Mamaroneck Avenue School . . 1,000,000 to $1 ,250,000
(net of cost of demolition) if sold for development
. . 150,000 to $ 200,000 if
building used for subsidized housing and entire playground, gym
and basement continue in non-school community use.
(The variables result from differing potential re-uses.)
All of the properties involved are unencumbered and the proceeds of
sale can be applied or invested in such manner as the Board of Education determines.
Although the authority for and responsibility to close schools are vested
in the Board of Education, the decision to sell them is subject to prior approval in a
referendum.
As we mentioned earlier, our architectural consultants proposed a re-
use of the Mamaroneck Avenue School (Exhibit "D"). In their opinion the building
lends itself to conversion to approximately fifty apartments while maintaining the base-
ment, gym and playground facilities for non-school community use.
The new wing of the Chatsworth Avenue School might serve the community
well as a facility for the Larchmont Library and Town Offices.
All of these proposals are legal - the estimated economic value to the
School District of each of them is set forth. Thus, we have satisfied our mandate. We
do not feel inappropriate for us to recommend specific re-uses. Those are decisions
to be reached by the Board of Education and the community.
Nevertheless, we fear that the inescapable and significant increases
in the total property tax levies of the School District and municipalities will be
unacceptable to the taxpayers (whether renters or owners) unless it can be tangibly
established that our public representatives have acted effectively, rationally and with
foresight to keep such increases at a minimum. In order so to act we believe there
must be joint planning and rational coordination of facilities, services and goals.
Thus, decisions on what to do with the real estate, in our judgment,
should not be made solely on the basis of the highest economic return to the School
District, but rather on the basis of the highest socio-economic return to the taxpayers
of the entire District. The re-use of the new wing at Chatsworth Avenue School as a
combined library and Town Office building, for example, might not bring the most
money to the School District, but it might save the most money for the taxpayers.
We believe that the foregoing report accurately summarizes our
recommendations and the manner in which we reached them. We believe in the
recommendations and think them consistent with the repeated demonstrations of this
community's high regard for quality education at its lowest cost.
•
EXHIBIT "A"
Nevemker 11, 1970
•
Mr. James Davidson, •
Chairman
LONG RANGE BUILDING NEEDS COMMITTEE
Cambridge Court
Larchmont, New York
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Inspections of plant and facilities were conducted by me in the
schools under the jurisdiction of the Mamaroneck Board of Education.
These surveys took place between April and August 1970, mostly on
occasions when the respective buildings were empty of pupils, so that
adequate time could be given to a proper analysis of conditions.
Generally, the findings herein fall into two groups - those dealing with
actual physical plant deficiencies, and those associated with function
and space shortcomings. These, in turn, are summarized in the
attached Appendix "A", which deals more specifically with the order
• of magnitude into which these corrections or improvements fall.
It I should also be noted that, in most instances, staff and custodial
personnel were contacted in order to more fully reflect situations
or conditions not necessarily evident by a mere building inspection.
Provisions and adequacy of staff/faculty facilities, repair and maintenance
frequency and cost, and the like, were some of the areas discussed.
•A school-by-school analysis, together with relevant summarizations, are
attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted, ,
r - ii 1. J:Y/t/( e (L1'
Michael F. Drucker •
MFD:psb 1 •
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
CHATSWORTHAVENUE SCHOOL
Originally Built .1902
Altered 1922
Extended .1930
Of all the facilities inspected, these buildings appeared to present the most
problems. Although no serious structural deficiences of consequence were noted,
inadequacies as to function and facility were many, and are categorized here
as to their most obvious faults; some minor deficiencies, due to their relative
unimportance, are not listed.
The older of the two buildings is in most cases sub-parwhen compared to proper
school building needs. Construction is classified as fire resistive, rather
than fireproof, with a prevalence of wood wainscoting throughout classroom
areas. Classroom sizes here are adequate in most cases. Administrative,
faculty, and non-instructional staff and other "surplus" areas are totally
inadequate as to quantity and size.
The gymnasium located on the upper floor of the old building creates access
and sound problems too difficult to economically correct, and it's usage is
restricted probably due to these deficiencies. 1
Fire escapes, although generally conforming to minimum standards, could
stand some improvement. All fire stairs, exits, corridors, etc. comply
with regulatory provisions.
Lighting levels in most classrooms were poor, and below today's standards.
Toilet facilities were old, and the extend of the plumbing fixtures for
publils and staff were found to be below recommended needs.
The auditorium capacity (with balcony) is somewhat inadequate, and its usage for
other than assemblies, concerts, etc. appears to be restricted.
• PLAY AREAS
•
. Based on recommended state standards, which are admittedly subject
to considerable variance, the play grounds are still quite below even minimal
size (less than two acres).
•
•
C H A T S W O R T H• AVENUE SCHOOL
MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
Based on figures supplied by the Superintendent of Schools, maintenance and
repair costs are,and have been,minimal, with no appreciable differences
contemplated in the foreseeable future. All work is done by direct labor,
other than major painting and similar types of work not compatible with
available manpower. Quality of performed work was good. Further analysis
indicates that the monies expended on minor repairs/replacements, space
conversions, etc. are probably the most economic means of doing
such work under the circumstances. The "Per Dollar" cost would certainly
be greater if this work were done by contractors under conventional bidding
procedures, working within necessary time limits imposed under contract.
The workmanship evidenced by the people under Ole direction of the Superintendent
of Buildings and Grounds is in most cases as good as the obtainable from
contractors, and these skills certainly merit special mention.
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
•
MAMARONFCK AVFNUF SCHOOL
Originally Built 1909
First Renovation 1916
Second Renovation
and Addition • 1929
The structures comprising this school, although old, were found to be in
generally good condition, no structural deficiencies were noted, and
many localized repairs and renovations over the years reflect this
building's present condition as to whatever adequacy now exists. However,
although the number of areas requiring correction as not as great as, say,
Chatsworth, they nevertheless require detailing as to important specifics.
Classroom sizes are generally adequate, with few under six hundred (600)
square foot conditions vary from poor to good. Lighting levels are fair
by today's standards.
•
The gymnasium size is not adequate based on school capacity; some
noise problems are evident due to its basement location within the newer
building.
Toilet facilities for pupils in the old building are inadequate; admin.
. and staff toilets are sub-par and old. Staff areas, including special required
work areas, are at an absolute minimum and inadequate by any standards.
No special areas exist for such needed facilities as special problems -
individual non-staff people working orking with children requireing these attentions.
Teacher's lunch facilities are sadly lacking.
The auditorium, which has restrictive usage, has been adapted to some
multi-purpose activities.
Repairs and minor renovations completed by personnel under the direction
of the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds have helped to relieve some
past problems i:, a professional way (see commentary for Chatsworth).
Analysis of maintenance costs as well as modernization and repair/replace-
ments are minimal, with the same general commentary as noted for the
Chatsworth School.
•
Play areas are not adequate by State standards.
•
•
Page -3-
M A M A lI O N F C AVENUF SCHOOL
MAINTFNANCF ANALYSTS
Based on figures supplied by the Superintendent of Schools, maintenance and
repair costs are and have been minimal, with no appreciable differences
contemplated in the foreseeable future. All work is done by direct labor,
other than major painting and similar types fof work not compatible with
available manpower. Quality of performed work was good. Further analysis
indicates that the monies expended on minor repairs/replacements, space
conversions, etc. are probably the most economic means of doing
such work under the circumstances. The "Per `>ollar" cost would certainly
be greater if this work were done by contractors under conventional bidding
procedures, working whin necessary time limits imposed under contract.
The workmanship evidenced by the people under the direction of the
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds is in most cases as good as the
obtainable from contractors, and these skills certainly merit special mention.
EXHIBIT "A" (Cent.)
MURRAY AVENUE SCHOOL
Originally Built 1913
Renovated 1926
Renovated/Extended 1931
All comments as to structure and contained facilities noted at the Mamaroneck
Avenue School also apply here. Alterations and modifications by buildings and
grounds staff have removed some of the more glaring deficiencies in terms of more
adequate usage of space.
Special mention must be given to the following inadequacies:
(a) Inadequate teacher rest areas/work areas,
(b) Inadequate or non existing facilities for
non-instructional staff facilities,
(c) Overcrowding causing some poor space application,
(d) Inadequately sized gynmasium facilities,
(e) Teacher's lunchroom,
•
(f) No locker areas for pupils.
MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
Based on figures supplied by the Superintendent of Schools, maintenance and repair
costs are and have been minimal, with no appreciable differences contemplated in
the foreseeable future. All work is done by direct labor, other than major
painting and similar types of work not compatible with available manpower.
Quality of performed work was good. Further analysis indicates that the monies
expended on minor repairs/replacements, space conversions, etc. are probably the
most economic means of doing such work under the circumstances. The "Per Dollar'
cost would certainly be greater if this work were done by contractors under
conventional bidding procedures, working within rc cessary time limits imposed
under contract. The workmanship evidenced by the people under the direction of the
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds is in most cases as good as the obtainable from
contractors, and these skills certainly merit special mention.
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
.CENTRAL•
SCHOOL
Originally Built 1965
This new three-story structure indicates generally sound appli-
cation of planning and facility to function. Classroom
sizes are large and well above the averages in the other
elementary. schools examined under this survey.
•
By even today's revised educational standards, this five-
year old facility is more than adequate with respect to
pupil, administrative, staff, and non-instructional staff
areas. Good planning has provided for some multi-purpose
usage perhaps not originally considered.
•
Play areas of about four (4) acres is adequate.
Possible expansion of facilities within the twelve (12) acre plus
site should be further evaivateC.
EMIBIT "A" (Cont.)
HOMMOCKS SCHOOL
Built 1968
All comments applying to the Central School also apply
here. A survey of the radio of administrative/staff areas
related to capacity and size of pupil facilities indicated a
considerable excess in the extent of these non-instructional
spaces. However, these were apparently designed with a third
"House" it mind, and with that consideration, the probable
reason for this 'overage' becomes clear.
A further study as to the possibility of expansion within
the areas of the present site reveals that the structures
are not designed for vertical expansion due to poor subsoil,
and the limitations of the present pilings However, the
building of a third 'House', or even possible other
facilities, should be further evaluated. •
Although there are some criticisms to be made of certain
space limitations, these are negligible when compared
to the overall quality and usefulness of this facility.
•
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
APPE N DIX ' A'
•
Corrective measures recommended to insure continuing maximum
usage of present plant, and probable n :ajor maintenance problems
projected until 1975.
•
CIATSWORTH AVENUE SCHOOL
(a) Stairs and exists to be upgraded to meet
. present standards for such facilities, includ-
ing more fire retarding and lighting.
(b) Upgrading of lighting levels, especially
in the older building.
(c) Modernization and upgrading of pupil toilet
facilities.
(d) Modernization and updating of staff toilet
- -facilities.
(e) Possible repairs (and replacement where
necessary), of heating and plumbing plant,
piping, repairs, etc. •
•
(f) Creation of more adequate administrative,
staff, and non-staff areas by fuller usage of,
or re-evaluating of, auditorium-old gym - and
ii auditorium balcony space, and making of same
into some multi-purpose facilities.
{g) A more thorough evaluation of the possibilities associated
• with a complete renovation of the entire plant, taking
into account the possibility of only assigning certain
• groups - say K to 4 - here, the balance of the y►lementary
li grades to be assigned elsewhere. (This requires more
fundamental study by other groups within this committee,
and may not lend itself to any definitive recommendations
•
at this time.
(h) Sound attenuation, especially in halls and corridors.
..
•
Page -8-
•
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
.. APPE N DIX ' A'
- 2 -
'MURRAY AVENUE SCHOOL
Other than the comments on exit facilities, the same
II, order of magnitude would apply as noted for Chatsworth.
In view of the larger enrollment, some of the recommendations
would appear to be more urgent here.
MAMARONECK AVENUE SCHOOL
The order of magnitude here generally conforms to that
of Murray Avenue and Chatsworth.
FINAL COMMENTS '
Analysis of the recommendations enumerated in this
Appendix would seem to indicate the establishment of
a strictly adhered to System of Priorities, once the optimun
range of needs is established. Implementation of such
needed improvements, whether by contract with outside
forces, or by skills available within the jurisdiction of
the Superintendent of Plant and Facilities, should follow
the established priorities with little deviation. Budget
appropriations to properly deal with these needs must be
properly considered by the Board of Education at the appropriate
time to insure implementation and speedy completion within
li the Range of Priorities Set.
• In conclusion, some mention should be made of the most
feasible ways for a school district such as ours to crelke new
and needed schools within tight budget situations. The order
of importance would be as follows:
(a) Proper site selection, including air rights,
commercial usage of a multi-story office
structure - school, etc.
(b) Absolute adherence by architect's and planners
to rigid formulas of space requirements, cutting
off all possible excess.
EXHIBIT "A" (Cont.)
APPE N DIX ' A'
- 3 •
-
•
FINAL COMMENTS (continued)
(c) Rigid investigation into all aspects of cost/space
ratios during all planning stages to insure
maximum economies.
(d) Investigation of construction bidding procedures
which may result in more intense competition
by contractors, with resultant lower costs.
(e) Intense consultations with architects during all
planning stages to insure compliance especially
with (b) and (c) above.
�` EXHIBIT "B"
MAMARONECK
PUBLIC SCHOOLS MAMARONECK. NEW YORK 10543 • TEL. 914 698-9000
MICHAEL A. TRIPICCO
SU,bRVISOR OF BUILDINGS eY GROUNDS
To: Dr. Otty R. Norwood
From: M. Tripicco
Date: April 3, 1975
Subject: Condition of Schools
As per your request, attached is a resume of my
findings at all schools with regard to their
present condition.
Sup; visor of
Buildings and Grounds
MT:d
• UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE •
SERv6NC3 1 Gpf^LHkne^twtr a.Ir ......
EXHIBIT "B" (Cont.)
CHATSWORTH AVENUE SCHOOL
CHATSWORTH GYM INSULATION WAS INSTALLED BETWEEN FLOOR AND CEILING.
ALL FIRE ESCAPES MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS.
FLORESCENT LIGHTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN CLASSROOMS.
TOILETS COULD USE SOME NEW FIXTURES AND MODERNIZATION.
AUDITORIUM STILL THE SAME.
MAMARONECK AVENUE SCHOOL
U
NEW FLORESCENT FIXTURES INSTALLED IN ALL CLASSROOMS. LIGHT LEVELS ARE
ABOVE STANDARDS.
GYM HAS BEEN PAINTED, NEW FLOOR INSTALLED AND NEW LIGHT FIXTURES INSTALLED.
TOILET FACILITIES HAVE ALL BEEN MODERNIZED.
AUDITORIUM HAS BEEN ADAPTED TO BE USED AS ALL PURPOSE ROOM ETC.
PLAY AREAS ARE ALL THE SAME.
MURRAY AVENUE SCHOOL
A. WORK AREAS FOR TEACHERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
NEW LIGHTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN ALL CLASSROOMS.
NEW FLOOR HAS BEEN INSTALLED IN SMALL GYM, ALSO HAS BEEN PAINTED. GYM SPACE
ADEQUATE.
TEACHERS` LUNCHPJOM HAS BEEN SUPPLIED.
LOCKER ROOM HAS BEEN PROVE:D.
CENTRAL SCHOOL
ALL O.K.
HOMMOOCKS SCHOOL
ALL O.K.
CHATSWORTH AVENUE SCHOOL #8
A. STAIRS AND EXITS ARE ALL UP TO PRESENT STANDARDS. NEW LIGHTING HAS
BEEN INSTALLED.
