09 - Socioeconomics and Fiscal ImpactsDEIS 9-1 9/12/2018
Chapter 9: Socioeconomics and Fiscal Impacts
9.1. INTRODUCTION
This Chapter analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on socioeconomic and fiscal conditions. As such, these analyses address the potential for the Proposed Action to have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts that were identified in the Lead Agency’s Positive Declaration (see Appendix A-5). With respect to demographic and housing characteristics, the Village of Rye Brook’s (the “Village”) population has grown 10.8 percent since 1990 and the median age of Village residents has increased from 40.7 to 44.2 years old. The Proposed Project would be anticipated to add a population of 462 people to the Project Site, a majority of whom would be age 55 years old and up. The increased senior population as a result of the Proposed Project is consistent with the existing demographic trends of the Village. Furthermore, the addition of rental housing is consistent with the trend and need to provide a more diverse range of housing options in the Village.
The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately $1.845 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.313 million more than the Site currently generates. The Proposed Project would also have indirect fiscal benefits for the Village, the Town of Rye (the “Town”), and
Westchester County (the “County”), primarily as a result of increased consumer spending within the areas on goods and services. As such, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there would be no significant adverse impacts from the Proposed Project on socioeconomic or fiscal conditions.
9.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This socioeconomic analysis evaluates the impact of the Proposed Project on the three geographic areas: the Village, Town, and County. Many of the analyses in this Chapter were based on the
Village Comprehensive Plan adopted on June 24, 2014, as required by the approved Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Scoping Outline (see Appendix A-1).
9.2.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
Over the past several decades, the population and population density of the Village, Town, and County have been increasing. The Town and Village have seen an increase in density that is slightly greater than that of the County; median age has been increasing
across all three geographies; and renter occupancy has been increasing as median household incomes have been decreasing.
9.2.1.1. Population Overview
The Village’s population has been growing since 1990 (see Tables 9-1 and 9-2). The largest rate of population growth within the three geographies was between 1990 and 2000. During this time period, the Village grew by 10.8 percent (837 residents), the Town grew by 11.0 percent (4,356 residents), and the County grew by 5.6 percent (48,593 residents). The Village and
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 9-2 DEIS
Town grew at a faster rate between 1990 and 2010 than the County. Over the almost four-decade period detailed in Table 9-2, the Village grew by 19
percent, the Town grew by 20 percent, and the County grew by 11.8 percent. The similar growth rates of the Village and Town show that the Village absorbed a proportionate amount of the Town’s new population. In
other words, the Village is growing at a similar rate as the Town.
Table 9-1 Population, 1980 to 2016
Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016
Village of Rye Brook 7,996 7,765 8,602 9,347 9,513 Town of Rye 38,896 39,524 43,880 45,928 46,676
Westchester County 866,599 874,866 923,459 949,113 969,229
Sources: Village of Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census 1980–2010 and 2012–2016 American Community Survey (ACS), accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
Table 9-2 Percent Change in Population, 1980 to 2016
Area 1980–1990 1990–2000 2000–2010 2010–2016 1980–2016
Village of Rye Brook -2.9% 10.8% 8.7% 1.8% 19.0% Town of Rye 1.6% 11.0% 4.7% 1.6% 20.0%
Westchester County 1.0% 5.6% 2.8% 2.1% 11.8%
Sources: Village of Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census 1980–2010 and 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
9.2.1.2. Population Density
As populations have grown in the Village, Town, and County, so did their respective population density (see Table 9-3). The Village had a population density of 3.53 persons per acre in 1990 which increased to a population density of 4.33 persons per acre in 2016. The Town as a whole is approximately 2.5 times as dense as the Village and had a population density of 8.86 persons per acre in 1990 and 10.54 persons per acre in 2016. A contributing factor to the Town’s high population density is the Village of
Port Chester’s high population density (19.42 persons per acre as of 2010, see Figure 9-1).1,2 The Village population density is more similar to the County, which is less dense, than to the Town, which is more dense.
1 Village Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014.
2 The Town is composed of the villages of Rye Brook and Port Chester, and a small portion of the Village of Mamaroneck called “Rye Neck.”
