Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRobins Island Advisory Committee's Final Report 04/19810 A� o � Ln ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S FINAL REPORT Peconic "f ^a 11 Bay APRIL 1981 THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APRIL 16, 1981 0 Copyright 1981 by the Town of Southold All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from -the Town of Southold. Inquiries should be addressed to the Supervisor, Town of Southold, Southold, New York 11971 Printed in the United States of America ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT PURPOSE OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE In response to widespread concern for the future of Robins Island among the citizens of Southold Town, the South- old Town Board created the Robins Island Advisory Committee (RIAC) on September 23, 1980. Its purpose was to investigate all avenues for preserving Robins Island in its natural state, by either public or private acquisition.. On January 13,. 1981 the committee's charge was ammended to include a study of deve- lopment and the probable subsequent impacts.2 For approximately six months, the Robins Island Advisory Committee has worked to fulfill these charges by carefully exam- ining issues surrounding Robins Island, exploring alternatives for its future, and analyzing relevant facts. The following .report is a compendium of the information gathered by the Robins Island Advisory Committee team, and the conclusions and recommen= dations to which this information led them. F.. Cichanowicz V. Scopaz A. Goodale D. Shaw R. Grathwohl W. Smith M. J. Paul P. Stoutenburgh Wm. R. Pell III Chairman and Supervisor of the Town of Southold 1 See Appendix A: A Resolution of the Town Board 9-23-80 2 See Appendix B: A Resolution of the Town Board 1-13-81 oy}FPB,f� ROBINS ISLAND Yom`® FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Town Board, and others who read this report, will ap- preciate the considerable amount of research and analysis that went into these pages. In all, it represents a great deal of hard work on the part of a great many people. Though I risk offending many contributors of information by ommision, I would like to mention the people whose time and talents have been of special value to the committee in the preparation of this report. Frank Cichanowicz - Management of the Island Development Study Andrew Goodale - Impact on the New Suffolk School District Richard Grathwohl - Photography - Town Hall copy Printing & Graphics Martha Jane Paul - Maintenance and Operation Costs Valerie Scopaz - Funding William Smith - Maintenance and Operation Costs Development Study Paul Stoutenburgh - F1ora,Fauna Management of the Island : all members of the Committee Glenn Eugster - U.S. Department of the Interior - Philadelphia Carl Helms - Quogue Wildlife Refuge, Quogue Henry Raynor, Jr. - Southold Town Planning Board Terry Schreiner - Morton National Wildlife Refuge - Noyac who came to share their ex- pertise with the committee ROBINS ISLAND b� F7NAL REPORT 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jack Sherwood - Southold Town Board of Assessors - Assessment Estimates Bob Tuthill - Caretaker of Robins Island - Tour of the Island Lawrence Waitz - Archaeology of Robins Island Betty Wells - History of Robins Island who made direct and valuable contributions of information Special thanks are owed,to our secretary, Jane Moffatt, whose truly endless hours at the typewriter made the compilation of this report possible. And finally, mention must be made of our chairman, William ("Billy") Pell, who guided a sometimes fractious committee from start to finish.:with fairness, and a large measure of good humor. �I Douglas Ian Shaw Editor & Statistician - v - ROBINS ISLAND �9cyFFgp� �i FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................... iv TABLEOF CONTENTS ..................................:....... vi BRIEF REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBINS ISLAND x ADVISORY COMMITTEE INDEX TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ....... xiii THE FINAL REPORT TO THE TOWN BOARD ...............0........ 1 ROBINSISLAND TODAY.......................o............... 3 Importance of Robins Island to Southold Town ...0000.. 3 Maps of Robins Island ................................ 5 Physical Description of the Island 8 Wetlands ...........................0000....-6.000..... 8 Fauna.................................o...........o.. 9 Flora of Robins Island and Overview ........0000...... 10 Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . 13 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . . . 17 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0'* . . . . . . . . O . . . . O . O . . . . . . . . O . 18 Archaeology .......................................... 25 Current Tax Revenue .................................. 27 Building Inventory ......,........,.. ..................... 27 - vi - �ocyfFgr� ROBINS ISLAND �(®� FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) ROBINSISLAND TOMMORROW.............o......o...o..o....... 28 THE PRESERVATION OPTION.........................00....o... 28 PRIVATE FUNDING.........•...o.................o....o. 28 Application Process .................................. 29 Probability of Obtaining Foundation Grants 30 Ownership ...........................•••..••..•..•.... 31 Other Courses o f Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000000600900000 31 PROTECTING NATUREt ESTATE (Emily Jane Stover, ........ 33 U.S. Department of Interior) PUBLICFUNDING.....................0000.•o••......•.00 50 County•••••••••••••••••.....00.........o...........o0 50 State......................o..00.....000.o........o.. 51 Federal........o.....• ..............o......o..00..... 52 Town..............................................000 55 AFinal Word on Funding .......�...........00.....o..0 57 MANAGING THE ISLAND....o............................. 58 Nature Preserve - No Public Access 58 Annual Expense ... 60 Capital Costs..........o......o.00.....o...o...... 61 Nature Preserve - Limited Access ...o.o.......o....,o.. 62 Annual Expense ........... .000...00.....00..00000 63 Capital Costs..........•••.o.... ...o....o..o.... 64 ROBINS ISLAND ��y1FFaK� �7 FINAL REPORT f TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) MANAGING THE ISLAND (Cont.) Nature Preserve - General Access 65 Annual Expense ........ .......................o.. 66 Capital Cost .................................... 67 Management Costs - Two Examples 68 Tax Impact of Removal from Tax Rolls and Cost 69 of Management if Paid from Town Revenues IMPACT OF PRESERVATION ON NEW SUFFOLK - a memo ......o. 71 to the Robins Island Advisory Committee from Andrew E. Goodale - Member DEVELOPMENT...c..o.......o .......................o..o.... 74 The Best -Buy i s Open F� en Space......,., , , 0 , , , , ®, , , , , , , Q o , 74 A Comparison of Nassau Point to Robins Island. 79 FOUR POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS 80 Assumptions for the Study .................00,,,,,,,0O 80 Four Lots...........................00......o.oa 81 Twenty -Eight Lots 84 Ninety -Nine Lots ................................ 86 Two -Hundred -and -Sixty Lots 00000000000000641000006 88 Impact of Four Possible Developments. on 90 Tax Rates 1980 - 1981 ROBINS ISLAND FWAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) SLUOTARY ANALYSIS................:..................00..o. 91 Development.....................o............o...... 91 Preservation......................................o... 92 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 95 Resolution A ........................................ 97 Resolution B ............................00.......... 100 APPENDICES......... o...........o.....ao..o...00.......o.. 104 Appendix A A Resolution of the Town Board of September 23, 1980 Appendix B A Resolution of the Town Board of January 13, 1981 Appendix C Dissenting Comment Appendix D The Preliminary Report of the Robins Island Advisory Committee to the Town Board Appendix E Minutes of the Southold Town Planning Board of February 25, 1980 Appendix F Pictures of Buildings - Town Hall Copy Appendix G. Calculations Appendix H The Best Buy is Open Space Appendix I Questions and Answers About Land Trusts ROBINS ISLAND�!®� FINAL REPORT BRIEF REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISOR 'COMMITTEE Information regarding the organization of the Robins Island Advisory Committee and its activities up to November 269 1980 has already been covered in.depth in the Preliminary Report.1 On January 13, 1981 the Southold Town Board adopted a Resolution requiring the Robins Island Advisory Committee to investigate the impact that development of Robins Island might have on the Town of Southold. The Committee has met each Thursday evening at 7:30 pm at Southold Town Hall. Following is a synopsis of each meet- ing. 1980 October 9 Discussion centered on what the focus of the Committee should be. Members given assignments. October 16 Discussed three alternatives for preserving the island. It was agreed to invite guest speakers. October 23 Guest speakers: "Carl Helmesi Quogue Wildlife Sanctuary and Terry Schreiner, Morton. National Wildlife Refuge, Jessup Neck. October 30 Discussion centered on maintenance and operational costs, concept of a liability insurance costs, Nature Trust, number of personnel required to run the island. November 6 Letter to be sent.to Town Planning Board regarding zoning of the island. Report on conversation with caretaker, Bob Tuthill. Requested Supervisor to ask owners for permission to visit the island. 1 See Appendix D: The Preliminary Report of the Robins Island Advisory Committee to the Southold Town Board - x - ROBINS ISLAND FINAL REPORT t BRIEF REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 13 All press releases to be agreed on by entire committee and.released to press by the -Super- visor. November 20 Guest speaker: Glenn Eugster, U.S.. Department of Interior Heritage Conservation Recreation Service, Division of Natural Resource Planning, Philadelphia, Pa.. November 22 Visit to Robins Island by Committee. November 26 Work session for the purpose of finishing Preliminary Report. December 11 Development of Island discussed at length. Letters from Councilmen regarding Preliminary Report were noted. 1981 January 8 Committee voted unanimously to study the question of development andvoted a unanimous no, to any additional appointees to the Committee. January 15 Guest Speaker: Mr. Henry Raynor, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board, who answered questions concerning Robins Island.- He offered to help the committee in any way. January 13, 1981 Resolution was discussed. January 22 Committee met in Hauppauge with County Executive' Peter Cohalan and Dr. Lee Koppelman, Director, Suffolk County Planning Commission. Both on record favoring preservation of Robins Island in its natural state. Possibility of County purchase of island, Town maintenance - only with Town Board approval. January 29 Proposed outline for Robins,Island Final Report distributed.January 13, 1981 Resolution discussed. Deadline of March 23, 1981 set for final report. F ROBINS ISLAND 4* �� FINAL RESORT BRIEF REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 5 Work Session February 12 Work Session February 19 Work Session February 26 Work Session March 5 Work Session March 12 Work Session March 19 Work Session March 26 Work Session April 2 Work Session April 9 Work Session F ROBINS ISLAND 0 'f FINAL REPORT INDEX TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD This report is written.to fulfill the requirements of resolutions passed by the Southold Town Board on September 23, 1980 and January 13, 1981.'An index to these resolutions follows: The resolution of September 23, 1981 required: 1.' Viable alternatives for preserving the Island in its natural state, with a recommendation'as to the best method to proceed; Pg. 28 - 57, 92, 95 2. Funds available for, and pledged to each alternative; Pg. xiv, 28 - 57 3. The allowed uses of the Island .for Southold residents under each alternative plan; Pg. 58, 629 65 4. Local control entailed by the alternatives; Pg. 28 - 57, 95 5. Maintenance and operation costs and how they would be handled; Pg. 60, 619 639 644, 669 679 929 95 6. Any and all additional information which the Robins Island Advisory Committee,in its discretion believes would be useful to the people of the Town of Southold in making their deter- m- ination; To be found throughout the Report ROBINS ISLAND#FINAL REPORT INDEX TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, (Cont.) 7. Financial impact statement analyzing the effect of all alternatives on school and Town taxes, as well as the impact on Town services; Pg.. 69, 70 8. Impact to the residents of New Suffolk and surrounding areas re: access for Southold Town residents or others, if' funding sources would require access by the terms of their funding; Pg. 58, 629 65 On January 13, 1981, the Southold Town Board passed a res- olution requiring the Robins Island Advisory Committee to provide a "study of limited development as proposed by -the present owners." However, no formal proposal properly debateable by a legally constituted body such as the Robins Island Advisory Committee has ever been submitted to any Town agency. Indeed, all that is known of this proposal is what was discussed, in- formally, with the Southold Town Planning Board at two meetings, and on one occasion with'the Town Board The Robins Island Advisory Committee cannot base its analysis and recommendations on conjecture. Therefore, we have described four possible devel- opments which may legally occur on Robins Island 1. See Appendix Minutesof the meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board of February 25, 1980 - xiv - oy¢FgX� ROBINS ISLAND �®� FINAL REPORT INDEX TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, (Cont.) The resolution of January 13, 1981 required: 1. Road ownership and maintenance; Presumably private - built to Town specifications 2. Fire protection; Special District or contract with mainland fire department. 3. New Suffolk School District - positive and negative im- pact of a limited development; Pg. 74 - 799 909 91 4. An analysis of tax revenues that will accrue to the Town; Pg. 839 859 879 89 Appendix G 5. An analysis of the cost of services that the Town must provide; Projections based on Town -wide per -capita averages, 1980 census 6. A complete description of the present proposal for limited development; Pg:-xiv, Appendix E 7. A study of the legal aspects of a change in zone for Robins Island for the purpose of providing limited development; Pg. 91 - 92 8. An analysis of Fishers Island relative to assessments and taxes accruing to the Town vis a vis the cost of services to the Town - correlating this information to.the limited dev- elopment -of Robins Island; Pg. 79 -xv- ROBINS ISLAND �oylffBt� �F FINAL REPORT 4 INDEX TO THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD (Cont.) 9. An analysis of the financial impact on the private sector during the initial stages of development and the long term: See comment below This final request for an analysis_of the financial impact is of importance. However, the Robins Island Advisory Committee cannot comply for the following reasons: 1. No valid reliable data exist on economic activity in Southold Town on which to base projections. 2. Even with such data, any projections would be purest speculation; because of the variables involved, no supportable assumptions could be made. Robins Island - Aerial View Photograph by B. Rousseau 9y1FflYk� ROBINS ISLAND b®� FINAL REPORT _ ROBINS ISLAND TODAY Importance of Robins Island to Southold Town Robins_Island is the last, large, undeveloped tract of natural woodland, marsh and beach front left in the Town of Southold. Its importance is underscored by what has happened elsewhere for our region. The wooded fringe along the north shore, bordering on the Sound is slowly being developed. Moor's Woods which'is part of the incorporated village of Greenport ly- ing within the borders of Southold Town, is the largest tract of public woodland on the mainland, and this already has a sewerage treatment plant to the east and a trailer park on its northern border, making its future less than bright. Towns all around us are looking ahead and in one way or another have had large open space holdings recently set aside for their future generations. Just recently 2500 acres of undeveloped woodland has been pre- served on Shelter Island. In the township of East Hampton large tracts in Nappeague and Montauk have been set aside while in Southampton the RCA Pine Barrens will give that town a price- less heritage of open space.. Southold has Peconic Danes, Orient State Park and Cedar Beach as their holdings. Robins Island's woodland with its accompanying plants and shrubs is the best representation we have left of what Long Is- land looked like before the white man settled here. Its unique 3- ROBINS ISLAND * FINAL REPORT IMPORTANCE OF ROBINS ISLAND TO SOUTHOLD TOWN.(Cont.) island character makes possible nesting sites of many birds that otherwise would not have found a suitable place to breed. The island is uninhabited and so adds nothing to the pollution that is continually increasing along the mainland where more and more buildings crowd our shore and creek fronts. ,So far our area has escaped the plague of pollution that haunts west end communities, but this state of being cannot last for- ever. As the land is built upon .in back of the present bayfront and creek front, in subdivisions and on the 60% of our farms now in speculators' hands, pollution in one form or another is some- thing this town must reckon with. Ecologically maintaining Robins Island in its natural state is the best -way for Southold Town to preserve some of its past heritage, giving its people access to -this undeveloped and un- spoiled area now, and during future generations. -4- ,==@ o00 17 U A SUFFOLK' D Q Camp Bailing Hollow Scout Camp SCALE OF MILES G O ! 2 3 4 5 Hollow Controlled Access Highways State Highways Y5 nsqu,,.Baiting and Parkways B Mont"Poiret Other Mein Roads O County Highways 58 da coo S Secondary Roads H qOe Connecting Roads D D 'Under Construction or Pro sed ssesi sss Airport 1 Q�Q 19 DDD 20 DDD Q ��CC 2© OHO 23 C��CC 24 Q�C� 25 DDD 2®DDD 27 C To New London a • Plum Ao 10 >s� •' Island `oar .Dco Orient fo wend roar U. 3•Laborator Aninnst iaaaaa O ry Past Marion +NoarN 25 Lak Harbor r a Br ch x 1"+^ Ba) c'o � p° (y �4^ amDrpucM � Orient Beach 4 S NasR • Greenp0 State Park (� a+wouvcw• roinr D D Q SPO Camp Bailing Hollow Scout Camp OBoy D G � Hollow D nsqu,,.Baiting couyE a Mont"Poiret D D SPO 7A G p �P D c SUNRISE a Mont"Poiret da coo ° Island Oytlej(\ H qOe paonle D vy y�C QRem-aA,q Montauk Bay =' senbra sr OMoriches 1 Bay D DunE' I" �ttaach a ck t a p5 qmu Sdh.Lt®[ Iar 25 Wand .3 bo v Heigh I S Shelter L o n 5° m Southold R g p p o " '` Ga r d i n e r is Boatwich k Govt. C MR,' 5 wdda.ad Lao HWY. 27 Werl/mpbn Roow•r n West- econt SHnnald vay B aH Bay sz ?W s•10 Shelter Island q,�, Ram f�e tf /�Pr Island Matn—k p°s° o 'z f oGarrs fnlrr + n! M. °Ar 'sR . Chary 25 Vrrh ao. Great ` Island S l a n ° povs r+ti oq rei Mog W. NKk B a y Home _ nD xOalr 7 f Hog Neck rh'go Nix 3'� �jarMr Flood AV le o[aa.A C.utchOgue Bay T aOa')'a SxORE A¢E. r�%„9 AVE AV[. MalnruCk f lIsland Paw s` Litte ��' 'pl- CEDAR POINT uNo z c 7 O NEw Burr C r hogue �a COUNTY PARK a. 49 m A Laurel .� ota u e it tune N ° s Northville n Lao s4 1Vlati�ClC Avr RR.ba. Mo > a N i r 9g New Neck P e c o n l c Noyack W~ Northwest r "r'.oc esA III ° J—PGreat SUffOIIC Neck yJa ,`W Harbor Nlsot/e J (No& Fireplace Piold I,J y North Haven `Flared Near CreekE (PR r i e B a 1/ I Beach po W4 doe Aqujbogue i, v� J IH Wpo; W ag aek f nn amesPo NogKosAC ROAD Three ///��� t * /)I Cartwright ° x\ ms 0 V� / i / // Island Pond +� // Mile- aHar for ¢ r iii/// island Great Robins D wa i t vt South 40 I v mead�Jamesport NDIAN ISLAN Pod °Freflorid e° rs WO 0 COUNTY PARK Peconic ie W-111` cnwAHwo..ren.ec IHslia[nMse F ReeDn.ow oFw ridaehompbnSraOoRace Trac Pond Flandete Aq Red Crerk Bay Neck r0 Wad ✓ o NAMPrOa ro Sou port _` east M 20 p- rO2 so IOF cpeo `s Harbor jfo 24 \I CREEK 4 S r N AijPWrr ';1 5 I a F[aetOWrl ` '' t0'ax e . 45 Devon _ Promised Lad N. V Orth a a y ry r Black ' I ?° Am ansett / s °(� ZY sq.;". (1 ti ti Pb ='" Pond l• . I �Y A +tif _ Y e t'�J Pond Pond // C' 4 rs Sears E a e[et0\7R Bullhead y° o Lan, r yf Ep0A0 4u Sebonac aA\ e Pond ^'e NeckF'rr..h f a y idgeampto N AVE °3¢ aff HeaCh CaeU G SEARS BELLDtIIS BelG.ws q° B ShCanaf A Cold SvrrnR v Pond o °. o pONIAU[ 27 (� N\axrAr ExHim ton t�a0 Wad °. s Pnnd B:t ° so a aAahoaue w \ V9 aSt sat E P CAR B L LOW (7 KOR o N�ned pE C1 `+e° Pond, ° 1 I o Ion --- 1-7 n j r�� r 27 5E NAC q w ;``C Kettle rr ! PARS'NA E i asnaCott .3n \ EXTENSION ecock ° „o °t nd Sagaponack�o grc�� 27 ills Tuc a6e ^art tAq ° r Pnod ALL/ ohn Howard Payne House c Water Meso:E o �C wain i -w V Q Oakville ` ' o ampton Place NNA 1. • hgth 27 Mill p +' Pond 69 17A Trani o Y z7a AMara.aT•• 27 e Ba s try m o ¢ Saaapadack folk toy y West °AY a 27A ^ Ra W �• . Mems Inty ;1 sourR Tiana Tiano s AVE �"� Shlnnec-k n Bo o H Bay wit ;T Es AVE ---s Oye• t Pine P onquogue. _ — x°0 QuOque Neck St' x0y° 0 Bad, • U °o Shinnecock ShiMCCOCk A t h a n t i s up� [Ru sckapogue u51$ 7A !e am rt4 N Reed But Pond (?R -d etaPaw s, Mont"Poiret ° Island Oytlej(\ State Park Fort Pond S Lake Pon Montauk Bay =' _ o NaPEoB°e 27 storarwust rorrrr y1 'V Bar r t Fo� m x\cxMA � a e 27 sh \axrA¢ Montauk O c '°x'A°� t • a Montauk Beach Hither Hills State Park SANDBAR OMITTED BECAUSE OF LENGTH Its 'N' \I AL 1.5 '— i A. ae j�r ae e10 I /MA \I > 11 e v7 4 s'• \ �\ / lne, lao' 111 �� no I• s4 o\ , 11 zro go.)sae4..e !!\I `Y7' / 111 n� It37.0 1 I \ t 111 Y 1 11 \ w . ro�th fro $4.0 11 '\ lil ® �s e T it ` / eao II s e -0 ; __ 0 • \I / aa° .1 440 = I _\\ Cyt 1 _ _ 34 a.\ \ -ED 76 Iao o aao 11 \ j' ,\ "a Its/ 460 \It % J /�1 404 1INS 1 N \R Q --� l+ 41 zeA wo 'ROB®INS 11 r\\ v j 4a1A �qa 111 IS ( 1\11 `414) �`\ 1� \ •� v r Pas lot 1 H0140 1 IP fto ofts �'(•e\ �I \ 0d J 11 i1 �\ l aa° \ p sae ! RIO ° \ I «d — - • sass :.:: 1RO�Q�) C �111�a..` 'JSLAN i � J4 @so 1 r' LEGEND _____ - -' No.os____-__._ �••••^^••- _ ^••-_ TRIE,NOW or I...`\I ` 3 SO LO NGs ........... O ❑ i /cuxOAnuN, Rmxs--.-...................�_] coxrouxs______________�• \\ \;J `.\\0f0 I4 eN10G[.............. —.--.— SPOT [LCv.TiOxB-._'0�y�„ \ \\ 11 y .ERGE..............------- .._�� --1� 'h �� ` A% _ 1 xoxrsoxm wxrnoL voixr___.--L + \.,, .1 WILL, STORE WALL..-.___--- �_ •. \ I • \ mam. RETI x,NG I'LL ----------------r .. ' . �. °� RGL..EIG ----'------_--------- TOWp OOUNOUY_____..____� � � • - It EOOT SlS.E----------------- �_�[____ W IXC. viLLAGC .OvxO.xY_______. �_�_ a-• `• ., \� %� ' 1 OTiLITT POLE, TOWER.....—o--® ITATp.xa f ~ ` �' 05 AIGR,O 11IO..O_..................X[NIXYnI1OX ONXOIm-------- AAAA 4 LINOOSE OUTLINE LA. XIRS.-------------- . wLYEx. '-----------.-- \ ` . 81iVS I1. SAND 1 . _ •,C ,L IS s I 1 • _ _ 4, \ \ 1 �I Caa• it GENENA,L NOTES • \ \\l\' �\ I Al. PAR—A AT sl w.rM[Oxru'Ra Ia.uL r.Oro..n[ �. [n nrarurt [wxo umT..c = •\��\``� /`}� \ 1 - TaX� .xxa SAL... [o.[. •'\ ',. 1 [r TxA LLP..... ........... .PPE PARA T. �...�L.L TP ..G X...�a.. SANDBAR OMITTED BECAUSE OF LENGTH Q.I 1 z9 I I .o iI s 16.0 I I ° I I 75 8 .0 v 62 s I I T?O O f 50 I I 'o dee n' I I �O sO II I k a 0 m KEY TO ROBINS ISLAND BUILDINGS DOCK MAIN RESIDENCE M ICE HOUSE UNFINISHED MANOR DUCK INN NEW CARETAKER'S HOME ■�� SMALLBARNS AND OUT BUILDINGS OLD CARETAKER'S HOUSE SMALL SHEDS ■ GAMEKEEPERS HOUSE ' OPEN SHED m SMALLSHED ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF ISLAND Robins Island has a deeded area of approximately 430 acres, and includes riparian rights which extend offshore.. Forests, beaches and small meadows cover Robins Island which is shaped like an arrowhead. It lies in Peconic Bay between New Suffolk, in the Town of Southold and North Sea, in the Town of Southampton. It is about 8000 feet long and 3500 feet across at its widest point. The shoreline is approximately four miles long and the beach is partially stony. Littoral drift has created a pen- insula and a sandbar which extend far out into the North Race and provide a protected harbor for small craft. WETLANDS There exist on the island both freshwater and saltwater marshes. These marshes are unique and are rich in combina- tions of species. At the northwestern end of the island there is salt marsh vegetation bordering a brackish pond. This vegetation includes cord grass, salt -meadow grass, as well as the asso- ciates, spike grass, and black grass. On the west side of the island in close proximity to the shore, there exist three freshwater pond marsh systems.. They differ florally, depending on their degree of permenance. The total wetland acreage is approximately 30 acres. - 8 - o�yFPflt� ROBINS ISLAND �®,� FINAL REPORT FAUNA The following excerpts are -taken from a'report dated August 12, 1975 and prepared by Dennis Puleston, the noted naturalist from Brookhaven. It was prepared for the Nature Conservancy as part of an ecological evaluation of the is- land. Ospreys At the time, five pair of ospreys nested on the.island. One nest was close to the landing; the others were on the northeast and east side of the island. Reproduction has been more successful among the is- land's ospreys than among other land populations. Herons - There is a large heronry at the edge of the woods on the northwest side.. An estimated 150 to 200 black -crowned night herons were seen flying from the rookery; also a yellow crowned heron along with 20 snowy egrets. Bank Swallows - A large colony of bank swallows is located on the west side (240 counted). Shorebirds - The island.is an important feeding and nesting area for migrating shorebirds that pass through during the spring and fall. Black -bellied plover, turnstones, yellowlegs, sanderlings, semi -palmated sandpipers and others all use the area. Spotted sandpipers and piping plover also use the perimeter of the island (beaches) for nesting. Wildfowl - Being on the eastern flyway, the island and its marshes and protected waters are in continuous use during most of the year. Mallards, black ducks and geese nest in the marshes. - 9 - ROBINS ISLAND�`®� FINAL REPORT FAUNA Common Terns & Nest on the sand spit to the North Least Terns along with a few black skimmers. King Fishers Nest in the banks of the island. and are conspicuous at any visit. Red -Tailed One agitated adult bird was seen on Hawk the site when visiting and therefore it is assumed to be nesting nearby. Great -Horned Evidence of the Great Horned Owl was Owl found on the island which indicates that it is also a nesting bird. The woods are particularly suitable for passerine species such as orioles, flycatchers,'warblers, nuthatches, thrushes, etc. The salt marsh on the north is suitable for seaside and sharp -tailed sparrows. Deer are common on the isalnd along with a number of ground squirrels and rabbits. In general Mr. Puleston thought this island a remarkable wildlife resource. He felt it ideally suitable for ecological study and research and felt it would make an ideal refuge and breeding area for a wide assortment of birds and animals. FLORA OF ROBINS ISLAND AND OVERVIEW Robins Island is large enough and sufficiently diverse to support a relatively large undisturbed native flora. In general it reflects the native eastern Long Island flora and probably, is more suggestive of the original. In other words, it is less contaminated by foreigh-introduced plants than the mainland and the islands to the east.. 10 - ROBINS ISLAND FINAL REPORT FLORA OF ROBINS ISLAND AND OVERVIEW The native overstory consists of at least six species of oaks, some apparently 100 years old, along with mack hic- kory, American beach, 6assafras and red maple. The understory is two layered, the upper is composed chiefly of smaller individuals of the overstory species and. tall shrubbery species such as juneberry, black cherry, .dog- wood, elderberry and arrowwood, to name just a few. The lower story consists chiefly of blueberries, huckleberries, sweet fern, bracken fern, maleberry, blackberry, winterberry and bayberry. The forest floor consists of various herbs: wood strawberry, wood sorrel,.deptford pink, wood aster, white.vio- let and others. Various mushrooms, lichen.and other cryptograms complete the forest layer. In addition to the oak -wooded communities -there are pitch pine,. oak,, grassland meadow, freshwater marsh, aquatic, salt marsh and beach communities, each relatively rich in species diversity and typical in species composition. For example, the salt marsh vegetation bordering the brackish pond at the north- western end includes such typical indicator grass species as cord grass and salt meadow grass, as well as the associates, spike grass and black grass. Non grass salt grass species in- clude the indicators glasswort, marsh elder, and groundsel tree. ROBINS ISLAND�!