U
B. NEW FLORESCENT FIXTURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
C. MODERNIZATION OF PUPIL TOILETS SHOULD BE DONE.
H. HALLWAYS HAD ACOUSTICAL TILE INSTALLED ON CEILING.
EXHIBIT "C"
MAXIMUM
NUMBER MAXIMUM
OF STUDENTS* CLASSROOMS
Chatsworth Avenue 800 34
Central School 950 36
Mamaroneck Avenue 750 30
Murray Avenue 875 36
Hammocks School 1200 NA
High School 2850 NA
REVISED USE OE HSS
FOR LOWER GRADE LEVELS
Hammocks 1400 50
RYE NECK
MIDDTF SCHOOL - HIGH SCHOOL
Regular classrooms 21
Open Space area 5
Laboratories
Science 6
Language 2
Special Rooms
Business 2
Home Economics 1
Shop 2
Music 2
Art 2
Other
Tiered Lecture room 60 capacity
Auditorium 500 capacity
GYm double
Library - with carrels 125 capacity
Office suite Guidance and two
Principals plus
staff.
*Based on current Mamaroneck class size standards.
EXHIBIT "D"
ti i % Y ser
-,,,):=1,4,:..-�r. t
- --I 'll
11 er
: � 'i :id
j c.
22 May 1975
Vii:.. Y'ri,. EEr.•,.York 50(111
Mr. A. Carleton Dukess ::}' - , . ,�`_ :;J
Continental Wingate Company
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Re: Mamaroneck School Inspection
Dear Carl :
At your request, we have made inspections at the Mamaroneck
Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue Schools in order to evaluate
their re-use potential . The following is the result of our
preliminary analysis:
1. Mamaroneck Avenue School : There are two elements on this
property, a 1929 fireproof building of 50,000 square feet
containing classrooms, gymnasium, auditorium, etc. We feel
that it is feasible to convert this building into housing on
the upper three levels and community facilities at the base-
ment level. The basement level is approximately 10,000 square
feet, the major portion of which is a gymnasium. The upper
three floors of approximately 40,000 square feet could be
converted into 30 to 40 units of housing. This type of re-
habilitation would probably run $600,000 to $700,000.
The older building, which is masory-bearing-wall , n• n-fire-
proof construction, could also be converted into housing.
This building contains about 20,000 square feet and could be
• converted into 15 to 20 units costing $300,000 to $400,000.
Both these costs are "ballpark" figures in today's construction
market.
2. Chatsworth Avenue School : At this property, at your request,
we investigated the feasibility of demolishing the older,
turn of the century, non-fireproof building and what effect
that would have on the operation of the newer, fireproof, 1929
building. All mechanical services for both buildings are fed
through the newer 1929 building, water, electric, gas, and
steam via a heating plant in this building. Therefore, it would
be relatively easy to make this building operate independently.
The older building has about 10,500 square feet of floor area, •
EXHIBIT "D" (Cont.)
9
�
111 -.
Mr. A. Carleton Dukess
Re: Mamaroneck School Inspection
5/22/75 - page two
or about 470,000 cubic feet of building area. Based upon
today's construction costs, the cost of demolition, removal
of materials, and minimal site restoration would be approxi-
mately $100,000.
We hope that this information is adequate for you to make the decision
that you were considering concerning these two properties.
Sincerely,
Richard Blinder, AIA
RB/amw
M MARCNECK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAMA ONECK, NEW YORK
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PROJECTION MATRIX
1975-1980
A B* C* Da* Db* Dc* 000d* De Df D* E* Fa* F5* G* H* ' J* K* TOTAL
(a)
1974-75
6119
1975-76 6119 -554 141 120 6 0 70 10 347 -10 30 30 15 24 0 0 6001
1976-77 6001 -552 125 120 6 0 70 10 331 -10 30 31 15 24 0 0 5870
1977-78 5870 -545 118 108 6 0 65 5 302 • - 5 30 31 15 24 0 0 5722
1978-79 5722 -524 116 108 6 0 65 5 300 - 5 27 28 15 24 0 0 5587
1979-80 5587 -535 115 96 6 0 60 0 277 - 5 26 28 15 24 0 0 5417
1980-81 5417 -551 116 96 6 0 60 0 278 - 5 27 26 15 24 0 0 5231
(a) Includes "special" student Classes
*Fa 1-12 public/parochial shift10(
* B Population previous years Fb Extra public/parochial at grade 9 y
C Graduating 12th grade G Gain frau new houses L
Da-Dd Kindergarten elements H Transfers old houses
D Total new K J Apartment Transfers
E K-1 public/parochial shift K New apartments
EXHIBIT "E" (Cont.)
PFS DISTRICT ENROLLMENT BY GRADE GROUPS
1975-76 to 1980-81
(and actual enrollment 1974-75
Year K 1-6 K-6 7-8 9-12 Special .TOTAL
1974-75 351 2489 2840 1011 2175 93 6119
1975-76 347 2369 ' 2716 1034 2156 95 6001
1976-77 331 2297 2628 990 2155 97 5870
1977-78 302 2217 2519 934 2169 100 5722
1978-79 300 2141 2441 897 2149 100 5587
1979-80 277 2063 2340 863 2114 100 5417
1980-81 278 1933 2211 892 2028 100 5231
MAMARONECK UNION FEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY GRADE
1975-76 to 1980-81
(and actual enrollment for 1974-75
Year K 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 Spec.
9 10 11 12 Ed.* TOTAL
1974-75 351 402 372 373 418 436 488 513 498 524 545 552 554 93 6119
1975-76 347 341 402 372 386 432 436 521 513 535 ` 524 545 552 95 6001
1976-77 331 337 341 402 386 399 432 469 521 551. 535 524 545 97 5870
1977-78 302 326 337 341 415 399 399 465 469 559 551 535 524 100 5722
1978-79 300 297 326 337 354 428 399 432 4655 04
5 559 551 535 100 5587
1979-80 277 295 297 326 . 350 367 428 431 432 500 504' 559 551 100 5417
H
1980-81 278 272 295 297 339 363 367 461 431 465 500 504 559 100 5231 t
1 , ?
rt
*Special Education class size is assured to increase slightly during the projection period.
EXHIBIT "E" (Cont.)
ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS
GRADE 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
K 7 6 6 6 6
1 13 13 12 12 11
2 14 14 13 12 12
34 33 31 30 29
3 15 12 12 12 12
4 15 16 14 13 12
30 28 26 25 25
5 13 13 15 12 12
6 15 14 13 15 13
28 27 28 27 25
92 88 85 82 78
•
I-•1 1-, 1-, N }-+ O '0 1 Co V C1 1 V. 4 co N f-= 7C 1 iJ.
IC 1 to N`1 N N Co In i M
04
to 1., I
�+ti
co to N F-. 1-, 1-. 4, t., 1, F-., I
0s N c.31c.31N .d as 4 . Ut 01 4a 4J O 4a Nv W In W N
44. 01 t0 W O to 01 44 Co 4> N W W N Co V H N i!k
O 11
Co ON 1✓ 1-, 14 iy 4a 1-, 1-, 1-, 0O 1-, 1-, 1-, 1-, 1., L.
01 t0 C) W 4. 4 C to 4 Cn 4i W 1-, 4, 4a W to W I W
bW N W co W 01 N Co 0, Co 4Co W V to to 01 11O
r1
1"
coa k,
1
C1 N M N N A L N L. Co 1, }. M 1., N 1v 1p
• W NV 01 N V ti CNt A F-, ty 4. 4. W Cn Na,1 W I V
0 4 O ,p 1.4 1-+ 4a V N; 01 tD V 4. 4y to to 4a, to �'++1 ,
11
W Iiti
O Oa aN k 1.4 N F-. 44. 1, I-.. 1-. OO 1 F, 1. F+ 1 . 1, tB Zj
Co .4 4] O C1 ON I-1 43. N 4. 1-, C.s t..s 4 N W W 1 V kC
N tQ Co Oo O1 N CO Co tQ k0 41 co 1•, t0 V W 01 , N CD •
li
coas 1-, 1-. 1-, I-, 4. t-, 1.. 1-, V 1,, 1--, 1-, L, 1-. L. i CSO C h7
tW0 tv- wrnCT 1 lrt W tow '.0 wtoNI..a AO V k -. z
Co to 4 t0 4a a1 ON W to V I W 1., %,
1-, 11..
:I *.-.1
Ol Cn N ti w 1-, .p I-, I-, 1-, V Ls 1-, 1-, h. 1,,
01 4a N 4. 45 4. Co 4. W N 1-, to N N N 1-4 03 '1 N+1 11
, 01
01 t0 N G1 F., H N 4. Ca Co Cn Cl V N t0 4 N 14a o z
h O
0)
1,
'>0 Ut 1-, I-., 1-. 1-, LI 1., 1v 1-, 0`. L., 1-. 1-, 1-. 1-, 1-. II to rb 'J
1 ni W co W N W 4 t0 N W Co t0 Nt; N N I- C. C3 I V
rh W N F-. 00 4> 4a N tO N al N O1 N O 4. O 4y Ito 01 0 1-,
�� I b' Ch
0 co
H. C3 * I tT, In to 1-, 1-, 1-, L. l..., 1--, 1-.. 1-, O1 1-, 1-, 1-, 1-, 1-, 1-. {lD O rt ii '
Q., t 1 G N O 1-, N.1 W N t0 W 43. N N N N !ti O O O f N F-, ND 1-.,
Fa-+• �• M• ti co L,s to N V 'O V H CO 01 W 01 C1 NV O t0 O II � Q.. �
ND 1.. O., i L.. O
COk. I-.
Cn `�� c, A LA 41 k, k k. k. W ti N 1-.. c.% I-, 1-, k k 1-. I..0 ;'t°
C) Os 1..,tp Li Co 1-, N N W tQ Ls W N 4a N k4 t0 C) CO CO I V L.
N I-, W t0 Co In W N•, Cn t0 C) 01 tQ to N CO V311 lr O � �
.I N
o SD E W J ro
I_, CO 1-, ij L..
\ C! 4 4a I-, I-, w 1-. t..s 1-, i-. 1v C1 L, 1-, 1-, t--, I
US tf1 N) w Co I-, F., N W Co N W N N N le, O Co O kr, I V '
L•. n 0 I I-, W CO W N 4. t0 4 t0 o to 1-, 1., Co V Us to to 1 Co
0 0 ti
00 III-,
C01 1., d tte) .Ca ,C 1-1 1-, 1-, W W 1., 1-, 1-, O1 1... 1-, 1-, t-, i t.0
C) Ui N o 1-, W N 01 N N 1-. O m O O L1 Ci 1/40 !1 N '
Cn . 1-, W N t0 t0 1/40 t0 I-' V N V w"in o to j i0
H
N GO
f-+ .gyp .p 1-, 1-. 1-, 1-, W N -. ti L, ON 1 N-, L. 1-. • t0 1H-j
Cu V O N N N W N H t0 O O O O Q O t0 i CO
N 4. N Co W t0 t0 Co 4 V N O> L;S W O Co Cn CO
I-, N H
t0 o Cas O1
Co U1 N I-,
Co N t0 to 41..
41
1-., 1-, L., I-, L., 1v 0 N7
1/40 t0 1/40 O 1/40 O G 1/40 O t'2 O O I'L..
O N th O tC W O 1/40 O 04 O Cn II
0
11
EXHIBIT "F"
•
30MWETC./SkrriC0141r M4•1&.•
,
„i3: . Tindependentiweeklj educat ortriewspapertpubtished itt NationatiSchool=PublirtRetationstiAssoctatio
Washington, D.C. • May 26, 1975
Vol. 17, No. 39
ENROLLMENT DROPS INTO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S LAP
Superintendents who fail to act in the face of declining enrollments for fear of
offending the staff or community "are derelict in their duty and heading for disaster."
Many superintendents are burying their heads in the sand, hoping the problem will go
away--it won't, Supt. Robert Savitt of the Plainview-01d Bethpage schools in New York
told AASA's National Academy for School Executives at a seminar on declining enroll-
ments in Williamsburg, Va. The problem is sweeping the country and superintendents
must provide leadership in finding solutions, Savitt said. It is not the responsibil-
ity of the board or the community; it is the superintendent's job and he can't sit on
the sideline. But even if he does the job and does it well, the best he can hope for
is that "he will be hated by only a small section of the community," Savitt said.
It is a .roblem that is hittin: all countries of the industrialized Western world,
Cyril G. Sargent of the Educational Facilities Laboratories said, as superintendents
spoke of losing 2,500 students a year for four years in Indianapolis high schools; of
a 35% drop in the first grade in a North Carolina community; of a Massachusetts town
that is cutting its staff 10%; of a 50% drop in the Flint, Mich. , birthrate since 1956.
"I'm trying to avoid having one principal to every student," complained one school of-
ficial, while another from New York state told of the difficulty of explaining to tax-
payers why he closed new schools that were not even paid for. In 1963 the national
K-8 population was 34.3 million and it only grew 0.2% to 34.9 million by 1973. But it
will drop 8%, to 32 million, by 1983, Sargent said. "So what?" he demanded. "In
truth it is hard to make a convincing argument on a national scale that these changes
are significant; 10% in a decade is no big deal if you plan for it," he said, noting
that industry is facing much bigger cuts and is not too sympathetic to educators.
"It is simple arithmetic to parents that if you have fewer pupils, it costs that
much less to educate them and taxes can be cut in proportion. That is _just not true,"
Sargent said. It costs as much to run a bus for 30 pupils as it does for 40, to heat
a classroom for 25 as it does for 32, or to provide lunches for 100 as it does for 130,
he said. The biggest danger, said Savitt, is that boards will cut programs and blame
declining enrollments when in fact they are trying to cut taxes. "This could liter-
ally destroy education in many areas," he said. The American mind equates expansion
to success, and declines to failure. People think that because enrollments are fall-
ing the schools must have failed, but this is also untrue, speakers said.
Declining enrollments can be either an educational renaissance or a disaster--the
difference lies in how you plan for handling it, Savitt said. Having closed five ele-
mentary schools and one junior high school, Doyle Winter, an area administrator with
the Highline School District, Seattle, Wash. , said first get all your facts--projected
enrollments, costs, suggested alternative classes and building uses, effect on proper-
ty taxes, possible travel difficulties for students going to alternative schools, etc.
Then go to the public, tell them the facts, but don't list schools to be closed. Take
the facts and public reaction to the board along with a recommended plan, including
alternatives and why they were rejected. Then take this information back to the pub-
lic. "If your facts are supportable, and conclusions correct, you will find that par-
ents will reach the same conclusions and will support you," Winter said. qC
Copyright 1975 National School Public Italptionx hxnociathm 225
EXHIBIT "F" (Cont.)
-.-e-.. ....---.....-7 The continuing debate over whether "money makes a difference in schools"
has a new loud voice saying "yes, it definitely does." The West Virginia
k :N EW5
State Dept. of Education has just completed a statewide study which it
says "shows for the he first time the clearest possible relationship between
ONt student achievement and the amount of money invested in the public schools.'
Department researchers looked at the relationship between 1974 achievement
} test scores in the state's 55 counties and the average per-pupil expendi-
tures in these counties at present and over 5 years, 10 years, 15 and 20.