Chapter 9: Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
DEIS 9-3 9/12/2018
Table 9-3 Population Density,1 1990 to 2016
Area 1990 2000 2010 2016
Village of Rye Brook 3.53 3.92 4.25 4.33 Town of Rye 8.86 9.84 10.30 10.54
Westchester County 3.18 3.35 3.44 3.52
Note: 1 Presented as the number of residents per acre of land. Sources: Village Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census 1990–2010 and 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
9.2.1.3. Age Characteristics
As noted in the Village Comprehensive Plan, Village residents are generally older than those in neighboring communities and the County. The median age of Village residents was 40.7 in 2000 and rose to 44.1 in 2010 and 44.2 in 2016 (see Table 9-4). In comparison, the median age of Scarsdale residents, the County village with the next-oldest population, was 39.8 in 2000 and 42 in 2010.3
Table 9-4 Median Age, 2000 to 2016
Area 2000 2010 2016 Percent Change 2000–2016
Village of Rye Brook 40.7 44.1 44.2 8.6
Town of Rye 36.1 38.6 38.5 6.6 Westchester County 37.6 40.0 40.5 7.6
Sources: Village Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
For all years analyzed, the Village’s median age was higher than that of the
Town or County. As shown in greater detail on Figure 9-2, the Village has a larger proportion of people 45 years and older than the Town or County. For example, the portion of people aged 85 years and older is twice as great in the
Village (5.1 percent) as compared to the Town (2.4 percent) and County (2.5 percent). The portion of residents between the ages of 15 and 44 is approximately 10 percentage points lower in the Village (30.1 percent) as compared to the Town (40.5 percent) and County (37.5 percent). The portion of residents under the age of 14, however, is similar across the three geographies, each with approximately 20 percent of their population in the youngest age group analyzed. Since the 2009–2013 ACS, older cohorts (i.e., residents between the age of 55 and 64 years old) have grown to represent larger portions of the population as compared to younger cohorts, which have remained relatively steady (i.e., residents between the ages of 5 and 17 years old).4 According to the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation, the County’s
population is projected to continue to grow through 2030 with the 65 year old
3 Village Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Demographics. Adopted June 24, 2014.
4 U.S. Census Bureau 2009–2013 ACS, 2010–2014 ACS, 2011–2015 ACS, and 2012–2016 ACS. Accessed through Social Explorer on April 10, 2018.
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 9-4 DEIS
and up age cohort leading the growth while other age cohorts (i.e., Under 25, 25 to 44, and 45 to 64) are projected to decline by as much as 5.3 percent by 2030.5
9.2.1.4. Income Characteristics
The median household income has declined in all three geographies since 2000 (see Table 9-5). In the Village, the median household income declined
the fastest by 14.9 percent between 2000 ($141,916) and 2016 ($120,758). In the Town, the median household income declined by approximately 12.5 percent from $84,329 in 2000 to $73,773 in 2016. In the County, the median household income declined at a slower rate during this time period (approximately 5.5 percent) than was experienced by the Village or Town. While the Village’s households experienced the greatest decline in median household income, they continue to have the highest median household income for all 3 years analyzed.
Table 9-5 Median Household Income, 2000 to 2016
Area 2000 2010 2016 Percent Change 2000–2016
Village of Rye Brook $141,916 $134,462 $120,758 -14.9
Town of Rye $84,329 $73,349 $73,773 -12.5 Westchester County $91,269 $87,057 $86,226 -5.5
Note: All figures are presented in 2016 dollars and have been adjusted for inflation using the 2016 Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the New York–Newark–Jersey City area. Sources: Village Comprehensive Plan, adopted June 24, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
9.2.1.5. Housing Characteristics
As shown in Table 9-6, approximately three quarters of the 3,806 households in the Village were owner-occupied and one quarter were renter-occupied. In comparison to the Town and County, the Village has a higher rate of owner-occupancy; however, in each geography over half of the housing stock is owner-occupied. The rate of rentership has increased in each of the three geographies since 2000. In the Village, the portion of renter-occupied units grew by approximately 10 percent from 13.8 percent of all households in 2000 to 23.6 percent of all households in 2016. The portion of renter-occupied units grew by 1.6 percent in the County and 1.5 percent in the Town during
the same time period. Rental units typically have less of a barrier to entry in comparison to ownership units because they require less equity and lower ongoing payments (i.e., mortgage or rent payments).
5 “The Changing Face of Westchester,” New York City Department of City Planning and Westchester Municipal Planning Federation. March 18, 2013.
Chapter 9: Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
DEIS 9-5 9/12/2018
Table 9-6 Occupancy Tenure, 2000 to 2016
Area
Number of Households 2016
Occupancy Status 2000 Occupancy Status 2010 Occupancy Status 2016
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Village of Rye Brook 3,506 86.2 13.8 80.1 19.9 76.4 23.6 Town of Rye 16,556 56.0 43.9 58.6 41.4 54.6 45.4
Westchester County 369,925 63.0 37.0 62.7 37.3 61.5 38.6
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census 2000, 2010, and 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018.
The Town and County have a more diverse housing stock than the Village (see Table 9-7). According to the 2012–2016 ACS, 74.4 percent of the housing units in the Village were single-family houses. In comparison, approximately 50 percent of housing units in the Town and County were single-family. All other housing unit types (two units per structure and up)
represent less than 10 percent each of the total housing units in the Village. In comparison, 16.2 percent of the County’s housing units are in structures with 50 or more units and approximately 30 percent of housing units in the
Town are in structures with two to nine units.