®� FINAL REPORT FLORA OF ROBINS ISLAND AND OVERVIEW The area is mainly undisturbed and healthy, producing a stable foundation for the food pyramid ending in the top consumer layer, the herons, which breed so abundantly and successfully in the nearby trees year after year. There are at least three freshwater pond marsh systems, all lying on the west side of the island in close proximity to the shore. Less than 50 acres has been severely altered. At the northerly end, where the buildings are located, there are several acres dominated by such introduced and escaped plants as Black Locust, Sweet Cherry, White Poplar, Norway Maple, Japanese Honeysuckle and a few others, but these invasions are local. Further testimony to the relatively undisturbed nature of the island's flora is the remarkable fact that, apparently, two of its trees, Poison Sumac and Elderberry, are officially the largest of their species in the United States.l Condensed from a report by Lawrence D. Penny, Associate Prof., Life Sciences, Southampton College 1 (American Forestry Associati©n, of. Peters, George 1973 Trees of Long Island pg. 53) - 12 - SOIL ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT The soil of Robins Island is composed of an association of types. It is described as follows in the Suffolk -County Soil Survey of the Soil Conservation Service of the Federal Department of Agriculture: Montauk -Haven -Riverhead Association - Deep, nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained to moderately well drained, moderately coarse textured and medium -textured soils on mor- aines. This association,.unlike most of the other associations in the county, is not in a continuous area. The largest area is in the vicinity of Manetto Hills and Dix Hills in Hunting- ton. The other major areas are on Gardiners Island and Shelter Island,. both of which -are entirely within the association. Ro- bins Island, a small area near Cow Neck, North Haven, and Jessup Neck are also in this association. The association has rolling hills.and soils that are nearly level to strongly sloping. A few boulders dot the landscapes of these soils., The uplands in the western areas are more level than in the eastern areas. Also, the western area charactistically has many kettle holes that are wet or water filled most of the year. This association makes 'up 5 percent of the -county. Montauk soils make up about 50 percent of the association. Haven soils make up about -15 percent. Soils of the Montauk -Haven -Riverhead association that have been graded are extensive in the western - 13 - ROBINS ISLAND* FINAL REPORT f SOIL areas. Minor soils make up the remaining 20 percent. Montauk soils are deep and well drained to moderately well drained. The surface layer is silt loam or fine sandy loam, and the subsoil is loam or fine sandy loam. A fragi- pan or compact layer is at depths of 20 to -30 inches. This fragipan or compact layer ranges from -2 to more than 20 feet in thickness. Poorly sorted or crudely stratified deposits of sand and gravel are under the fragipan. Haven soils are deep and well drained. The surface layer is loam, and the subsoil is loam or silt loam. The substratum is sand and gra- vel. Depth to the.substratum ranges from about 18 to 36 inches. Riverhead soils are deep and well drained. The surface layer and subsoil are sandy loam.. The lower.part of the subsoil is loamy sand in many Riverhead soils. The substratum is coarse sand and gravel. Depth to the substratum ranges from about 22 to 36 inches. Montauk, Haven, and Riverhead soils are in a mixed pattern throughout the association and are not in any particular part of -the landform with respect to the other soils. Minor soils are the excessively drained Carver; Plymouth, and Montauk, sandy variant, soils, the somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained Walpole and Atsion soils, and the very poorly drained Berryland soils. Carver, Plymouth, and Montauk, sandy variants, are on hillsides; and,Walpole, Atsion, and Berryland soils are around ponds and creeks.' . 14 - SOIL ROBINS ISLAND FINAL REPORT Slightly more than -half of this association, is cleared; however, most of the cleared areas in the western part of the county are in housing developments. The eastern areas are near- ly all wooded, except the central and western parts of Shelter Island, where there are a few farms. Robins Island and Gardi- ners Island are privately owned and are.used mainly as game pre- serves. These soils are well suited to farming, but the more slop- ing areas are subject to severe erosion. Because these soils generally have a very deep root zone, the productive potential for trees on the soils in this association is one of the best in the county. Montauk soils have moderate to severe limita- tions for housing developments because of.slow infiltration in the fragipan.layer. Excavation is difficult in places where this layer is several feet thick.'l Fragipan - A loamy, brittle, subsurface horizon that is very low in organic matter and clay but rich in silt or very fine sand. The layer is seemingly cemented. When dry, it is hard or very hard and has a high bulk density in comparison with the horizon or horizons above it. When moist, the fragi- pan tends to rupture suddenly.if pressure is applied, rather than to deform slowly.. The layer is generally mottled, is slowly or very slowly permeable to water, and has few or many bleached fracture planes that form polygons. Fragipans are a 1 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conser- vation Service & Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station (1975) Pg. 7 - 15 - ROBINS ISLANDb�! FINAL REPORT 4 SOIL few inches to several feet thick; they generally occur below the B horizon, 15 to 40 inches below the ,surface.2 The east and west shores of Robins Island are escarp - merits whose characteristics are described below: Escarpments,- Escarpments (es) are made up of bluffs that have slopes greater than 35 percent. Most areas are along the north shore, but a few are near Peconic Bay and along the Atlantic coastline near Montauk Point. Areas are also along the coastline of offshore islands. The soil horizons have not formed in this actively erod- ing material. Except for a few scattered areas, this unit is devoid of vegetation. Generally the slopes are uniform with very little dissection except on the more resistant,material around Montauk Point and on parts of Gardiners Island. Height of the escarpments ranges from about 20 feet to more than 100 feet.. The material in the escarpments is sand along the north shore and sandy loam or loamy sand at Montauk Point. In the northeast and western parts of Gardiners Island, the material, contains a fairly high proportion of reddish clay. Many escarp- ments have large boulders embedded in the soil, which roll to the beach as the escarpment erodes. 2 Ibid., pg. 99 - 16-- ROBINS ISLAND'ab! }'� FINAL REPORT 4 SOIL Escarpments are used by some species of songbirds._ Where possible, slopes should be stabilized to reduce erosion.3 WATER There are no definative water studies of Robins Island available at this time. There have been wells and windmills . on the island, but the size and condition of the aquifer is. unknown. I 3 Ibid., pg. 69 - 17 - ROBINS ISLAND *PINAL REPORT ' THE HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND Much of the earliest history of Robins Island, dating back several millenia, is unknown, buried in unfound archeo- logical sites. But, according to discoveries in a few limi- ted archeological digs, woodland Indians occupied Robins Is- land,: at least on a seasonal basis, for 3,000 years or more before white men acquired the island. The Corchaug Indians, who lived in the New Suffolk area, and the Shinnecock Indians on the south fork are believed to have used Robins Islet d (or Annchannock, meaning "place of timber" or "land well wooded") as a stepping stone between the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. Indians may have seen white men for the first time in 1529 when the Dutch explorer, Adrian Block, sailed.around Robins Island. In fact, one of -the three theories concern- ing the origin of the island's name is that Block called it "Robbens Island," meaning a place where seals abound. Or it could have been named for the island's third white owner, Ro- bert Carmand, whose nickname was Robin, although the earliest records identify it as Robert's Island. Or perhaps it became known as Robins.Island because it was populated by numerous migrating robins. Ownership -of the island had already been claimed by three white men.when Southold was founded in 1640. The first to do so was the Earl of Sterling. In 1615, King Charles I awarded - 18. - ROBINS ISLAND b�t PINAL REPORT HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND him all of Long Island and parts of New England and Nova Scotia in payment for his services. In 1639, the Earl gave both Robins and Shelter Islands to his agent, a Scotsman by the name of James Farrett. That same year, Farrett sold both islands, Robins Island to Robert Carmand who was a trader in the New Haven Colony.' He reinforced his ownership by buying the island from the Indians as well through Iyonaise, sachem of all Paumanock (Long Island). The purchaser of Shelter Is- land, Stephen Goodyear, who was deputy director of New Haven Colony, then bought Robins Island from Carmand early in 16409 to become the island's fourth owner. On June 6, 1651, Robins and Shelter Islands were sold for 1600 Pounds of muscovado sugar, a value of about a.penny an acre. The buyers were wealthy sugar merchants, Captain Nathaniel Sylvester, his brother Constant Sylvester, a Bar- bados planter, Thomas Rouse, and Thomas Middleton. They also bought the islands from the Indians, a practice which was re- peated by other owners 13 years later. In December 1652, Thomas Rouse's share went to Ensign John Booth, who immediately sold his share to Nathaniel Sylvester. Nathaniel Sylvester sold his half interest on February 12, 1656, to John Booth under conditions' which allowed Shelter Is- land Indians the same privileges on Robins Island that they had - 19 - ROBINS ISLAND�t®� FINAL REPORT HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND on Shelter Island, and which stipulated that Booth was not to be troubled by Constant Sylvester's cattle or in any matter of trade. Three months later, Booth transferred his half 'share of the island back to Nathaniel Sylvester. Syl- vester later inherited a third quarter of the island after the deaths.of Constant and his two sons. In 1673, the Dutch recaptured New York from the English and confiscated the Sylvester and Middleton properties. Middle- ton never got back his one quarter share, but Sylvester did get his three quarters, and later that year became the sole owner of both Robins and Shelter Islands., The New Haven Colony tried to seize the islands because of Sylvester's Quaker sympathies, but the King of England granted Sylvester complete freedom from the New Haven Colony. The island continued in the ownership of Sylvester and his heirs until 1703, when Robins Island and part of Shelter Island became the property of William Nicoll through the will of Giles Sylvester. Nicoll sold Robins Island in 1715 to Joseph Wickham. The Wickham family owned Robins Island for 69 years, until the end of the Revolutionary War. Joseph Wickham started farm- ing on the island, a practice which was continued by his heirs. These included his son Joseph,, also known as Justus or'Colonel - 20 - ROBINS ISLAND *FINAL REPORT THE HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND Wickham. The next heir, Parker Wickham, raised sheep and cattle, livestock grains and flax. Supervisor of the Town of Southold, he lived in the Old house in Cutchogue, which he had inherited. �A British sympathizer during the Revolu- tionary War, he was declared a Tory after the war and his lands were confiscated by -the State of New York. He fled to Connec- ticut where he died in1806. Two Long Island patriots benefited from this confiscation. They were Major Benjamin Tallmadge who, as head of a revolution- ary spy ring, was well aware of Parker Wickham's friendship with the British, and Captain Caleb Brewster, who married Mary Floyd, daughter. of -General William Floyd, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He became quite affluent. He and Captain Brew— ster bought. -several confiscated -Tory estates. Among these was Robins Island, for which they paid 1250 pounds in 1784. Captain Brewster sold his share in 1791 to another patriot, Ezra.L' Hom- medieu. In 1793, Major Tallmadge sold his share to Nicoll Floyd,. who sold it in turn to L'Hommedieu that same year. Like Tallmadge and Brewster, L'Hommedieu had also helped to identify Parker Wickham as a Tory. He may have used Robins Is- land for experimentation with crop rotation a3dd.fertilizers. He organized a company which dealt in moss bunkers, a species of fish which -are an excellent source of fertilizer. Bunkers were - 21 ROBINS ISLAND ��ev4x� �� FINAL REPORT 4 HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND abundant around Robins Island. He owned the island until he died in 1811. .Robins Island was bought from the L'Hommedieu estate in 1816 by Colonel Ben Horton Jr., of Southold, and James Reeve V of Mattituck. Over the next several years, the island was owned in shares by numerous people, a kind of musical chairs of changing ownership among members of the same families. They included Colonel Horton's-brother, Major Gilbert Horton; James Reeve who was,married to Parker Wickham's sister Parnell.; Gil- bert Horton's son Jonathan; William Hubbard of Guilford, Conn- ecticut; Samuel Landon; Ben Horton's sons Silas and David A.; and Irad, Edward and James Wickham Reeve. During their owner- ships, the island was the source of $20-,000 worth of wood, and other income from seaweed which was used to insulate buildings. Livestock also was raised there. Another sequence of ownership began in September 1851 when Isaac Wooster of Westchester County and James F. Goodale, who came to Southold from Southampton, bought Robins Island from the Horton -Reeve -Landon families. Goodale sold his share in August 1852 to Ira B. Tuthill and Jeremiah G.,Tuthill, and Jeremiah then released his share to.Ira, who then bought out Wooster in 1857. Ira Tuthill lived on the island at least occasionally. He manufactured bricks at a Robins Island kiln. Then, when he tried to sell the island, years of litigation followed over problems - 22 - ��y1FFgr� ROBINS ISLAND �`®,� FINAL REPORT HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND stemming from his two mortages. In the proceedings which ensued, James Wilson, George -Horne -and Elizabeth Moffett were listed as owners. Title reverted to Tuthill, after which there was a foreclosure. Richard Ingraham of Brooklyn finally got clear title to the island in September 1881. For the next 98 years, Robins Island was a hunting pre- serve. Ingraham had acted on behalf of sportsmen who estab- lished the Robins Island Club, Inc. in December 1881. Mem- bers of the club used the island as a shooting preserve until it was sold in 1917 to James Warren Lane of St. James; Long Island. Mr. Lane maintained the island as a game preserve and raised prize cattle and dogs. He built the cottages, ken- nels and other buildings which still stand on the island. He also started the manor house which also stands unfinished be- cause Mrs. Lane died during the 1919 influenza epidemic. When Mr. Lane died in 1927, Robins Island was inherited by his four sons, Arthur, Mortimer, George B. and James Warren Lane Jr. They leased the island to the Havermeyer and Webb families who kept it as a shooting preserve until April 1956. Some 3500 pheasants were released for shooting each year. Mean- while the Lanes sold the island in 1951 to Joseph Krupski, a Southold Attorney. - 23 - ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT HISTORY OF ROBINS ISLAND He later rented the island to John Mackay, who had been a guest at a shooting party there. Mackay bought the island from Krupski in October 1958 and continued to use it as a shooting preserve until he sold it in July 1979 to the South- old Development Corporation, of which Europeans are said to be among the principals. Based on information supplied by: Betty Wells Author Robins Island (1980) - 24 - ROBINS ISLAND`® FINAL REPORT ARCHEOLOGY OF ROBINS ISLAND Over the last fifty years, the Long Island Chapter of the New York State Archaeology Association has done exten- sive exploration of aboriginal sites on the East End of Long Island on both the North and South forks. To my knowledge, the chapter has no record,of Indian sites on Robins Island because, during much of this period, the Island has been a private -hunting preserve and visitors were not welcomed. On August 27, 1969 Ron Wyatt, director of the Nassau County Museum made a preliminary survey of Robins Island and found two Indian sites. On October 6 to 10, 1969, Dr. Daniel H. Kaplan and Walter Paddison, also of the Nassau County Museum made a further site survey and found five more sites. One site was discovered on October 20th. From.Octo ber 20 to 24, Kaplan and Paddison.examined three sites in depth. On July 7, 1970 Ron Wyatt excavated several of the known sites. He found three levanna points which are of the late woodland period. He found numerous quartz -flakes which in- dicated arrowhead manufacture. He also found hammerstones and fire cracked stone from camp sites. He found animal bones, including deer bones, clam, scallop and whelk shells. Some of the whelk cors showed signs of working,_ which is evidence - 25 - ROBINS ISLAND�®�! FINAL REPORT 4 ARCHEOLOGY OF ROBINS ISLAND of wampum manufacture. Pottery shards were found in each of the sites mostly of the Sebonic phase and East River phase. All this points to late woodland occupation of Ro- bins Island. Much more exploration and digging is necessary to determine if earlier occupations existed. Robins Island is only a short distance from Fort Corchaug, the principal -village of the.Corchaug Indians. Eighty cleared acres existed between New Suffolk and Cutchogue at the begin- ning of the colonial period. .The extensive.material found on the Case Farm by Harrison Case, several miles from Robins Is- land, was archaic as well as woodland culture, showing Indian occupational for at least three thousand.,years. The abundance of timber on Robins Island would -make it useful in canoe building, posts for stockades and posts for wigwams. The largest amount of fish and shellfish in the wa- ters around Robins Island would be useful for food and wampum manufacture. The presence of good clay would be utilized in making pottery, a major occupation of the Corchaug Indians., Therefore it is easy to conclude that Robins Island was impor- tant to the aborigines who roamed its shores and woodlands be- fore the Colonial period. Submitted By: Dr. Lawrence T. Waitz - 26 - ROBINS ISLAND '� � �y¢FR.Y� ®w -MAL REPORT CURRENT TAX -REVENUE Robins Island is assessed at $229,600.00 and contributes $38,469.48 in total tax revenues in 1981. School $239398.54 14.2% of New Suffolk School Budget or: $14.20 per $100.00 of Revenue Town $109619..00 0.3% of Town Budget or: 300 per $100..00 of Revenue County $ 49.451.94 0.01% of County General Fund or: lye per . $100.00 of Revenue $38,469.48 BUILDING INVENTORY Manor House and Barn - Unfinished Club House - Fair Caretaker's Small House - Fair Ice House --Fair Three (3) Barns — Fair Poultryman's House - Fair Brooder Houses - Poor Two (2) 10 KW Generators (Onan) - Operable, Needs Work Tractor with Mower - Good One (1) Jeep - Fair Three (3) Windmills - Disconnected Snowplow Disc Harrow. Miscellaneous Tools Dock - Needs Extensive Repair Appendix Pictures —Town Hall Copy -27- F ROBINS ISLAND 'S�'� FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND TOMMORlow The initial and main purpose of the Robins Island Ad- visory Committee was to study alternative methods of pre- serving the island in its natural state. However, as men- tioned in the introduction, the Robins Island Advisory Com- mittee was later required,to study the economic and ecologic impacts of residential development,of Robins Island. Accord- ingly, the following section is divided into two parts. The first discusses the several different ways in which Robins Is- land can be preserved; the second discusses the probable econo- mic impacts of residential development. The Preservation Option There are several ways Southold Town could preserve•Ro- bins Island in its natural state. It can purchase the island with money from outside sources. In general,. there are two sources of funding.; public and private Private Funding Private Sources of funding include: - philanthropic foundations - corporate foundations - individual contributions Philanthropic foundations are organizations which exist solely for the purpose of giving money, in the form of grants, to worthy causes or projects. Corporate foundations are phil- - 28- ROBINS ISLAND FINAL REPORT t ROBINS ISLAND TOMMORROW anthropic divisions of private corporations. Their main pur- pose is to distribute money to those causes or projects which the corporation's directors wish to support. Substantial sums of money are involved, as corporations are allowed to donate up to 5% of their pre-tax profits to non -profit -organizations. Both corporate and private foundations support a wide variety of projects throughout the United States.. Most foun- dations, however, prefer'to give grant monies for projects in specific fields; for example, conservation, historic preserva- tion, or education. Should the Town decide to pursue private funding, it should approach only those foundations with a dem- onstrated interest in and history of supporting conservation and land acquisition.projects. Application Process The process of applying for a foundation grant has several steps. First a preliminary grant proposal must be written, so that the "Funding Search" Committee has a clear idea of how much money they are asking for, and why. The committee must then make preliminary telephone contacts with a foundation staff member in order to determine whether the foundation would be interested in funding the acquisition of Robins Island. - 29 - QcyffltA�� ROBINS ISLAND 'a9,b®� FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND TOMMORROW If the foundation's response is favorable, then the funding search committee must send a complete grant pro- posal to that foundation. This proposal must state, in . detail, why and how the Funding Search Committee wishes to preserve Robins Island. The.proposal must also include an estimate of the costs of acquisition. Since each foun- dation has its own application requirements, each grant pro- posal would have to be tailored to meet those varying require- ments. If after reviewing the.proposal a foundation is still interested it will initiate negotiations. Generally, grants are awarded within a few months after the proposal is submitted. Once the grant is received, the Funding Search Committee would be responsible to see that the money is used as proposed in the final version of the grant application. There are no other stipulations or 'strings' attached. Probability Of Obtaining Foundation Grants A survey of those foundations which contributed to environ- mental causes revealed that between 1976 and 1979, they contri buted more than $15 million dollars. Of that amount more than $6 million went towards land acquisition projects along. Also, corporate as well as private foundations have supported land acquisitions. While there is a possibility that one foundation may be willing to grant the total sum needed, the Town.will probably - 30 - ROBINS ISLAND 'ate FINAL REPORT 'W 4 ROBINS ISLAND TOMMORROW find itself approaching more than one foundation in order to acquire sufficient funds. Large grants exceeding one million dollars have been made on occasion. One example is the two million dollar grant made by a philanthropic foundation towards the purchase of Mashomack on Shelter Island. Informal conversations with knowledgeable people in the field of conservation have assured us that there is sufficient money available from foundations with which to purchase Robins Island. Finally, individual contributions can be an important source of funds. Ownership Prior to receiving grant monies, the Funding Search Com- mittee'"Would'have-to'devise a legal mechanism which entitles it to accept,the monies. Title to