Four grade levels were considered: 3rd, 6th, 9th and 11th. The research-
ers found statistically significant correlations between achievement and money for each
time period, and the relationship was even stronger in districts with high expenditures
over a sustained period of time. "Over the past 20 years, students in those counties
that invested the greatest amount of money in their schools were also the counties with
the highest student achievement," the department says. "The payoff is not quick, but it
is long lasting," state officials say. They contend that a community which makes a small
investment in education cannot undo the effects of that overnight; however, once a rela-
tively high level of spending has been reached and sustained over a long period, "then
student- achievement may remain relatively high, even if the level of expenditure drops."
tO "The Electric Com•an " the successful TV series for teachin: readin: will be taken
cut of production after two more seasons and turned into a "whole videotape textbook,"
:s creators at the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) say. During the next two years,
CTW will take the best of the past four years of "The Electric Company" and add new mate-
rial to create a package of 260 half-hour shows that will be rerun on the Public Broad-
casting Service at least through 1981. "I don't think we need to continue to produce new
snows to be effective," a CTW official says. "However, if new developments occur, we re-
::.erve the right to go back into production." The official explained that "The Electric
Company" has a finite goal: to teach specific basic reading skills; whereas, its sister
show, "Sesame Street," has many evolving goals that can lead to many more new shows.
Standardized test scores should not be used to evaluate teacher com etence a ma'or
a<.itional conference on educational accountability agreed. Cosponsored by the Cooperative
ccountability Project (CAP) at Denver, the U.S. Office of Education (USOE) and teacher
groups, the Denver meeting included 150 representatives of NEA and AFT, state education
departments, school administrators, federal officials and laymen. Although teachers at
the meeting accepted the fact of state-mandated accountability (now legislated by more
han 30 states) , they were concerned about who should be held accountable and the basis
;:or accountability. So many "psychological, social and political factors" are not under
teacher control, they said, citing absenteeism, parent attitudes, and student resistance
or apathy toward school. A resolution from a separate teacher caucus at the conference
criticized USOE for actively promoting accountability without involving teachers, endorsed
the idea of this initial national forum and called for additional meetings on the subject.
A full report on the conference will be issued by CAP.
The average teacher's salary is $11,121 for this school year, a 6.2% increase over 0.
1973-74, but less than the 8% to 9% rate of inflation, according to a new survey from
AFT. The survey says this is the third consecutive year that the purchasing power of
teachers has declined, and is now the same as it was in 1967. The survey of 885 school
districts shows that the beginning salaries for teachers also increased about 6% and are
now at $8,300 for a teacher with a bachelor's degree and $9,338 for one with a master's
degree. However, these figures show that for the first time in more than 10 years, the
pow narrowing of the gap between starting salaries for teachers and professionals in
,,-jvate industry has been markedly reversed, AFT says.
010. NAMES IN THE NEWS: Lee McMurrin, deputy superintendent in Toledo, Ohio, will be-
eome head of the Milwaukee Public Schools on July 1. • Charles Wolfe, superintendent
of the Detroit public schools for three and one-half years, will retire June 30.
226
EDUCATION U.S.A.
EXHIBIT "F" (Gant.)
CUTTING STAFF IS TOUGHEST PART OF STUDENT DECLINE
"Sometimes we forget that schools exist for kids_, not to provide jobs for us and for
teachers," Supt. Robert Savitt of Plainview-01d Bethpage schools in New York told AASA's
National Academy for School Executives at a seminar on declining enrollments. "The pub-
lic payroll should not support one person who is not needed to educate young people," he
said. But cutting staff will be one of the hardest things to do under declining enroll-
ments, and many districts are already hampered by difficult teacher contracts. He cited
agreements under which: teachers must get full pay in another job if removed from teach-
ing; if a teacher is not qualified for another job, the district must pay tuition to get
him qualified; one district could cut the staff from 595 to 594 without consulting the
teacher organization but after that cuts could only be made by "mutual consent"; teachers
must receive at least 150 days written notice before the end of the school year or they
cannot be fired. "How can the poor taxpayer be expected to support this sort of thing?"
Savitt asked. He urged superintendents to avoid the "tremendous pressure" to give dis-
missed teachers first choice at administrative posts. "Don't do it," he said, "or you
will deny yourself the better qualified administrators you need in these difficult times."
Early retirement is one way to thin the ranks of older teachers, Savitt said. It is
being practiced successfully in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Pasadena, Calif. , he said, and
suggested offering teachers an incentive of "maybe $5,000 or $10,000" to retire four or
five years early. They can be replaced by young teachers and the savings in lower sala-
ries will offset the retirement payment. "However, it is playing havoc with actuarial
retirement tables in California and could result in higher state and local contributions
to the state retirement plan," he said. Savitt advised the superintendents to study
their state tenure laws because "they are not as tight as you may think." But the right
to hire, fire, and in what order, will be the "most hotly contested part" of a federal
bargaining law, he said. Boards and administrations must fight to keep this right "or we
will perpetuate the idea of teachers standing in front of students simply because of how
long they have lived instead of how good they are." Savitt said this approach has alrea-
dy denied many schools the chance to take advantage of the current "buyers' market to get
some good new teachers to replace some of the old dogs who have been with you for years."
"We are not on an endless downslide in enrollment. Don't sell too much property or
fire too many teachers because_you may need them in the 1980s," warned Cyril G. Sargent,
a consultant for the Educational Facilities Laboratories. But the problem is that the
buildings probably wen't be wanted in the sae places, and the best solution might be to
make things more portable, he said. First, use the extra space for all the things you
have wanted in the past--get the art class out of the closet and the band out of the gym-
nasium and give them a classroom, he said. Consider day care centers such as those now
operating in California schools that are charging a fee, and, look closely at early child-
hood education, which will get increasing federal attention, Sargent said.
"It was hard enough to build schools but it is harder to sell them, so don't pad
your budget with big anticipated incomes from selling property," Sargent warned. There
is 100 million square feet of empty storage space in the nation, so "who needs your old
school?" he asked. Neighboring districts often compete to sell their old buildings and
sales are often tied up with zoning laws and use restrictions. In addition, a community
may oppose having an old school used as a drug rehabilitation center, a suburban police
station or an off-course-betting shop, as some districts have done. Those community prob-
lems can be enormous, seminar speakers said. Surveys show. that many people are more in-
terested in keeping a school open than in the quality of education it offers. The school
is part of the "warp and weave" of the community and to close it is to take something
very personal away--so do it with great care, they said. "Deal with the books, buildings
and furniture last. You must deal with the people and their emotions first in closing
schools," said Katherine Eisenberger of Hunter College, CUNY. "I can't guarantee it will
bring you any greater success, but it may prevent your being killed in the action." ry
EDUCATION U.S.A. 227
•
EXHIBIT "F" Mont.)
3[311011011 OF MAGAZINES, TV, BOOKS, REPORTS
DOCUMENTING "THE PERVASIVENESS OF MALE DOMINANCE IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP" is strong
medicine, particularly when most of the documenting is done by women who don't compro-
mise on the issue. However, it no longer is a subject that can be treated only with
opinions, as Jacqueline Carter Clement, an assistant school superintendent in Hanover,
N.H., proves in her study, Sex Bias in School Leadership. Using statistics (gathered
by male-dominated agencies), she shows how decision making in education at the local,
state and federal levels is a male activity. Also the number of women in administra-
tive positions has declined in recent years, Clement says, adding that those who want
administrative talent to be recruited from a diversified pool "will have to articulate
this minority point of view explicitly." The institutional structure of the public
schools combined. with the experiences of women in business and higher education "sug-
gest that women will have to work very hard indeed to attain occupational mobility in
elementary and secondary education," she says. (Integrated Education Associates,
Northwestern U. , 2003 Sheridan Rd. , Evanston, Ill. 60201; 65p; $2.25.)
ON THE SAME SUBJECT:
• If a woman survives sex role stereotyping in her home life, plays the "passive
and conformist" game in her school years, overcomes the "academic chauvinism" of
a college education, and doesn't succumb to the "battle fatigue" of finding a
college teaching job, she may be lucky and begin teaching in "educational Siber-
ias"--minor league state universities and small private colleges. The process is
described with humor and jabs at sexist professors in Sexism in Higher Education
by Southern Illinois U. Prof. Betty Richardson. Both men and women are victims
of this system, she says, and among her recommendations for change is greater
attention by higher education to the "half-educated adult woman." (Seabury Press,
815 2nd Ave. , NYC 10017; 221p; $7.95.)
• Family viewing hours on the TV networks are an indoctrination of sex role stereo-
typing, says a new study from Women on Words and Images. Channeling Children
analyzes 20 situation comedies and adventure shows, and says their message is
that "there are more men around, and that they are dominant, authoritative and
competent"--while women are dependent and incompetent. Stereotyping is even worse
on commercials, the study says. (Box 2163, Princeton, N.J. 08540; 83p; $2.50.)
• "Women and Minorities in Administration" is the topic of a new issue of School
Leadership Digest, published by the National Assn. of Elementary School Princi-
pals (NAESP). Using ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management research, author
David Coursen outlines the problems of blacks and women in school administration.
His six-point program for change includes active recruitment and training of wo-
men and minorities. (NAESP, 1801. N. Moore, Arlington, Va. 22209; 26p; $2.25.)
s I Can Be Anything is a career guide for girls and young women, which discusses
as
alternatives in general and 92 career fields in detail. (College Entrance Examin-
ation Board, Box 2815, Princeton, N.J. 08540; 256p; $6.50.)
RADIO TIPS: Options on Education will meet the problem of school desegregation head
on with a review of desegregation since 1964, efforts to slow it down, and how the is-
sue is being played out. on the fields of Boston (June 6 on National Public Radio) .
Order publications from sources listed/Check local listings and newsstands for late changes
ettttov
$DUGATION U.S.A. The Independent Weekly Education Newspaper. Published Stoll: [j fer:,n,r! SerrrrN, Cynthia Menand; Thc.inru Srrrirer, Mildred S.
-.ch Monday by the Natirrnal School Public Relations Association, 1801 N. Waurgcr.
Moore St., Ad ngtun, Va .'.,!20'), Second-class pastae paid at An.ngt u, Ya.
Index twice yearly. Subscription price X34 -+ year. Aridness editorial and suhssrip- Cooperating 0rganiaations, la)tU(.ATmON t1.S.A. is puhtished in cooperation
tion eorre,pondenec to EI)t)CATION L1,S,A„ )M01 N. Moore tit., Achorion, Ya. with the Amcrrr:rn Assn. ut S.lrooi Admintstratnrs- Amrrir an Assn. of School
2:20}, Telephones: Fur I lit i (7031 528( (tt For Subscription I)..I. (.'•OST I ihr.acus. Assn. for Suprrsisi.n ami (:nit, ulum I)evelupment, As+n, of School
5 1.677 t, ttusuoess Officials of the United State. sad (:a nada, Counnl of (hut State School
Officers,National Assn.of Elementary Srhorl Principals,National Assn.of Second-
Edrtor,oI Director: Roy K. Wilson ary Shoot Principals. N3ti111131 Assn- of State hoards of Film:moo and National
Ekeeeaf_. Editor. Ruse Marie Levey
Congress of :parents and 'l-ea,hers. Each organization is represented by two mem-
bets on the Editorial Advisory !hoard.
Senior Editors: Marlene Bloom,Anne Lewis Microfilm editions from University Microfilms, 300 N. Zech Rd., Ann Arbor.
Contributing Editors: Beatrice M. Cudridge. Charles H. Harrison, €- William Mich, 4rtt(X.
J+mes.George Neill, D. Michael Senat-Blair,David Smoker, Joseph Stocker. Copyright 1975 National School Public Relations Association.
228
EXHIBIT "G"
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )
Maurice Rubinger, being duly sworn, deposes and says;
That he resides at 6 Howard Street, Larchmont, New York (County
of Westchester) .
That for the past twenty-seven years he has been Vice President of
Sutton & Whittemore, Inc. , Realtors with offices at 2179 Boston Post Road,
Larchrront, New York; that he is a member of Local, County, State and National
Boards of Realtors and of the Commercial and Industrial Division of the
Westchester County Board of Realtors; that the firm has been active real
estate brokers for over fifty years and last year sold more than five million
dollars worth of real estate in the Larehmont - Mamaroneck area.
That he devotes his full time to the Real Estate business and,
as a Realtor, has inspected and appraised more than fifty properties each
year for purposes of sale in Westchester County, for estate tax purposes and
for other tax purposes; that he is familiar with the market value of both
commercial and le?sidential properties it the area and part-_cularly in the
Town of Mamaroneck; and that he has bought and sold properties for others in
the vicinity of the properties hereinafter described.
That he has no personal interest in the within described properties.
The purpose of this appraisal is to evaluate the market value of
the land of three properties now owned by the Board of Education, Union Free
School District #1, Town of Mamaroneck, New York. The evaluation will reflect
the best usage of the land in each case, commensurate with the neighborhood
in which each is located. The present local zoning in each case may require
a change in order to make recommended use practical. The thre properties
are:
EXHIBIT "G" (Cont.)
Page 2
A. The land under and part of the Chatsworth Avenue School.
B. The land under and part, of the four Central School.
C. The land under and part of the Mamaroneck Avenue School.
A.
The land of the Chatsworth Avenue School, known on the assessment
map of the Town of Mamaroneck, New York as Block 613, Lot 575 is located
in the Village of Larchmont, New York. It occupies the blockfront of Chats-
worth Avenue between Addison Street and Forest Park Avenue, a distance of 375
feet; the blockfront of Forest Park Avenue between Chatsworth and Tarchmont
Avenues, a distance of 423 feet; and the blockfront of Addison Street between
Tarchmont and Chatsworth Avenues, a distance of 435 feet. In addition, there
are two corner plots fronting on Iarchmont Avenue, one on the corner of
Addison Street, a distance of 54.34 feet and the other on the corner of
Forest Park Avenue, a distance of 64.84 feet. The size of the entire plot
is 126,995 square feet, more or less.
At the present time the land is assessed for $53,900.00.
The subject plot is located and acts as a buffer between a commercial
area of the Village of Tarchmont, located between Addison Street and the
Boston Post load, and a residential area of the Village between Forest Park
Avenue and Vanderburgh Avenue, a distance of four blocks. The residential
area is improved with one-family, executive type hares approximately thirty
to fifty years of age which are well maintained. The area has paved roads,
curbs and sidewalks. All utilities are available, i.e. , gas, electric, water
and sewers.
The subject property lies within an R5 done which provides for one-
family dwellings only on a building plot minimum of 5,000 square feet.
Property owners in this area have the privilege of applying for the use of
bathing facilities at the Tarchmont Manor beach, a privilege considered highly
desirable.
EXHIBIT "G" (Cont.
Page 3
The property under review is exceptionally convenient in location.
It is within walking distance of shopping on the Boston Post Road and on
Palmer Avenue, of churches and of the railroad station just beyond Palmer
Avenue. Bus transportation is available one block from the property, bus
stops being located both at Chatsworth Avenue and larchmont Avenue. Recrea-
tional facilities are available at Flint Park and 7archmont Manor Park, both
within walking distance of the property.
On the assumption that the land under review would be developed
with moderate priced one-family hones on a minimum plot of 5,000 square feet,
it is the Appraiser's opinion that the land would sell for $2.00 per square
foot. This opinion is based on sales which have taken place in recent years,
with consideration being given to the fact that the area has been a built-up
one for many years and that very few building lots have been available in the
Village as a whole.
Therefore, based on a plottage of 126,995 square feet, it is the
Appraiser's opinion that the property described herein has a present day value
of $254,000.00.
B.