Table 9-7 Housing Units in Structure, 2016
Area 1 Unit (Attached and Detached) 2 Units 3 to 9 Units 10 to 49 Units 50 or More Units Mobile Home, Boat, TV, Van, Etc.
Village of Rye Brook 74.4 8.8 9.3 0.0 7.6 0.0 Town of Rye 48.6 15.6 15.9 6.3 13.4 0.2
Westchester County 50.1 8.7 13.3 11.6 16.2 0.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012–2016 ACS, accessed through Social Explorer on February 1, 2018
9.2.2. FISCAL CONDITIONS
The assessed value of the Project Site has decreased from $17 million in 2013 to $15.1 million in 2017 as a result of tax certiorari proceedings in which the property owner
challenged the Town’s initial assessment of the Site.6 As shown in Table 9-8, as a result of the decrease in assessed value, the property tax revenues to the Village, Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD), and other taxing jurisdictions have also decreased.
(For ease of comparison, the 2017 tax rates are used for each tax year.) As shown, the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by more than $65,000, or 11 percent, in the past 5 years. In 2017, the Project Site paid approximately $533,078 in
property taxes, including $114,043 to the Village and $354,676 to the BBRUFSD.
6 A 2017 agreement between the Town and the Applicant provided that if the 2017 assessment of the Project Site was $15,150,000 or lower, the Applicant would not challenge the assessment.
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 9-6 DEIS
Table 9-8 Historical Property Tax Revenue of the Project Site
Tax Year
Final Assessed Value
2017 Tax Rates per $1,000 of Assessed Value
Village of Rye Brook1 BBRUFSD Westchester County Town of Rye Blind Brook Sewer Solid Waste Total (7.527608) (23.410938) (3.282447) (0.045824) (0.623727) (0.296117) (35.186661)
2013 $17,000,000 $127,969 $397,986 $55,802 $779 $10,603 $5,034 $598,173
2014 $16,500,000 $124,206 $386,280 $54,160 $756 $10,291 $4,886 $580,580
2015 $16,000,000 $120,442 $374,575 $52,519 $733 $9,980 $4,738 $562,987
2016 $16,000,000 $120,442 $374,575 $52,519 $733 $9,980 $4,738 $562,987 2017 $15,150,000 $114,043 $354,676 $49,729 $694 $9,449 $4,486 $533,078
Note: 1 The non-homestead tax rate for the Village was utilized. Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 10/17/2017
9.3. FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT
9.3.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
It is a widely accepted fact that the U.S. population is aging.7,8 This trend is observed in the Village’s aging population as discussed in Section 9.2.1, “Demographics,” and is anticipated to continue, due in large part to the aging of the population of the country as
a whole.9 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the “baby boomers10” are largely responsible for this trend. Many baby boomers began turning 65 in 2011 and will continue to do so for many years to come.11 The Village Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges the resulting growth in regional demand for senior housing and health care facilities, and also acknowledges that surrounding communities are working to meet that demand through the development of Assisted Living (AL) and memory care
residences. The plan identifies the opportunities and recommends specific zoning adjustments that would facilitate the development of AL facilities (i.e., height limits and parking requirements). The Village Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges the
expected continued growth of the Village’s senior population in the future.
Another demographic trend that may materialize in the Village is increased demand for rental housing. As shown in Table 9-6 above, the percentage of renter-occupied households has steadily increased in the Village since the year 2000. Nationally, a similar trend is developing due in part to the growth of the millennial12 population, which has displayed a preference for rental housing. In addition, the need to “promote construction of
7 “Fact Sheet: Aging in the United States,” Population Reference Bureau. January 13, 2016.
8 “The Nation’s Older Population is Still Growing, Census Bureau Reports,” U.S. Census Bureau. June 22, 2017.
9 “An Aging Nation: The Older Population in the United States” U.S. Census Bureau, May 2014. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf
10 Baby boomers are the demographic cohort with birth years starting from the early to mid- 1940s and ending anywhere from 1960 to 1964 during which there was a high increase in the birth rate in the U.S.
11 “The Nation’s Older Population is Still Growing, Census Bureau Reports,” U.S. Census Bureau. June 22, 2017.
12 Millennials are the demographic cohort with birth years starting from the early 1980s and ending in the early 2000s.
Chapter 9: Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
DEIS 9-7 9/12/2018
more rental housing in suburban locations, providing additional housing options for older adults preferring to remain in their current communities,”13 has been a need identified by
numerous commentators on the housing needs for an aging population. This need is expected to result in an increase in rental housing throughout the region.