the island would be held either by the Town, or by a non-profit organization specifically estab- lished by the Town to acquire, hold title and manage the island. Other courses Of Action The Town can expect to enlist the aid of two noted and trusted organizations: The Trust for Public Lands and the Na- ture Conservancy. Both of these agencies have had extensive experience in negotiation with property. owners. They may be - 31 - ��y1FFltr� ROBINS ISLAND '� � ®� FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND TOMMORROW willing to assist the Funding Search Committee in its efforts to purchase Robins Island. The Funding Search Committee should not hesitate to app- roach either of these agencies because they are well -versed in the many ways of purchasing privately -owned land for public purposes. The following is a United States Department of the In- terior publication entitled "Protecting Nature's Estate". Far better than can we, the committee, it describes techniques for saving land privately. - 32 - Protecting Nature's Estate Techniques for Saving Land Edited Eby Emily Jane Stover Private Approaches to Saving Land "Private actions, private organizations, private motivations, and private ap- proaches will always have a place in land protection. What place they have will de- pend upon the activity, integrity, and resources of private organizations; the - charitable motivations of countless indi- viduals; the value of land and economic conditions generally; public policy ex- pressed in laws which push land toward one particular use or another; the con- tours of the tax laws which pertain to the land and the owner's income; and the characteristics of the local law relating to real property."' No matter what the motiva- tion, private contributions to America's land protection efforts have been countless and invaluable. Unfortunately, few com- munities, interested citizens, and even State agencies fully understand the tools and techniques available to encourage private organizations and individuals to set aside valuable resources. Basic Procedures' The host of land protection techniques employed by communities, or- ganizations, and individuals almost all involve the basic procedures of ascertain- ing land ownership, conducting appraisals, and determining tax benefits. Federal Income Taxes The tax laws of our Nation encourage individuals and corporations to donate private resources to public use. However, few people clearly understand the tax consequences of such a donation. Ther factors that determine an individual's or corporation's tax status are often nu- merous and quite complex. Consultation with an attorney or accountant is recom- 'David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. mended before a landowner finalizes a donation. A community, organization, or individual asking an owner to preserve his land by donating it either to a govern- ment agency or a non-profit organization must give the owner at least a general understanding of the tax benefits that might arise from the donation. Thus, it is important that anyone dealing in the land protection arena be reasonably knowledgeable of the tax forms, especially as they relate to long-term capital gains (or losses) and charitable donations. Exact definitions of both charitable dona- tions and long-term capital gains (or losses) should be obtained- from the In- ternal Revenue Service, but, very simply, a long-term capital gain results in the sale or exchange of a capital asset which has been held for over six months. Gen- erally, a capital asset is all property owned or used for personal purposes, pleasure, or investment. Charitable dona- tions are gifts made to non-profit orga- nizations, public and private, approved by the Internal Revenue Service. By properly regulating these two variables, taxable income which in turn determines the amount of taxes paid, can be substantially reduced. Ascertaining Ownership The Register of Deeds or the local tax assessor can help verify owner- ship of property identified for protection, and sometimes tax maps are on file that delineate property boundaries and indicate the names and addresses of the owners, the legal description of the property, the exact size and acreage, and the owners of adjacent property. Soil conservation districts often have aerial photographs with the boundaries marked off. Once the owner of record is determined, many persons without previ- ous experience are unnecessarily hesitant to approach a landowner. One way to circumvent this problem is to have some- one who is close to the owner, yet under- stands what the community or organiza- tion is trying to do, serve as an inter- mediary. The next best approach is to call on the owner and express an interest in the natural, historic, or recreational values of the property. Frequently, an area has been protected because the owner has already recognized and has a feeling for the undisturbed beauty. He might be pleased to discover a sincere interest in the property by someone who shares his feelings. When first approaching a land owner, it is important to make it clear that your preliminary conversations are purely exploratory. It is usually better not to attempt to go too far on the first meeting, but try to establish the com- munity's or organization's interest and qualifications. Once contact is established, follow up in a positive manner, keeping the landowner informed of any new devel- opments, discussing how the protection technique recommended for his property`,, has worked elsewhere, and making him' aware of the possible tax benefits that could accrue should he agree to donate his land. The possibilities of acquiring the land by gift should be explored before any purchase price is discussed. If the owner is willing to donate all or part of the property, he becomes a partner in the land protection project and often can be a great help in soliciting local support. Appralasls The most basic rule in real estate dealings is that the purchaser must know what the land is worth before he makes an offer. Unlike stocks and bonds that are actively traded on one of the major exchanges, there is no quick and simple way to determine the value of real estate. A particular piece of land may have different values to different people, but the one value of prime importance is the "fair market value." The most com- monly accepted definition of fair market value is: "Fair Market Value" is the highest price estimate, in terms of money, that a property will bring if exposed for sale on the open market, allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who brings with him the knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. An estimate of fair market value is usually established by an appraisal of property. There are few, if any, Federal State, or local laws regulating who can appraise real estate. Anyone with knowl- edge of the local real estate market can qualify. Three professional societies—The American Society of Appraisers, The Ap- praisal Institute of America, and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers—have been quite active in trying to upgrade the quality of the profession, and members of these societies are generally recognized as the most competent appraisers. There are three basic ways to determine the estimate of fair market value of a property: Cost approach, market data approach, and income approach. The cost approach is simply what it would cost to replace the property. Since land for conservation does not have any im- provements, the cost approach is seldom applicable. The market data approach compares the 'subject property with simi- lar properties that have been recently sold in the same market area. Using the in- come approach, the net income of the property is determined and then capital- ized at the normal rate for that type of investment. This method can be extremely useful in evaluating properties that are about to be developed, or that are subject to a zoning or rezoning application. When land is donated for protection to a governmental unit or a non- profit organization, the difference. between the property's fair market value as estab- lished by an appraisal and what the donor receives for the land is considered by the Internal Revenue Service, if they approve the appraisal, to be a charitable donation. The income tax effects of this donation can be quite significant. Key points to remember are: 1) An appraisal is the key element in any gift or bargain sale of land, for if the appraisal is accepted by the Internal Revenue Service, it establishes the fair market value of the property. 2) Appraisals substantiating a gift or bargain sale to a private non-profit conservation organization must be done and paid for by the donor. If the land is donated or sold to a governmental agency, an appraisal by the government agency is acceptable. 3) The appraiser must understand the intended use of the property and must consider the highest and best use of the land. 4) Any appraisal of a donation of land should conform with the guidelines set forth by the Internal Revenue Service. A Case Study—Appraising Land for Conservation In 1972, the Georgia Depart- ment of Natural Resources (DNR) was In- terested in preserving a section of the Chattahoochie River just north of Atlanta. The key to the creation of Chattahoochee State Park was acquisition of 200 acres owned by a Mr. Charles "Bull" Dozer. ' The Dozer land was the largest tract of prime river land remaining in one ownership. Mr. Dozer had bought the land in 1970 for $700,000 or $3,500 per acre. His interest and other carrying costs were approximately 10% per year so, in 1972, Mr. Dozer's actual cost of the property was approximately $4,200 per acre. When Mr. Dozer purchased the property, it was zoned AG1—agricul- ture, single family residential. However, a national builder of apartment houses of- fered him $15,000 per acre provided the property was rezoned to permit high rise apartments. With this offer in hand, Mr. Dozer immediately applied to the County Commissioners for a rezoning that would permit high rise development. The City of Atlanta, however, had established the Atlanta Regional Com- mission (ARC) just about the time that Mr. Dozer had purchased his land. The Commission had been assigned to study the Chattahoochee River around Atlanta and make land use recommendations. The ARC released its report before the County Commissioners were able to rezone Mr. Dozer's land,. and the report strongly rec- ommended that the 200 -acre tract be purchased for park purposes. Citizens fully endorsed the ARC recommendations and started a peti- tion urging the Commissioners not to rezone the land and to assist the State in acquiring this key parcel. The matter was further complicated because the Com- missioners had previously pledged to pay 25% of the purchase price if the State would buy the land for park pur- poses. This pledge had been made long before Mr. Dozer received his offer from the high rise developer. Nonetheless, the pledge was a matter of record. Using $15,000 per acre as the fair market value, Mr. Dozer offered to take a loss on the property and sell the tract to the State for only $12,500 an acre. The State asked The Nature Con- servancy to intervene. Conservancy staff met with Mr. Dozer and asked him to do- nate the land to the people of Atlanta for park purposes. Mr. Dozer responded that he would "bargain sale" the property to the Conservancy for $12,500 per acre, the same price that he quoted the State. The Conservancy agreed to offer him whatever the property was worth according to a qualified appraisal. A member of the Appraisal Institute of America was called in and instructed to appraise the property only in light of its present zoning—agricultural, single family residential. According to the appraisal, the property was worth $3,600 per acre, or just a little above the original purchase price. In a second meeting with Mr. Dozer, the Conservancy explained that the low value was due to the present zoning, and, since the Conservancy had no inten- tion of having the property rezoned, it could not be purchased for the speculative value of $12,500 per acre. Mr. Dozer refused to discuss the $3,600 per acre figure, but the ap- praisal left the door open -for future nego- tiations since it noted that, "In the appraiser's opinion, the highest -and best use of this property is not agricultural or single family residential but some form of community unit plan (CUP) that would permit a higher density." A CUP plan did not mean high rise apartments, but Mr. Dozer said he would consider an appraisal that would reflect the reasonable highest and best use. The appraiser was then asked to conduct an appraisal that would look at four different values: 1. A value in accordance with the recommendation of the ARC plan, 2. A value in accordance with the present zoning, 3. A value in accordance with Mr. Dozer's rezoning application, and 4. A value that the appraiser felt reflected the highest and best use of the property in light of the property's proximity to public utilities and services and the land's physical characteristics. The results of the second ap- praisal were: 1. Comparable parkland in and around the Atlanta area was selling for $2,200 per acre. 2. The value under present zoning was still $3,600 per acre. 3. If zoned for high rise apartments with available utilities, it was worth $14,000 an acre. 4. The appraiser felt that due to the physical characteristics of the land, high rise apartments would not be the highest and best use. Since both sewer and water connections were available, however, the land had a greater value than either single family residential or parkland. Thus, if the property were rezoned to permit some form of a CUP plan, the land would be worth approxi- mately $8,000 an acre. The Conservancy reviewed the ap- praisal with the State, and decided that the $8,000 figure was a reasonable esti- mate of the fair market value. Mr. Dozer accepted The Nature Conservancy's offer at that price. The Gift of Land There is great flexibility• in the manner in which gifts of land can be made, in- cluding both the extent and type of in- terest involved, the conditions which ac- company the conveyance, the period of time for completion of the transaction, and transfers by deed or bequest. Consulta- tion with a qualified attorney is essential to ensure that the wishes of the donor are accurately and effectively translated in the deed, will, or other instrument and to make certain the donor receives all of the tax benefits to which he is entitled. Many alternatives are avail- able to the giver of land. Choices in giving include: 1. Outright Donation—A conveyance in fee simple, which means that all rights to the land are given to the recipient. This is the simplest and most direct land gift and usually provides the greatest tax benefits to the donor. Restrictions on future use and management may be in- cluded in the deed of transfer. 2. Life Estate—An outright donation of land which permits the donor to retain the right to live on the property for the rest of his life (and perhaps for his children during their lifetimes). 3. Testamentary Gifts, Rewritten Wills, Living Trusts—Methods by which a donor's wishes for a tract of land can be carried out after his death. 4. Sale and Leaseback—An acquisition of land by purchase or gift and subsequent leasing to a person or persons for a specific purpose. 5. Bargain Sale—A combination of selling and donating, or selling for less -than -full -market value, can provide a Federal income tax deduction. equal to the difference between full market value and the actual selling price and may allow for a reduction in Federal capital gains tax. 6. Covenants—An agreement between the buyer and seller of land which obligates the buyer to do, or refrain from doing, certain things with the land. Covenants can be legally attached to the property deed. Conservation or Scenic Easements— Acquisition or donation of limited rights to a tract of land. In the vocabulary of land protectionists, easements usually refer to acquisi- tion of a landowner's right to develop or alter the natural character of all or part of his land. Income Tax Effects3 When a landowner gives his land to a charitable organization, which has qualified as such with .the Internal Revenue Service, or to a government agency, he is generally entitled to a de- duction equal to the fair market value of the property when computing his Federal Income Tax. When the gift is to an organi- zation which receives a substantial part of its support from the public, such as The Nature Conservancy, the deduction is gen- erally limited to 30% of the taxpayer's ad- justed gross income per year. If the total value of the gift exceeds this 30% in the year of the donation, the balance may be 3David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. carried forward and used as a deduction for the next five-year period for a theoreti- cal total of six years. The rules for deduc- tions in computing State income taxes vary in different States. If the gift has been of an undivided fractional interest in land, the same rules apply, using the fair market value of the fractional interest. If the donor reserves a life estate and the property is a personal residence or a farm, he is still entitled to a deduction, but the value of the gift is discounted by the computed value of his life estate. (This is computed according to actuarial tables of the Internal Revenue Service.) The valuation of a gift is the responsibility of the donor. The most convincing evidence of value is an ap- praisal made by a professional appraiser. When the size of the gift does not seem. to warrant the expense of a formal ap- praisal, the opinion of an experienced local .real estate agent may suffice to establish value. When a gift of land is made to a charitable organization in the donor's will, the value of the land is, in effect, ex- cluded from the taxation in the donor's estate. If a corporation donates land, it is subject to a limitation of 5% of its taxable income each year, but the balance may be carried forward and used as a deduction for an effective six-year write- off period. Outright Donation Outright donations of land for conservation purposes have long played an important role in the protection battle. As of 1960, for example, over 30 percent of the Federal, State, and county parkland in the State of New York had been ac- quired through donations. Outright dona- tion is still a highly desirable method of conveying property because of its relative simplicity and because it gives the or- ganization entrusted with the land the freedom, within reasonable limitation, to vary uses of the property to meet needs and conditions in the future. The tax sav- ings realized from a donation of land are great. Aside from avoiding any further real estate taxes or estate taxes on the land value, maximum savings are obtained from Federal and State income and capital gains taxes. The major conservation or- ganizations—both national and regional— can be contacted for assistance in deter- mining the particulars of a land donation. Almost all local governments and State conservation agencies are permitted to re- ceive charitable donations of land from public-spirited citizens. Possibly the main reason charitable donations of land are not more common across the Nation is that it does not occur to public officials to ask. A Case Study—It Happened in Massachusetts More than 800 acres of sand dunes, salt marsh, and upland on Nan- tucket Island, Massachusetts, owned by Mrs. J. Allen Backus, Jr. and Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Sziklas, have been a source of pleasure for almost half a century to the people of Nantucket and visitors to the island. The property, which includes Cos- kata, Coskata Pond, and a portion of Coatue, borders land of the Nantucket Conservation Foundation on Coatue. For more than forty years, Mrs. Backus, and later Mr. and Mrs. Sziklas, have made their property available 'The Trustees of Reservations (Milton, Massa- chusetts) for public use. To ensure that public en- joyment of this fine natural area would continue, the owners contacted The Trus- tees of Reservations, a charitable corpora- tion and one of the country's oldest land- owning conservation organizations. Established by action of the Great Court of Massachusetts, The Trus- tees is privately administered and operates statewide. As custodian of over 55 natural areas and historic sites totalling more than 14,000 acres, The Trustees were obviously qualified recipients of the Nantucket prop- erty. In December 1974, the owners do- nated the property to The Trustees. The donated tract will be known as the Coskata-Coatue Wildlife Refuge, rich with coastal wildlife, finfish and shellfish. Black duck, mallards and Canada geese feed in the shallows, while diving ducks—goldeneye, scoter, old squaw, scaup, bufflehead, and ring-neck— as well as canvasback and eider flock off- shore. Least and common terns nest at Coatue. Other shorebirds include curlews and oyster catchers, blackback and herring gulls and great blue heron. There are pheasants, marsh hawks, short -eared owl and snowy owl, and the property provides habitat for western black -tailed jack rabbit and white-tailed deer. The Trustees of Reservations will protect the integrity of the Coskata- Coatue resources, and retain the oppor- tunity for all who come to Nantucket to view the vast scenic resources, delight in the colorful wildlife, and find peace in the historic reminders of 19th century fisher- men hauling their boats to shore. A Case Study—New York Benefits from Donation and Endowment ' Dr. Wright's practice in Al- bany, New York, demanded that he live close to the downtown area and the hos- pital, so he and Mrs. Wright decided to buy a second home just outside of town. After much searching, they found a lovely 200 -acre retreat traversed by a beautiful stream and containing a spectacular ra- vine and old farmhouse. The total pur- chase price of the land and renovations to the farmhouse was approximately $20,000. Over the years, Dr. and Mrs. Wright used the land as a natural area, built nature trails, and always kept the land open to birders, Scout troops, and local conservation organizations that ap- preciated its beauty and uniqueness. By 1972, the area surrounding Dr. Wright's farm had become fairly well developed, and taxes on the property were quite high. When Dr. Wright sold his practice and bought a home farther out in the country where the taxes were lower and there were less people, he did not know what to do with the farm. Naturally, the Wrights wanted to see the tract protected, but they no longer felt that they could devote the time and money to its preservation. The land had become an in- tegral part of the community, and when it was learned that he intended to sell the property, some people suggested that the area be acquired as a county park. Wright knew that the natural qualities of the ravine and stream would be destroyed by unrestricted public use, so he ap- proached The Nature Conservancy for advice. The Conservancy proposed that the Wrights give the land to the Con - 'David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. servancy to be managed as a nature A Case Study—Corporations Get Into the preserve. Act 6 Dr. Wright was agreeable to this and proceeded to have the property appraised. An appraisal by a local man established an estimated fair market value of $150,000 for the land and build- ings. Dr. Wright had sold his prac- tice under an installment basis and the proceeds from that sale, in addition to other investments, gave him a projected adjusted gross income of $100,000 a year for the next five years. Thus, if he do- nated the farm to the Conservancy, he could shield up t0 30% of his adjusted gross income, or $30,000 per year, for the year of the gift plus five succeeding years. Dr. Wright was going to be in the 70% tax bracket for each of the next five years, so by shielding $30,000 a year from taxes of 70%, he was in effect saving $21,000 a year, over five years, for a net after tax savings of $105,000. Dr. Wright's prime objective was to preserve the land, but obviously, he was quite pleased with the financial aspects of the transaction. The Doctor's accountant figured that if he had sold the property to a developer, he would have had to pay. $15,000 to a broker and close to $45,000 in State and local taxes. Thus, he actually made more by donating the land. The area is now one of The Nature Conservancy's finest preserves in eastern New York and has strong support from both the community and Dr. and Mrs. Wright, who have pledged their tax savings as an endowment to the land. Timber, Inc., one of the major timber corporations in America, re- corded 1970 sales at $320 million a year, and its taxable income was just over $30 million. For many years the company owned close to 100,000 acres of swamp- land in the Chigger Swamp, Louisiana, where Andrew Jackson fought the famous battle of New Orleans. The land was very rich, but its swampy nature made it un- suitable for growing timber on a sus- tained basis. Over the years, the company had cut some timber, but it was of poor quality and reforestation was a difficult and unprofitable task. Some reasoned that there was a good possibility that this heretofore use- less swampland might be converted into profitable farmland, and some experimen- tal farms were started in the late 1960's. The process of converting the swampland into agricultural land consisted of com- pletely clear -cutting the property and sell- ing the timber for as much as possible. Once cut, the land was dyked and drained. Stumps were then cleared, and the land was heavily limed. After a year it was planted, and it was hoped that within five years the land would be capable of supporting two growing seasons. Both Timber, Inc., and the conservation community monitored these experiments with great interest. Timber, Inc., saw the potential of converting this 100,000 acres into farmland as a way of capitalizing on land that had been con- sidered a dead asset. The conservation community saw the - conversion as a threat to one of America's greatest natural and historical areas. Unknown to most 'David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. people, Chigger Swamp was responsible for the water quality of a large part of the Gulf section of the United States. To many people the swamp was unfit for man or beast, but in reality it served as a huge sponge for much of the water run- off from the mid -America States. Envi- ronmentalists felt that if the swamp were cut, ditched, drained, limed and turned into farmland, the water quality of the Gulf might be adversely affected. In seeing this new threat to the swamp, the environmentalists started to oppose actively any further development of the area. As the battle between the new farmers and the environmentalists started to take form, The Nature Conservancy was approached by Timber, Inc., about the possibility of donating the land to the Con- servancy, The Conservancy suggested that Timber, Inc., have the property ap- praised and, once the appraisal was done, further explore the gift alternative in more detail. The company was looking at the land from a "risk versus return" basis, and the donation would be made only if donat- ing the land appeared to be financially more attractive than attempting to con- vert it into farmland. With the appraisal in hand, the company was able to figure out what it would net from the donation. In looking at the risks of converting the swamp into farmland, the Conservancy brought the following points to the company's attention: 1. There was no question that the land was environmentally sensitive, and as a major corporation, the company had an obligation to the American people to preserve the environment. 