PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)

Home Browse Search

Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-133 books, computer supplies, or power. In Easton, local tax assessments account for about 28 percent of the school budget.  The full cost of facilities, including utilities (heating fuel, electricity, water) and facility maintenance are not fully funded.  Transportation costs are generally funded at about 70 percent of cost (although the 2009 Legislature changed the formula, which would increase the state share somewhat). Easton School currently is eligible for a larger allocation of funding from the state as compared to the standard per student allocation because it is classified as a “small school.” If additional enrollment increases beyond the threshold under which the Easton School District is currently classified for “small school funding,” the contribution from the state becomes substantially lower on a per-pupil bases. The loss from the additional funding from the “small school” category would be greater than the additional incremental increase in revenues from the state based on the increase in student population. In the future, if current funding formulas continue, the local community would need to provide between 20 and 30 percent of the cost of instruction and transportation. The actual cost to homeowners on an assessment per $1,000 value of property is affected by the overall value of improvements in the district as compared to the number of students. A large percentage of seasonal residents who do not send children to local schools increase the tax base with the value of their homes without increasing school costs; therefore, they lower the average amount paid in local tax levies for schools. An important consideration in rapidly developing communities is the willingness of existing residents to pass operating levies (and construction bond levies) to support additional growth. If local citizens are not willing to pass such levies, the quality of school service would decline from the current level to the level that would be supported by state funding alone. Impacts on Facilities The projected student population in Table 3-20 range from about 260 with Alternative 1 with 443 units with all full-time residents to about 90 with Alternative 3A, 3B and 4 with 147 units with the same tenure scenario with up to 50 percent seasonal residents. This population would result in a need to increase the size of facilities by a factor of up to two and a half of the existing school. At the lower end of the tenure range with up to 50 percent of residents seasonal, Alternative 1 would add an additional 80 students and Alternative 3A, 3B and 4 would add about 30. This student population likely could be accommodated for the first few years by capacity in existing classrooms. After a period of several years, at least two and possibly three new classrooms would need to be added to the existing school for Alternative 1, depending on the grade breakdown of new students. If new students are primarily in elementary grades, as expected, a larger number of classrooms would be needed. Expansion of the existing school would necessitate acquisition of adjacent parcels. For the 30 new students from Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4 under this scenario, at least one new classroom would be needed.