9.3.2. FISCAL CONDITIONS
In the Future without the Proposed Project (the “No Build” condition), the assessed value of the Project Site would be expected to continue to decline. As shown in Table 9-8 above, since 2013 the assessed value of the Site has decreased nearly $2 million, resulting in a loss of approximately $65,000 per year in tax revenue. Given declining utilization of the building and the likely continued deterioration of the Site, future reductions in the Site’s assessed value are likely. For every $1 million in reduced assessed value, the Site would generate approximately $35,100 less in property taxes per year.
9.4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
9.4.1. DEMOGRAPHICS
As noted above, population of the U.S. and Village is aging. Paired with the declining median household income of residents (see Section 9.2.1., “Demographics”), the Town and County may be more equipped to house the residential population due to the larger variety of housing options (see Table 9-7) as compared to the Village. The Proposed Project would be anticipated to absorb a portion of this increase, by providing a range of housing options for seniors who may be looking to stay in their community. Specifically, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to add a population of 462 people to the Project Site, slightly less than 5 percent of the Village’s 2016 population.14 Potential impacts on
municipal and emergency services, operations, equipment, manpower, and costs are discussed in detail in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities.”
9.4.2. FISCAL CONDITIONS
The Proposed Project would be expected to significantly increase the assessed value of, and subsequently the property tax revenue generated by, the Project Site. The Applicant has sought an estimated assessed value from the Town Tax Assessor, however, an
estimate has not been provided at the time of publication (see Appendix E-4). Therefore, the Applicant has estimated a conservative assessed value using The Atria, Rye Brook as a comparable facility. The Atria, Rye Brook is a 168-unit Independent
Living (IL) and AL facility located at 1200 King Street in the Village. The Atria, Rye Brook is a rental property that was approved as a “senior living facility15” by the Village. The IL units at The Atria, Rye Brook range from 624 square feet (sf) to 1,086
sf, smaller than those contemplated by the Proposed Project. The 2017 assessed value of
13 “Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2014
14 To estimate the future population of the Project Site, the following multipliers were assumed: 1 person per bed at the 94-bed AL facility; 2 people within each of the 160 IL units; and 2 people within each of the 24 townhomes.
15 Senior living facilities are restricted to those age 62 years and older pursuant to the Village Zoning Code.
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 9-8 DEIS
The Atria, Rye Brook is $32,805,400, which equals $195,270 per unit. Applying this per unit assessment to the Proposed Project’s mix of IL and AL units, as well as the age-
restricted townhouses, provides an estimated assessed value of $52,527,000.
Given the larger units being included in the Proposed Project as compared to The Atria, Rye Brook and the introduction of AL and townhouses, as opposed to only AL, there is a
potential for the assessed value of the Proposed Project to be higher than $195,270 per unit.16 However, as no comparable facility is located proximate to the Project Site, the Applicant chose to provide a conservative estimate of the future assessed value of the Project
Site.17
Since the Proposed Project is a commercial land use, the non-homestead tax rate would be utilized in the Future with the Proposed Project (the “Build” condition). As shown in Table 9-9, based on this assessed value, the Project Site would be estimated to generate approximately $1.845 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.313
million more than the Site currently generates. Of this, $395,403 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $281,359 over current taxes, and $1,229,706 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $875,031 over current revenue generated
by the Project Site. The Proposed Project will be completed in one phase.
The potential for the Proposed Project to pay a fee in lieu of parkland is discussed in detail in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities.”
Table 9-9 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Proposed Project
Jurisdiction 2018 Tax Rate1 Current Assessed Value Current Taxes Projected Assessed Value Projected Taxes Difference
Village of Rye Brook 7.527608 $15,150,000 $114,043 $52,527,000 $395,403 $281,359
BBRUFSD 23.410938 $15,150,000 $354,676 $52,527,000 $1,229,706 $875,031
Westchester County 3.259989 $15,150,000 $49,389 $52,527,000 $171,237 $121,848 Town of Rye 0.04707 $15,150,000 $713 $52,527,000 $2,473 $1,760
Blind Brook Sewer 0.609652 $15,150,000 $9,236 $52,527,000 $32,023 $22,787 Solid Waste 0.286077 $15,150,000 $4,334 $52,527,000 $15,027 $10,693
Total 35.141334 $15,150,000 $532,391 $52,527,000 $1,845,869 $1,313,478
Note: 1 The 2017 tax rate for the Village and BBRUFSD were utilized since the 2018 rates are not yet available. Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 10/17/2017
The Applicant and owner of the property is a for-profit entity and will remain so. Similarly, the Applicant will not be seeking standalone tax-exempt status under the
16 The assessed value of the Proposed Project would also be influenced by the Site’s rental revenue. At this time, the rental rates of the various units proposed have not been finalized. The Applicant anticipates that the monthly rental rates for the townhouse units would be between $6,000 and $8,000; the monthly rental rate for the IL units would be between $5,000 and $8,000; and the monthly rate for AL units would be between $8,000 and $12,000. The final rental prices would be determined based on market conditions.