2. The State and Federal regulations that apply to the conversion of this type of property were still unclear and were presently being tested in the courts. 3. Financially, no one had yet been able to raise two crops in one year on the converted land, but it was generally felt that this could be done sometime in the future. 4. The technology for converting the land was far from perfected. The present machines used for dyking, digging and clearing the land were expensive, but not well suited to the job. A Japanese company was developing a new machine, but as yet, it had not gone into production. 5. The weather had already bank- rupted two companies. One hurri- cane had literally washed away two operations. 6. Environmentalists were launching a major campaign to save the swamp, and the company was quite conscious of its public image since it was a retailer of many paper products. After reviewing the two al- ternatives, the company made their de- cision to give the land to the Conservancy. However, since a corporation can only use a charitable deduction to offset 5% of its taxable income in any one year, the company could not use the total value of the $10 million donation in the year of the gift, plus five succeeding years. The prob- lem was circumvented by having the company give an undivided interest of 40% one year, 40% the next, and 20% the remaining year to the Conservancy. By giving an undivided interest, the Con- servancy had a vested interest in all of the land, yet the company was able to take its donation over an eight-year period. At the time of the first donation, the Con- servancy leased the remainder of the property from the company for $1 and then sublet the entire area to a govern- mental body for management. Testamentary Gift A Case Study—To Give and Bequeath a Piece of History to the Future' The islands, salt marshes, and sand dunes in Ipswich and Essex, Massa- chusetts, are part of the history of New England and the Nation. Wigwam Hill and Hog Island help tell the story of the settlement of the area by Indians and early colonists. Wigwam Hill owes its name to an Indian located there when John Winthrop, Jr., arrived with his company of twelve men from Boston in 1633. The written history of Hog Island begins with an agreement dated March 26, 1640, signed by James -Pitney and John Borwne to "keepe herd of swyne soe many as shall be put before them at Castle Nec and Hogg Island from the 10th of April until harvest . . ." , From Castle HHI` in Ipswich, written in 1911 by Thomas Franklin Waters, and History of the Town of Essex, published in 1868 and written by the Reverend Robert Crowell, comes the early .account of Castle Neck, Hog Island, and surrounding lands. Hog Island and Wigwam Hill 'The Trustees of Reservations (Milton, Massa- chusetts) were once a part of Castle Hill Farm, first owned by John Winthrop, Jr. In 1644, the land "contayning by estimacon one hundred acres" was sold by Winthrop to Samuel Symonds, who in turn willed his entire interest to his step -son, Captain Daniel Epes. The farm remained in the family until it was sold by Samuel Epes, who graduated from Harvard in 1751, to a tenant, John Patch Ill. The forest on Hog Island and the extensive wooded area which covered most of Castle Neck were cherished by the first settlers for their wildlife and timber. Early records show that in 1650, it was "ordered that no man shall fell any timber on Jeffrey's Neck, Castle Neck, Hog Island beyond Chebacco River above the Neck, or in the thick woods near Mr. Saltingstalls and Mr. Rogers farm without license ..." Hog Island's first resident was Thomas Choate, who moved to the island to raise sheep, and in 1725, he built the two-story house which still stands today. The island remained in the possession of the Choate family for more than 100 years. Throughout the years, the beauty of the area, rich with natural resources, has re- mained largely as eager Viking explorers may have found it. In 1910, the property was purchased by Richard T. Crane, Jr., a Chicago manufacturer. Shortly after its purchase, the property at Castle Hill grew to include all the beach and dunes on Castle Neck, much of the marshland and many of the islands, principally Hog Island. In 1945, 16 years atter the death of Richard Crane, Jr., Mrs. Crane and members of the family gave 1,000 acres of the property to The Trustees of Reservations. Four years later Mrs. Crane, recognizing that a gift of land by bequest is a living memorial to the testator, be- queathed an additional 350 acres. Other members of the family gave Patterson Island and an additional 700 acres to the Trustees. Today, the 1,360 -acre Richard T. Crane, Jr., Memorial Reservation is one of the North Shore's most outstanding conservation areas. The area's abundance of wild- life, its historic values, and its extraordi- nary scenic beauty were recognized and appreciated by its owners. Because there was an organization such as the Trustees of Reservations, the owners had a course of action to take. Restrictions When- a landowner decides to donate his property to an organization or governmental agency for protection, it is the landowner's prerogative to include restrictions •in• -tile deed of transfer. Such restrictions can ensure that the land will be managed and used according to the donor's wishes. Donors who place restrictive language in the deed should be aware that the restrictions will most likely have an effect on the fair market value of the property. Through restrictions, the donor is effectively retaining some rights, and these rights have value; thus, the value of the restrictions will be considered in any appraisal of the land. One such restriction is com- monly referred to as a "reverter" clause. By including a reverter clause in the deed, will, or other instrument of transfer, the donor can specify that title to the land or interest in land conveyed will revert to its former owner or to a third party if it ceases to be used for the purposes de- fined in the instrument. Appendix D, Public Act No. 173 of the State of Connecticut, illustrates State legislation that can help clarify and strengthen the status of conservation re- strictions. A Case Study—The Tara Transfer' The Tara plantation, owned by Mr. and Mrs. R. Butler, is located just north of Savannah, Georgia, at the mouth of the Savannah River, Tara was originally created from a 1,000 -acre grant made by. George II, King of England, to one John Noble. The Butlers are direct descendents of John Noble, and the ownership has remained in the family since 1735. Tara served as one of the original buffer forts constructed for the defense of Savannah, and remnants of the early fortress are still intact amidst the marshes, virgin southern pines, and 135 - year -old live oaks that are characteristic of the entire property. The Butler family was extremely aware of Tara's exceptional natural and historical significance, but like many old southern families, they could no longer afford to keep Tara going. The primary problem was real property taxes. As Savannah continued to grow, the real property taxes on Tara kept increasing. When they finally reached $25,000 a year, the Butlers placed Tara into a private foundation, hoping that the foundation would be exempt from real property taxes. This tactic appeared to be successful until 1972, when the State Supreme Court ruled that the Tara Foun- dation was not exempt from real property taxes and owed over $100,000 in back taxes. 'David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. Mr. Butler wanted to give the property to The Nature Conservancy if the Conservancy would pay all back taxes and then retain the property In its present state in perpetuity. Even though the prop- erty was valued in excess of $3 million, the Conservancy would not accept title to the land, for the Conservancy is not exempt from real property taxes in the State of Georgia and had no way of fund- raising the $100,000 necessary to remove the existing lien on the land imposed by the State Supreme Court ruling. No other private conservation organization could afford to hold Tara, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal agency best suited to manage land in a manner ac- ceptable to the Butlers, was not interested. The State of Georgia had just created the Georgia Heritage Trust Pro- gram, designed to acquire and preserve the significant natural, historic and recrea- tional sites within the State. During its first year, the Heritage Commission identi- fied sixteen sites for acquisition, and Tara was the Commission's number two priority. The Butlers were nervous about State ownership, since the family was going to retain the main house and other buildings. The Nature Conservancy developed restric- tive language that would permit the property to be managed in a manner ac- ceptable to the State, while at the same time protecting the Butlers' rights to the property they retained. The Butlers transferred Tara to The Nature Conservancy which, in turn, transferred the land to the State. A man- agement plan, incorporating the restric- tions in the deed, was developed to everyone's satisfaction. Covenants Generally, there are two ways in which covenants can be used to protect valuable resource lands: 1. When a piece of property which is particularly important for its con- servation value goes up for sale, the community buys it. Public officials then draft a covenant setting forth those things which subsequent landowners must do, or must refrain from doing, and legally attach it to the deed of the property. Such a covenant might read: "The property shall always remain a natural greenway along the river, free of subdivision and other development," or "no buildings can be constructed on this property over 50 feet high," or "any future housing development on the prop- erty will be clustered on land outside the prescribed boundaries" (and specific boundaries would be herein delineated). Covenants can be written to "run with the land;" that is, they bind subsequent generations. Once the covenant is written into the deed, the property can be resold by the community. If the covenant only addresses future contingencies, which is often the case, the land will most probably bring almost the same price which the community paid for it in the first place. 2. A covenant can also be attached to land without the necessity of public officials becoming real estate brokers. This can be accomplished by simply paying the present land- owner to attach the desired covenant to his deed. When this is done, the covenant would bind the present landowner, as well as future purchasers of the land. An attorney familiar with land laws and covenant arrangements should be consulted by both the grantor and grantee of conservation covenants. Conservation Easements Often, a community or con- cerned citizen group can protect the con- servation value of a piece of property without any of the accompanying financial burdens. Rather than purchasing the en- tire tract in fee, or condemning it, the organization or community can acquire by gift or purchase an easement. An easement is a right to use land for a particular purpose. If an ease- ment permits something to be done on the land, the easement is affirmative. If an easement prohibits the owner of the land from doing something on his prop- erty, the easement is negative. Easements may also be appurtenant or in gross. An easement appurtenant is one which bene- fits an adjoining piece of land (called the dominant estate). An easement in gross, on the other hand, is one granted to a party who is not an owner of adjacent property and is often considered a per- sonal interest because it doesn't benefit any particular piece of land. Conservation easements are generally negative and very often in gross. Granting of a conservation easement does not involve transfer of title or ownership to the land; rather it means giving up some of the rights to developing the land. A typical easement may: not: Protect the land from heavy indus- trial development and large subdivisions; Specify the maximum number of houses that may be located on the land; Specify that certain parts of the property will remain "forever wild;" Specify the purposes for which the land may be used in future years; Prohibit the clear -cutting of trees; Identify locations on the property where structures may be'allowed In future years; Provide for future activities includ- ing construction of trails, alteration of structures, etc.; Prohibit location of commercial structures such as hotels and motels, multi -family units, bill- boards, etc. A conservation easement does Automatically allow public access to the land. The owner retains his rights as a private property owner; Eliminate the owner's right to sell or lease the land at any time. The sale or lease, however, is subject to the terms of the easement; Remove the land from the com- munity tax rolls; Necessarily extract all development rights. In writing the easement, the owner may merely limit the number of future dwellings; the extent to which the land is preserved depends upon the extensiveness of the development restrictions written into the easement by the owner; Necessarily last forever. An ease- ment can be executed so that it lasts forever (a perpetual easement) or for a term of years (a term easement). Conservation easements are usually granted in perpetuity. Appendix E is a sample deed of easement, illustrating the terms and types of restrictions that can be written into an easement. The first and most important step a landowner should take in seeking conservation easement protection on his land is to locate an organization or agency to administer and enforce the easement. National. organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federa- tion, and the Audubon Society accept do- nations of easements. Any government agency with legal authority to accept in- terests in land may accept or buy ease- ments; these include the National Park Service, State environmental or conserva- tion agencies, and local park districts. Local and regional foundations in the business of preserving land are often excellent recipients and subsequent ad- ministrators of conservation easements. There are certain legal prob- lems about the enforceability of conser- vation easements. "Enforceability" means whether the restrictions are binding upon subsequent owners of the restricted prop- erty or are only enforceable between two original parties. Some States, (Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, California, for example) have passed leg- islation explicitly recognizing conservation easements and establishing their enforce- ability. In the States where there is no specific statute, the general rule is that the easement is enforceable if the person or organization to which the easement is given or sold owns real property which will be benefited by the restrictions. This in practice means real estate which Is contiguous to or very near the land on which the conservation easement is placed. In the absence of such benefited land, there is doubt as to the enforce- ability of the easement unless there is legislation or applicable court decisions in the State.' The consultation of an attor- ney, both for choice of recipient and tax purposes, is essential to the landowner granting an easement. If a landowner has any doubts regarding a potential recipient, he should, through his lawyer, request from the recipient an IRS certificate de- fining its tax and property holding status. The personal benefits to the landowner granting an easement are in real dollar -and -cents terms. Usually, sale or donation of conservation easement rights entitles the landowner to significant tax benefits. Most land is worth something less on the market when development rights have been restricted, so real estate taxes, figured on appraised market value of the land before and after granting of a conservation easement, should be sig- nificantly reduced. Also, a deduction of the value of a conservation easement donated to a government agency or tax-exempt chari- 'David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. table organization for perpetuity is al- lowed by the Internal Revenue Service for Federal income tax purposes (Revenue Ruling 64205 and Income Tax Regula- tions, Section 1.170A-7 (b) (1) (ii)). Finally, when a landowner dies, his land is appraised for the pur- poses of determining Federal and State estate taxes. Because the value of the land protected by easement is less than its fair market value, estate taxes are generally lower, to the degree which the easement limits development. "In Maine, working with conservation easements, we have found there is a definite variation in income tax deductions that takes place. As far as property tax assessments are concerned, property owners don't seem too concerned when we are trying to encourage them to sign a conservation easement about their property taxes going down or very possibly going up. They are interested in the fact that their property taxes probably will not rise at the rate that those of the unprotected land next door will rise. I -know of one case where easement property tax stayed at the same level while all other taxes in the town went up anywhere from 25 to 30 percent." Thomas Cieslinski Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation Not to be overlooked are the public benefits from the granting of a con- servation easement. Easements can pro- tect a water supply or preserve a wildlife habitat; they can minimize potential flood damages in flood plains and minimize erosion in wooded areas. Best of all, they can preserve for future generations the beauty of a natural area and protect an- other portion of America's great heritage of land and water. A Case Study—Maine's Conservation Easement Program i0 The wild beauty of the Maine Coast's 2,500 spruce -covered; rock -rimmed islands has long awed those privileged to view them. Until recently, man's encroach- ment on the islands has been minimal. The farms of early islanders are mostly gone, fields giving way to woods. Those islands cut over for timber have mostly grown back. Even the lingering evidence of granite quarrying on some islands now seems more of historic interest than of scenic blight. Rapid, modern transportation has put Maine's islands within easy reach of the great urban northeast, however, and in the last few decades, island property has become highly sought after for sum- mer retreats. More and more cottages dot once virgin shores, and the green, blue, and gray beauty of the Maine coast is threatened by the very hordes it attracts. In the early 1970's, the Alex- -ander family on Great Island faced a situa- tion quite typical of that facing many families that have summered on the Maine Coast for years. Six brothers- and sisters, now in their fifties and sixties, had inherited a substantial amount of land on Great Island. While each owned tOBenjamin R. Emory, "Conservation Ease- ments Preserve an Island on the Maine Coast," Case No. 4, Case Studies in Land Conservation (Boston, Mass.: New England Natural Resource Center; 1974) summer houses on the island, much of their land remained wild. The undeveloped land, known as the Thorne property, in- cluded about 60 acres within a mile of shorefront and a hill, a lovely landmark from the water and a favorite hike for those wanting a panoramic view of the bay. The Alexander brothers and sisters had numerous children and even more grandchildren. How to apportion their property fairly among increasing numbers of heirs and how to avoid the potential overdevelopment of their treas- ured wild property were perplexing prob- lems. In 1971, the Alexanders were approached by representatives of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT), a private conservation organization which was actively advising Maine property own- ers about the benefits and technicalities of conservation easements. MCHT sug- gested that the Alexanders consider grant- ing a conservation easement in which they would place permanent development re- strictions on the Thorne property. A win- ter of family discussions ensued. By the spring of 1972, the Alexander family was agreed in principle that a conservation easement should be granted, and they requested four things of MCHT: For a first draft of a conservation easement for the Thorne property; that a naturalist evaluate the land and designate features worthy of protection; that a competent attorney familiar with conservation ease- ments be recommended; and, that initial estimates on the resultant change in fair market value be made by the appraiser re- tained by MCHT. All these requests were promptly met. The preparation, publication, and dissemination of the Land Conservation Case Studies is a project of the New England Natural Resource Center. The studies are available at $10 each from the Center, 506 Statler Office Bldg., Boston, Mass. 02116 (617/542-9370). The final easement provided: That all buildings would be prohibited; however, two 2 -acre abutting shore lots and one other small shore lot would be deleted from. the easement -protected area; A right-of-way was excluded from the protected land so that a road and power lines could be run through the property to service the lots; Only recreational and conservation activities would be permitted on the Thorne property; however, the owners retained the right to clear trees on the summit and southern slope of the hill to prevent obstruction of the 360 degree view, to extract gravel from a pit on the Farmland adjacent to urban centers is increasingly threatened by suburban sprawl. property, and to build a septic system to service the house lots; That the family would retain the ability to control public use to prevent damage to the land. The Alexanders decided to grant the easement on the Thorne prop- erty to Acadia National Park. At the end of the summer of 1972, the conservation easement was prepared and a survey was completed to attach to the easement show- ing the boundaries of -the protected land, the right-of-way through the land, the location of the gravel pit, and the area on- the south side of Thorne Hill which could be kept clear of trees. The final document was signed and forwarded .to the Superintendent of Acadia National Park who recorded it at the Registry of Deeds and sent it on to Washington. There, the Secretary of the Interior wrote the Alexanders a formal letter of acceptance. The final step for the prop- erty owners was to commission a formal appraisal by a qualified real estate ap- praiser. The appraiser estimated the value of the easement -protected land to have been $150,000 before the easement and $30,000 after. The six Alexander brothers and sisters each claimed an income tax deduction on one-sixth of the total $120,- 000 reduction in value. The conservation easement also proved to have a stabiliz- ing influence on the Alexander's property tax. The Thorne property conser- vation easement was one of the earliest granted on the Maine Coast. By early 1974, 67 conservation easements protect- ing approximately 5;000 acres had been granted, and as many more were in vari- ous stages of drafting. The growing interest in easement protection in Maine indicates that this tool will play a major role in the conservation of the Maine Coast's scenic, natural, and cultural quali- ties. Over 97 percent of Maine's shoreline is in private ownership, and for the private owner, the conservation easement provides one of the strongest means of ensuring that treasured lands are never developed beyond wise limits. A Case Study—Maryland Buys a Conservation Easement " Mr. and Mrs. Terps owned a 250 -acre farm that abutted aState park just outside of Baltimore, Maryland. As suburban sprawl from Baltimore started to move into their.. community, the real property taxes on the Terps' property started to rise at an alarming rate. Fifteen years agog Mr. Terps' father had purchased 50 acres of adjoining farmland for $50 an acre. Now, the entire farm had been appraised for tax purposes at close to $1,000 an , acre. This appraisal was up from $500 an acre just three years earlier, and Mr. Terps was afraid he would no longer be able to profitably farm the land. Because the property had been recently upzoned from agriculture to 1/2 -acre single family residential, several developers approached Mr. Terps with pro- posals to buy the land and build tract homes. Since the farm abutted a popular State park, Mr. Terps thought that before considering the developers' proposals he should contact the State to see if they had any interest in acquiring the land as a park_ addition. The property was separated from the park by a small stream, and both the State and the Terps had always "David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. enjoyed this natural boundary. The State had no desire to expand the park, but at the same time, they felt that the develop- ment of the Terps' property would have a severe negative effect on their present park operations. Thus, they told Mr. Terps that they would be very interested in acquiring his farm as buffer land, but unfortunately, they did not have any money earmarked for further acquisitions within this par- ticular park. The State called The Nature Conservancy, and staff members met with Mr. Terps to discuss the land. It became apparent that Mr. Terps had no desire to sell the farm if he could just figure out a way to hold onto the property. The Con- servancy asked Mr. Terps if he would be willing to donate a. conservation easement on his land to the State of Maryland, giv- ing up his right, to develop the land, but retaining the option to work the land as a farm as long as he wanted. The farm would remain private property and Mr. Terps .would have full control over its use. All the State would have is a "negative right" in the land that would prevent Mr. Terps, or any future owner, from develop- ing the land. Under Maryland law, the development rights would have value and the property would have to be reassessed in light of the conservation easement. Mr. Terps said he was interested, but he would like to see some figures. The State had the develop- ment rights appraised. The appraisal showed that Mr. Terps' land was worth $1,000 an acre, but that comparable farmland was selling for $500 an acre in other parts of the State. Thus, the devel- opment rights were worth approximately $500 an acre, or $125,000 for the entire farm. After much thought, Mr. Terps asked the State to purchase the conservation easement. The State had Land and Water Conservation Funds available, and they were willing to make an application for 50% of the easement's fair market value. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation approved a matching grant for $67,500, and Mr. Terps agreed to bargain sale a conservation easement on the en- tire farm to the State. The Conservancy then recom- mended a local attorney to advise Mr. Terps on how to use the donation value of the easement to help offset the Federal and State capital gains tax he would have to pay on the sale of the development rights. The after tax effects were quite attractive to Mr. Terps, especially since he had sold something that he never knew he had and the sale had cut his real property taxes in half. The State was, of course, very pleased since they had been able to preserve 250 acres of key buffer land without having to purchase the en- tire property. Bargain Sale 12 In many cases, a landowner cannot, for some reason, simply give his land to an organization or government agency for protection, and the alternative of purchasing the property at either a bargain sale price or at full fair market value must be explored. A bargain sale is a purchase price at less than the ap- praised estimate of fair market value. When a piece of property is purchased, regardless whether it is at full fair market value or at bargain sale price, certain things should be re- quired, including an appraisal, a survey, 12 David E. Morine, The Nature Conservancy, unpublished paper of case histories on preserva- tion of natural, recreational, and historical sites. and most importantly, title insurance. Whether the buyer or the seller pays for any or all of these things is usually deter- mined by local custom, but they are fac- tors that can be negotiated as part of the agreement. In large acquisitions, an ap- praisal, a survey, and title insurance can result in a considerable amount of money. For example, in a recent large acquisition by The Nature Conservancy, the appraisal was $30,000; the survey, $60,000; and the title search and, insurance, $10,000. If the owner of a piece of ,property feels that he has to receive some actual cash for his land, a bargain sale Is often a very attractive alternative to the owner, especially if he has a low cost basis on the property and a high income. The long term capital gains tax which results from the sale of appreciated prop- erty can have an adverse effect on an indi- vid'ual`s adjusted gross income. The long term capital gains tax allows the seller to put all of his original cost of the prop- erty and one-half of the profit from the sale into his pocket, without any taxes. The other half of the profit is added to the seller's adjusted gross income before deductions, and unless there are some sizeable deductions to shield this addi- tional income, the increased taxes can have an adverse effect on the seller's or- dinary income. By adding one-half of the profit to his ordinary income, the seller will probably be pushed into a higher tax bracket, which adversely affects not only his profits from the sale, but also the net after tax return on his ordinary income. A bargain sale to a non-profit organization or governmental body at less than appraised fair market value not only gives the donor a deduction with which he can shield his adjusted gross income, but it also may provide a simple way for the owner to realize fair market value with- out actually placing the property on the open market. A Case Study—Bargain Sale and BOR Assistance " Over the past 10 years, the New England States, particularly Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, have wit- nessed consumption of their rural lands at a frightening pace by vacation -home and residential development. In order to protect extensive tracts of forestland and to meet the growing demand for public recreation, Vermont citizens and State and local governments have had to be- come more aggressive and more imagina- tive in their land protection techniques. In April 1971, a 3,100 -acre tract in Rutland County, adjacent to the Calvin Coolidge State Forest and highly attractive to subdivision developers, came on the market. The owners, two business- men from Rutland who owned the land as a joint investment but were not dealers in real estate for tax purposes, were anxious to sell the land as quickly as possible. In hopes of speeding up the property sale, they listed it, on an ex- clusive basis, with a well-known Rutland real estate broker, and indicated that they would lower their price by 20 percent if a non-profit, charitable agency would make an offer. At the same time, however, the broker was actively showing the property to potential private buyers. The State Agency of Environ- mental Conservation was interested in the tract but had no State land acquisition monies available to match a potential Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Land and 17Davis Cherington, "Bargain Purchase of Land by an Exempt Organization: A Vermont Case Study," Case No. 3, Case Studies in Land Conservation (Boston, Mass.: New England Natural Resource Center, 1974) A Water Conservation Fund grant and had to act quickly given the property's active advertisement to private developers. Knowing that BOR will accept one-half the fair market value of a tract as the State matching share for L&WCF funding, the Agency of Environmental Conservation approached the Rutland landowners with a proposal to purchase the land for 50 percent of the fair market value, thus relieving the State entirely of any contribution of matching funds for a L&WCF grant. The State's proposal was based on the owners' ability to claim a charitable deduction for the 50 percent donation on their Federal income tax. The owners would not com- mit themselves until they knew the results of a land appraisal, and their willingness to enter the selling agreement was con- tingent -on the Agency's ability to pay the purchase price by November 15, 1971. The appraised value of the property turned out to be $610,000, so the Agency applied for a $305,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant. By this time, approval of the Land and Water project by November 15 was not feasible, so the Agency turned to The Nature Con- servancy to obtain temporary financing through the Conservancy's interim pur- chase and holding procedures. Meanwhile, the owners of the 3,100 acres were trying to decide whether or not to sell for the $305,000 price. In early September, the Conservancy, sat down with them and asked for a commit- ment, pointing out the advantages of the proposed transaction: 1. The owners would receive $305,000 in cash, providing them with in- stant liquidity which no private buyer would be likely to offer; 2. They could deduct one-half of the contribution on their Federal income taxes in amounts up to 30 percent of their gross annual adjusted incomes in the year of the gift and could carry over any unused deduction for the succeeding 5 years, since both owners were in a 50 percent or higher tax bracket; 3. In addition, the owners would avoid approximately $80,000 in State and Federal capital gains taxes, and they would avoid the 10 percent broker's fee; 4. The Conservancy could close the transaction just as quickly as title work could be accomplished, and 5. -The owners would be publicly recognized for their generosity. On October 1, 1971, the owners agreed to sell for $305,000 and to make a gift of the remaining $305,000. On October 4, the Conservancy signed a purchase and sale agreement, and on November 18, the transaction was closed. A month and a half later, the Conservancy sold the property to the State of Vermont for $312,224.79, the increase reflecting interest and legal fees to the Conservancy. The Vermont Agency re- ceived a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant sufficient to cover all costs of acquisition. In effect, the State of Vermont was able to acquire 3,100 acres for con- servation and public enjoyment at abso- lutely no out-of-pocket cost to the State Treasury. State agencies, communities, and organizations which purchase land for conservation using Federal sources of funding should be familiar with the Uni- form Real Property Acquisition Policy, Title III of Public Law 91-646, 1970, which seeks to assure consistent treatment and just compensation for landowners. A Case Study—California's Hippy Preserve " The Nature Conservancy had long been interested. in acquiring a 1,000 - acre tract in southern California known as the Hippy Preserve. The property was surrounded by 2,000 acres owned by the State Fish and Game Department, and together the two tracts encompassed an entire watershed which flowed directly into the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Hippy had purchased the tract in 1929 for $10,000. With the exception of Mr. Hippy's house and a few acres of farmland, the property remained completely wild. For many years, Mr. Hippy lived on the land and managed to eke out a living from a one-man saw mill opera- tion that he had run since he came to the property in 1930. Mr. Hippy received offers for the land off and on, but he always refused to sell. Then in 1950, the government condemned some property Mr. Hippy owned outside the watershed for a Nike site, and Mr. Hippy netted close to $100,000 from the condemnation. He invested the proceeds from this condem- nation in government bonds, and that in- come, coupled with whatever he made on his sawmill, gave him an annual income of approximately $10,000 a year. In 1965, Mr. Hippy called The Nature Conservancy and offered to sell the property for its appraised fair market value. The Conservancy advised Mr. Hippy to have the property appraised, and the appraisal estimated the fair market value to be $250,000. Conservancy staff approached a Southern California founda- tion to see if they would make available the necessary funds to make the pur- chase. The foundation pledged $100,000 to the project if this money could be matched by a general fund-raising effort. The Conservancy secured pledges totaling $50,000 from concerned individuals and felt certain that an additional $50,000 could be raised. Still $50,000 short, the Con- servancy asked Mr. Hippy to sell the prop- erty for the bargain sale price of $200,000. Mr. Hippy was interested in preserving the land, but he did not understand how anyone with his modest income could benefit from a $50,000 donation. The Conservancy explained that since his basis in the property was only $10,000, he would have a large capital gains tax to pay if he sold the land on the open market for its fair market value. This capital gains tax would not only affect his net return on the sale of the property, but it would also force him into a higher tax bracket, which would mean he would have to pay more taxes on his ordinary income. On paper, the analysis was: 1) Mr. Hippy's annual adjusted gross income for the five years after the sale would be $24,000 a year. 2) Federal income taxes for a single personwith an adjusted gross income of $20,000 a year are 35%. State of California taxes are 10%. Total income tax rate is 45%. 3) Total State and Federal long term capital gains taxes (LTCG) on a sale of $250,000 with a basis of $10,000 are 40%. State and Federal LTCG taxes on a sale of $200,000 with an adjusted basis of $8,000 are 35%. Sale on the Open Market Selling Price $250,000 Less Broker's $200,000 Commission of 10% —251000 Net Selling Price 225,000 Less Cost Basis —10,000 Gains 215,000 Long Term Capital Gains —62,000 State and Federal 130,000 Taxes at 40% —86,000 Return After Taxes 129,000 Plus Basis 10,000 Net Return After Taxes $139,000 Bargain Sale to The Nature Conservancy Selling Price $200,000 Less Adjusted Cost Basis —8,000 192,000 Long Term Capital Gains State and Federal Taxes at 35% —62,000 Return After Taxes 130,000 Plus Basis 8,000 Plus Tax Shield 22,500* Net Return After Taxes $160,500 *45% rate x $50,000 donation spread over the year of the gift plus the five following years, if necessary. It should be noted that: (1) an installment sale, (2) income averaging and (3) the alternative tax treatment ap- plicable to the first $50,000 LTCG, would help lower the tax rate. For this reason, anyone who is either giving or bargain - selling land to a non-profit organization or a governmental agency should consult with their own attorney and/or accountant regarding the tax implications of the donation. When Mr. Hippy saw these figures, he immediately agreed to sell the property to the Conservancy for the bar- gain sale price of $200,000, and take the difference as a charitable donation. In fact, he was so delighted with the whole transaction that he donated $10,000 in cash to the Conservancy at the closing. The Conservancy then entered into a long-term lease with the Bureau of Land Management for the 2,000 acres that had surrounded Mr. Hippy. The Con- servancy now has an active management program on the entire property, and the Hippy Preserve is one of their finest proj- ects. Protecting A Heritage The range of conservation tactics, or land protection techniques, employed by the Federal -State -local -private team is broad. What will work in one situation, however, may not be adaptable to, another. Circum- stances and the nature of the land must determine the applicability of one tech- nique over another. One fact remains, however; the job can be done. It is being done by governments, private organizations, and citizens all over America. Land protection advocates must watch and learn from the experiences of others, utilizing every tech- nique now known and developing better ones. Of key importance is the fact that, "Alone, any single device is limited; together, they strengthen each other. 15 Just as the devices are limited, the Federal Government, a State, a community, a private organization, or an individual working alone will find only limited success. Working together, shar- ing experiences, we can protect what we value—our national, natural heritage. "William H. Whyte, The Last Landscape (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Publishers; 1968) ROBINS ISLAND ��q,FFp,•� � FINAL REPORT i PUBLIC FUNDING Grants to acquire and preserve environmentally unique properties are available from the County, State,. and Federal levels of government. County The Suffolk County Charter (Section 110, of Article I) states that "...the county may dedicate properties it owns to the County Nature Preserve". Once property is dedicated, it is to remain preserved forever. A preserve cannot be used for recreational purposes. It should be noted that so far, no property has ever been dedicated to the County Nature Trust. The details in the Nature Preserve Handbook (Suffolk County Council on Envir- onmental Quality) are guidelines only. In the case of Robins Island, the Town Board would have to request of County Executive Peter�-Cohalan that he sponsor a bill before the County Legislature. If the bill is passed, the Legislature would then have to appropriate the amount of money necessary to acquire the island. Because of strength of "home rule" feelings in the Town of Southold, County Executive Cohalan emphasized that he will support County acquisition of Robins if, and only if, the Town Board requests that he do so. He also stressed that an agree- ment could be reacned whereby the Town could exercise control - 5:0 - • OcyfF4,r� ROBINS ISLAND 'S,�( *�7 �9®� FINAL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING over operation and maintenance of the island. Thus while the County would own the island, the Town could control the use of it. Analysis No County Nature Preserve has ever been established. f. If Southold Town should ask the County to acquire Robins Island and dedicate it to the Nature Trust, it would be breaking new ground. The fact that Robins Island would be the first County Nature Preserve should not pose problems as long as the Town is able to obtain satisfactory control over the use of the island. It is not known at this time, under this arrangement, which level of government will be responsible for the cost of maintenance and operation. State The only State monies that could be used in this situa- tion are those earmarked for wetland.acquisition. Anthony Taormina, the New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation (NYS-DEC) spokesperson on wetlands, has publicly stated that the NYS-DEC.would consider acquiring only the wet- lands. Wetlands comprise approximately 30 acres of Robins Is- land's total area -of 430 acres. The Robins Island Advisory Committee invited Mr. Carl Helms, Director of the Quogue Wildlife Sanctuary, to speak on - 51 - ��Fqq� o ROBINS ISLAND �(®� FINAL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING October 23, 1980. He explained that the, Quogue.Wildlife Sanctuary is partially owned and solely managed by the NYS- DEC. The Village of Quogue and a private group known as the Southampton Township Wildfowl Association own the remainder of the sanctuary. This Sanctuary is an excellerit example of the positive benefits of cooperation between local government, a state agency and a private organization. Cooperative ventures of this sort should be considered because they offer economically workable solutions to land acquisition and management. Because of political tensions and differences between the State DEC and the Town, the Robins Island Advisory Committee felt that pursuing State Aid would not be feasible. Therefore, no further investigations were made. Federal The U. S. Department of Interior is the federal agency charged with conserving and protecting the nation's natural resources. Two divisions within this Department have programs relevant to Robins Island: the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HORS), both of which administer funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 52 - OylfFpfi� ROBINS ISLAND '2• � �9®� FINAL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established in 1965 "to provide money for the acquisition of land and water interests for outdoor recreation purposes and for habitat for fish and wildlife species threatened with extinction."1 Money for the fund comes from revenues from outer continental shelf leases (offshore oil drilling), taxes on motorboat fuel and income from the sale of government surplus real property. The Fish and Wildlife Service acquires wildlife habitat, including wetlands, and manages these lands as wildlife refuges. Through its Migratory Bird Program, Fish and Wildlife Service identifies significant waterfowl habitat and purchases those lands in fee or easement for refuges. Through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L & WCF) Fish and.Wildlife'Service purchases land in fee or easement to protect wildlife, espec- ially threatened and endangered species. These programs are particularly important to Robins Island because the island is in the Atlantic Flyway, and itis also host to pairs of nesting ospreys,. an endangered species. The Heritage Conservation and Resource Service is broadly concerned with the protection of natural and cultural resources, such as historical landmarks, recreational park properties and environmentally unique areas. Heritage Conservation and Resource Service also administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program. 1 National Wetlands Newsletter, July -August 1980. Page 6 - 53 ROBINS ISLAND�®� FINAL REPORT 4 PUBLIC FUNDING Forty percent of the money in the Land and Water Conserva; tion Fund is used to purchase land of national significance. Sixty percent of the money goes to the States or their local governments. However, the Land and Water Conservation Fund can only grant up to 50% of the total amount of money needed for acquisition. This means that if the Town receives a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant, it will still have to obtain half of the necessary money from other sources, public or pri- vate. The Town, however, would assume full title to the island. The only stipulation attached to- the use of Land and Water Con- servation Fund monies is that the Town permanently dedicate use of the island to public outdoor recreation. This use can pro- bably be defined as being limited to nature walks and other simi- lar activities. Mr. Glenn Eugster, of the regional office of Heritage Conservation and Resource, emphasized that a range of recreational uses of the island would be considered in a feder- ally -funded resource study. Heritage Conservation and Resouce Study would give the Town money with which to pay a consultant or consulting firm to conduct the study. The Town can contract with the consultant of its choice. - 54 - � ROBINS ISLAND �t �oyfFFLL'd�� FINAL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING After the study is completed, Heritage Conservation and Resource Study will indicate its preference among recreational uses. If the Town disagrees and no'compromise can be reached, the Town can end negotiations and withdraw its application. The Town would work directly with Heritage Conservation and Resource Study. A representative of the State of New.York would probably take part in the process because the grant monies, (for the study and for the acquisition) by law, must go from Heritage Conservation Resource Study to the State, then'to the Town. Town Ultimately the Town of Southold may find that, for reasons of local control, it may wish -to fund fully the acquisition of Robins Island. This action, properly taken, would require the Town to underwrite the cost of acquisition by means of a muni- cipal bond, maturing in either twenty or thirty years. Unlike a mortgage paid in installments, the principal sum of a municipal bond is due at the date of maturity -in a lump sum, so responsible fiscal policy would dictate the establishment of a sinking fund into which a sum is paid annually which, with accrued interest, will equal the face amount of the bond at maturity. The following chart illustrates this: - 55 - ROBINS ISLAND # 1117AL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING Years to Maturity 20 Years 30 Years $2,000,000 financed 60943.84 33169.70 $3,000,000 financed 91415.76 49739.54 Annual principal payment to sinking fund invested at 5az 96 Because interest on municipal bonds is not taxable to the investor, such bonds carry a lower rate of interest than do Federal or Private obligations. Recently, municipal bond rates have hovered around ten percent, and the Town of South- old, with its outstanding fiscal condition, would be in a posi- tion.to take advantage of the lowest rates available at the time the bond was issued. The following charts illustrate the effect of principal payment and interest, payment in other words, the total cost of aquisition on Southold Town's overall tax rate: I Annual Cost 20 Years 30 Years $2,000,000 Principal $609943.84 $33,169.70 Interest at 10% 200,000900 2009000.00 Total Annual Cost 260,943.84 233.16.9.70 $3,000,000 Principal $91,415.76 $49,739.54 Interest.at 10% 300,000.00 3009000.00 Total Annual Cost $3919415.76 $3799739.54 - 56 - ROBINS ISLANDt ��� FINAL REPORT PUBLIC FUNDING Increase in Tax Rate (1981 Rates) 20 Years 30 Years $29000,000 1.66% 1.48% $390009000 2.48% 2.22% The average taxpayer in Southold Town might thus expect an increase of $1.66 per $100.00 in taxes now paid should Robins Island be acquired for $2,000,000 on a 20 year bond. All possible funding liabilities and their impact on town - wide tax rates, from $100,000 to $5,000,000 are listed in $100,000 increments in Appendix A FINAL WORD ON FUNDING The foregoing describes in detail where funds can be obtained for purposes of acquisition of Robins Island. Until the Town Board, as a matter of legislated policy, decides to preserve Robins Island in its natural state, funds cannot be pledged by donor agencies. Therefore, while the Robins Island Advisory Committee can describe funds available, it is up to the Town Board as lead agency, or a designated committee, to secure pledges. - 57 - �QcyFfgr� ROBINS ISLAND ?