Lancaster Central School District Capital Improvement Projects

[Lee Chowaniec]

Tuesday evening prior to its regular meeting, the Lancaster Central School District (LCSD) presented an overview of its 2024 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and held a public hearing immediately after.

After carefully reviewing the detailed newsletter received from the district and viewing the video of last night’s school board project presentation and public comments, I learned a lot, still have questions, and would advise every taxpayer to spend some time learning the nuances of the two project proposals regarding scope, necessity, and costs to the property owner.

While 66% of Americans voice living paycheck-to-paycheck, a new Marist poll found that more than half of New Yorkers say they think their economy is getting worse, prompting many to consider leaving the state. An overwhelming majority of respondents, 81 percent, said the cost of living in the state is not very affordable. While 61 percent of respondents said they plan to stay in the state over the next five years, 37 percent of respondents said they will be moving out of New York within the same time period, including many who cited economic reasons. It behooves Lancaster taxpayers to carefully consider what the two project propositions entail, their cost, and future tax implications.

The district made it known upfront that it applied every means to reduce a 2024-25 budget from a 91-cent increase per thousand dollars of property tax assessment to a ‘no tax levy increase.’

CIP Proposition #3 is cost-estimated at $143,700,000. The district receives 74,4% of a project’s aidable cost from the state and $16,000,000 of school reserves will be used to offset the project’s cost. The local tax share impact will not start until 2031 and continues for an 11-year period. The tax rate increase is predicted to be $0.89 per $1,000 of assessed property value.

Public comments / questions focused on projected school enrollment, added classrooms, classroom, aid restrictions, need vs wants at a time when taxpayers are hurting.

CIP Proposition #4 is cost-estimated at $34,300,000 and will not happen if Proposition #4 fails. The local tax impact would not start until 2029 and continue for a 15-year period. The tax rate average increase is predicted to be $0.38 per thousand assessed value.

Public comments / questions focused on expense of sports complex, turf field cost and disadvantages, overreach.

Every organization worth its salt puts together 5-year project plans. Whether this plan is fiscally responsible, incorporates need over want, is considered affordable at this time of economic instability, requires an individual becomes informed and casts a responsible vote that is not only in the best interest of our children, but that of the taxpayer as well – a taxpayer too often stretched too far.

Lastly, we hear so many reasons from the district why it is imperative Proposition #3 passes, yet crickets about a contingency plan. What if…

April 16, 2024, LCSD meeting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-A2v1M0UPs

[yaksplat]

I don't like the fact that they bundle everything into a single proposition. What's wrong with the current administration building? Is anything there keeping them from doing their jobs? Companies have found that having employees working from home is just as if not more effective.

If they want to add on to the schools, fine. But why all at once? I think it's a huge leap of faith to assume equal growth all across Lancaster. The fact that Summerfield farms and most of the southern part of town go all of the way to Sciole is absurd. They should just add on to Como park and Court street to handle that enrollment.


Anyone with a moderately priced home of 300k will see two assessments by then. That house will likely be 500k by 2031. That will result in a year over year tax increase of $635. More if there are overages, and there will be overages. Construction costs are extremely unpredictable right now. Orchard park is dealing with $20M in overages on their project.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey yaksplat:

To add to your comments:

5-year project plans have been the norm for LCSD. These two propositions up for vote are being presented at a time when taxpayers are being pushed to the limit with taxes, fees, subsidies and unrelenting high food, energy and housing prices that are crushing those on low, middle, and fixed income households. Would that we were all able to have a wish list and kick the can down the road for seven years to start paying back the loan.

While Lancaster is considered a wealthy community, by 2031, we are being pressured / mandated by our government to make green energy changes that many homeowners in our community will be unable to afford.

Like most others living in Lancaster, I love my community and school system. I am more than willing to continue supporting LCSD in any way that provides for the excellent educational programs it continues to provide, a system that gives our children an opportunity to succeed in life. LCSD’s graduate rate, AP courses, students’ proficiency ratings all attest to the fact that we have a great school district. The district maintains a safe student environment and provides and maintains the infrastructure required to maintain the operation.