17 For example, the Osborn facility, in the City of Rye, has a full market value of $135,007,595 according to the City of Rye’s assessor. The Osborn contains 382 units, which include entrance fee apartments and garden homes, rental units, memory care units, and a skilled nursing facility. Dividing the full assessed value by the number of units yields a per unit assessed value of $353,423.
Chapter 9: Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
DEIS 9-9 9/12/2018
Internal Revenue Code. However, certain tax exemptions or reductions may be available through the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
Under New York Law, IDAs are public benefit corporations with many of the same benefits as governmental entities. These benefits are primarily associated with exemption from various taxes. In order to obtain the benefits of an IDA transaction, the IDA must
acquire an interest in the property. This is typically done by the IDA either taking title to the property or acquiring a leasehold interest in the property. Upon taking an interest in the real property, the IDA then either leases the property back to the applicant or enters into an installment sale agreement back to the applicant. In either case, once the IDA has obtained nominal title to the property, the various benefits can be obtained.
As a governmental entity, the IDA is exempt from New York State’s mortgage recording tax. The mortgage recording tax in the County is 1.3 percent. Similar to the mortgage recording tax, IDAs are also exempt from sales taxes because of their
governmental status. On an IDA-assisted transaction, the IDA appoints the applicant as its agent for the purpose of purchasing materials to construct a facility and the applicant is thereby exempt from sales tax. As a governmental entity, real property which is
controlled or owned by an IDA, including during the construction phase, is not subject to ad valorem real property taxes, such as school taxes, county taxes, and town taxes. The property owned or controlled by an IDA remains subject to special assessments and
user fees such as sewer and water. Accordingly, when the IDA takes title or a leasehold interest in real property, the property is exempt from real property taxes.
To prevent municipalities from losing that tax revenue, the IDA will require the
negotiation and execution of a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement pursuant to which the applicant makes arrangement for payment of monies to the various taxing jurisdictions. In the County, the consent of the municipality is required for the IDA to provide assistance and, accordingly, the municipality plays an important role in the negotiation of the PILOT Agreement. At this time, the Applicant intends to explore the use of an IDA transaction with the understanding that the consent of the Village would be required before the IDA can provide any benefits. Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur in a single phase. If the Applicant enters into an agreement
with the IDA, PILOT revenue to the Village during the construction period is anticipated to be established in that agreement. If the Applicant does not enter into an agreement with the IDA, the assessed value of the Site would continue to be determined by the
Town’s Tax Assessor, in accordance with established methodology. While the Applicant cannot predict how the property’s assessment may change during the construction period, it notes that any change would likely be both minor (as the land itself has value
outside of the Site’s existing improvements) and temporary (as the Project is expected to be complete in approximately 30 months).
The Village has established the “Homestead Tax Option, which generally results in the
establishment of lower tax rates for one-, two- and three-family property owners (‘homestead tax rate’), and higher rates for all other property owners (‘non-homestead tax rate’).”18 The two effective tax rates are based upon the adjusted proportion of the
18 2018-2019 Village of Rye Brook Budget.
http://www.ryebrook.org/FCpdf/2018-2019AdoptedBudget.pdf
900 King Street Redevelopment
9/12/2018 9-10 DEIS
values of homestead and non-homestead properties in the Village. The initial proportion was established prior to the 2004 revaluation. Every year the Village must make annual
adjustments to the base proportions based on the value of property added and removed from the tax roll and based on the different rates of appreciation in the two property classes.19 These annual adjustments are limited to a maximum change of 5 percent. As
such, while homestead properties make up 82.94 percent of the value of the Village’s property, they pay taxes as if they make up 71.56 percent of the Village’s taxable property.20 This is known as the “base proportion.”
If the Applicant enters into an agreement with the IDA, which as discussed above would require the approval of the Village, the current assessed value of the Project Site (i.e., $15,150,000) would be removed from the taxable value of the Village’s property tax roll for the duration of the IDA agreement. This represents approximately 0.5 percent of the Village’s total tax base of $2.84 billion.21 This would cause the proportion of non-
homestead properties to decrease and the homestead proportion to increase by 0.44161 percent. As such, if the tax levy were held constant, that is, if the Village needed to raise the same amount of property taxes relative to other revenue sources, that same amount
of revenue would have to be raised from a smaller tax base causing tax rates to increase. Applying the hypothetically “new” base proportions to this tax “constant” levy that are reflective of the relative change in values as a result of the removal of 900 King from the
taxable rolls could cause an approximately $0.0307 increase per $1,000 of assessed value for homestead properties (a 0.6216 percent increase), and an increase of $0.1535 per $1,000 for non-homestead properties (a 1.6077 percent increase) (see Figure 9-3a).