��g FINAL REPORT MANAGING THE .ISLAND Once the island is acquired, management policy must be established. The Robins Island Advisory Committee explored the benefits and disadvantages of three different management alternatives. Each alternative differs with regard to two factors: 1) the number of people to be allowed to visit the island ' at any one time, and: 2) the activities permitted these visitors once they are on the island. The three management policies described below are not the only options possible. However, they do represent a range of workable arrangements by which Robins Island could be managed. I. Nature Preserve - No Public Access II. Nature Preserve - Limited Access III. Nature Preserve - General Access MANAGING THE ISLAND - NO ACCESS The first option is to manage the island as it has been managed for the past several years. This option would require minimal caretaking and security services because no visitors would be allowed. ADVANTAGES This alternative costs -the least. The entire island could be protected for less than $35,000 annually. It offers the greatest ecological benefits. Since human intervention would - 58 - ROBINS ISLAND # FINAL REPORT MANAGING THE ISLAND - NO ACCESS be minimal, natural systems would be able to flourish as nature intended. This arrangement especially favors species which are under pressure from overdevelopment, as for example, the osprey, which is one of New York State's endangered species. DISADVANTAGES The residents of Southold Town would not be able to visit the island. - 59 - ROBINS ISLANDf ��� FINAL REPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS NATURE PRESERVE NO PUBLIC ACCESS Annual Expenses 1. Personnel One (1) Caretaker, year-round, live on island with benefits such as: Housing, Retirement & Vacations $ 159000 Two (2) Caretakers, part-time: June, July, August 6,000 $ 21,000 2. Supplies STSM For Caretakers such as: Paper Products, Soap, Etc. $ 400 3. Utilities $ 1,500 4. Transportation To, from and on the island, including boat and land vehicles: Gas and Maintenance $ 89000 5. Liability Insurance $ 232 6. Miscellaneous Expenses $ 29000 Total 33,132 STSM y ROBINS ISLAND ��i �oy1FF4,r�. FINAL REPORT 4 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS NATURE PRESERVE NO PUBLIC ACCESS Capital Costs - To be included in cost of acquisition 1. Housing Year-round Caretaker's house renovation $ 89000 2. Generator Overhaul $ 19000 3. "Fire Extinguishing Equipment and First Aid Supplies Indian Tanks $ 11000 Turn Out Equipment $ 19500 Shovels, Axes & Misc. Tools $ 200 First Aid Supplies $ 100 Tank for Pick-up: 250 gallon capacity $ 79500 with pump, reel and hose $ 10,300 4. Transportation to, from and on the island One (1) New Supply Boat, estimate on 19 ft; 80 HP $ 99000 One (1) New Pick-up Truck $ 79500 Existing Jeep Overhaul $ 800 $ 17,300 5. Communications Radio to Town Police - Portable $ 1,200 Marine Radio $ 350 $ 38 - 61 - ROBINS ISLAND ���y¢F@X� t FINAL REPORT 4 MANAGING THE ISLAND - LIMITED ACCESS The second option is to permit limited publicaccess to the island. A restricted number of people would be per- mitted on the island, by advance reservation and under the supervision of the caretaker and a seasonal staff ofnature guides. Visitors would be required to provide their own boat transportation to the island. Advantages This alternative would permit the genuinely interested public to visit the island without endangering the ecolo- gical systems there. It might'provide a limited business to shoreside boat operators in Mattituck, New Suffolk, and Cutchogue whose services would'be required to transport visi- tors to the island. Disadvantages This option would -require a slightly larger staff and operating budget than would a preserve with no public access:. 0 - 62 - • ROBINS ISLAND ���ocyffgr� r FINAL REPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS NATURE PRESERVE LIMITED ACCESS Annual Expenses 1. Personnel 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One (1) Caretaker, year-round, live on island with benefits such as: Housing, Retirement, Vacations Two (2) Caretakers, part-time; June-, July, August One (1) Seasonal Guide Supplies For Caretakers and Visitors such as: Paper Products, Soap, Etc. Utilities $ 15,000 $ 6,000 $ 1,500 $ 22,500 $ 1,000 $ 1,600 Transportation To, from and on the island,.including boat and land vehicles: Gas & Maintenance $ Liability Insurance $ Miscellaneous Expenses $ - 63 - Total 10,000 232 3,000 38,332 O�yffgr� ROBINS ISLAND �I®� FINAL REPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS NATURE PRESERVE LIMITED ACCESS Capital Costs - To be included in cost of acquisition 1. Housing Year-round Caretaker's House renovation $ 89000 Part-time Caretakers; Lunch Facility including renovation for Public Rest Rooms $ 19000 2. Generator Overhaul $ 1,000 3. Fire Extinguishing Equipment & First Aid Supplies Indian Tanks $ 1, 000 Turn Out Equipment $ 19500 Shovels, Axes, Misc. Tools $ 200 First Aid Supplies $ 200 Tank for Pick-up, 250 gallon capacity $ 79500 with pump, reel and hose 10,400 4. Transportation to, from and on the island One (1) New Supply Boat, estimate on 19 ft. 80 HP $ 99000 One (1) New Pick-up Truck $ 7,500 Existing Jeep Overhaul $ 19500 Existing Tractor with Motor Overhaul $ 1,500 $ 19,500 5. Communications Radio to Town Police - Portable 19200 Marine Radio $ X350 $ 1,500 6. Dock Repairs - Probable construction of new, small dock, 80 ft. pier, 8' x 32' float $ 179500 Total $ 589950 - 64 - � Oy1FF4,1•r ®q� ROBINS ISLAND 'D T$t FINAL REPORT 4 MANAGING THE ISLAND - GENERAL ACCESS The third option is to create a nature preserve with recreational facilities, and general access to these facili- ties by the public., This -would require developing a recrea- tion area with docking facilities for small private craft, a swimming area with lifeguarding facilities, picnic areas, nature trails and fencing to keep people out of ecologically fragile areas. ADVANTAGES A recreational nature preserve would offer increased re- creational opportunities to residents and to summer visitors who are an important'source of income to businesses in Southold Town. DISADVANTAGES A recreational nature preserve requires extensive main- tenance and security services, including police, lifeguards and medical personnel. Opening an island of this size,to unlimited numbers of people will create social and ecological problems which might lessen the benefits of preserving the island from development. Further, unrestricted numbers of people visiting Robins Island might cause additional problems in New Suffolk and elsewhere on the mainland. - 65 - ROBINS ISLAND # PINAL REPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS NATURE PRESERVE GENERAL ACCESS Annual Expenses 1. Guards - two shifts of one man each 10 a.m. to 3 a.m. - 8 hour shifts 40 hours - one man for week ends - part time. One man for extra patrols in summer months -. 4 months. Regular patrols for 9 months. $ 369000.00 2. Maintenance men - two men for one year for initial clean up, one extra for summer maintenance 1st year $ 279000.00 Two men for 9 months after first year $ 189000.00 3. Manager - complete charge of personnel - boat, groups, etc. with benefits (run boat) $ 25,000.00 Part time assistant $ 10,000.00 4. Fuel, supplies, first aid, etc. $ 119000.00 5. Summer months - provisions -set up for accidents and sickness $ 39500.00 6. Liability Insurance $ 2,500.00 $ 1159000.00 These estimates of utilities, facilities and maintenance are based on having one inboard boat for all transportation to island. All public transportation by private carrier. - 66 - �yRF4Y� R ROBINS ISLAND s FINAL REPORT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS NATURE PRESERVE GENERAL ACCESS Capital Costs - To be included in cost of acquisition 1. Rebuild two present generators and modernize service to outside buildings $ 3,500.00 2. Communications of island to mainland $ 19200.00 3. Reburbish present house on island for manager & family, also office space $ 30,000.00 4. Sleeping facilities for guards at any time, using long brooder house building $ 159000.00 5. Cooking & dining facilities for guards, maintenance men and other service per- sonnel, using brooder house building $ 159,000.00 6. New Suffolk parking, demolish present building, necessary channel dredging & limited parking field developed with necessary guardrails, etc. $ 509000.00 7. Buy inboard closed cabin ferry & workboat used $ 20,000.00 8. Repairs to Robins Island dock $ 9. Necessary landing dock in New Suffolk $ 10. Fire Control - Vehicle, tanks $ 109600.00 11. Island equipment for maintenance men,' oil, gas, machinery, chain saw, small tools, dump truck $ 35,000.00 12. Supplies for island --paper products, original amount food, condiments, etc. $ 39000.00 13. Architect fees for necessary repairs to $ 7,500.00 main house, housing for guards, New Suffolk' work, dock repaired at island - estimate only Totals $ 1909800.00 - 67 - ROBINS ISLAND�`®� FINAL REPORT MANAGEMENT COSTS - TWO EXAMPLES To gain prospective on management costs for nature pre- serves in this area, the committee asked Carl Helms of the Quogue Wildlife Refuge, and Terry Schreiner of the Morton Na- tional Wildlife Refuge to provide approximate cost figures for the operations for which they are responsible. Mr. Helms stated that the annual operating budget at Quogue,exclusive of capital costs,is about $25,000 including the distressed bird center. Capital.costs vary, and he was not able to provide a depreciated annual figure. He stated that the operating budget, and -all capital costs, are "well within $50,00011. .He remarked that he is employed by the New York State.Department of Environmental.Conservation. A tech- nologist at DEC is paid $10,000 to start, and a degreed biolo- gist is paid $15,000. Mr. Schreiner stated that the expenditures at Morton have averaged between $25,000 and $30,000 during the three years he has been there, including capital expenditures. He is a federal. civil service employer, ranked at level G. S. -.7, and is paid $13,800 annually, to which $1400 in benefits is added, all of which is included in the above figures. 1 ON I TAX IMPACT OF REMOVAL FROM TAX ROLLS, AND COST OF MANAGEMENT.IF PAID FROM TOWN REVENUES w z yC Z gswg 1980 - 1981 IF R/I WAS. COST OF. PERCENTAGE INCREASE REMOVED FROM MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT COST PER $100 NOW PAID TAX ROLLS ALTERNATIVE #1 ALTERNATIVE #2 ALTERNATIVE #3 Townwide 0.24% 0.21018% 0.24317% 0.72954% 24¢ 210 24¢ 73V Orient/East Marion 0.1194% 0.25462% 0.29488% 0.88378% 120 250 29¢ 88� Fishers Island 0.1029% 0.21917% 0.25357% 0.76075% 10¢ 210 250 760 Southold 0.10495% 0.22391% 0.25905% 0.7772% 10v 22¢ 26¢ 78� Mattituck-Cutchogue 0.09719% 0.20909% 0.24191% 0.72576% 100 21¢ 240 7U Unincorporated Greenport 0.08869% 0.18915% 0.21884% 0.65656% 9¢ 19x6 22¢ 66¢ Laurel 0.09949% -0.21216% 0.24545% 0.7364% 100 210 250 74¢ w z yC Z gswg i 0 1 TAX IMPACT OF REMOVAL FROM TAX ROLLS, AND COST OF MANAGEMENT IF PAID FROM TOWN REVENUES (Cont.) 1980 - 1981' PERCENTAGE INCREASE COST PER $100 NOW PAID New Suffolk Village of Greenport IF R/I WAS COST OF COST OF COST OF REMOVED FROM MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT TAX ROLLS ALTERNATIVE #1 ALTERNATIVE #2 ALTERNATIVE #3 15.96918% 0.25703% 0.29737% 0.89215% $15.97 26¢ 300 890 0.0572% 0.07914% 0.09156% 0.27471% 60 8¢ 90 270 For Calculations See Appendix ROBINS ISLAND 'a � ®" FINAL REPORT TO: ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: ANDREW E. GOODALE, MEMBER REPORT ON IMPACT ON NEW SUFFOLK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ORIGINALASSTGNMT OF AN AMENDMENT OF JANUARY 139 1981 BY THE TOWN BOARD I. 1. Hamlet of New Suffolk consists of about 200 residents principally owning own homes. a). Estimated 6 1/2 miles of streets laid out in grid pattern. b). Access roads leading West to Mattituck, about 3 miles; North to Cutchogue, 1 mile c). Inhabitants are mostly retirees; working and professional occupations; summer residents along south and west sections. of the hamlet. d). The commercial premises in the community consist of post office, two liqu©r licen- sed restaurants, two boat rental stations, two boat storage & repair yards & two va- cant business premises. e). Majority of premises constructed around the early 1900's. 2. 'Access to Robins Island from land of current owners. a). District 1000 - Section 117 - Block 8 Lot 19- i. 9 i. Land & building ii. Dimensions about 92' on First Street, 131' on Peconic Bay iii. Estimated area for parking 35 cars on 1/2 acre if two depreciated buildings are demolished. Flooding at extreme high tides. ivo Jackson Street, (paper street) adjoins 50' on the south, with a Town Launching Ramp. Access to Peconic Bay. v. About 212' of retaining jetty and pro- tecting bulkhead lies along the south boundary of Lot 19 and is in poor condi- tion and sitting sand. has filled the access to Peconic Bay. - 71 - ROBINS ISLAND b� FINAL REPORT 4 b). District 100 - Section 117 - Block 8 - Lot 20 i. Depreciated former Oyster Shop building in poor condition on land about 290' on First Street and some 226' on South, 265' on East and Peconic Bay with rock jetty to form the unused boat basin, land and building ii. No present use of basin due to silting of sand predominating from the East. iii. Essential need of 1001 of rebuilt jetty from North end of Oyster Shop to rock jetty to prevent silting. Dredging of access area for Robin Island boat and to Town Launching ramp is necessary for use. iv. Fill of material to create about 1 1/2 acres of upland is required. c). District 1000 - Section 117 - Block 8 - Lot 22 i.. Town of Southold Parking Lot, about 2751,on First Street and 2031 on Peconic Bay, for.swimming by Town residents, and parking by non-resi- dents using launching ramp on payment of fee. II. Assessed valuation of all Robin Island Properties and terminal $229,600 1. Tax Revenues: New Suffolk School -District 24,070 Town of Southold 10,650 County of Suffolk 49947 Special Districts 88 2. Town of Southold Information for Taxpayers Sheet 7,000 a). State Aid for New Suffolk i.. Under. "Hold Harmless formula, no increase projected. - 72 - ROBINS ISLAND ��cpFFryp� �i FINAL REPORT 4 III. 1.. Alternate: New. Suffolk School and residents of removal of tax revenues from Robins Island, and rate to New Suffolk per $100. $ 16.13 a). Seek compensation of equal amount from other funding b). Test the application of equalization under Sections of 1302 and 202 of the Real Property Law c). As mandated by law to consider joining Mattituck-Cutcho e District, at an es- timated rate of 3300.00 per student per year as compared to present rate of $2400 with Southold 2. On the basis of inflation, will Southold Town increase more than 1/.15 of assessed valuation as indicative of fair market value in order to real- ize a higher tax return. The matter of 100% is pending and is relative to future tax revenues in New Suffolk and nearby areas. 3. Concept of the "Community Conscience" - What is needed to promote the residents welfare, Federal, State and Local i. Meeting of local residents on 10/10/80. Pros and Cons of Robins Island discussed. No affirmative stand taken at that time. ii. Similarity of the residential development on Nassau Point raised with the proposed development of 28 homes on Robins Island. 4. Growing need for police surveillance and protection in all areas of Southold Town i. Boating and unauthorized trespass on Robins Island IV. Conclusions on issues presented to New Suffolk School 1. Necessity of the Town Board to comply with Sections 10 and 24 of the Municipal Home Rule Law if Robins Island is acquired by -the Town i. Clarifications of zoning to permit residen- tial use higher than 1 acre; rights to pre- sent owners to develop the land - 73 - �Qylffgr� ROBINS ISLAND �`®� FINAL REPORT DEVELOPMENT On January 13, 1981, the Town Board passed a resolution requiring the Robins Island Advisory Committee to evaluate the possible effects of development on'Robins Island and its impact on the Town of Southold. One of the most comprehensive docu- ments concerning the development of open space in our region is The Best Buy is Open Space, written by Dr. Leon Hammer in connection with several proposed developments in Easthampton Town in the last decade. Following is a condensation of that report, which appears in its entirety in Appendix Following that, is our own projection of�four possible developments which might occur on Robins Island. "IF IT IS.AGREED THAT A CERTAIN PIECE OF LAND PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE WOULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, THE ECONOMICS OF THE ACTION FAVORS THE TAX PAYER." The statement above is made and supported by documented proof, in a 1978 update of a 1970 booklet entitled, The "Best Buy" Is Open Space.1 The original booklet examines "the economic impact on the Town of East Hampton of the land -use possibilities of three undeveloped areas," of 1394 acres, 569 acres and 130 acres respectively. The update does the same for Barcelona Point at Sag Harbor: "Approximately 343 acres of unique scenic uplands (elevations to 1001); promontory on Shelter Island Sound between critically valuable wetlands..." Of the four areas, the situation at Barcelona Point most nearly resembles the circumstances at 1 See Appendix H - 74 - i, ROBINS ISLAND ��Oy1fF4,r^ f FINAL REPORT Robins Island. In all four cases, however, the conclusion - - even with purchase of the property with a bond issue - - was the same: "The cost of services soars well beyond the increase in income" if the area is developed; but if the area is kept as open space the community will "save tremendous amounts of money". The original booklet -substantiates its conclusions in 23 - charts comparing income and costs resulting from the building of homes, including homes built on minimum lot sizes of two acres, and assuming each of three alternatives: no school child- ren, an average of 1.7 school children per home (the national average at that time), and half the average number of school children. The 1970 booklet quotes the East Hampton Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Assessed valuation during the period 1950-65 has increased at a fairly constant rate of 1.8% a year. However, the much more rapid growth of expenditures has caused an increasing tax rate with the increased tax pressures of seasonal demands for services and facilities. Under existing Town regulations, every structure built is a potential year-round residence ....Town and Village government costs are increasing in response to growing demands for services.and facilities, and may increase even more in the future, or certain new services and facilities not now needed will be required." - 75 - ROBINS ISLAND4 ��i FINAL REPORT The booklet then states: "If we imagine a development in which there will be no children, we deduct the estimated school expense from the total and have left an estimate of the cost to the community of "other services" .... An examination of older retirement -vacation comm- unities shows a steady, definite progression to the status of bedroom community with a full compliment of children and final deterioration where zoning is low density. This is especially true on Long Island and on the New Jersey coast. "The over-all experience is that houses built for this purpose rapidly become regular family dwellings. Retired people are forced to move out of a growing community, because.... even when there are no children the increase in population causes a rapid rise in tax rates. Retired people, on a fixed income, can- not manage this. They sell to younger people with more flexible incomes, people who have or will have children. Secondly, areas like East Hampton traditionally become bedroom communities for business and industry within driving or commuting distance. This is particularly true of East Hampton and Suffolk County, where the East End is fast becoming a bedroom community for the indus- trialized West end ..... Areas that show the greatest increases... are all recent developments which were advertised as "vacation - retirement" communities. -76- ROBINS ISLAND ���oylff4.t� � FINAL REPORT 4 The report goes on to say that speculators use "false arguments" when they claim that development brings in money through construction and increased buying. Instead, it is pointed out that experience has shown that developers often take the money elsewhere by employing outside contractors and labor and that when increased population brings in chain stores and shopping center competitors, local merchants suffer. The bottom line, however, is the net cost to the taxpayer, as is emphasized in both the original study and the 1978 study. on Barcelona,Point. The net is the difference between the amount of taxes lost if property is taken off the tax rolls to -be kept as open space, and the additional costs for new and/ or expanded services which must be paid for with higher taxes. The study on Barcelona Point assumes a development of 145 housing units, creating the need for additional schooling and other ser- vices. The study sets forth its conclusions on an annual basis as follows: "The critical calculation is the overrun of these costs to the anticipated tax revenue: schooling $375,424, 'other services' $360,984, total $969,858. These are net costs or deficits, resulting from development." Hence, even if the subdivision .had no children, the net additional cost to the taxpayers was calculated to be $360,984. If the number of children in a 145 -home subdivision was half -77- Yy1FF(p,F�� ROBINS ISLAND �'F FINAL REPORT f the 1978 national average, or 3/4 child per home, the addi- tional cost was found to be $665,421, as against a projected $969,858 additional cost if the subdivision had the national average of 1.5 children per home. What do the 1970 and 1980 studies prove? This is the statement made in the latter study. "One might expect that government could serve increased numbers of people with increased economy, as in business. But this is not so. Every additional resident adds to the complexity of a community, and it is the interaction among people that creates mounting needs for controls and services, everything from schools and highways to courts, welfare and sanitation, and services to serve these services. "The occupants of new homes appear to pay excessive taxes which are assumed to be an advantage to the community. But the cold facts show that the net effect is to increase the tax load for everyone." In other words, the "Best Buy" is open space. IfAM ROBINS ISLAND ��� FINAL REPORT 4 A COMPARISON OF NASSAU POINT TO ROBINS ISLAND It was the unanimous decision of the Robins Island Advisory Committee to compare possible development of Robins Island to the present development on Nassau Point because of their great simi- larity, rather than Fishers Island which shares only one thing with Robins Island: the need for a ferry district. Since this is not the concern of town, but rather a special district, a comparison between Robins Island and Nassau Point is'more apt because of the following resemblances: 1) Area 2) Development to .Similar Density 3) Population 4) Public -School Children Robins Island 430 Acres 165 Houses 286 (Projected from Town averages 1980 Census).. 51 (Projected from Nassau Pt. averages) 24 High School 27 Elementary Nassau Point 535 Acres 206 houses lots still available 358 (Projected from Town averages 1980 Census) 65 (Actual) 30 High School 35 Elementary 5) Tax Revenue $ 325,920 (Projected $584,200 (Actual) by Southold Town Board of Assessors) Moreover, Nassau Point does not have its own school system, nor a library, and it is not reasonable to expect that Robins Island would be so equipped. Finally, Robins Island and Nassau - 79 - ROBINS ISLAND 'a t ��y1FFgy� FINAL REPORT A COMPARISON TO ROBINS ISLAND, Point are in close proximity to the main body of Southold Town, and,unlike Fishers Island which is many miles offshore, could be expected to have similar economic and cultural to the mainland. FOUR POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS The Robins Island Advisory Committee does not pretend to the gift of prophecy. Hence the following study must be entered in the record with the caveat that it is highly spec- ulative, representing only four of an infinite number of possi- bilities. ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY Subdivision Specifications I. Four lot subdivision (minor) private ferry II. Twenty -Eight lot subdivision - private ferry III. Ninety -Nine lot subdivision - ferry district, one ferry IV. Two Hundred Sixty lot subdivision - ferry district, two ferryboats Total Island area, approximately 434 acres Nature preserve at northeast end - approximately 100 acres Main house & cottage - community area. 2 acres Brooder house & shed 3 acres Barn * Shed 2 acres Park at south end of island 5 acres, Dock Area Marina and Storage 2 acres 14 acres ��cyFFlpy� ROBINS ISLAND 'B�®� FINAL REPORT 4 ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDY (Cont.) Road - to required Town specifications 28'lots 10 acres 99 lots .17 acres 260 lots 30 acres Total community owned area 144 acres Waterfront - approximately 21,800 feet 99 waterfront lots at 150 ft. each 14,850 feet. Nature preserve 3,500 feet Dock, storage and marina 1.,500 feet Park at south end 2,000 feet 21,850 feet 4 lot subdivision each lot 77 acres 28 lot subdivision each lot 11 acres 99 lot subdivision each lot 3acres- 260 lot subdivision each lot .1 acre All costs in the following section are based on 1981 figures and are speculative. None are based on actual contract figures. ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO.FOUR (4) LOTS This sort of subdivision might be expected -should four interested parties enter into a cooperative agreement to divide the island for personal purposes. It would not likely be a commercial venture. Purchase Price Legal Fees Surveys for Lots & Community Areas Rebuild present dock for access, construction of homes etc. 1 MM $ 390009000 30,000 50,000 100,000 aT ROBINS ISLAND � oy1FFU1,f� � FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO FOUR (4) LOTS Landing craft - or barge & boat for access & construction - purchase or rental for 2 year period $ 1509000 Improve New Suffolk Facilities 559000 Repair (not refurbish) present buildings on island 65, 000 Construct Helicopter Pad 59000. Telephone facilities to island 609000 Underground telephone on island 125;000 Electric Facilities increased & underground to houses 125,000 Install necessary fire wells for 4 houses & present buildings 1259000 One ffl Fire Truck - Pumper & One Small Truck 459000 Demolish unfinished house 159000 Build Marina for several yachts & service boats 509000 $4,000,000 Each lot would cost $190009000 Each house would cost $ 175,000 All estimated costs are based on a $3,000,000 purchase price Robins Island Revenue to Town of Southold on a 4. lot subdivision $76,1401 Each lot would contain 77 acres of land and 3700 feet of waterfront. 1 From:. Jack Sherwood, Board of Assessors Town of Southold, Southold, NY His calculations are found in Appendix - 82 - ROBINS ISLAND ��oylfFp,Y� f FINAL REPORT Robins Island Each lot and house would own 1/4 of community areas, present buildings with improvements south end of island (5 acres and 1/2 mile waterfront) dock and storage area of island for marina and supplies (containing 1/4 mile water- front), New Suffolk property with some improvements. Land for dock, storage area and present buildings, 14 acres. There would be a limited Robins Island Ferry Service. Estimated cost per owner Each 80 acre parcel Each house andarage (2500 ft. house Total - 83 - $1,000,000 $ 175,000 $1,175,000 ROBINS ISLAND ���ylFfa,.