The land of the former Central School is carried on the assessment
map of the Ton of Mamaroneck, New York as a portion of the Mamaroneck High
School complex of approximately 24 acres, known as Block 917, Lot 1. It is
located in the Village of Mamaroneck, New York on the northwest side of. West
Boston Post Road. On either side of the school complex and across the Post
Road the land along the Post Road is used for and is zoned for commercial
purposes, in most cases for a depth of 100 feet from the Post Road. There are
exceptions where larger commercial developments have a depth of more than 100
feet. At the present time the entire school complex is in an R20 Zone,
allowing residences on minimum plots of 20,000 square feet, in additon to
EXHIBIT "G" (Cont.)
Page 4
schools.
An appropriate line of division could be drawn, starting at a point
258.59 feet from the northern boundary of the property on West Boston Post
Road and running in an easterly direction a distance of 500 feet until it
meets the boundary line of Block 911. This would result in a plot of land with
a 258.59 foot frontage on West Boston Post Road; then running in an easterly
direction a. distance of 500 feet; then running approximately 180 feet in a
northerly direction; then 285 feet along Carpenter Place in an easterly
direction; then 536.87 feet in a southeasterly direction to the point of
beginning on the West Boston Post Road. This divided portion would comprise
about 41 acres and would include the former Central School building which is
currently being used by the Tcwn of Mamaronk as in_istrative"Offices and to
a small extent by the Board of Education. It is estimated that the assess-
ment for the 41 acres portion of land would approximate $113,000.00.
Assuming that the divided portion of land would be rezoned for
business or commercial use in its entirety, based on current values along the
Boston Post Road in the area, the land would have a market value of about
$5.00 per square foot.
It is, therefore, the ,Appraiser's opinion that the 41 acre divided
portion of land would have a market value, as of the present day, of $975,000.00.
In the event that commercial zoning was restricted to a depth of only
100 feet, and the remainder for one-family dwellings on minimum plots of 7,500
square feet, then a plottage of about 26,000 square feet could be utilized for
business and the balance of about 166,000 square feet for one-family here con-
struction. Based on a value of $1.75 per square foot for residential land in
this area, the total value of the 41 acre plot, in the opinion of the Appraiser,
would be approximately $420,000.00,
elom ; Cold aq4 J1 '000'00Z .10A0 ST SPOJP esagq go uoTquTndod pauTqwoo aqj
'quompavi puu aAI suTpTd aqTqm 'uosTaleH laTupsapos woag osTp qnq Noauaroupw
WOJj Aquo qou abpuoaqpd map Aumnauj, pueT5ua ie N alp go qTxe pup
ODUPT4U0
w 04 ST qT SP OSOTO SP buTail -snoebequPApu AlieTnoTqaud Si sepTs
anog woag ssappv .xaTdWoo buTpTTnq aoTggo pup aaquez) buTddbus pauTcpoo P ao
aaquao buTddous P SP aATqouaqq-e qT swim aqTs atm go uappooT aqj,
-TEaTqopad pupT auk To esn axem oq aapao uT Aaessapau eq pTnom uoTgeoT3
-TsseTo buTuoz eqq uT abupqo P gpaouTdea eie Tomps eq gT quqq snoTAqo ST
;I .sToolps su TI SP 4DO-J aapnbs 000'0 go tunwTupm P UO SOWOLT buTqqTwaad
'OK'd sT spupqs Tulgos uoTLIm uo 'HupT alp go BuTuoz quasa7d att.",
aadoad et at; autu aaqapnb
-QUO ueq3 ssaT 5T (u0TsTATG puPT6ua maN) APmflaqj, a-Tugs NaoA ! N eq; orq ssap3V
-aTcleTTPAv anti SIGMOS pup aaqum 'oTaqoaTa 'sub SP 'Tons saTqTTTqn TW
-apTs pue sciano atieu 'paApd an sqoalgs aqj, Npeuoaumw ;;o buTuuna
sqaaaqs uo uoT400s TPTqUOPTSO P puP anuaw 3pauoapmew buoTp paap TeTaxamoo
pup ssauTsnq U JO sqsTsuoo Tomos eq BuTpunoaans paap Tpaaueb aqj,
.anualw qdTed buoTP qaeg
00Z ST uoTqaod sTgq go tiqdap auj, .anuaAv apnaqaaD uo qea; EEE puP anuaiw
uetuja0 Su0Te 400J OL BuTuuna Aqaadbad au; go avaa oq qp uoTqaod TpuoTq
-Tppp up ST aaauj, .Aqaadoad et iq go apTs twos eq uo anu OAV qq0TITH uo qaag
80"tZE Pue A
qaadoad aLiq go apTs qqaou alp UD anuaw apnallap uo 400 80't'
sT Aqaadoad amgo uqdbia .;aa; 0st7 sT aluaw Nosuoaumw uo abe4uoag aql
00000 1/..6 go uoTqunTpA passassp UP pup ISSM: tOalaW '4903 axenbs 00Z/80Z
go abuqqald P SPIT pUUT DIAL 'TET 401 'LT8 74001q SP NOGUOIOUVW JO umol au; go
dew quewssassu auq uo paqpubTsap sT xaoxMN 1)pauoautuurk4 go abeTTTA
uT anuaw Npauoaptuew uo pa-4P2J°' sT Tootios anuaAy 43auoaptupig auj,
.3
s abpd
('quop) fla, LIIIHc
EXHIBIT "G" (Cont.)
Page 6
a speculative one with multiple occupancy, it is the Appraiser's opinion that
the land would have a market value of $5.00 per square foot, or about
$1,050,000.00 for the entire plot. However, if a single user desirous of
locating in this area could be found the land might be sold for as much as
$6.00 per square foot, or about $1,250,000.00.
Through careful planning and re-zoning the length of Mamaroneck
from Old White Plains Road to the Thruway entrance could be upgraded in order
to attract new construction of office buildings and an extension of the com-
mercial area- In such as the subject school property would have an increased
value, probably to $7.00 per square foot or a total value of $1,500,000.00
Sworn to before me this /:/<7
s :YM Rn r Rgune, 1975. ,
:240111( '
C !P � ,; Yo,4 �
ali dr,; 4 M- e Ru•inge , Vic: Pres.
llIci c � ? t *n & W?zittemore, Inc.
+.n. mi o Expires
L.nd Cc.:Jn_ Reg. /
Camk,! Expired March 30, ,, R I
/ ./
COST OF OPERATING CERTAIN SCHOOL BUILDINGS (1974-75 Dollars)
Annex Mamaroneck Chatsworth
Custodial Salary $30,151.12 $ 49,883.00 $ 49,173.00
Fringe Benefits - 30% 9,045.34 14,964.90 14.751.90
Gas & Electricity 13,916.25 13,800.00 13,635.00
Water 361.91 700.00 ^00.00
Fuel 10,167.08 19,246.58 19,855.72
Fire Insurance 6,570.00 --- ---
Maintenance* 4,742.07 19,835.45 27,143.24
Salaries-Principals, Assistant
Principals, Clerks and Teacher Aides 84,942.00 91,550.00
Fringe Benefits - 30% 25,482.60 27,465.00
Equipment --- 1,884.77
Office Supplies 640.00 535.00
Salaries - Librarian and Librarian
Clerkes 25,665.00 30,727.60
Fringe Benefits - 30% 7,699.50 9,218.28
Equipment 2,570.00 5,725.70
Equint & Film Rental 340.00 234.95
Equipment Repair 1,285.00 983.90
Travel & Conference 1,285.00 1,101.47
Library Books & Supplies 5,562.15 7,689.79
$74,953.77 $273,901.18 $302,075.32
*Includes Equipment, Cleaning & Exterminating, Building Repair,
Building Equipment Repair, Other Maintenance, Custodial, H
Electrical, Pltanbing, Grounds and Other Maintenance Supplies, 1-3
Glass, and Vandalism. 4
35
IV - 3
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RYE NECK ON OUR DISTRICT
Subcommittee Report by Larry Litchfield
GENERAL
Basic statistics for Rye Neck are as follows :
1975-1976 Budget $4,300,000
1974-1975 Budget $4,220,000
1974-1975 Enrolment 1,666
1975 Bonded Debt $4,382,262
1974-1975 Assessed Value/Pupil $ 60,553
1974-1975 Expenses/Pupi I $ 2,621
District Area 1-3/4 sq. mi.
District Population 9,000 approx.
Teachers 100 approx.
Administrators 7
Rye Neck is probably both the oldest and the most troubled district
in the state. It has a small population, a diminishing tax base and an expanding budget,
due principally to staff and energy costs. It is the only district in the entire state
which labors under three handicaps:
1 . Because part of the district is in Rye City, the budget
may not exceed 2% of the assessed valuation (not including
retirement and social security, debt service and health plans).
2. Because it is a Union Free School District it is not legally
possible for the distric to dissolve itself.
3. The district has reached its growth limit.
For all these reasons it is not viable as a school district. It has been
kept alive beyond all reason by the energy and determination of its constituents. There
are many in the District, probably a maiority, who want to keep it going as long as
non-athletic program cuts can make it possible. A minority, who say they want a
broader education than Rye Neck can offer, would like to send their children to
Mamaroneck on a tuition basis until a permanent solution is found. This is being
vigorously opposed by the Superintendent and many of the residents because they feel
that the "tuitioning" plan will leave the District with the same overhead and most of the
same problems, but a much smaller budget. We predict the tuition plan will fail, but
that the Rye Neck situation will grow worse.
36
The study which the State Education Department will begin in July,
in which Mamaroneck, Rye Neck and Rye will participate, may precipitate action
soon, but we doubt it. We feel that among the ways in which the Rye Neck situation
will come to a head are:
1 . In the very near futurethe budget could be ,oted down twice
by a combination of fiscal conservatives and those who favor
broader education. The austerity budget which would result
would probably greatly strengthen sentiment for merger or full
tuitioning.
2. The fiscal bind may be of such 'magnitude soon that no possible
budget will support es:•ential expenditures. Then overwhelming
pressure for merger wiiT develop.
The ideological divisions are greatly complicated and embittered, some
say, by a socio-economic split bounded by the Boston Post Road. We encountered no one
who wasn't eager to talk about the problem. But it cannot reach a resolution without
causing great disappointment and anger in some segment of the population.
The budget problem is illustrated by the status of the Edgemont district.
It has the same number of pupils and buildings(2 elementary and 1 Jr.-Sr. high school)
but a budget which is $1 million higher.
While sharp differences o,""- opinion have developed about whether Rye
Neck's high school program is offering a good education ccmpured to neighboring
districts, there is wide agreement that the K-p program is excellent by any standard.
But there is fear that when rising costs and diminishing income require more program
cuts, these can come only frreri the K-3 grades, us 9-12 s already cut to the bone 4
(except for athletics).
MERGER PL4 . ,
1 . ", SplitMerger is one possibility, in which the district will join
Mamaroneck or Rye, and then spin-off district components to neighboring districts.
We feel that only a minority `.i I1 favor this, because it would mean
the end of Rye Neck as a cchesive community, which has always n d strong ties with
Mamaroneck Village. As the law is presently written the original successor district
must take on all debts, buildings and tenured teachers.
2. Marearon ck Mcig_r . We feel this is the one most likely to have
the support of the marcor i}%o �!e ec. asidents if erlircer becomes an absolute necessity.
This proposition will not be attractive to Marnaruneck however unless some relief were
provided for the following onerous circumstances.
37
a) After a merger Mamaroneck would have to take senior
tenured Rye Neck staff.
b) Greenhaven will bring a 2% tax limitation to the consolidated
merger.
c) Without special State aid there would be a loss to Mamaroneck
resulting from lower Rye Neck per-pupil tax base.
3. Rye Merger. Following strong urging from the State Education
Department, Rye Neckv otjs approved this plan in 1963. But the Rye City Board of
Education voted against it. Legally Rye Neck's offer still stands. But approval by Rye
City is as unlikely now as ever. Rye fecrs a boundary change, fears overcrowding,
and resists predictions that their enrolment will decrease.
4. The Greenhaven Problem. Greenhaven has about 12% of Rye
Neck's population but contributes 22% of the income for the School District. And the
area is equally important to Rye City, as 10% of its municipal income is raised in
Greenhaven.
Although Greenhaven is within Rye City, and therefore the bearer
of the 2% tax limitation stigma, the Rye School Board does not appear to wish to take
in Greenhaven; "no room" they say. But there may be other reasons.
Greenhaven is much closer to and more a part of Rye Neck than
Rye. It does not appear to us that there is any great affinity between Rye and Greenhaven.
According to current law Greenhaven cannot secede from the Rye
Neck School District. Secession from Rye City is possible but very difficult, and it
would take at least three years.
TUITION PLANS
Frustrated by legal obtacles, majority objections and the reluctance of
neighboring districts to solve Rye Neck's problems by merger or other permanent solution,
residents who want the broadest education fog their children have turned to the solution
of sending selected high school students to a neighboring school, by means of tuition
payments.
A recent proposal involved voluntary tuitioning, in which the Board
would pay full tuition to Mamaroneck only for those who specifically requested it. But
the Board felt that the district could only afford to send 60 pupils and 90 asked to go,
so this plan had to be dropped.
The public dialogue which arose while various tuition arrangements were
being explored and debated became very heated, and once again starkly revealed the
bitterness and disunity which increases in proportion to the gravity of Rye Neck's
problems. So the Board decided to put the issue to a public referendum which will be
voted in October 1975. The referendum will decide whether or not the Board should
explore the several tuition alternatives, and act upon one of them. The recent school
board election offers no clues as to how the vote will go. The two winners ran,
respectively, on an anti-tuition and a pro-tuition program.
Many of those interviewed feel that the tuition referendum, generally
speaking, will be favored by those in the shore communities wouth of the Post Road
and opposed by those north of the Post Road.
STAFF
1 . There seems to be wide agreement that some key tenured staff
members are not an asset to the District.
2, If staff salaries remained fixed, the District might be able to
survive a few more years. But most interviewees felt that this type of appeal to
the teachers would buy a year at most.
3. Extensive tuitioning would require Rye Neck staff to seek work
elsewhere. A merger would require that both Rye Neck and Mamaroneck staff who
have the least years of service seek work elsewhere.
4. Rye Neck teachers are frightened of losing their jobs because of
a merger and, at the same time and through their association, fighting for a pay
increase which is the one thing most likely to bring about the collapse of the District.
Salaries and fringes account for about 75% of the budget.
BUILDINGS
See map and photos attached.
1 . Elementary and Middle Schools:
Bellows School K-3
Daniel Warren School 4-5
Middle School
(at RNHS) 6-8
Everyone we spoke to agreed that these schools have excellent staff,
programs, curricula and physical plant. Their appearance reflects this. Bellows and
Daniel Warren are as well-kept as Mamaroneck's elementary schools, though not so
imaginatively painted inside. Daniel Warren will be leased to Rye for one year
beginning in September 1975, while Milton School is being rehabilitated. Rye will
assume all expenses during the year. After that the Board hopes to rent the building
to BOCES. Daniel Warren is the most distinguished building, architecturally, in
Mamaroneck and Rye Neck (it was designed in 1930 by the Rye Neck architect Conrad
Henne, who also did the Harbor Island Sewage Plant).
39
Daniel Warren's size and style, together with its large site,
would make it suitable for some commercial use, such as a nursing home.
There is a very interesting 4-classroom free-standing kindergarten
annex to Bellow.