However, as stated above, if the Applicant enters into an agreement with the IDA, the IDA will require the negotiation and execution of a PILOT Agreement pursuant to which the Applicant makes arrangement for payment of monies to the various taxing jurisdictions. Assuming that the IDA, and the Village, which has to approve any IDA agreement, would require that the Applicant make a PILOT payment to the Village at least as large as the amount of property taxes currently paid on the Project Site, even with the change in the base proportions, homestead properties would experience a nominal decrease in their property tax rate and non-homestead properties would experience a rate increase of less
than half of what would otherwise occur. This is because the amount of any PILOT payment would decrease the property tax levy by the same amount. That is to say, because the Village would receive an increase in non-property tax revenues (i.e., a PILOT
payment), holding all other budget considerations equal, the Village would need to raise less money from property tax revenue. As shown in Figure 9-3a, after applying the new base proportions, but reducing the property tax levy in an amount equal to a PILOT
payment in the amount of the current property taxes paid by the Project Site, homestead properties would be expected to experience a $0.0134 reduction in their property tax rate. Non-homestead properties would be expected to experience a $0.0674 increase in their
19 New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/publications/orpts/homested.pdf
20 2018-2019 Village of Rye Brook Budget.
http://www.ryebrook.org/FCpdf/2018-2019AdoptedBudget.pdf
21 2018-2019 Village of Rye Brook Budget.
http://www.ryebrook.org/FCpdf/2018-2019AdoptedBudget.pdf
Chapter 9: Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts
DEIS 9-11 9/12/2018
property tax rate. A PILOT payment that is in excess of the amount of property taxes currently paid by the Project Site would further decrease the amount of the Village’s tax
levy and would similarly cause the property tax rates for all Village properties to be reduced from the levels estimated above.
At the expiration of the period in which the Site may benefit from an IDA agreement,
the full future assessed value of the improved Site would be added back to the non-homestead assessment rolls and the base proportion of non-homestead properties would increase, while the proportion of homestead properties would decrease. At the same time, the total taxable value of the properties within the Village would increase. As shown in Figure 9-3b, using the estimated assessed value of the improved Project Site calculated above, and applying the new base proportions that account for the increase in value of non-homestead properties, both homestead and non-homestead properties would be expected to experience a decrease in their property tax rate. Homestead properties would be expected to experience a $0.0743 reduction in their property tax rate, while non-homestead properties would be expected to experience a $0.3469 decrease in their property tax rate.
Therefore, in both the short and long term, while the Proposed Project may change the base proportions of the Village with respect to homestead and non-homestead properties, there is not expected to be any adverse impact to the property tax rate of homestead
properties. Non-homestead properties would experience a temporary increase in tax rates until such time as a PILOT payment is equal to the taxes that would be paid on 51 percent of the estimated assessed value of the improved Project Site calculated above
(see Figure 9-3b). Once PILOT payments are equal to, or greater than that amount, non-homestead properties would also experience a decrease in their property tax rates as a result of the Proposed Project.
9.5. MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact to socioeconomic or fiscal conditions. Rather, the Proposed Project
would provide rental housing for senior citizens, which is currently much needed within the Village and the demand for such housing is expected to continue to increase.
The Proposed Project would significantly increase the amount of property taxes generated by the
Project Site. While some level of additional services will be required, as discussed in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” the increased cost of providing these services would be more than made up for by the anticipated increase in property tax revenue. As such, the taxing jurisdictions serving the
Project Site, including the Village and BBRUFSD, would be anticipated to receive a net increase in revenue from the Proposed Project. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.
5.
2
.
1
8
Figure 9-1
90
0
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
Persons per Acre, 2010
Pl
a
n
Ry
e
Br
o
o
k
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3
:
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
20
In
c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
,
P
o
r
t
C
h
e
s
t
e
r
’
s
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
on
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
w
a
s
1
6
.
5
8
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
i
n
1
9
9
0
,
r
i
s
i
n
g
t
o
1
9
.
4
2
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
ac
r
e
i
n
2
0
1
0
,
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
f
2
.
8
4
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
2
0
-
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
F i g u r e 3 : P e r s o n s P e r A c r e , 2 0 1 0
3 .3
A g e C o h o r t s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
R
y
e
B
r
o
o
k
t
e
n
d
t
o
b
e
o
l
d
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
o
r
i
n
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
s
a
wh
o
l
e
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
t
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
m
e
d
i
a
n
a
g
e
(
h
a
l
f
a
r
e
o
l
d
e
r
,
h
a
l
f
a
r
e
y
o
u
n
g
e
r
)
o
f
a
r
e
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
2
0
0
0
an
d
2
0
1
0
,
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
b
y
t
h
e
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
l
i
n
e
s
.
A
s
c
a
n
b
e
s
e
e
n
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
T
o
w
n
o
f
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
,
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
a
n
a
g
e
h
a
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
in
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
tr
e
n
d
s
o
f
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
r
a
t
e
s
.