� F FINAL REPORT 4 ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO TWENTY-EIGHT LOTS Twenty -Eight lot set-up expenses would be the same as for a four lot subdivision except for the increase in Utilities, Facilities, Major Roads and more Fire Protection. Now it might be considered a profitable commercial venture. Profit LILCO Underground from New Suffolk to Island Underground to -Community Building and 28 houses Major Roads 28 Yacht & Service Boat Marina Taxes - 2J years (5 year sellout) Interest on investment - 2-J years Original cost and expenses Each lot would cost approximately Each house would cost (2500 sq. ft.) a minimum of: Total Each $ 20000,000 150,000 320,000 150,000 $ 29745,000 100,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 $ 7,8459000 $ 280,000 $ 175,000 $ 455,000 All Estimated Costs are based on a $3,000,000 Purchase Price ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT Robins Island Revenue to Town of Southold on a 28 lot subdivision. $167.2202 Each lot would contain 11 acres of land and 530 feet of waterfront. Each lot would also own 1/28 of present buildings with improvements, south end of island (5 acres and 1/2 mile of waterfront), dock and storage area on island for marina and supplies (containing 1/4 mile waterfront), New Suffolk property with 30 car parking and improvements. Land for dock and storage area and buildings would,be 14 acres. There would be a limited Robins Island Ferry Service. Estimated Cost per owner Each lot - 16 acres waterfront $4000000 Each house and garage $1759000 (2500 ft. house) $575,000 2 Ibid. ROBINS ISLAND ��! �oy¢fgr� FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO NINETY-NINE (99) LOTS Ninety-nine lot set up expenses would be the same as four lot subdivision except for additional time to sell (more taxes, more interest and more profit). Full ferry ser- vice, additional utilities, facilities, additional fire protec- tion. Four & Twenty -Eight lot expenses $ 7,845,000 Taxes - 10 year sell out - 5 years 2009000 Interest - 10 year sell out - 5 years 290009000 LILCO - larger & more costly to island 3009000 Telephone - same 180,000 Underground to ninety-nine houses (not service run) 100,000 Telephone underground to ninety-nine houses 409000 More roads (28 lots to 99 lots) (approximately 3000 more feet) 120,000 Marina Size Increase 1509000 Regular Ferry - One Boat & Two Slips 3009000 Additional Improvements at New Suffolk 100,000 Additional Fire Truck & Fire Equipment 1000000 Additional Profit 4,0009000 $15,4359000 Cost per lot approximately $ 1509000 Size of house -reduced from 2500 sq. ft. to 1500 sq. ft. $ 1009000 Total Each $ 2509000 ROBINS I1LAND4 ��E FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO NINETY-NINE (99) LATS All Estimated Costs are based on a $3,000,000 purchase price Robins Island Revenue to Town of Southold on a 99 lot subdivision. $ 23698103 Each lot would contain 3.0 acres of land and 150 feet of waterfront. Each lot would also own 1/99 of present buildings with improvements, dock, New Suffolk property with improvements, south end of island (containing 5 acres land 1/2 mile water- front) (Dock, storage area and buildings would contain 14 acres of land and 1/2 mile of waterfront) . Each lot would 1/99 .owner of a ferry service. There would be a Robins Island Fire District.. There would be 14,850 ft.'roads, totaling 17 acres. Each lot would have a minimum 1500 ft. house with garage. Estimated Cost per owner Each lot $ 1509000 Each house andarage $ 1009000 (1500 ft. house 3 Ibid. ROBINS ISLAND #FINAL REPORT ROBINS ISLAND - COST TO BUY AND SUBDIVIDE INTO 260 LOTS 26 lot set expenses would be the same as the 99 lot subdivision except for additional -time to sell (more taxes, more interest and more profit), additional ferry boat, 12,000 ft. road construction, underground for LILCO & NY telephone, additional fire protection, much larger marina service, addi- tional improvements at New Suffolk, traffic control (private roads -signs, etc.) and sewer system. Ninety-nine lot expenses $ 1594359000 Taxes - 15 year sell out - Ti years 300,000 Interest - 15 year sell out - Ti years 390009000 Profit 8.000,000 Additional Ferry Boat 200,000 Road construction - 129000 ft. 3600000 LILCO & Telephone 180,000 Additional fire protection 459000 Larger marina,(not all boat owners) 150,000 New Suffolk improvements 509000 Traffic Control 15,000 Sewer system - estimated only $ 8009000 $ 2895359000 Cost per waterfront lot $ 150,000 + Cost per inside lot $ 859000 - Cost for 1500 ft. house $ 1001000 All estimated costs are based on a $3,000,000 Purchase Price • ROBINS ISLAND ��� Oy¢FOIw� FINAL REPORT 4 Robins Island - Revenue to Town of Southold on a 260 lot subdivision. $428,2304 Each lot would contain 1.1 acres of land, 99 lots would have 150 ft. waterfront, 161 lots would be interior lots. Each lot would also own 1/260 of present buildings with improvements, south end of island (5 acres and 1/2 mile water- front), dock and storage area on island for marina and supplies (containing 1/4 mile waterfront), New Suffolk property with park- ing field and improvements. Land for dock area and buildings would be 14 acres. There would be a -Robins Island Ferry District; each lot a 1/260 owner. Estimated Cost per owner Each waterfront lot $ 1509000 - 35,000 Interior lot Each house and garage 1000000 1009000 $ 2509000 135,000 There would be additional roads, totaling 13 acres for the additional 160 lots. 4 . Ibid. ROBINS ISLAND ?��� �y¢Fgr� FINAL REPORT 4 IMPACT OF FOUR POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS ON TAX RATES 1980 - 1981 DECREASE IN PER $100 TAX COST TAX RATES NOW PAID 4 Houses $76,180 $5567.00 - .0044796 450 28 Houses $167.280 $389972.64 - .0081396 810 99 Houses $236.810 $136,006.56 - .0063948 640 260 Houses $428.230 $359.502.72 - .0043599 440 # Projected population multiplied by the average total revenue per person in Southold Town 1980 - 1981 0 ROBINS ISLAND* FINAL REPORT 4 SUMMARY ANALYSIS Development The Robins Island Advisory Committee has considered the possiblity of a minor subdivision of four homes. The Southold Development Corporation, which now owns Robins Island, has in- formally suggested a development of 28 homes on lots of 7 acres each. It has been suggested that such limited development could be protected by convenants. But covenants can be annulled or modified by future public officials and owners, or if challenged, can be overturned by.the courts. The present Southold Town Code provides for one acre agricultural/residential zoning. To zone for 4, 28, or even 99 homes could be considered exclusionary. Hence, the development potential of Robins Island must be con- sidered to be approximately 260 homes, the maximum allowable un- der present zoning laws on the buildable portions'of the island. It would be shortsighted to assume that Robins Island will become a haven for the rich and childless. Experience elsewhere has proved otherwise. The impact of a development of 260 homes on the New Suffolk School District would be significant. A deve- lopment on Robins Island would likely be similar to the present development of Nassau Point. Nassau Point now has 206 homes on 535 acres, and a population of approximately 360. A development on Robins Island could mean a population of about 450 in 260 - 91 - ROBINS ISLAND4 ��i FINAL REPORT I SUMMARY ANALYSIS Development homes. The 206 Nassau Point homes have 65 school children who attend public schools, 35 of whom are in elementary school,,and 30 of whom attend Mattituck High School. This is an average of .35 pupils per household, which is nearly the same as the aver- age for all of Southold Town, which at present, is far below the national average of 1.5. Using the same average, Robins Island could have 80 pupils, all of whom would have to be trans- ported to the mainland, 45 of whom would attend the elementary school, and 35 of whom would have to be transported by bus, pre- sumably to Southold High School, where New Suffolk presently sends its seventh through twelfth graders on payment of tuition by the school district. The New Suffolk School District has a school population of 62 who came from the hamlet's 280 homes. Of these, 28 in grades K through 6 attend the New Suffolk School. The addition of some 45 elementary pupils to the New Suffolk School would fill it beyond its capacity, making necessary an addition to the exist- ing building, and the hiring of additional teachers, and possibly additional supervisory and secretarial staff, or, the closing of the New Suffolk School, and the busing of all pupils to schools -92- ��ylfFttr� ROBINS ISLAND FINAL REPORT 4 SUMMARY ANALYSIS Development in other parts of the Town. In either case, the costs and taxes would go up as has been the experience in.other school districts, and as has been there, the increased costs and taxes would be great. In addition, the physical impact on the hamlet of New Suffolk of a ferry terminal - - or a bridge - - and the tra- ffic they would create, could seriously alter the nature and lifestyle of the residents now living there. There would be an impact on the rest of the Town of South- old as well, as a result of the need for increased services: police, roads, transportation between the island and New Suffolk, and provision for emergency health services by boat or helicop- ter. Preservation Studies of the Robins Island Advisory Committee support the conclusion that preserving Robins Island under the terms of a Nature trust could benefit the residents -of the Town of Southold; enhancing the Town's basic industries of fishing, shellfishing, and tourism; protecting open space wherein nat- ural life systems can continue to flourish, protecting the pur- . ity of the waters surrounding Robins Island, and avoiding the necessity for additional public services including: police, highways, additional water supply, and public health and safety services. - 93 - ��yIfFRYr ROBINS ISLAND �®�! FINAL REPORT SUMMARY ANALYSIS Preservation Further, the preservation of Robins Island could improve the quality of life for residents of Southold Town, protecting our heritage of open, friendly and healthful living, not only for ourselves, but for our children and -for generations to come. The Southold Town Board is urged to establish a Naturel Trust, the specific purpose of which is to seek public and private funding for the acquisition and management of Robins Island under the Trust. A privately owned and managed nature preserve would have certain advantages. It would free the Town from all financial and managerial responsibilities, now and forever. Funding and sup- port for such a solution is possible and should be pursued vig- orously. However, acquisition and management of Robins Island by the Town, or under Town auspices, is advisable, especially be- cause it may prove necessary to use the Town's power of eminent domain in order to acquire the island, or -to acquire the island at a reasonable price. It would be preferable for the Town to acquire and manage the island from the proceeds of a trust fund or endowment es- tablished for that purpose. - 94 - 1 See Appendix I Questions and Answers about Land Trusts MoilROBINS ISLAND FINAL FINAL REPORT After considering alternatives for the future of Robins Island in accordance with Southold Town Board resolutions of September 23, 1980, and January 13, 1981, the Robins Island Advisory Committee recommends that the Southold Town Board take,the following actions: 1) Establish a Nature Trust which would purchase and preserve Robins Island in its natural state, in perpetuity: 2) Limit access to, and control uses of the island in such a manner that perpetual preservation is insured (see management options 1 & 2) We present the Board with two alternative methods to ac- complish these results: Best Method 1 1. A resolution which accomplishes these objectives upon the Town Boardts own initiative (see Resolu- tion A) or: Best Method 11 2. An alternative resolution which places these same recommendations on the ballot, in the form of a referendum proposition, to be decided by the citi- zens of Southold (see Resolution B). - 95 - ' ROBINS ISLAND bi�O�Fv� tii �f FINAL REPORT 4 RECOPMENDATIONS Best Method II As with most practical things, the best method is usu- ally a simple one, so we highly recommend Best Method I. How- ever, if the Town Board still feels the need to inquire of the people, in the form of a referendum,.we strongly urge the second alternative. The proposition presented by resolution B falls directly under the provisions of Town Law Section 81, which clearly and expressly allows the Town to put.a proposition on the ballot which would "establish... public parks,...acquire the necessary lands therefore, and equip the same with suitable buildings,.structures and apparatus." Consolidate Laws of New York, Town Law Section 81. Accordingly, the proposition presented is one which may properly be placed on the ballot for a referendum vote. We further recommend that the Town Board debate, discuss and enact either of these proposed resolutions. ROBINS ISLAND�/®� FINAL REPORT RESOLUTION A WHEREAS, a number of the citizens of Southold Town have expressed an interest in the future of Robins Island, and WHEREAS, this Town Board by resolutions dated September 239 1980 and January 13.,-1981, unanimously agreed to create and authorize the Robins Island Advisory Committee, as a citizens' advisory board, and WHEREAS, the Robins Island Advisory Committee was charged with the responsibility to fully investigate and develop all avenues for preserving the island, including acquisition by the Town, and WHEREAS, the Robins Island Advisory Committee was charged with the responsibility to investigate the financial impact of both preservation and development alternatives, and WHEREAS, we directed the Robins Island Advisory Committee to recommend the -best method available for financing and main- taining the island in its natural state, and WHEREAS, on April16., 1981 the Town Advisory Committee concluded its work and presented to this Town Board its final report containing the recommendations that the Town should "establish the Robins Island Nature Trust Park," and acquire the necessary lands therefore using outside funding. WHEREAS, we wish to upon our own initiative adopt and implement the Recommendations of the Robins Island Advisory Committee, - 97 - ROBINS ISLAND �oryfF4,r� �F FINAL REPORT 4 RESOLUTION A NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold, does hereby (1) go on record for all purposes as favoring the acquisi- tion of Robins Island for preservation.in its natural state; (2) direct the establishment of a protected legal trust fund, -to be administered by the Town Trustees for the sole purpose of acquiring and managing the island and enabling the establishment of the ROBINS ISLAND NATURE TRUST PARR; (3) direct the trustees, and ask all interested parties'. to actively seek and obtain -outside funding from all legally available sources, to be held in trust for the sole purpose of acquiring and maintaining the entire Robins Island parcel; (4) establish the Robins Island Nature Trust Park for the purpose of acquiring the entire Robins Island parcel with the trust funds, using the power of eminent domain, if necessary; (5) state its intent to do all things necessary, useful and proper, including reaching cooperative agreements with other municipalities, to ensure that Robins Island is permanently preserved in its natural state, ��c�}FFl4� ROBINS ISLAND ?��� FINAL REPORT RESOLUTION A and be it further RESOLVED, the Town Attorney, or special counsel speci- fically retained for this purpose, is hereby -directed to take whatever actions are necessary to fully implement the intent of this resolution. 1 -99- ROBINS ISLAND* FINAL REPORT RESOLUTION B WHEREAS, a number of the citizens of Southold Town have expressed an interest in the future of Robins Island, and WHEREAS, this Town Board by resolutions dated September 23, 1980 and January 13, 1981, unanimously agreed to create and authorize the Robins Island Advisory Committee, as a citizens' advisory board, and WHEREAS, the Robins Island Advisory Committee was charged with the responsibility to fully investigate and develop all avenues for preserving the island, including acquisition by the Town, and WHEREAS, the Robins Island Advisory Committee was charged with the responsibility to investigate the finan- cial impact of both preservation and development alterna- tives, and WHEREAS, we directed the Robins Island Advisory Com- mittee to formulate a question which encompasses the best method available for financing and maintaining the island in its natural state, and WHEREAS, we made a commitment at that time to submit this question to a vote of.the people as a referendum ques- tion, "if the best method requires Town action which is pro- perly the subject of a Town referendum", and IO• 9c�FFgy� ROBINS ISLAND b�t FINAL REPORT 4 RESOLUTION B WHEREAS, on April 16, 1981, the Town Advisory Committee concluded its work and presented to this Town Board its final report containing a question asking whether the Town should "establish t1m Robins Island Nature Trust Park," acquire the necessary lands therefore using outside funding, and whether the Town should budget money only for operating expenses, and WHEREAS, we wish to present this question to the people of the Town of Southold, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold, upon its own motion, does hereby cause to be submitted at a special election to be held on June 16, 1980, pursuant to Sec- tions 81 and 94 of the Town Law of the State of New York,.the following proposition: "Shall the Town of Southold preserve Robins Island in its natural state by (1) going on record for all purposes as favoring the acquisition of Robins Island for preserva- tion in its natural state; (2) establishing a protected legal.trust fund, to be administered by the Town Trustees for the sole purpose of acquiring and managing the is- land enabling the establishment of the ROBINS ISLAND NATURE TRUST PARK; - 101 ROBINS ISLAND �i'oyIFFl2Y yi �f FINAL REPORT RESOLUTION B (3) actively seeking and obtaining outside funding from all legally available sources, to be held in trust for the sole purpose of acquiring and maintaining the entire Robins Island parcel; (4) establishing the Robins Island Nature Trust Park and acquiring the entire Robins Island parcel with the trust funds, using the power of eminent domain, if necessary; (5) regularly budgeting and appropriating funds, as necessary, for the overall maintenance and operation of Robins Island to be paid out of taxes levied for the fiscal year in which such expenditures are made; (6) doing all things necessary, useful and.proper, including reaching cooperative agreements with other municipalities, to ensure that Robins .Island is permanently preserved in its natural state, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give notice of this special election by publication of legal notices speci- fying the time and place of such election being held, the hours during which the polls will remain open for the purpose of receiving ballots, and fully setting forth the proposition - 102 - ocyFfgr� ROBINS ISLAND �`®� FINAL REPORT RESOLUTION B to be voted upon.: The first publication of such Notice.shall be on June 4, 1981. In addition, the Town Clerk shall post or cause to be posted a copy of such Notice on the sign board that the Town maintains, at least ten days prior to such election, and be it further RESOLVED, that if said referendum proposition is approved by a majority of those voting, that the vote of the people shall be considered the intent of this Town Board and that the trust fund will be immediately established at a local bank, in the name of the Town, and administered as Trustees by the elected Town Trustees. The Town Trustees and any other interested party will be authorized and encouraged to seek and obtain acquisition fund- ing from all legally available sources until the island is ac- quired. . Further, the Town Attorney, or special counsel specifically retained for this purpose, is hereby directed to take whatever actions are necessary to fully implement the intent of this resolu- tion. - 103 - The Long and Winding Road Photograph by Richard W. Grathwohl RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the use of land within the Town and the implementation of the Town Master Plan,(which designates Robin's Island for residential purposes)and WHEREAS, Robin's Island, a four hundred and fifty four acre island, is within the jurisdiction of the Town, and WHEREAS, the current owners of the Island have expressed the desire to subdivide portions of the Island for residential housing, and WHEREAS, a number of citizens withi4 the Town have clearly expressed their desire to see Robin's Island preserved in its natural state, and WHEREAS, Robin's Island has been and continues to be a financial and environmental asset to Southold Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires that a fully informed choice be made between all of the alternatives for the future of Robin's Island, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to present the people of the Town of Southold with a fully developed, economically viable, and environmentally compatible alternative for the future of Robin's Island, to be voted upon by a referendum, and now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby create and authorize the Robin's Island Advisory Committee, as a citizen's advisory board. The Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall be and is hereby charged with the responsibility to fully investigate and develop. all avenues for preserving the Island, including acquisition by the Town, using any and all available funding, both public and private, and be it further -2 - RESOLVED, that the Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall make a preliminary report to the Town Board within two months and a full report within six months, and when any Town agency has to decide upon any applica- tions by the owners for development, to such agency as part of its regular hearing process, The report to the Town Board shall include the following items of information: 1. Viable alternatives for preserving the Island in its natural state, with a recommendation as to the best method to proceed; 2. Funds available for, and pledged to, each alternative; 3. The allowed uses of the Island for Southold residents under each alternative plan; 4. Local control entailed by the alternative,; 5. Maintenance and operation costs and how they would be handled; 6. Any and all additional information which the Robin's.Island Advisory Committee, in it„ discretion, believes would be useful to the people of Southold in making their determination; 7. Financial impact statement analysing the effect of all alternatives on school and town taxes; as well as the impact on Town services; 8. Impact to the residents of New Suffolk and surrounding areas re; access for Southold -Town residents or others, if funding sources would require access by the terms of their funding; 9. The Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall consist of nine members as follows: William R. Pell III or designee . Doug Shaw Valerie Scopaz M.J. Paul William Smith Andrew Goodale Frank Chichanowicz Paul Stoutenburgh (+ vacancy to be filled by Town Board) (Richard W. Grathwohl) and be it further 10/7/80 -3 - RESOLVED, that as part of its final report, the advisory committee shall formulate a question, which encompasses the best method available. for financing and maintaining the Island in its matural state, and be it further RESOLVED, that if the best method requires Town action which is properly the subject of a Town referendum that this question be placed on on the ballot within a reasonable amount of time. THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 13, 1981: WHEREAS, on September 23, 1980 the Southold Town Board passed a resolution creating the Robins Island Citizens Advisory Committee, and WHEREAS, the Town Board desires that a fully informed choice be made between all the alternatives for the future or Robins Island, and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in a letter dated April 21, 1980 indicated that limited development was a concept worthy of consideration as an alternative for preservation considering the fiscal restraints that government and the taxpayers are under, and WHEREAS, the Town Board's intent on September 23, 1980 was to have the Robins Island Advisory Committee study all the alternatives of preservation, including limited development, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to clarify the Robins Island Advisory Committee Resolution of September 23, 1980 and reaffirm its original intent, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby directs the Robins Island Advisory Committee to include in their deliberations and final report the study of limited development as proposed by the present owners as a means of preservation, and be it further RESOLVED that when the Robins Island Advisory Committee makes its final report to the Town Board the following information shall be included but not limited to: 1. Road ownership and maintenance. 2. Fire Protection. 3. New Suffolk School District - positive and negative impact of a limited development. 4. An analysis of tax revenu-s that will accrue to the Town. 5. An analysis of the cost of services that the Town must provide. 6. A complete description of the present proposal for limited development. 7. A study of the legal aspects of a change of zone for Robins Island for the purpose of providing limited development. 8. An analysis of Fishers Island relative to assessments and taxes accruing to the Town vis-a-vis the cost of services to the Town - correlating this information to the limited development of Robins Island. 9. An analysis of the financial impact on the private sector during the initial stages of development and the long term. And be it further RESOLVED that the original resolution adopted on September 23, 1980 be and the same hereby is amended as herein before set forth. Jo the '4em6e 7A o� the 1?06ina-9&&rtd Study. Comm -tee. Il er Six montILl o� atudsu it .cam mcg opinion the 6eat ao.Lution .ca a natu to tnu4,t AA the mmjojL portion o� the gal cmd and aLgZCL g .Limited deve.-opmenu. on the remaining ponti.on. Jhia m,, U entaii .Leaving intact a.L- Aeah and /j -aa uxtter wetJan . Jhe CLbn,4e L concept. At the area At deve.Lwpment to 6e �o.L-owed.. .9 bale my, Opinion on the extent ive &Zudcg 9 did in co Uege At mg dega.ee in Landacape kLchitecture jeA.om the School- o� Cnvi tonmenta.L deaign and OiuzamentaL //oA;6L uLture as ue U as the atudg we have made together on 1?06.cna .9&and in paA;6icu cm. Sn any cane the wwoded a2eaa o� ?o6ina Sa.Land ane in poor condition, and ahou Ld 6e atiended to in the name manna. ouz. National- 3wreat6. ate 6cg the National- % anh Service to enure hea.Lthsu Ateatat6.on. Southo.Ld Jown has ever,a night, to re&Llic, 6y ac'eage//twine the num6er o4 homea that can 6e 6uiLf on ?o6in,& J&Zand as up/ze. d 6cg the recent United Staten Supreme Count !?edition o1 4pnil- 6th, 1981. 4 copy .ih attached. JJAwzk CichanwwicT. / / / 'Daily News, Tuesday, .April 7, 1981 n Hi h zopin'its hi h:OK -.: 1 7% M� 8jGR OVER RYDER Upper Brookville 'is loifii'lebattle g4 The uppercru�st village of Up -no multi -acre zoning. The U.S. Supreme Court so ruled yesterday. C 0 keep its :.The decision marked the end of the le linelor.de Y.t.. gal ve . 