2. High School and Recreation Building:
This school was built in 1958 to relieve overcrowding in the then
Bellows High School. The decision to build was made after Mamaroneck declined to
consider a proposal to "consolidate" the two districts. The building is typical of its
time, although at the Board's insistence it was planned and built at minimum cost.
Its wall-to-wall glass makes it cold in winter and hot in summer. Its appearance
inside is generally shabby, due to inadequate maintenance and vandalism. A new,
separate gym was built about 1972 and the high school gym was converted to a well-
equipped 2-story learning center (see photo). The new gym has 2 basketball courts,
with a folding partition between, lockers and showers.
The boundary between Mamaroneck Village and Rye City runs
through the High School. The gym and more than half of the High School are in Rye.
(See map attached.) In the event of a merger with Mamaroneck, the boundary would
have to be moved, placing the building entirely in one or the other district. A
large investment in dual-sash thermal-barrier windows with tinted glass, and an
adequate maintenance budget would make Rye Neck High School much more desirable.
The property, which was a gift to the District, is quite valuable.
3. Post Road House:
Formerly the District's administrative offices, this wood frame
residential structure has been unoccupied since the new offices were built adjacent
to Rye Neck High School. It could be sold but this would diminish the Bellows
acreage, upon which the house is situated (see photo).
REAL ESTATE AND THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL QUALITY ON PROPERTY VALUES
I. There are only about 60 vacant parcels in Rye Neck, of which only
a few are desirable. There is no manufacturing, and the small number of commercial
properties is diminishing.
2. While housing demand is generally up in Westchester, many people
in Rye Neck cannot sell their houses. It is generally conceded that the school problem
has caused an erosion in real estate values. This and the energy cost rise have caused
an increase in certiorari appeals, threatening a further erosion of the tax base.
3. A merger or full-tuitioning program with Mamaroneck will make Rye
Neck a bargain area for house-hunters because real estate values always take several
years to catch up with evolving social realities. So the merger could produce a
temporary increase in enrolment which could cause problems. It would also, in time,
probably cause an increase in the value of retail commercial property in the District.
40
PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN RYE NECK
Clayton Akin Superintendent of Schools
Ginger Gilbert Former President, PTSA (Shore Acres)
Joseph Delfino Board Member (Carroll Avenue)
Bruce Hoffman Board-Member-Elect (Greenhaven)
Robert Marker Board President (Shore Acres)
Also several other long-time residents of the Carroll Avenue-North
Barry Avenue area who asked that their names not be mentioned because they are
employees of the School District.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE TUITION PLAN
1 . Rye Neck's Costs:
The annual cost of operating Rye Neck High School for grades
9 through 12 approximates $1, 195,000. This includes about $200,000 in state aid,
but it does not include any district-wide administrative or other overhead expense.
These costs would be reduced if grades 9 through 12 were tuitioned out of the Rye
Neck District. For the 1974-1975 9-12 enrolment of 549, this is $2176 per student.
2. Mamaroneck's Costs:
Marnaronek's incremental (out-of-pocket) costs for taking Rye
Neck's 9-12 students would be only about $600,000 for the first year. 30% fringe
benefits ($180,000) the second and all subsequent years (due to a time lag in the
payment of benefits). Marraroneck's costs are significantly lower than Rye Neck's
because the Palmer Avenue-Post Road Campus will have sufficient surplus capacity
to accommodate all Rye Neck students in grades 9-12. Therefore there will be little
or no overhear; costs for Mamaroneck. Ac' litional teachers word be the principal expense.
3. Comparison of Mamaroneck's and Rye Neck's Costs to Educate
Rye Nec s ' Students:
(All figures include $200,000 state aid, which would come to
Mamaroneck. Inflation and salary increases are not included. The table assumes 500
students; see statistics on last page of this report.)
1st Year 2nd Year
Rye Neck $1, 195,000 $1, 195,000
Mamaroneck 600,000 780,000
Difference 595,000 415,000
41
4. If the tuition plan were accepted by both districts and the
third and subsequent-year difference were split evenly between the two districts,
Mamaroneck might charge Rye Neck $995,000 ($780,000 + $215,000) tuition
for the 9-12 students, making a profit of $215,000. Rye Neck would make a
profit, through savings of $200,000 ($1, 195,000 - $995,000).
The above formula is based on third-year costs and would be adjusted
for inflation. Variations to share the economic profit of this arrangement on some
other basis are of course possible.
Mamaroneck has made a still-valid offer to Rye Neck for $2,000 per
student. There was opposition to this in Mamaroneck, so a lower offer would doubtless
meet with more opposition. The Rye Neck Board decided last autumn that they could
afford to send 50 students to Mamaroneck at $2,000 each for a total of $100,000.
This would have been almost pure profit for Mamaroneck, as the 50 could have been
absorbed without hiring any additional teachers. But the parents of 90 Rye Neck students
chose this option, and this was more than the Board felt they could spent: they would
have had an additional expenditure of $180,000 but their only savings would have
been three teachers. As can be seen, partial tuitioning has very different effects.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO TUITION OR MERGER
1 . In the event of a merger Rye Neck might not feel obligated to
keep the tax base as high as possible. This problem could not arise under a tuition
plan because Rye Neck would pay tuition on a per-student basis.
2. Rye Neck's View of Full 9-12 Tuition:
Advantages Disadvantages
- Tax savings -= All high school teachers lost-
-
ost- Wider educational choice - Larger distances - transportation*
- More extra-curriculars - Loss of small community identity
(athletic teams, etc.)
*Bus transport is mandated by the State Education Department over 3 miles. Rye Neck
High School is 1 .5 miles from the Palmer Avenue-Post Road Campus. But the State
Education Department gives 90% aid for transporting over 1 .5 miles for shorter
distances under certain circumstances. The relatively minor net costs of transport
would have to be borne by Rye Neck.
3. lviamaroneck's View of Full 9-12 Tuition:
Advantages Disadvantages
- Tax savings - Larger high school
- Merger forestalled
- Ability to maintain broad
education program
2
4. The Rye Neck High School Site:
a) In 1956 this 55-acre site was given to the District
by the Devereaux family, who lived in the nearby John
Jay mansion on the Post Road. A deed restriction prevents
the property from being used for anything but educational
purposes for 50 years, or until the year 2006!
b) The district clerk's office values the building as follows:
Values of buildings are without exclusions; i.e. fire insurance
values are generally about 5% less
Rye Neck High School $3,209,988
Middle School 340,000
New Gym 701 ,346
Garage & Storage 16, 130
Field House 24,920
Administration 105,682
Total Buildings $4,398,066
c) Land Value
The un-built acreage is assessed at $873,850. With an
equalization rate of 35% the true value is about $2,500,000;
but not until 2006.
d) It would appear that unless the deed restriction can be
modified, which would permit realization of the value
of the Rye Neck High School real estate values, a
tuitioning plan for grades 9 through 12 wculd cause
Rye Neck to concentrate its entire diminishing
school population at that site making Bellows and
Daniel Warren surplus properties.
43
SUMMARY
The Rye Neck tuition referendum to be held in October will probably
fail, because a majority do not perceive the deterioration in education which is
taking place, and because the Superintendent opposes it on economic grounds.
The situation there must deteriorate furthc,` before a majority w,li support a tuition
plan or a merger.
If a tuitioning plan were approved by both Districts it would be
possible to handle Rye Neck's grades 9 through 12. The Palmer Avenue-Post Road
Campus could accommodate these grades though not by a wide margin. A tuition plan
would not have to be followed by a merger. But if it were and cr full merger were
accomplished by 1980 the Mamaroneck Avenue School would have to be retained for
Rye Neck's grades K through 8. None of the existing Rye Neck buildings would be
needed in the event of a merger. Some could be converted to commercial use and
one may be acquired by BOCES.
If Greenhaven, the source of Rye Neck's 2% budget limitation,were
to be severed from the District, any merger would be much less attractive to the
successor district, as Greenhaven contributes 22% of the school income. But if
Greenhaven were to be included in the merger, its secession from Rye City would be
important, in order not to burden the successor district with the tax limitation. But
since 10% of Rye's municipal budget comes from Greenhaven the city would fight
secession, and it would be a difficult process taking at least three years.
On the other hand, Rye Neck's assessed valuation would probably
increase after a merger, and Mamaroneck could take on the additional pupils at a
comparatively low cost. In other words, a merger might work after it's done,
but doing it appears to he very very difficult.
From Mamaroneck's view a merger would be unattractive in one
sense because Rye Neck's tenured teacher:; would have seniority in the consolidated
system. Many of their older teachers would replace our younger ones without regard
to teaching ability. This would mean a deterioration in the quality of our education.
For this reason we should fight a merger and strongly encourage the tuition plan at
as low a cost to Rye Neck as we can bear and sell to our constituents. Because
without tuitioning Rye Neck will probably collapse sooner. And while the State
Education Department says it won't force a merger, and under the law it has no
authority to do so, it may in the end try some sort of force in preference to active
involvement in managing a collapsing district,
,.,0\
MAMARONECK UNION —�
eo 00
'g g 0 ekr x . il A t i ' w e' \'4' ''' : F 4 e
L - oei``s.e ay _ ue..A °�, ,.8 see.•_ i Er e ••' 4,
P .I y� ° qB • •el° ,\ •e ,e •• •'v..0weca /
amt.
�! •e • g0°per,+ e �: [•o ae .BB Eee . �''•° s f£
•.g 0 •0 0 • •3 . ai _-- esu e . • ,
O a °e e'er t t \ �� IIsee sees ° •x ° e •
0'00 0 0 'J a I _ �e
0 ••`00 •
O 00 • 9 , ''/ 6\ �,�.i' °r=1 •4 •ex�ee p• °•i' •..`0�a t,'
m 0 Ik��' ,%' s . �e6 9 '''.1,-.\ .'I' o00 (nen_e of"ces e° ° i
m ,•_�`,, .O ,.� __ <>,,,\<,.., 0a a �" 9 j . �:' -�i.„ nec oe ai® o�e•oe c;�t a, • 'o ° .'..
m • 6 o Y - i*ci�--ne F]6b••3be"" ,t..xe'i e z
t1 e o ® e e e • • M E7 , e
—i O . 0O ¢..� B e • .^ f e z ;:a s��B
r� m c
i ! L
z � � D � O0likey X00 � se cen .e �,�oos'�T '� �C . ••
1 C) O <O O `jx•-- _ •. `' \lea+ �.rr °°e e:l. 1 • +�^�'% £
iill �m –{ T G r1'I T — 0:is ` e 66 ° � oy ?o�'�° �� < = Z I'1'7 = \. �, \ .�,. , Q s •• 'e V , ^�'.a •••°. ••moo •°'• _�; i•�
3¢; S Q' K z O Uf 71 m 11,111 �8\ .'+ \ \\p ° �.�//•! �.P '. b• o®° 1� ,�:3117:::•
...
a�
E Z p p p C7 ^�+a \s az 0 �® )1, ���(((►►► „ � n e . t• :::• :;:„. 14,0..
6:ri......
*•..-.*'_:11:::.
111
co
-se J r t \B � ' •
¢. a �• a '�•, 9• p o `6: 'J _ rOp o_ .d �x 1.. c ° 9:3 ,;8..,. .S • °i a. •,. ••s - t"
("� O O p. / �w epf,,tiy.�l c e-_�(.. 'i I•• ..`" o°` a • ° o\ •ee 'f�
• O o0 \ hl_��ley".'�f,m °�1 e• . p ad° a ee• e a `' y
0 `1 ° ' F1 0 + . / e
m
o s n'o VI C'
O e ' cs °e• i O
v r:\\\
0` e1, ° b
OQ O ^ O O\� p9
7314 0 m Jr ° 3m Q y m • �`� •• 0 7v 0 W
.., ,
ale
JJ
1.1
�J
R . = z e i it'll'
Y
/ I. '
6N.
���'� 100N3 MIliZ
Ip I:DO-S o
ATTACHMENT B
.:w i
i
r« .,.
*A t ..fir 3a
ti:e ; kms.. s.„ st }
itw'i,x�`+ '&.sem. ;a. 'AA. sp � '� ,e �4$��;.
!*�d A+Ra w S g$1N. Ai v�
Z s a
1
Daniel Warren School
Y�
'
s
.'e' c
...Y tilt •"
.
''''''1.
. ,migi is;qq � r; � t � t"' ....—�----�".'``` � � °��
.il Ili sea !NI
?r - i s $ s , +g� tib s ., *. ;•; ..
$ - x g ° —s*
w 'ii.
=f +.i.. R` saa,RMS
7} a p t , a ill rtt�U } ts!iCI 0 11 SEC
l t '< � •e�eta Atte to
c - x awn » &S'-a t- � s.
.air ^ e ": - a /x #.. .;,
...r .N,.°* • .,m t, o fie'
ATTACHMENT C
1 L i . 1 :
E
i 1 lolv...
.....„.,it,azi ,na iwi. . as
$ a
,,,,koc , 1 2 ..
Se 4"5" per':. m. "
m
Rye Neck High School
ro"gym.
I
s
J
t
}
a
s
'' A ...t. ---pill
An open classroom in the middle school , an annex of RNHS
ATTACHMENT D
� �
New Gym near the High School
., -�
. ..,
LL
Iler
tUi t 1 � y,
11 Ill i -r* '' ' ') .-..',.1
WIN ,,,...1..., ,,L,....,_ . ,...,'
l'--;-.,.......'.,!::-..-!-. -.11w7.--., .
, ..,
11111 IMP. *
_ ........ti
Rye Neck High School Library A Typical Classroom ir
rb_
.S0,1'; ''' ,,,
'moi: ""'3''°°p ,$ rr
ATTACHMENT E
4 ',
• m' `a 'ukY ,a .Z..
TIi b9A.;4•iao•--.
lve:
_ „.„to .
..,
.. __ .f.
„. _ „ _,
_ : ,,,,:,,,,,,, ,_,,,,.., . ..
3 , 0 .
L { pp .
L: ({[{[{[$k6k$
L
111
„rte,„.. a' 1 +�
'N. _* '
Bellows Elementary School and its kindergarten annex
'‘‘'. *' ' .'” * *- '—*4*--`!:*** ', it"' - *-1,,krt- - - '' `'. '' -' ., ,4.., ° , ,
t.
x -fir i ra re .. ..,,it',* , y. M
�i�p, x
a ad t :" , .b' t i ,kyr '.,,':;
trot T' {{A
er MK'-,
„ 1 , ems . �.� - '�.,� a }gti- r
' 74 tie*, , 1.,+' toi ' 1 --:-7,,,v.*,,,*ot-et*-4,--, 14,4-'t,- •,7,:,,...4,1,, ,.7::,,. ''*-T. r-,:14'..','Sot
't t- 'w.. _er a� >:” .�< ".:4 :-'e ... ' g 3
f.
" "hr's . .., a... - x'dt"' " ,, �"�r
�. - •fin. . °�`� �..<« `� °s .'';' � - 'e"..6�.•:<
The Bellows field; former administrative offices frame house
on the far left, kindergarten annex and Bellows on far right
. ATTACHMENT F
I
-t, rx
R AF x £' 8 j j .Eh ^ y * i
��. �, ,..,a�+ � 3: � � a,... ,..,,r�'..ti � - a� mai x�',
_tea- �..,_ ,.�.. ,..»..,-�.��a.�.,.��2�
s.r
`-i.
Bellows Elementary School, beautifully maintained
4'a ',1 ;
,' I i 3
1.