Th
e
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
m
e
d
i
a
n
a
g
e
w
a
s
3
7
.
6
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
20
0
0
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
b
y
2
.
4
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
4
0
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
R
y
e
Br
o
o
k
’
s
m
e
d
i
a
n
a
g
e
a
t
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
e
a
c
h
C
e
n
s
u
s
w
a
s
a
f
u
l
l
4
.
1
y
e
a
r
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
–
4
0
.
7
i
n
20
0
0
a
n
d
4
4
.
1
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
S
c
a
r
s
d
a
l
e
i
s
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
ni
t
y
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
i
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
ag
e
t
o
R
y
e
B
r
o
o
k
,
w
i
t
h
a
me
d
i
a
n
o
f
3
9
.
8
i
n
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
4
2
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
B
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
,
Ry
e
B
r
o
o
k
’
s
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
n
e
x
t
-d
o
o
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
,
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
an
d
P
o
r
t
C
h
e
s
t
e
r
,
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
s
t
m
e
d
i
a
n
a
g
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
i
n
b
o
t
h
2
0
0
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
.
T
h
e
2
0
1
0
m
e
d
i
a
n
s
f
o
r
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
C
h
e
s
t
e
r
w
e
r
e
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
b
y
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
a
t
3
4
.
6
a
n
d
3
4
.
4
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
R
y
e
B
r
o
o
k
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
,
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
J
u
n
e
2
4
,
2
0
1
4
5.
2
.
1
8
Figure 9-2
90
0
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
Ag
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
R
y
e
B
r
o
o
k
,
R
y
e
,
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
(
2
0
1
6
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
B
u
r
e
a
u
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
5
A
C
S
Ti
t
l
e
: A
g e D is
t
r
i
b u �o n ,
2 01
2
-2
0 16
A
C
S
S o u rc
e
: U
.
S
. C
e n su
s
B
u re
a
u 2 01
2
-2
0 15
A
C
S
U nd
e r 1 4
y e a r s o ld
1 5 t o 2
4
y e a r s o ld
2 5 t o 4
4
y e a r s o ld
4 5 t o 6
4
y e a r s o ld
6 5 t o 8
4
y e a r s o ld
8 5 y e a r s o ld
a n d u p
Vi l lag e o f R y e Br o o k T o w n o f R y e W e s tc h e s t e r C o u n tyLegend
0%5%
10
%
15
%
20
%
25
%
30
%
35
%
7.
1
7
.
1
8
90
0
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
Figure 9-3a
Im
p
a
c
t
o
n
B
a
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
s
20
1
8
–
2
0
1
9
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
o
f
R
y
e
B
r
o
o
k
B
u
d
g
e
t
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
T
a
x
Le
v
y
Ba
s
e
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Le
v
y
b
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
l
a
s
s
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
b
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Cl
a
s
s
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
2
,
3
5
7
,
9
1
7
,
0
7
7
$
1
1
,
6
6
4
,
7
1
9
$4
.
9
4
7
0
No
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
4
8
5
,
6
2
8
,
9
8
8
$
4
,
6
3
5
,
5
5
6
$9
.
5
4
5
5
To
t
a
l
$2
,
8
4
3
,
5
4
6
,
0
6
5
$
1
6
,
3
0
0
,
2
7
5
%
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
82
.
9
2
1
7
1
2
%
71
.
5
6
1
4
8
3
%
%
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
17
.
0
7
8
2
8
8
%
28
.
4
3
8
5
1
7
%
Re
m
o
v
e
9
0
0
K
i
n
g
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
Re
v
i
s
e
d
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Potential New Base Proportion
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
2
,
3
5
7
,
9
1
7
,
0
7
7
$
-
No
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
4
7
0
,
4
7
8
,
9
8
8
$1
5
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$
2
,
8
2
8
,
3
9
6
,
0
6
5
%
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
83
.
3
6
5
8
7
3
%
0.
4
4
4
1
6
1
%
72
.
0
0
5
6
4
4
%
%
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
16
.
6
3
4
1
2
7
%
-0
.
4
4
4
1
6
1
%
27
.
9
9
4
3
5
6
%
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
W
i
t
h
Z
e
r
o
P
I
L
O
T
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Ta
x
L
e
v
y
a
n
d
Re
v
i
s
e
d
B
a
s
e
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Le
v
y
b
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Cl
a
s
s
Re
v
i
s
e
d
T
a
x
Ra
t
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
T
a
x
Ra
t
e
%
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
1
1
,
7
3
7
,
1
1
8
$
7
2
,
3
9
9
$
4
.
9
7
7
7
$
0
.
0
3
0
7
0.
6
2
1
6
%
No
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
4
,
5
6
3
,
1
5
7
$
(
7
2
,
3
9
9
)
$
9
.