That said yak, Proposition #3 contains too many items that are based on projections that are uncertain and too many that exceed fiscal responsibility. Examples:

Classrooms / Wings / Parking

29 classrooms are to be constructed in the K-6 schools. They will replace the classrooms currently in use which will be converted to storage closets. No teachers will be added as the storage closets will be used to house materials from the Central Ave District Office which the district wants to abandon. Not as the reason given that the new classroom will accommodate future student population growth. Despite all the housing growth in Lancaster over the last several decades the student population has declined from 6,400 to 5,459. There are 429 full-time teachers employed resulting in a 12.74 student / teacher ratio.

It was well explained why the district wants to close its Central Ave office and move. The office is ancient, lacks handicapped / disability accessibility, parking, HVAC, and maintenance upkeep. The move has been talked about for some time and doesn’t happen because it is ineligible for state aid as it is a building not occupied by students. Despite state aid funding covering 74% of project cost vs, the cost of building renovation costs no cost-benefit analysis is presented as to keeping the Central Ave building for a future project.

Paying back the bond

No tax increase until 2031, then for a period of 11 years at an estimated $0.89 per thousand dollars assessment? Seriously? That will become an astronomical, unaffordable hardship at that time. And, why wouldn’t aged people buy into it thinking they won’t be here by then, or likewise property owners who would just move – or try to, hoping to find someone willing to undertake such financial burden as well.

Difficult proposition to swallow in its present form!

Proposition #4

Should be dead in the water – IMHO, for myriad self-serving reasons.

[yaksplat]

Again, I ask, why can't all of the administrators work from home? What good does their office building supply? Give them a small office in each school that they can occupy when they have business there. That eliminates all of your concerns with the central ave office.

Honestly, who would even buy the school? The value they expect to get will never happen. It will have to be torn down for someone to buy the property. Even then, I don't see much of a demand at that location.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Again, I ask, why can't all of the administrators work from home? What good does their office building supply? Give them a small office in each school that they can occupy when they have business there. That eliminates all of your concerns with the central ave office.

Honestly, who would even buy the school? The value they expect to get will never happen. It will have to be torn down for someone to buy the property. Even then, I don't see much of a demand at that location.

Yak, it looks like you and I are the only ones interested in questioning and commenting on school propositions that together will cost over $180 million, are fiscally irresponsible, and punitive to future residents living in Lancaster, and a deterrent to prospective homebuyers that would be saddled with several hundreds of dollars in school taxes for 11-15 years.

The district was disingenuous in its presentation regarding school enrollment forecasts, need for expansion / new classrooms / parking.

No public questions / comments or district information was offered regarding what the Central Ave Office building is now assessed at and/or taxes paid vs. what those numbers would be should the building be vacated and used only for storage. Setting up a satellite administrative office at one of the schools and as you point out, working from home positions.

At a time when residents are being hammered with high cost of living expenses (ever increasing), future mandated Climate transition costs that are going to escalate and peak by 2030, the announcement by the district that it did an excellent job in reducing a $0.89 per thousand dollars of assessed property budget tax increase to a flat tax levy increase was deceitful in that the budget decrease is a one-shot, whereas the same increase would come later for at least 11 years and when property assessments would be much higher as Yaksplat points out.

Hey guys, only $300 - $600 more per year (on top of budget increases), but those 11 years will fly by in no time. And we school board members more than likely, will not be here.

Most taxpaying residents are willing to pay for the needs to educate our children. Not wants like sports complexes, turf fields, amenities that are outside the scope of today’s burdens being placed on taxpayers.

To this day I well remember the audacity of a present LCSD board member when declaring at one budget hearing: “If we only gave up buying one pizza per month, this budget is doable.” That comment was disrespectful / inappropriate then, more so today. 60% of families voice living paycheck-to-paycheck, many others are impacted by financial instabilities and cutting back on their quality-of-life expenditures. Pizzas are now $25, and many families are not ordering them.