0,
_!
b i _
�a't -, s; i,"�. -'m mss,a>. �., moi;;a
e
e
a
ATTACHMENT G
1 i
7 it
y� g
. d"' z , ..t ���•7Y - l�'. ski R r IC A.< s` .� s.7
z tri & ` t V" C llotlI 4� :'E-�1Ba ^4s IHd \a g a ? $. i 2°. .-TGUST 91 6 :..1.- 951
'.4.'4 T„,,,,,..,,,_ „,,,„,„„T„..,„„„.,c ,. ,_ -it - . ,iii . . ..,. , .. .
,,.- 4 44;i*,' ' ., *- -,-,,-.s.' ..W.:. ' : ,.. .. ./V,/ / P tr r T 4- -"4: ' "--4 "' .-1
-'• '''''• ''''' • ' .•-'• -1(:*-': '.'-''. &so I t I a o 1
. ..... . . ., ...H. .,. .,_:,-,-
,.,.,„.,„,„:„,,:,,„,,,,,:c.„.„,-„,„..,:„.-...::„.,-,..,:::.... -..... .,.
_.
,i,...,...A.,,t-,6,.,-:,ei-i,ed•:8,.).... h i r,kr_ • 0. T, ';'„,„ ., .:. -''. i i _
' , pet~Iai• Summer meeting F f 3 a ttrc, Ss pettily;f1 f r C,tm i.p- Ma- re" „.
;rte of €ii£ Pr3P tt blow- appeals;
t � I� d•of.Bdutats 4 rrla ,:'ie Snd .ol. the C-' titan d -ict tS a ; n fs€- ' T;taint ?s°$:t.I "s='ti<a tl'iiA t: $
s h e tor' oonsidetattour Sept, 10 when `h lar,' Fab meet- '-s . 1 +£ en, =umptiotr may hate been in °. .
ffi atm t pctsal by log will he held,
3
a, tf t �. ttgh iiimist A for 2 ^,ri71i sf, eye to ,tel Or !t1fi° tie coo ,, ., i 1K'tTl Defer Building
'6 .., t.- �m e: t ? the Maw_ I?ropos l Mr. til;kIfl 11 t.e r't'es {i t :.:Ct., ri., sure
: annottne tom; the board told be +villin= tc es- The nest question raised whit "i am tr that You realize th ti
•3.s time goes by the necessity fol`;
3 q a sis iI ' a ';itablasti •shec°tal ;shitty co�rt tl.ee respect to this proposal was 1 some Lied for on this pI£I iC2n cwt
uiti to to Mr ISI ,tsi if it felt that more Info bin ori whether your present junior-senior
i# :, ureiieli .r, I were needed. f ';comes more.. pressing. Since we still`
,& k ��* high school facilities would be
L A' ; , believe that consolidation, if pz -
sk`=�;,a .f a. 'elye 0f,`�:�flar #� � �' .'' •»•'"' jti„ice° 1' � adequate for the combined load
414 *'>„ do "isibn cin the ''°" Letter cf the consolidated district, of : sibie, mayr well offer• tate beat Ioi
•hmoi *,F t blpnr ls'bee lt?iri t His letter follows.; Ahern vvas positive in hl st.+te :a,nge solution to our pxc. lents,s
:, iittits. Tius wit, aeknovriedge rr4ti? merit that if such a combination! ,we are ntlsr requesting that the;
Weis bei ool Board has`ter of Jul'•' 19 on the sithiect of were attempted, additional con- proposal o ininalls- presented .,to'
F:.Siiiiigrilhis' the•r epresenrzl i; des of your° Board
* a ssttlle conal liter
proposal made several months struction of high school facilities
iii r < ;iiit#txiben eti t, ago•by this Board to venrrcenta- would be required. ; and outlined in this letter be-of-
° fives of your Board concerning the "v4'F then frankly stated that noisily considered and acted upon
Yt alternatiite "0.'11*n ext,- r at the earliest t1j`}bEpi'`t.uniti', j
is loon}`•bandin repitpossible consolidation of our two our tentative studies of such af
,•a mote and more:rleces-i school districts, consolidation showed that if such 1 Speclii your w$oardlike teat:
- i ° the schools beeoatte ins l "`At the-liar -o` ou>. nt ct..i en new construction was necessary ;,i,gknow whethet
aeptt, Z4 19tff wt, stats^ too the the tax rate for the consolidated _ ' majority thereof. believes that the
crowded t LIS
e *V ryS IA Boitid gave refst` entar.ves O Weise ; the ti district would be substantially lei 1 possibility of such a consolldat on
E ' l ;•t ire ;• it-twit:9n,ibis nextreia; vaar, r,d. els than any tax rate that we could r is real enough to justify A 1'tint
• : cls ffi t e'' t urage d `"would.be faced with a serious:i anticipate for our district alone,:` request -for a state strive and a
x i 11e E„g ba fir,,-, no is but would undoubtedly be higher, further delay in our, budding>t r age of classroom space. As a •
41 * * '':it- llarriso Ma ;: tart;of a cal•eful survey Lai rot ure by from one to two dollars per! plans. We do nor, want to get. into
r tiv a ' °cira3't#-'.ot > I heeds we had concluded t,he'.• the thousand, than your present tax i= further_substantial delay unless a
,_ ,. l rate. We attempted to point, out It majority of your Board Is really ,
. i ycitlr ivhi h mart lv1ng actory it lane plait,that the larger district resulting.) convinced that: they can accept;
i �1 lett contact ' r wing thri:shortatre would int from consolidation might make s principle of such a roi�Sactda-;
t f� �>e nr neat �1ivrtt�;the conversion of the present
tem iM$ ,, Fitts Jr.,. z tO, P`. .•Bellows High School t., grade tionandprogramsefr and mightxibility in re- is anyreal on as a fpr t ter f olive bringingthere
hi- • tis tyi cl IS ist t l i• , nl use., qualm evauio M;ive the a suit in savings in administrative < such bettor; about, we a.re;slat:irely
� zr alvii et�iht adequate grade scsilol fa ,l 1 1
overhead.d. willing to postpone the building
reed :Ifs 'fan:tory ti. st sp =3 +ms 's to meet the projected peak' plansid and go full speed ahead On
amt ttt.e . ief the tla, °c ae,t.- ¢a,. This plan would mean that i Reply Awaited
i thec olidatl u it.dy.
114.d batt b 4TH tt S Nee t:< t++11i01'-senior 111 II school pop— At the conclusion of this. C t } I "jc sn oli' t the aii"„acioc, con_
t1ee. o ev*ilio a exltetst arra aro in now accommodated in F', eiissicln, we pointed out to „uric;f� use e yeor it3 t t we.
ittdl tett t at larch., pro.t B mellows would have to he placcc representatives that, if they felt 1lt �s t a l
eels • here, The obvious solution „ °,
y�orllti x be frvvored ltflr. `� ghat there was any real passibi rt fa t � . f�'z`` � ,,?� .�.
i;1 h mid the'Ryq Neck board I wo11ld•be the construction of a new,that your Board could accept the i.,
;<t,sas however, that a lets 1, l f? uezxicir' high school. R,e•aita-; idea of consolidation as a matte:
Lit;,.1:41,1Uiiittildr..Kirkman irsdicate€i; ihiCithat such new construction i of poiiet:, we would like to be so
* � & latter.•had never l id, require a bond issue sub- lie=* ctr as soon o ihle, sot
*re t re4,enled to the•l' alt it tally°increasing -the existing`our two Boards could join in a
d. ti. -i to in the district ow'Boafc' request to the State Department; N dCcC. wt L c;xF �>
ite,..4., ed that it was essential to I of Education that the Llepartirlent,I i� V +LY.t. L
;..,.:..0.:,..!5',-?.:i....4't to Ml t relteiita' all possibilities for takingsundertake a comprehensive survey.' - V14-1 �Ir ! .,
t t�destl imnuediste e t �t the situation by means of and report on the feasibility of aNe •t3 u�a Ly�f
rq � � *•i ida;tion with• Pine of the suet• a. consolidation. We painted
C r.'`*idsman said t a e 'i-boring school districts. out-that the time element was rnl-' ' -.>i'-'114'.(1-'
;fie lend circulated collie* ti. * called portant because if there was no
tits tt ,ter lriiibald a* - real prospect of consolidation we
:this problem in mints, Ot6rGtvtFc.QC, rl��ct ii.{!
631 of wYrom.tae Ltr1t "of $ff ' should abandon thought of that
for:Yikeattg.t .1-TWo bt`iatd a,t r t cs d the nteetinB With ;}'u . alternative and proceed with our 1 4)'
�� /
�i`t. At thatt nietti.g,,11 r."FI� � `r�i 1 t �i .
bbd iii i Ice , . ,<•-flint plans. It
o 's letser but, decline4 chairman of oil eornrnitteey
*,$ I "At the end of this ennferFnoe I
rete wh board xt,embets ° soiidation, on:Plined the tent:4 we requested that, Your x'epre e (L-21:\,,, . lc.-ft on,
e•P..-P st that-we bad wet3 i f1
�-a lir'��ttrc•�ilaell` �; ' sent�tives consider the matter a n � 14-0,fS:-�.��c�',
In; i4eck s baby''' atderetl. i.0 brief. this involved a' let izs know their views on the ( Nee,*
i irtmo st.At ntacl whn ,,t w tsecthe thn of the two districts: N
yy -,, 'e thought•that out- . .... t• question of policy as soon as pt -
dliectly ittirarttei' t bible;• 'When we heard nothing{
alto in of t i fa des wofutt be,adequate to further from your Board we as i
ihz3ip �t ,_fit the future rade sellout -stinted that the attitude of dislris i
whelk iris mcition;" die :Ertel"I ition in our end-of the colt •
terest that had been clearly' ex*j
Brea That, he,°coiiixl .rlttt st3eak i solidated district,while„the junior>` ly...cavarr.i re wn:tr. mem_
45
IV - 4
PROBABLE IMPACT OF ALBANY ON OUR DISTRICT
Subcommittee Report by Suzi Oppenheimer and Jerry E. Pohlman
The following discusses the major considerations concerning state aid
for Mamaroneck Public Schools and the trends that can be expected over the period to
1980-1981. This discussion is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the various
types of state aid and their likely magnitude and direction. Rather, it attempts to focus
on the primary facets of state aid as they impact Mamaroneck Public Schools and the
likely trends that appear on the horizon within these facets for the planning period set
out by the committee. The discussion is organized around three major concepts, with
various subdivisions within each:
. The question of BOCES;
. Consolidation with Rye Neck; and
. The general question of state aid and likely trends in its
magnitude.
BOCES
BOCES, the Board of Cooperative Educational Services, provides a wide
range of services to school districts. Some such are Special Education, Vocational Edu-
cation, Computers, Itinerant Teachers, lnservice Training, Instructional Aids, etc.
Presently there are 46 BOCES districts located in New York State serving
737 school districts. The Cooperative Board serving Southern Westchester is called BOCES 2
and serves 28 school districts. These districts are called components of BOCES and have a
combined student population of 55,000. Mamaroneck is one of 16 districts within the state
that voluntarilydoesno'tbelonQ to BOCES along with the "Big 5" city school districts that
legally cannot belong but receive a BOCES-type aid. Of the 16 noncomponent districts,
6 are in the BOCES 2 region. Five of the 6 are large districts - White Plains, New Rochelle,
Mount Vernon, Mamaroneck, Port Chester - with Bronxville being of smaller size. Total
school population in these 6 districts is approximately 45,000, nearly equal to the BOCES 2
population.
Reluctance to join BOCES is partly du, to school district size, as all districts
pay their share of the BOCES administrative budget according to the size of their student
population. Large districts shoulder a larger percentage, irrespective of the number of
services they request of BOCES.
The bask questions concerning whether Mamaroneck should join BOCES
involve:
1. Financial considerations;
2. Questions of accountability; and
3. Quality of the services.
46
During the first year of being a component of BOCES, The State Education Department
has stated that it would cost this District approximately $218,000; the second year there
would be a $3,000 gain, while after that it would save the District approximately $50,000
per year. There is a lag in handling costs so that a component of the $218,000 is the
excess of state costs over Mamaroneck's costs (Mamaroneck's costs for services that BOCES
could provide are only $450,000 compared with approximately $700,000 if provided by
the state). Within BOCES 2 the state picks up between 50-60% of the cost to handle a
district. This accounts for the gain in the second and third year despite the excess state
costs and the method of handling administrative costs. As discussed later, a new direction
has developed in Albany which apparently would lessen greatly the financial discrimination
demonstrated against the BOCES noncomponent, making membership for Mamaroneck even
less financially desirable.
The non-economic issues of BOCES membership revolve around the concept
of accountability and the level of quality. With respect to quality, many observers feel
that the current programs within the Mamaroneck School District are equal to or better
than the services provided by BOCES. This is especially relevant with respect to physically,
intellectually and emotionally handicapped children; however, with respect to vocational
training, BOCES programs are unsurpassed.
There is little accountability on the part of BOCES to the component district
in terms of either the quality of the programs or the costs of providing them. Moreover, the
decision to join BOCES is at present irreversible. A district may not withdraw and therefore
is committing itself to pay an unknown and uncontrolled amount of the BOCES budget for
the lifetime of the BOCES, even if it is dissatisfied with the quality of the services or if
the costs escalate. Contracts for a fixed number of years have been suggested to revise the
permanence of the BOCES marriage. However, due to BOCES contractual obligations and
building debts they have been unsympathetic to limiting contracts with components.
Each component district is allowed five votes to be cast for the BOCES board.
Large districts such as Mamaroneck would prefer to have the vote proportionate with the size
of the school district. At present only BOCES board members vote on their budget, leading
some observers to suggest that accountability would be improved if all component districts'
school boards were permitted to vote on the BOCES budget. BOCES 2 has recommended this
change. (BOCES Councils have also been recommended, consisting of all the component
districts' school board members. The BOCES Council would be empowered to elect the BOCES
Board and vote on the BOCES budget. A. contingency budget would have to be provided were
the BOCES budget to fail.)
Major questions arise concerning which programs that have been locally oper-
ated might be absorbed by BOCES. BOCES cannot take over a district's constitutional res-
ponsibility to educate its own pupils. Only when the district is unable to provide for the
student may BOCES services be requested. Mamaroneck has a "viable" and far-reaching
Special Education program. it is expected that BOCES would not take over this cost. More-
over, the recent state trend is toward requiring local districts to be more self-sufficient, ex-
pecting each district to handle more of its own mildly handicapped children. The State Edu-
cation Department is becoming more stringent about what BOCES may operate. The squeeze
is on BOCES to cut programs and costs. Most significant is the pressure to provide only for
the severely handicapped at BOCES, expecting each district to handle its own mildly handi-
47
capped children. Over the years BOCES has become overextended. It must now reduce
itself to comply with its original purpose - to provide cooperative services where the
individual district was unable to do so alone. Many districts which relied on BOCES are
now struggling to establish and pay for programs for their handicapped pupils. Many dis-
tricts without such programs find it necessary to send these students to expensive private
day schools. Mamaroneck has no students in such schools.
Will becoming a component of BOCES become inevitable within a few
years? Various observers suggest that this will indeed become the case if the state con-
tinues to encourage membership and dkcourage - through financial incentives and dis-
incentives - the independent school district existing outside the BOCES framework. Why
is this so? First, it has been a state purpose to have all school districts within New York
become components of BOCES. Second, the economics of diminishing enrolments and in-
flationary costs dictates an expanded region for providing various services, and BOCES is
viewed as the cornerstone of regionalism. Third, as discussed later, equalization could
most readily be effected on a regional base. The Regents are presently completing a
position paper on regionalism which should provide us with a clearer direction.