6
9
9
0
$
0
.
1
5
3
5
1.
6
0
7
7
%
To
t
a
l
$
1
6
,
3
0
0
,
2
7
5
%
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
72
.
0
0
5
6
4
4
%
%
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
27
.
9
9
4
3
5
6
%
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
W
i
t
h
P
I
L
O
T
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
t
a
x
e
s
a
t
1
8
/
1
9
r
a
t
e
($
1
5
.
1
5
m
m
@
9
.
5
4
5
5
p
e
r
$
1
,
0
0
0
=
$
1
4
4
,
6
1
4
)
Re
d
u
c
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
Le
v
y
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
Ba
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
Ta
x
L
e
v
y
w
i
t
h
re
v
i
s
e
d
p
r
o
-
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
Re
v
i
s
e
d
T
a
x
RateChange in Tax Rate% Change in Tax Rate
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
1
1
,
6
3
2
,
9
8
8
$
(
3
1
,
7
3
1
)
$
4
.
9
3
3
6
$(0.0134)-0.2711%
No
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
4
,
5
2
2
,
6
7
3
$
(
1
1
2
,
8
8
3
)
$
9
.
6
1
2
9
$0.0674 0.7062%
To
t
a
l
$
1
6
,
1
5
5
,
6
6
1
$
1
4
4
,
6
1
4
%
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
72
.
0
0
5
6
4
4
%
%
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
27
.
9
9
4
3
5
6
%
1
2 4
3
7.
1
7
.
1
8
90
0
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
Figure 9-3b
Im
p
a
c
t
o
n
B
a
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
s
“B
r
e
a
k
E
v
e
n
”
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
N
o
n
-
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
Up
d
a
t
e
d
N
o
n
-
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
B
a
s
e
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
Up
d
a
t
e
d
N
o
n
-
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
V
a
l
u
e
Br
e
a
k
E
v
e
n
To
t
a
l
L
e
v
y
(S
e
e
n
o
t
e
s
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
Ta
x
L
e
v
y
PI
L
O
T
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
Br
e
a
k
E
v
e
n
"P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
"
to
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
Br
e
a
k
E
v
e
n
PI
L
O
T
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
u
l
l
Va
l
u
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Percent Full Assessment Required for Break Even
9.
5
4
5
5
27
.
9
9
4
3
5
6
%
$
4
7
0
,
4
7
8
,
9
8
8
$
1
6
,
0
4
2
,
3
6
7
$
1
6
,
3
0
0
,
2
7
5
$
2
5
7
,
9
0
8
$
2
7
,
0
1
8
,
8
4
5
$
5
2
,
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
51.44%
Fo
r
m
u
l
a
1
:
[
R
a
t
e
N
H
]
*
[
V
a
l
u
e
N
H
]
=
[
L
e
v
y
N
H
]
Fo
r
m
u
l
a
2
:
[
L
e
v
y
N
H
]
=
[
L
e
v
y
T
o
t
a
l
]
*
[
B
a
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
N
H
]
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
:
[
R
a
t
e
N
H
]
*
[
V
a
l
u
e
N
H
]
=
[
L
e
v
y
T
o
t
a
l
]
*
[
B
a
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
N
H
]
An
d
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
:
(
[
R
a
t
e
N
H
]
*
[
V
a
l
u
e
N
H
]
)
/
[
B
a
s
e
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
N
H
]
=
[
L
e
v
y
T
o
t
a
l
]
Im
p
a
c
t
s
a
t
F
u
l
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
o
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
$
5
2
.
5
2
7
m
)
Ta
x
a
b
l
e
V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
A
c
t
u
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
T
a
x
a
b
l
e
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
B
a
s
e
Pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
w
ba
s
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
-
ti
o
n
Ta
x
L
e
v
y
w
i
t
h
ne
w
p
r
o
p
o
r
-
ti
o
n
s
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
w
/
n
e
w
pr
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
Ch
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
T
a
x
Ra
t
e
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
2
,
3
5
7
,
9
1
7
,
0
7
7
$
-
$
1
1
,
4
8
9
,
3
5
6
$
4
.
8
7
2
7
$
(
0
.
0
7
4
3
)
No
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
$
5
2
3
,
0
0
5
,
9
8
8
$
3
7
,
3
7
7
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
8
1
0
,
9
1
9
$
9
.
1
9
8
6
$
(
0
.
3
4
6
9
)
To
t
a
l
$
2
,
8
8
0
,
9
2
3
,
0
6
5
$
1
6
,
3
0
0
,
2
7
5
%
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
81
.
8
4
5
9
%
-1
.
0
7
5
8
%
70
.
4
8
5
6
5
9
%
%
N
o
n
-
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
18
.
1
5
4
1
%
1.
0
7
5
8
%
29
.
5
1
4
3
4
1
%