[walking tall]

Lancaster School District -- The next Emerald City

Like the movie the Wizard of Oz, in my honest opinion based on the recent Capital Improvements Proposals, we as a community our asked to Follow the Yellow Brick Road, where a simple ask becomes reality!

After a careful reading of the School Districts Mailed Capital Improvement Proposition and numerous views of the You tube video outlining the proposals on April 16, I must seriously question how affordable will this town be in the not too distant future. It is certainly understood that the recent building and grounds condition survey must be acted upon ( by state mandate). The upgrades need to conform to current standards for safety as cited in the report. HOWEVER... why the district felt compelled to lump in these necessary changes with desired additional classrooms based on anticipated enrollment populations that is speculative at best is beyond my comprehension. It would certainly be more palatable to present a capital improvement project to correct what needs to be done, fix deficiencies, but not add classrooms at this time based on a hunch that they will need them in the very near future or even beyond.. They needed to present empirical data where this supposed swelling population of elementary children will be coming from. After hearing during the video replay that Lancaster has faced a historical problem with growth and have had periodic band aid remedies to alleviate overcrowding in certain schools, it seems we are attempting to "learn from our mistakes". The answer at this time to them to prevent that situation from happening without hard data to back up assumptions, is a tough pill to swallow in my honest opinion.

It would have been advantageous to the Districts case had they provided projections in enrollment for the public tax paying community to understand the rationale for increased number of classrooms. As we are aware of , family size is shrinking, affordability of houses in Lancaster is becoming out of reach for many young couples and thereby diminishing the likelihood of family sizes needing to accommodate students and thus more classrooms at the elementary level. A school like Sciole was often regarded in the past as a possible redistricting point for the District, thus spurring redistricting discussions. Does the District see the student population of Sciole increasing by its own population increases in an area that has systemic low turnover in housing? How the administration can justify increased classroom availability under current population trends is a puzzler.

A current projection offered by the town in conjunction with the District to elaborate on probabilities of housing tracts could help support the Districts plans. However , none was presented.

The current administration building is old and needs modernization. Housing the district offices in a school where future repairs, upgrades to it becomes state aidable in part, I suppose makes sense . If you are going to move, do so to get funding in the future rather than a stand alone building. HOWEVER.. 14 classes being disrupted at William Street seems excessive. As has been mentioned, office space these days is constricting rather than enlarging. Lancaster always wanting to be a leader in all things pertaining education, could set an example of work time shared spaces and perhaps economize on space needed for the move. It would have been nice since the District is asking for this money to describe space allocation with the 14 classrooms. Taxpayers would want to know who is getting primo office space and how the rest was to be used.

It is too late to re-issue a proposal for the propositions put forth to the community to vote on. The school board for their part was remiss in not looking to sell the idea or plan and have the community know their representatives could justify the big ask in front of all of us. To that end i am disappointed in the representation we get from a school board who more often times than not, nods in solidarity agreement with Administration rather than give thought to implications of a tax increase for 11 and 15 years respectively if Proposition 3 and 4 is passed. They won't be around most likely when the tax implications of these Propositions come to be reality. I pity future boards in grappling with discontented taxpayers who will forget for now the tax implication but have to pay the piper in the years to come.

Without a properly presented proposal how can we as a community support something that is speculative and perhaps wasteful. Funding for superior baseball and softball fields is nice...how does that help the others in the schools who don't play those sports. Put the money to fixing what needs to be fixed. Upgrade per the building site surveys as needed and leave it at that. Grandiose offices, extra classroom space are nice but c'mon community..think about it!

There used to be an old commercial that would say "You can pay me Now or You can pay me later" I assert.. Why not pay for a scaled down version for capital improvements and not be anticipating a long time of future tax effects that in all likelihood make Lancaster an unaffordable place to live. We have the administration and the school board for not presenting an incremental approach. There is no place like home as was said athe the end of The Wizard of Oz, lets not price ourselves out of town..

[yaksplat]

Well said!