On the other hand, Joe Blaney, Superintendent of BOCES 2, does not
believe the state will force BOCES membership due to the financial squeeze in Albany.
However, he believes that if the 16 remaining noncomponents of BOCES in New York
State determined that membership was to their advantage, they could, through concerted
effort, effect legislation that would provide for state assumption of all excess costs for
the first year of their joining BOCES. The present one-year law (1974-1975 has the state
accept only the administrative costs for the first year in which a district joins BOCES. How-
ever, full assumption of all excess costs might entice the remaining holdouts and under those
circumstances it might he desirable for Mamaroneck to join.
In conclusion, the advantages of joining BOCES appear to be diminishing
as the effort to trim BOCES costs and services proceeds. The position paper on regionalism
by the Regents, due shortly, should shed considerable light on what the state's intentions
will be regarding those districts operating outside of BOCES. We conclude that, unless
pressed, Mamaroneck should remain outside of BOCES. If requirea to join, we should pursue
those changes in accountability and q is l ity control that we desire and seek the most favor-
able financial arrangements possible.
CONSOLIDATION WITH RYE NECK
Consolidation with Rye Neck within the 1980-1981 planning period is a
possibility. The major question considered here is whether the state will make this econ-
omically more feasible.
The state provides incentive aid to ease consolidations, to reduce the fin-
ancial burden for a few years so districts can concentrate on the educational benefits which
might be derived.
There are two types of aid involved in incentive aid:
48
. Construction aid provides an additional 25% bonus above
what a district normally would receive for building aid, if
the buildings are constructed within five years of the
consolidation.
. Operating aid provides a 10% increase in aid for five years
above what the district formally receives unc'er the basic state
aid formula. This aid phases out by one per cent each year
after the fifth year.
As the law presently reads, there is no additional money to protect the
taxpayers of one district from the ill effects on their tax rate of consolidation with a
district with lower property valuations behind each pupil. Special Home Rule legisla-
tion (affecting only Mamaroneck and Rye Neck) could be introduced, but the outlook
for its adoption is highly questionable because it would open the door for other requests
for special state aid.
STATE AID
New York State has a long history of state and local joint participation
in financing the public school system. The present era with respect to state aid, which
is all we need review for this study, began in 1962 with the Diefendorf formula. This
formula used the average property tax within the state and compared it to the property
tax in each district in order to determine the amount of state aid the district would receive.
The basic idea was, and still is, the promotion of greater educational equality within the
state by providing a higher percentage of state aid to those areas with fewer of their own
resources.
However, an operating expense ceiling was injected to protect the state
budget. The ceiling, the level to which the state would share expenses equally within
the school district, was intended to be at the cost figure for the median school district's
expenditure per child. Over the years, fl-e operating expense ceiling has not kept pace
with rising costs until today it is so low that only 10% of the state's school districts spend
less than the ceiling. Any amount above the ceiling is not matched by the state. This
inadequate funding of the operating expense ceiling seriously unbalances educational op-
portunity and costs, a subject dealt with later on.
Legislation further distorted the formula. Flat grants were instituted to
pay districts, too wealthy to qualify under the formula, a minimum flat sum. This flat
grant means state aid to any district is never below 30% of operating expense ceiling.
While the flat grant was considered politically necessary, it partially destroyed the
equalization effort.
Another disequalizer is the "save harmless" provision whereby a district is
guaranteed it will receive no less state aid than it did in the prior year. Over two-thirds
of New York school districts are saved harmless which further distorts the aid formula.
49
There are many other exceptions to the formula and categorical grants
(textbook, transportation, building, high tax districts, etc.) which complicate and
distort the formula's intentions. However, none is more glaring than the three pre-
viously mentioned - inadequate funding of the operating expense ceiling, flat grants,
and save harmless provisions.
The proportion of state aid to total educational costs at the time the
Diefendorf formula was formulated in 1962 equalled 49% in the average district within
the state. In 1968 state aid as a percentage of costs was 48%. The figure has been
decreasing consistently since (the record low was 39% in 1973), with the exception of
last year, 1974, when aid rose to 41%. Last year was an election year and education
benefitted. There was a substantial increase in the operating expense ceiling, BOCES-
type aid was granted to the Big Five Cities, and a weighting factor was introduced for
student need. This law, Chapter 241 of The State Education Law, weighted students
with learning problems at 1.25 (those below the 23rd percentile on state test scores) and
1 .5 for similar high school students. Special education students (physically, intellectually,
and emotionally handicapped) received a weighting of 2.0 times the basic aid.
Mamaroneck has a relatively high property valuation behind each pupil so
the district receives the flat grant which currently is $360. (The maximum per pupil state
aid is $1, 100 paid in the poorest district.) Mamaroneck is paid double basic aid or double
flat grant, $720, for each special education child. If we were a BOCES component, we
would receive from the state approximately 50--60% of the costs for educating that same
pupil. Is the district that does a good job at home being penalized? While this appeared
to be the situation, the trend as mentioned previously is now to educate only the more
severely handicapped at BOCES, and return the more moderately handicapped to their home
districts. The picture involving the costs for the more severely handicapped has brightened
for Mamaroneck, as the Legislature will probably increase state assistance within the next
couple of years; this matter is discussed later under Excess Funding Principle.
1 . Mamaroneck Short--Term Prospects and Problems Concerning
State Aid
A. Secondary School Weighting
All pupils in a district are riot weighted equally. Previously discussed were
the recently introduced weighting for handicaps and disa►bilities. Students are also weighted
by grades - K is .5, the basic aid per pupil; grcdes 1 - 6 are 1 .0, the basic aid; and 7 12
receive 1.25 weighting. Chapter 241 changed the high school pupil weighting to 1.0. An
uproar from local districts produced a hill that was passed reinstating the 1.25 weighting for
only one year. There is anxiety ov.r whether or not the 1 .25 high school weighting will dis-
appear as of July 1, 1975. As both the Senate and House have presently before them state aid
bills that reinstate the 1 .25 weighting we expect this to be reinstated for the indefinite future.
B. Attendance versus Enrolment
Currently state aid per pupil is determined according to the number of students
attending classes. There are six attendance periods throughout the year, and the school is
able to choose the best of these for determination of attendance. Mamaroneck school district
has a 95-97% attendance record while absenteeism in New York City averages 21%. As a
result, the cities are requesting that aid be based upon enrolment rather than on attendance.
50
With a given size of pie (total state aid) such a reworking of the formula would imply
a larger number of dollars going to the cities and a smaller amount to the suburbs. It
can readily be seen that such a move would mean a decline in state aid to Mamaroneck.
The future probably will find the state moving slowly toward the enrolment basis for aid.
The Senate has passed the Anderson-Giuffreda bill which would require
a local district to use the best four of eight or five of ten attendince periods. The
Stavisky proposal which will soon be before the Assembly would move toward an enrol-
ment figure counting pupils by use of 25% enrolment and 75% attendance. Supporters
of the enrolment figure maintain that teachers are hired on the basis of enrolment and
buildings still exist and must be maintained even with high absenteeism. Frequently
those districts experiencing this problem are those that would require additional state
support, having large numbers of disadvantaged children in areas of low property ratebbles.
While property values are high in New York City, education must compete for funds with
other municipal services.
C. Save Harmless
Currently 66-75% of the school districts are receiving some type of special
treatment through "save harmless. " Basically, this is designed to prevent a cutback in
overall funds due to a decline in the district's school population or a reformulation of the
state aid formula and/or categorical grants. Save harmless only guarantees the same amount
of money to a district as received in the prior year. It does not guarantee the same percent-
age of aid, so the state's percentage of aid toward total costs is reduced when such factors
as rising teacher contracts, inflation, vastly increased utility costs, etc. are taken into con-
sideration.
There is considerable interest in the State Legislature to change save harmless
next year from a total guarantee to fund the same dollars year after year, to a per-pupil save
harmless. In a period of rapidly declining enrolments for many districts, (over 520 of the
state's 740 school districts are experiencing a decline) it is considered wasteful and unrealistic
to pay districts for pupils no longer enrolled. Districts are permitted to average their declining
enrolment over three years. Currently, 't maroneck's student pipulatiion is not declining
rapidly, but the rate of decline is expected to accelerate. Save harmless, it appears, will
not protect districts as much in the future from loss of state aid as it presently does.
D. Excess Funding Principle
With the change in the law last year (4404-2B) local school districts must
now assume responsibility for all students. This includes physically, intellectually, and
emotionally handicapped children. Before this change, if the parents sent a child to a
special school, the state provided $1,500 toward the cost and the parents, if financially
able, picked up the balance, or did so with the county, state and district sharing. Under
the new provisions, however, even though the school district is required to take responsi-
bility for the child, the district does not get the $1,500. This is costing Mamaroneck ap-
proximately$100,000 this year but will, in all likelihood, go up in the future as more parents
take advantage of the change in the law.
This has resulted and will result in substantial increases in costs to all local
school districts, mandated by the state, over which the local district has little, if any,
control. As a result, various groups are seeking to work out a formula whereby the state
51
will absorb part of these costs. One of the possibilities under discussion is the application
of the excess funding principle to this situation.
As a means of illustrating this principle, suppose that the cost in a special
school for a child came to $6,000 over the year. This, under the new state law, would
be absorbed by the local school district. If the excess funding principle were to apply,
however, the average cost per pupil on the naix levy inthe distric. would be subtracted
from the total cost of educating this special student with the state picking up all or a part
of the difference. Thus, if the total local tax receipts to the school district are $12 million,
and there are 6,000 students, the cost per pupil on the tax levy is $2,000 per student. The
school, under the excess funding principle, would pick up the $2,000 with the state paying
the difference of $4,000 or the state and district sharing the expense. One problem comes
for the state in attempting to put a ceiling on the $6,000 cost figure. Without directly con-
trolling the prices charged by the private schools, a very difficult area, the state would have
little control over reducing or keeping down total costs since the private school could increase
the cost with the state making up the difference.
Section 4404 (2B) is the new law under which all new cases are brought in.
• The law is scheduled to take effect next year with the ccunty pulling out as a contributor
to the cost of educating the special education pupil which could leave the local school dis-
trict assuming the total burden (minus the $720 in double weighted basic state aid) unless the
excess funding principle is applied to these areas. Without state funding this could be a
heavy burden for Mamaroneck.
The Assembly will examine soon an excess funding bill whereby the state
would assume 80-90% of the additional costs, the district 10-20°/d. The Senate has a more
conservative bill before it based on a local contribution set at 125% of the amount contributed
for a normal child and, for the balance of the costs, a 50-50 shared arrangement between
state and local districts. The trend appears to be toward increased financing by the state for
the more costly education of special education pupils.
In sum, with all these unknown factors snaking any overall projection on state
aid for Mamaroneck even over the short planeir:g period of1980-1531 is difficult. For plan-
ning purposes we have assumed that beginning 1976-1977 Mamaroneck will experience a re-
duction in state aid which is proportionate to its forecast school population decline.
2. Longer-Term Trends and Outlook
Given the severe budgetary constraints of the state and the impact of the
recession which is likely to be felt by the state for a number of years, it is unrealistic to
hope for any large scale increases in state aid to schools. The fact is that the percentage
of the state budget going to education has been moving down (2C. 1% versus 36.2% ten
years ago). While Governor Carey mentioned lifting the percentage of state aid to edu-
cation's total costs to 50% during his campaign, it appears unlikely to rise above the current
level within the next few years. Even during times when the Assembly, Senate and the
Governor's office were controlledby one party, education had to wait for Gubernatorial
election years for any significant increases in aid. And, even then, the expanded state aid
could not keep pace with the rate of increase in costs.
52
A lot of money was spent on education in the past decade but that en-
thusiasm seems to have diminished along with the realization that schools cannot solve
all of society's problems. Also, a more conservative climate prevails with the citizenry
less willing to spend for education. One proposal which would free up moneys for edu-
cation involves federal funding of the costs of welfare. This has been recommended by
the Fleischmann Commission, the League of Women Voters and others.
Where are we heading? There is a desire to change and simplify the
system of state aid. Having grown through diverse demands over a number of years, the
state aid formula is now extremely complex and subject to mu'tiple distortions through
flat grants, save harmless provisions, categorical aids, inadequate funding, etc., aimed
at thwarting the thrust of the original formula, which was toward equalization.
One area where there may be significant change is the move toward state
takeover of certain very large school costs; e.g., capital construction, pensions, BOCES
administrative costs. This would allow the new state administration to make a substantial
move in the area of education (where the political payoffs are considered high) without
attempting a massive overhaul of the formula or tax structure, which would benefit some
and alienate others. There is the feeling on the part of many persons that the Carey ad-
ministration would like to help education but would like to do so without alienating any
particular region. A state takeover of certain types of costs, such as those mentioned,
would relieve the financial squeeze on the local districts. It should be noted that such
a takeover of the administrative costs of BOCES would fulfill this political-economic ob-
jective while at the same time lend encouragement to the 16 noncomponents of BOCES to
join the system.
A. Equalization
Despite the fact that there is no real constituency for equalization some
equalization of educational expenditures and revenue collections is going to come to New
York State. The question is how, when, and how much. New equalizing designs have
arrived in other states (Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Texas, California, Con-
necticut, Haw( "i, and soon in New Jersey`' These involve, in .Dme instances, the utili-
zation for education of state property taxes, state income taxes and other taxes such as
cigarette and liquor taxes. These state funds are distributed via various formulas ranging
from full state funding to modified power equalizing cnd percentage equalizing. New York
distributes aid via a percentage equalizing formula. Under power equalizing a local district
determines the amount it chooses to spend per pupil to which an automatic tax rate is tied.
If the rate raises more than the designated anount per pupil, the balance goes into a fund
which can be drawn upon by those districts where the levy did not raise the assigned amount.
Senator Pisani thinks some progress towards equalizatien might come through this method as
a wealthier community voting its self-interest would still be implementing equalization.
Full stare funding, i.e., the assumption by '-he state of all the costs of edu-
cation utilizing all the resources of the state, has been recommended by the Fleischmann
Commission, the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the President's Commission
on School Finance. It is doubtful that this would be acceptable to the people and legis-
lators, though Robert Marker, President of the Rye Neck School Board, sees this as a pos-
sibility within a twenty-year time frame.
53
Why is this formula, at least in the five-year time frame, probably un-
acceptable? (1) Any new formula, particularly Full State funding, needs a large infusion
of additional money in the first year adopted so all districts can realize some increase.
Where would the large sums come from? (2) There is in America a strong tradition of
local control. Could local control be retained? (3) There is fear within superior school
districts such as Mamaroneck of being "leveled down" in quality. How could this be
avoided?
In a few states the courts have led in the battle against inequality in edu-
cation, after the Supreme Court of the United States refused to take a stand on the Rod-
riguez case and indicated that the questions of equality and of the property tax was a
state responsibility. More often the court cases have dragged on and on. California's
Serrano case is still in the courts six years later. New Jersey's courts have granted the
legislature an extension for the reorganization of its school finance system. In New York
the Levittown, Long Island, case, a class action suit filed in June 1974 with 25 school
districts as defendants, has been delayed because of changes made by the New York
legislature toward equalization. Under consideration now are bills to provide for an
annually self-adjusting operating expense ceiling beginning next year, for a reduced
save harmless provision based on pupil population, and for the state assuming an increased
role in financing the education of special education children. Equalization has been ad-
vanced as a result of last year's weighting for special students, granting BOCES-type aid
to the Big Five cities, and a substantial increase in the operating expense ceiling.
.There is divided opinion on whether the courts will lead an equalization
effort in New York. Some say the legislature won't make major changes in the state
formula until the courts force the issue. Others say the courts will not take a strong
position since New York has a good equalizing formula in the Diefendorf formula (if all
exceptions are overlooked) and the state spends at a fairly high level for education.
The likelihood is that New York will be living with the Diefendorf formula
and its modifications five years hence. Probably the patchworked band-aided Diefendorf
will be simplified and changed to effect more equalization than it currently does. The
more equalization effected in New York, the less financial aid M: maroneck will receive.
B. Regionalization
Regionalization has some attraction since no formula of state aid will work
both upstate and in the city and because equalizing stands a better chance politically on
a more limited regional basis. There are two conflicting goals within state aid: The state
aid formula has the advantage of being objective in its application. Once the formula is
adopted, it can be distributed without political considerations. At the same time, being
mechanical by nature, it has the disadvantage of being inequitable because of regional
differences in costs, problems of the cities with their tax and debt limitations, areas that
require many special services, low wealth of some rural areas, inflated values of suburban
areas, etc. At the other end of the spectrum is the flat grant plus categorical aid approach
which has the virtue of being highly flexible but the drawback of being disequalizing and
subject to widespread political pressures by various interest groups. It appears that one
formula can never work for all kinds of districts in all parts of the state. Bob Hotz, econ-
omic analyst for the Senate Education Committee, foresees in the future three state equal-
54
ization formulas, one for small districts, one for average districts and one for the big
cities. The most frequently mentioned method to begin correcting inequities is through
regionalizing the tax base. This could be accomplished through the BOCES district or
the county.
The Governor's Task Force in March 1974 noted a vast discrepancy in
spending among local school districts in New York. The discrepancy within BOCES
districts is much smaller. This Task Force proposed that if a district doesnot share its
resources regionally, it should lose any additional state aid.
Currently, Senator Giuffreda, chairman of the Senate Education Com-
mittee, is planning to rework his two-year--old Tax Limiting Equalization Plan this summer.
This plan penalizes districts spending above a regional average through reduced aid and
contains a power equalizing formula which recognizes local districts' tax effort.
The Regents are currently nearing completion of a Position Paper on Region-
alism. Equalized opportunity has been one of their constant themes. Regents position
papers often are farsighted and original and attract a certain disbelief when first published.
However, over a period of years their ideas become accepted and are implemented (examples:
prekindergarten education, handicapped and disadvantaged mainstreaming and additional
funding).
C. Property Tax
The property tax is overburdened and it is likely that alternatives will have
to be found. (The graduated income tax has been frequently mentioned.) However, much
can be done to make the property tax more equitable and less confusing: updated assessments
reviewed regularly; state assessment using full valuation instead of assessed valuation;
regional or state taxing area utilizing uniform assessment techniques; use of an income factor
for rating wealth of school districts; use of more circuit breakers to protect people with fixed
and low incomes. For Mamaroneck, the more equalizing is imposed, the more the district
stands to lose. A limited area regionalism may begin within the next five years meshing
Mamaroneck with districts not very dissimilar in ratables, salaries, utility costs, etc. This
may have a tendency to increase costs in Mamaroneck but not as severe as equalizing on a
state level.
In sum, increased aid from the state appears unlikely on either the short or
long term. Additional funding will probably accrue to less wealthy districts, as New York
moves slowly in the direction of equalization.
Information and opinion has been collected in part from the following people:
Assemblyman Richard Mannix. State Assembly, 91 A.D.
Senator Joseph R. Pisani State Senate, 36 S.D.
Robert Hotz Economic Analyst for the Senate Education Committee
John Cross Program Associate for Senator Warren Anderson,
Majority (Rep.) Leader
Tom Murphy Legislative Budget Analyst for the Assembly Ways and
Means Committee, for the minority (Rep.)
55
John Bishop The State Education Department
Bureau of Management Services
Joseph Blaney Superintendent, BOCES 2
Anne Bondy BOCES 2, Board of Education School Board
Member
Norma Jacobson Ci airman, Legislation committee
Westchester County School Boards Association
Robert Marker President, Rye Neck Board of Education
Joan Scheuer Ex-President, Mamaroneck Board of Education
57
V
QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Donald H. Chapin
- CPA and partner of Arthur Young & Company where he presently
serves as Director of Ma iagement Services (previously Director
of Auditing and of Practice Development).
- Former President of the Board of Education and presently a member
of the Student Aid Fund and Trustee of the American Academy in Rome.
- Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Williams College (B.A.) and University of
Pennsylvania (M.B.A.).
- Active in the accounting profession (AICPA and the State Society).
- Resident of the District for 24 years.
Henry Allen
- Vice President of Technicon Corporation.
- Previously Division Manager of Union Carbide Corporation.
- Former Vice-President of the Board of Education, and presently Secretary
of the Mamaroneck Village Planning Board and Board Member of the
Center for Continuing Education.
- Graduate of Lafayette College (B.S. in Engineering).
- Resident of the District for 14 years.
DeWitt C. Baker
- Vice President of W. R. Grace & Co. and President of Baker & Taylor
Co., Division of W. R. 73race (previously Vi ..e-President of Finance
and Administration of Random House).
- Member of the Board of Education (retiring on June 30, 1975).
- Graduate of Dartmouth (B.A.) and Amos Tuck School (M.B.A. with
Distinction).
- Resident of the District for 18 years.
A. Carleton Dukess
- Executive Vice-President of Continental Wingate Company, Inc.
(developer, builder and operator of rental apartments for families of
low and moderate income). (Previously Senior Partner of Demov &
Morris, law firm.)
- Formerly Chairman of School Board Nominating Committee and CAP
Building Committee.
58
A. Carleton Dukess (continued)
- Member of Board of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New
York City and President of National Housing Rehabilitation Association.
- Syracuse University (A.B.) and Columbia Law School (L.L.B.).
- Resident of the District fc- 12 years.
Marlene Kolbert
- President of the Mamaroneck-Larchmont Parent-Teacher Council.
- Formerly President of the League of Women Voters.
- Past President of Chatsworth Avenue School Parent-Teacher Association.
- Oberlin College (B.A.).
- Resident of District for 9 years.
John A. LeVan
- Vice-President, Employee Relations - Union Carbide Corporation
(Chemicals and Plastics) [previously Director of Urban Affairs and
Law Department member].
- Trustee, Larchmont Avenue Church, United Fund and Mamaroneck CAP.
- Bachelor of Engineering, Yale University, and L. L.B., University of
Michigan.
- Resident of the District for 21 years.
Lawrence Litchfield
-- Architect and partner of Litchfield Grosfeld As.;ociates, New York City.
- Graduate of Rye Neck Schools and Cornell University (B.Arch.).
- Board of Directors of New York City Chapter of American Institute of
Architects, 1969-1971; Vice-President of New York State Association
of Architects, 1972-1974.
- Resident of the District for 2 years.
Carl E. Nagel, Jr.
- President of Antell, Wright & Nagel - Management Consultants
(previously Vice-President of McGraw Hill).
- Former Member of the Board of Education for two terms (1956-1961)
and former Member of the Mamaroneck Town Board.
- Stanford (B.A.) and Advanced Management Program of Stanford Graduate
School.
- Resident of the District for 26 years.
59
Suzi Oppenheimer
- President of the League of Women Voters in Mamaroneck (previously
Chairman of League of Women Voters Workshop on Financing of Edu-
cation, 1970-1975).
- Formerly Wall Street financial analyst.
- Past Member of the Tax Base and Legislation Committee of the Board
of Education and President of Central School Parent-Teacher Association.
- Connecticut College (B.A. in Economics) and Columbia University
Graduate School of Business (M.B.A.).
- Resident of the District for 8 years.
Jerry E. Pohlman
- Principal with Arthur Young & Company and National Director of
Economic Services (previously served with the Cost of Living Council
and Assistant Professor of Economics and Industrial Relations at the
State University of New York).
- Formerly a mediator-factfinder for PERB.
- University of Iowa (M.A. and B.A.) and Cornell University (Ph.D.
in economics and industrial relations).
- Resident of the District for 1 year.
Emmy-Lou Sleeper
- President, Burbank Associates, Inc.
- President, Larchmont Chapter of the Westchester County Real Estate
Board.
- Graduate of Smith College (B.A.).
- Member of Larchmont Housing Committee and Human Rights Commission.
- Lifelong resident of the District.
59
Suzi Oppenheimer -
- President of the League of Women Voters in Mamaroneck (previously
Chairman of League of Women Voters Workshop on Financing of Edu-
cation, 1970-1975).
- Formerly Wall Street financial analyst.
- Past Member of the Tax Base and Legislation Committee of the Board
of Education and President of Central School Parent-Teacher Association.
- Connecticut College (B.A. in Economics) and Columbia University
Graduate School of Business (M.B.A.).
- Resident of the District for 8 years.
Jerry E. Pohlman
- Principal with Arthur Young & Company and National Director of
Economic Services (previously served with the Cost of Living Council
and Assistant Professor of Economics and Industrial Relations at the
State University of New York).
- Formerly a mediator-factfinder for PERB.
- University of Iowa (M.A. and B.A.) and Cornell University (Ph.D.
in economics and industrial relations).
- Resident of the District for 1 year.
Emmy-Lou Sleeper
- President, Burbank Associates, Inc.
- President, Larchmont Chapter of the Westchester County Real Estate
Board.
- Graduate of Smith College (B.A.).
- Member of Larchmont Housing Committee and Human Rights Commission.
- Lifelong resident of the District.
•
.,y� e 1�.t'.=,r .�' cs •)s*a t - ...J.: ,••4..4
•• , " ', : iq•',
r��k r ,., ;4 ., ,u; u x •-•;',,.-,,;t1.,
, t1. X ( ski �:af f R.', . t. _ ,a , t
-.: 571;:p.71,',.:2'.-:,',.
°a _ x� Tr -., ,•'`.;,',4.--',...:....,4„,..-
*h rW •'' a ..•,�; *" ,+`
r i f "M ' r c•"K 'w Ydt▪ ire. � rr
v..-, 1::,..',"-:,, � �` �kii�f�+y� , � p � r-�, q � t a 'fin tt e
-',.'0.2,7',!\,..to-,,..,.-_,,.-,,,..,,,,,.-,;-.,,,,-,-,.,,,k,--.-....-,....-,..,,,,-.-w.*:,,-...,,,.....,,,,,,---!%:,p-,-,..,- :',,,,4- - :,.-- ..! : '--- ' . '' --, - --..„, •. :. -. i, ,.!
rS --: :4..'.'44,:.°47.
, dyiYa J. 334 a
L°6
..F i '..--r,-.„.;.',.„rY +, i; ,k. k s yiY •'A 1 .' i' - , x yt , } ,z:::-,;-ii.-.1X;:,-4,,i;.,,,- � ' : £„ '''' ','i.4'''.:-!!'''''';''''.;"):c}141'.. i' ; < " wi . .,1.� g fi' djnvY i;£p4Cn aw "
•
• '.
jq #RYHfi, f 1 ) 5 - - f� - ,�y0 ''° t !A vl M` � r s nh ', S�t q4�> 7`:''',.'
+r� g -`k .. '-':-..'-'''':":•.:,
M,f , 3g !, \ r
•
•
•
17
•••""t,,'"„,=.-.•''-''',-:',:".•1 '
E '. ? s ,� lM1� 4���i �Y<��^J� i '. 7 S45FFr ; f7 I }' ,` ▪ .�F 1,4,0 y R rIi w r �K hi-04x S „{ 4 #' ' '' 14 L. '; ew.�^ , x4 rA �a, ° l4 ... F t;! ,-. ' 8i ' ( ' 4. ' a , T9° ,r . " .51 t ,‘,4';;1,,,,;.,� �i � '''..1
° 9.,,,i,-.„, ,,,,,,i.4:,'' 7� � cs '' Y� R '�'kyr M • r
• •
•
- -.,,,'i$:',-.',,.;
v ./ '•':.-1-,'.',41-"., yq 4 -
' ' i ., s + na f h yy
`
• .7•1. P' �y �, N . ta , q 7' .-.;.t4.-.,,,,,,r414,,, ot', I ` •
1'WI
•
',M1A �1 r�y,,t�ya ' " y'40F. y '' 1 x ," ,m g" -e" j1�� ', IFr � ;"i,: . `N . " ...„.:,?1,4,,,,,':,-...-
T" 4 P �`� --s } .�{ ' -u '!_ }� tC`' ‘..'0.•'-',,,,::
_; t J- arY•a 4 '^!�lv4 "'l" ' v i n^", ' tii� qep1ry es' r fi -k xaa ;� � . :� = + ... _...,,,,40,..'"'-',._10, # F. t it !pa�iftN ,0 ys* t I l@ i' E3.` *.,,,.,1,,,..3,43-, "0 ' .t ➢.e,x ," #<. ' r d Ty , pG^�°��ldy ' Po 'kw n,Akth 1�^ ;.'>, Fa{ ^r .- a is A ! i"t-4.n'r " y -'''''.• . '' '' 1•` 'irI k a a � + r�
31
41'
.,Y� r �= a e 5;
y •
c r � r '� r74=
�L t k I)
:;„v:;-,4:4.,,,,-.2:,..r..-;,:.:4,,,:..,,...,, irk..
S „
::,.,,,,:,-**2-4,..,:,*. ah
tf t41.. ' P
.sws ',.'..-,:..4,4:44,-.4.-
▪ yy if { P'1
A § f - , ,5 -.k r'<'R i „74.r.,..41,*
fi A fir,,, ^6
r v k N 7 `k ., ,a, 't a ...n $ '.” ' ,"FG f-:',,i,,'•4
`,i '' s'eta o•
:,,; ` v't" '�1�Rk*".I p r `c
� �� 'k 14 4 A w ,�� 4 • ,,y, k���
• 1'' •' ''',1.V.,r•:,;'5' ,4,44::. '.-4 ,'''1 t•. .,i . ' .,...7-:,:4.... - •s„�M1
r
x
yE ra
2
t • 1i{Y '9u•W ▪ �yv` 1
„-••••;.::-.;:•••;',:;,:.,";,'•5•:S "k n 5
rci
li
it `,�.y� r" .. � T
.y 'ya 'rrhic.,���,} •'�A f
r n
i,:'1,4",- ;',,,j;.',;.., ^
',1':''''''''''''',.f?"''.--. '' .''' ' ' ''k' -.. ; * ' 2- ''... 4
*:, ,,,,:',, r --,.':,.. .!:,-.-- : -.,- .,-,.,.,-,:r„,,.,....r,. ..,,, ,, . -- -_,,.. .- - -.. .-f-",: -.1,:' ',' -.-''','''‘ . ' . . '''' :,., ' - ' ' .
3 t V
4 N'Ct
•
'`. : a , F4,;:t v ., ,t Sr ` * 3 z „ yp3yw{ i- , ,
S � ft -r .
i� { A ya J ,-.,,:,,•,..,.. S` ', k ,4 - b, 4Aa+' 41,..i.;.'..;•!,.-:,..,4:;t,,•:...-
.F b '..-:.,"`t''''''
st : TiF :s4,�: T.,m k. • -4 r to- y '..P ? 'q,:,.1,'''...,,;,,, + ^ PR ' : v' a >A < .J,K ry .'t { �r" , . +. 1 W :Ea ^ rr,b': _ f %