13 Kurzius who believes that the village's zoning.. Laws he - effect of -c r strictingneW development:Under- grueling creating "a citadel of privilege" by re adopted a sJosi The conflict began innocently enough in 19661hen thivillage'sold Republican bos r:xth hlargiott�t was extorti _V master plan establishing five -acre and two4cirw building -zones. When e The testimony of I ',village was in 19329, all of its-lahotiva-0-7,6nid for two acres:_. Then., in 1968, Xurzius bought 60 acres illage',. hic�h were broker . ker Richc i in tfi6 v zoned for five -acre development and 10 for' t*o.aere. Under the master =flitted with'his,st� plan, he could build only 20 houses on his Properti6si10 on the -fives and 10 that he.feared-tha on the twos: deprive- him of the I North Shore land—especially in Upper Brookville, pdpulhtion IA40—is contract if he -failed I .50-50 -very expensive.K I umus-was unable to sell any of the five-acke plots and Williams, split on commis blamed his plight on the restrictive zoning. About four years ago, he begankt Margiotta legal action to. have his unsalable plots rezoned to two acres. $500,000 in kickbacks; In the round of his suit, a state Supreme Court justice sided with the,.. 1977r also ackno*f round to ave ec village � but.the -Appellate Divison in Brooklyn 9 the second . shortchafiged Margi6tia - village leaders had consulted Kurzius. The. Appellatoi justices ruled thevil casions and that the%lh: with some of the large landowners and then "decided to:us * e..their zoning checked the -books".. 'to' power to -preserve the village as a citadel of privilege." The effect of getting his fair share upgrading- the zoning was "to stop the march of progress:end to preserve 4 special benefits for the privileged group of large landowners" -WHILE YOU WE'' in this. scheme, did. But Ktiizius had not long to relish that victory, when --6 iiiie Court Of doing - -anything.. reservations. Appealireinstat e lawyer William M— ed the village ordinance although with awyei Kurzius then went to the nation's highest court maintaining that Upper"NO, sir,"WV1 Brookville's zoning laws were• unconstitutional and an unreasonable use of ='Did you the village's "police powers." The village rejoined that the master plan was -doing anythl designed' only --0 preserve open spaces" and the, rural charactef of the 4isked.' village confines., : "No, air," :�:' But the Supreme Court ruled that Upper Brookvillesmulti-=6 zoning "Did your l development. extorted was not necessarily designed tostoR new residential news and added, -"No �ir Mayor Alfred Seaman called the decision "very 9 . I P have implication I . I feel that.it will be a landmark decision and will . "Did you recent years .professional out that in throughout the country.� He pointed that at the ti.' i areas—"and d planners have stressed the need for open space In residentiald not have aj that is what we have attempted to do in our master plan." %2i.' Hundley askei -village clerk for 23 y6 marvelous!" - Helen Cartt, ars, exclaimed, "How lous!" and Yes, sir, added, "We are not exclusionary. if you can afford it. welcome!" Williams K s could not be reached for comment.' i, to the grane, strutted" h: he 'did fear county cont Ask ANDREW E. GOODALE ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW MAIN ROAD. RTE. 1. BOX 15A MATTITUCK. NEW YORK 11952 (516) 298-5020 Ree. 734-5870 April 16, 1981 TO: TOWN BOARD OF SOUTHOLD TOWN SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROBINS ISLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE I would dissent from the Report and the Resolutions contained therein as to the evaluation of matters on "Importance; Capital Acquisition and Maintenance" costs in the preservation of Robins Island in its "natural state". 1. I would submit that under a"prudent rule" of acting in one's own in- terest, these costs appear to be educated guesses without formal proof of actual conditions. In acquiring the island, the annual fixed maintenance charges can be higher and more complex in variety. 2. The owners of Robins Island in the past have met their tax obligations consistent with the rights of ownership. If, at some point in time, a sale of the island or some negotiated donation is effected from them, tax revenues should continue the status quo. Otherwise a financial reserve is necessary to pay all assessable charges, presumably in perpetuity. The alternative is to remove the property from the New Suffolk tax rolls and transfer the loss of that revenue to either New Suffolk School or upon closing, to Mattituck-Cutchogue District and the residents of Southold Town on an apportioned basis. This would result in an even- tual possible taking by eminent domain proceedings on the Robins Island property. 3. The alternative set forth in Resolutions under certain proceedings in the Sections of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law are linked to home rule powers of Section 2 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and its use to acquire lands other than those needed for health, safety or welfare should merit-sekious consideration by the Town Board. It is therefore my conclusion the the Town Board in making its decision con- sider the effect of residential development on Robins Island consistent with: i. The recent decision of Kurzius V. Incorporated Town of Upper Brookville reported in "Newsday". The effect of high acreage municipal zoning is now upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is relevant to any proposed large estates on proposed development on Robins Island being immune to the challenge of exclusionary zoning heretofore possible under one acre present zoning. ii. Contrary to reports that residential zoning permits growth,and municipal revenues are surpassed by mandated services, Nassau Point for example would show tax revenues ( without disposable income spent in the area) of $584,200, compared with $201,000 expended for school purposes. This sizeable balance of $383,200 requires and explanation to justify expenditures for roads, fire, police and health services. Respectfully submitted Andrew E. Goodale April 16, 1981 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, New York Gentlemen: I must make a statement in regard to the Robins Island Advisory Committee's final report, which has had to be made in haste to meet its deadline. I do not approve of the involvement of the Town of Southold in collecting funds for purchase and managerial responsibilities for the preservation of Robins Island. This is outlined in the final report on page 3 and 4 under preservation. The Southold Town Board should make certain that any Nature Trust or conservancy that intends to buy the Island be financially secure to protect and maintain Robins Island in perpetuity. I also feel that it is not the "pristine" Island we are led to believe, with its many buildings, which include four living quarters, the Island has been used extensively in the past for a shooting preserve. However, if money can be obtained to purchase Robins Island and subsidize New Suffolk School District for a nature conservancy by one or more interested groups, the Town of Southold should co- operate. I do not condone the purchase of Robins Island by eminent domain by the Town of Southold for such a Nature Trust. Regardless of theory by advocates of preservation, Southold Town could end up managing and pro- tecting the Island and possibly owning it. I would suggest an extensive survey by a competent concern to estimate the cost of protecting and maintaining Robins Island. This should include a decision on maintain- ing the many buildings and pier on the Island or disposing of them. Sincerely, William B. Smith THE PRELIMINARY REPORT (F THE ROBINS 'ISL,AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE TOWN BOARD CF TI E TOWN OF SOLTTHOLD NOVEMBER 26, 1980 FOR CONSIDERATION DECEMBER 2, 1980 I II III TABLE CP CONTENTS Pale A. ORGANIZATION CF TIM COMMITTEE 1 B. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 2 C. GUEST SPEAKERS g D. TXES 4 E. A VISIT BY THE COMMITTEE TO ROBINS ISLAND 5 LOOKING TO.THE FUTURE - FUNDING 5 IN CONCLUSION r g APPENDICES A. RESOLUTION CP THE TOWN BOARD i September 23, 1980 B.. INQUIRIES BY THE COMMITTEE & REPLY*S iv,v,vi C. MINUTES CF 'TIS :OOMMITTEE * vii * Tapes of all meetings are available to the public at Town Hall - 1 - I A. ORGANI7.ATION OF THE COMMITTEE The Robins Island Advisory Committee was created by a resolution of the Town Board at their regular meeting on September 23, 1980. It was decided that the committee should be composed of nine members, eight cf whom were appointed immediately, and a ninth who was appointed at the next meeting of the Town Board. The committee finally included: William R. Pell III - Chairman Larry Murdock - Alternate Frank Cichanowicz - Cutchogue Andrew Goodale - New Suffolk Richard Grathwohl - Cutchogue Martha J. Paul - Cutchcgue Valerie Scopaz - Southold Douglas Shaw - Mattituck William Smith - Southold Paul Stoutenburgh - Cutchogue At the first meeting of the committee, on October 9, 1980, Chairman Pell made the following subcomnittee assign- ments: 1) Viable alternatives for preserving the Island in its natural state, with a recommendation as to the best method to proceed. Frank Cidhanowice Paul Stoutenburgh 2) Funds available for, and pledged to each alternative. Valerie Scopaz 3 ) The allowed uses of the Island . f or Southold residents under each alterna- tive. Frank Cichanowic:z Paul Stoutenburgh 4) Local control entailed by the alterna- tives. Valerie Scopaz - G - I A. ORGANIZATION OF THE COr4IITTEE 5) Maintenance and operation costs and how they would be handled. Richard Grathwohl William Smith M. J. Paul 6) Any and all additional information which the Robins Island Advisory Committee, in its discretion, believes would be usef ul to the people cf Southold in making their determina- tion. William Smith M. J. Paul Richard Grathwohl 7) Financial impact statement analysing the effect cf all alternatives on school and town taxes, as well as the impact on Town services. Andrew Goodale Douglas Shaw 8 ) Impact to the residents of . New Suffolk and surrounding areas Re: access for Southold Town residents or others, if funding sources would require access by the terms of their funding. Andrew Goodale Douglas Shaw I B. MANAGEML'NT ALTERNATIVES The committee has outlined three basic alternatives for the management of Robins Island under the authority of the Town of Southold which would preserve it in its natural state. The first of these alternatives is simply to hold Robins Island as it has been held, with a minimal caretaking staff, and to permit no public access to the island. This alterna- tive has the advantage of low cost, and it leaves ecological systems intact while permitting later changes in management policy. It has the immediate disadvantage of preventing pub- lic enjoyment of the Island's unique features. - 3 - I B. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, The second of the alternatives involves limited and con- trolled access; for example, by advance reservation under this proposal, a restricted number of people would be per- mitted on the Island under the supervision'of the caretaker and a seasonal staff of nature guides. Visitors would be required to provide their own craft, or hire local boatmen to travel to the Island. This alternative would permit the genuinely interested public to visit Robins Island while preventing the sort of overuse that could endanger ecolog- ically fragile areas. It would, however, require a larger staff than the first alternative, and thus, a larger budget which might, or might not, be offset by admission fees. - The third alternative includes a recreation area with docking facilities for private small craft, swimming with lifeguards, nature trails, tours and so forth, with pro- vision to.keep visitors away from particularly fragile areas. This option offers the greatest recreational opportunities,' but it would require a more cumbersome administration than either of the first two, and consequently, an increased bud- get. The committee has worked to develop specific costs for the first two of these alternatives, but has not as yet developed firm fiscal projections. Further investigation and analysis is required. At this writing three (3) alternatives have been_sug-- gested; in the future there may be more. C. GUEST SPEAKERS In order to achieve a realistic understanding of the process of acquiring and managing a nature preserve, the committee has met with several guest speakers who have some expertise in natural resource management and in fund- ing, and expects to invite more in the future. The first speaker was Carl Helms, who is the caretaker and director of the Quogue Wildlife Sanctuary which is opera- ted under the auspices and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Approximately 200 acres in size, part of the sanctuary is owned by the village of Quogue, and the remainder by a non-prarfit conservation group who act as trustees. Mr. Nelms, who lives on the premises, reported that. his problems with vandalism are negligible,.limited to such pranks as turning signs upside down. He estimates that 40,000 people visit the sanctuary annually. He stated that the annual budget for the sanctuary is "within $40,000", including a distressed wildlife center. - 4 - I C. GUEST SPEAKERS The evening, the committee spoke with Terry Schriener who manages the Morton National Wildlife Refuge under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife division of the Depart- ment of the Interior. Though of lesser land area than Robins Island, the refuge has a similar shoreline, with bluffs and saltwater marsh. Mr. Schriener also reported 40,000 visitors and remarked that of those, a large pro- portion arrive by boat. It is with this latter group that his problems arise. Chiefly, visitors climb bluffs, causing erosion or "blowouts", or walk through the saltmarsh disturb- ing vegetation. The large majority, he asserts, remain on the trails. There being only one building on the premises, he does not experience vandalism as we would ordinarily understand it. Mr. Schriener volunteered that in his opin- ion, that Robins Island is too fragile to withstand general public access. The refuge's budget is approximately $30,000 annually. Regarding funding, the committee was visited by Mr. Glenn Eugster of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Eugster reported that matching funds are available from his agency through New York State, subject to their use for a "recreational" purpose. They are applicable, in terms of the committee's management options, to alternatives two and three. Further, study grants are avail- able, also on a matching basis. He stated that Robins Island has been identified by a number of agencies as an important cultural and scenic resource, and may be eligible for the Nat- ional Register of Natural Places. I D. TAXES Robins Island now contributes 26/100 of one percent of total tax revenues collected by the Town. Robins Island Tax Revenues 1980 School Tax $23,231 Town 10,279 County 4,785 Total $38,294 9 I' II - 5 - D. TAXES By district the tax increase listed by change in tax rate: East Marion/Orient Fishers Island Southold Mattituck/Cutchogue Unincorporated Village Laurel New Suff olk* Village of Greenport * Includes School Tax of Greenport Since the committee has not yet management costs, and since funding be available, the committee has not tax rates to reflect these costs. .001267° - $ .13 .001057 .11 .0011098 .11 .001047 .11 .000983 .10 .0009878 .10 .161282 16.13 .0006648 .7 Per Hundred Dollars of Taxes Paid finished estimating for that purpose may made projections of E. A VISIT BY THE COMITTEE TO ROBINS Isum To better understand Robins Island, the commiitee-arranged to visit the Island. On November 22, 1980, the committee trav- eled to the Island. While there, a complete inventory of exis- ting facilities was compiled, and committee members -were es- corted around the Island by the current caretaker, Bob Tuthill. Mr. Tuthill has indicated that he lives on the Island during the summer months, and patrols from 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m. Durinq the rest cf the boating season he stays during weekends, and visits daily. During the winter he visits when weather conditions permit. He reports that in season, he asks as many as fifty people to leave each day. He also reports that the deer herd is generally healthy, having ample food, but in this period of drought, insufficient water. After the inventory, tour, and personal hikes, the committee circumnavigated Robins Island, owing to the generosity of com mittee member Andrew Goodale, who piloted his fine cruiser, "Water Wheels", around the Island for the committee's benefit. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE - FUNDING The moat important •ttisk_facing Itthe_Robins Idland_Advisory Committee is to develop a funding package which makes it ac- quisition and preservation possible. Under study are outright acquisition by the Town, the use by the Town of its right of emminent domain and subsequent transfer of title to a non-pro- fit organization, or outright purchase by such an organization. At this time, the committee is making preliminary contacts with foundations, private conservation groups, and governmental agen- cies. The process by which funds may be obtained is outlined on the following pages: II LOOKING TO THE FUTURE - FUNDLNG 1) Things which need to be considered before applying for a grant: Status of grant -seeking organization Foundations and government agencies.are particularly concerned that the grantee be a non-prafit organization. This requires that tax-exempt status be obtained from the IRS. A decision has to be made as to how such an organization is to be established. Who is to be the spokesperson (s) for the grant - seekers? Budget - Costs -of acquisition (direct, and indirect) must be estimated before foundations are approached. Approaching the Otvners through the attorney in Piety York Do they know about public sentiments Re: Robins Island Would they be willing to sell? Legal Services. 2) Grant Application Process (in brief) Preapplication Phase a) formation of grant -seeking group (who approaches foundations? who will be responsible for handling grant monies?) b) identification of potential funding sources c) initial contacts made with officials of foundations. (telephone, then brief letter) d) synthesis of accurate, up-to-date information on application guidelines, and foundation limitations e) writing of an outline or abstract of project (what is proposed, why, by who, how long, how. much?) - 7 - II LOOKING TO TM FUTURE - FUNDING 2) Grant Application Process (in brief) Application Phase a) writing of an application, tailored to the foundation's guideline requirements. Cover Page - Abstract (100-300 word s117Mffary) Project Description (objectives, procedure, significance) Budget (direct and indirect costs) Credentials of staff responsible for monies and project b) submit by deadline date Post -Application Phase a) WAIT b) keep foundation informed as 'to your activities 3) Comparison of Government and Private Funds Government longer time frame (it may take 6 months to 1 year from time of appli- cation to granting of monies) open (it is easier to find out your project's chances of being funded because government officials are required to make public their selection criteria) strings (some government funds must be met by matching funds. Others require certain conditions be met). Private shorter time frame (entire process may take place within a few months) secretive (foundations, particularly corporate foundations, are not required to divulge anything to prospective grantees) strings (most foundations have a policy of not interfer- ing with grantee as long as money is used for stated purposes. Some grants may be earmarked by -founda- tion as being for a specific portion of a project). RESOLUTION WHERAS, the Southold Tann Board is charged with the respon- sibility of overseeing the use of land within the Town and the im- plementation of the Town Master Plan, (which designates Robin's Is- land for residential purposes) and WHEREAS, Robin's Island, a four hundred and fifty four acre island, is within the jurisdiction of the Tawe, and WHERAS, the current owners of the Island have expressed the desire to see Robin's Island preserved in its natural state, and WHERAS, Robin's Island has been and continues to be a finan- cial and environmental asset to Southold Town,; and WHERAS, the Town Board desires that a fully informed choice be made between all of the alternatives for the future of Robin's Island, and WHERAS, the Town Board wishes to present the people of the To%vn of Southold with a fully developed, economically viable, and environmentally compatible alternative for the future of Robin's Island, to be voted upon by a referendum, and now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby create and authorize the Robin's Island Advisory Committee, as a citizen's advisory board. The Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall be and is hereby charged with the responsibility to fully investigate and develop all avenues for preserving the Island, including acquisition by the Town, using any and all available funding, both public and private, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall crake a preliminary report to the Town Board within two months and a full report within six months, and when any Town agency has to decide upon any applications by the owners for development, to such agency as part of its regular hearing process. The report to the Town Board shall include the following items of information: 1) Viable alternatives for preserving the Island in its natural state, with a recommendation as to the best method to proceed; 2) Funds available for,;and pledged to, each alternative; 3) The allowed uses of the Island for Southold residents under each alternative plan; 4) Local control entailed by the alternatives;. 5) Maintenance and operation costs and how they would be handled; 6) Any and all additional information.which the Robin's Island Advisory Committee, in its discretion, believes would be useful to the people Of Southold in making their determination; 7) Financial impact statement analysing the effect of all Alternatives on school and town taxes, as well -as the impact on Town services; 8) Impact to the residents of -New Suffolk and surrounding areas Re: access for Southold Town residents or others, if funding sources would require access by the terms of their funding; 9) The Robin's Island Advisory Committee shall consist of nine members as follows: William R. Pell III Douglas Ian Shaw Valerie Scopaz M. J. Paul William Smith Andrew Goodale Frank Cichanowicz Paul Stoutenburgh Richard Grathwohl and be it further RESOLVED, that as part of its final report, the advisory committee shall formulate a question, which encompasses the best method available for financing and maintaining the Island in its natural state, and be it further RESOLVED, that if the best method requires Town action which is properly the subject of a Town referendum that this question be placed on the ballot within a reasonable amount of time. J iv - F t��t F UJB OFFICE ;OF THESUPERVISOR TOW(V: b SyyOUHOLD YILLIAM R. PELL III .e SUPERVISOR MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 10 November 1980 TELEPHONE (516)765-1800 (516) 765-1939 Planning Board Torn of Southold Southold Town mall Southold, New York Dear Board P�b:mbers : The Robins Island Advisor,, Coriaittee would appreciate the cooperation of the Planning Board, in keeping us inf- ormed as to an, action, inf- or- i'aaticn or communication, regarding Robins Island, that you might receit►e. Also, if the present o1;*ners of Robins Island have presented any plans to the Tatvn Planning Board, please notify us. Thank you for your cooperation .4-n this matter. Sincerely youzs, William R. Pell III Supervisor Southold Toevn WRP: jm ` v - OFFICE OF,#: H^E=5 PERVISOR T �J 11Y'�, .tom_ ..;,�` .p 50LUT . DLD WILLIAM R. PELL III ,�"�%y� �'� SUPERVISOR MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 November 17, 1980 Roy H. Reeves Agency Main Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. McCarthy: TELEPHONE (516)765-1800 (516)765.1939 On Thursday November 13th, 1980, at our regular Robins Island Advisory Committee meeting, Liability Insurance was discussed. The committee has listed three alternatives for the island. They are as follows: Alternative #1 - To preserve Robins Island. Having only one caretaker. Alternative #2 - Set R/I up in natural trust, include limited access under sub -division of the town for specific purpose. Include added cost of summer personnel and main- tenance. Alternative #3.- Set up recreation type area, docking for boats, lifeguards, nature trails, tours, etc. We would greatly appreciate it, if you would give us a rough estimate on how much Liability Insurance would cost the town, under the package Plan, for each one of these three alternatives. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, William R. Pell III Supervisor Southold Town WRP:jm vi — c. -rte•, ��': ` 4"`:c=i3'�*�� -� OFFICE`-sHE.St10ERVISOR TO N,O�'"SDUJH LD WILLIAM R. PELL III TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR (516)765.1800 MAIN ROAD (516) 765-1939 SOUTHOLD, LI., N.Y. 11971 November 18, 1980 Robert W. Tasker Town Attorney 425 Main Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Tasker: - On Thursday November 13, 1980, the Robins Island Advisory Committee held their weekly meeting. A question was brought up at this meet- ing, that I would appreciate you answering for me. Can the Town of Southold, using its own tax revenues, compensate fully or in part, the New Suffolk School district for revenues lost should Robins Island be removed from the tax rolls? Thank you f or your cooperation in this matter. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, William R. Pell III Supervisor Southold Town WRP: jm . f � . MINUTES - ROBINS ISLAM ADVISORY CObddITTEE November 20, 1980 The Robins Island Advisory Committee met at 7:30 pan. Those present were: Chairman - William R. Pell Wm. Smith M. J. Paul D. Shaw V. Scopaz F. Cichanowicz P. Stoutenburgh A. Goodale R. Grathwohl Mr. Glenn Eugster, U. S. Department of Interior HCRS, Division of Natural Resource Planning was our guest- speaker Mr. Eugster answered questions presented by the committee and then he answered questions for the quests in the audience Mr. Eugster also brought a variety of books and 'phamplets with him. to the meeting, which he left with the committee for their information The next Advisory Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday November 26th at 6:30, This meeting is being held to discuss and go over the preliminary report that is to be presented to the Town Board for the December 2nd Town Board Meeting. Frank and Doug working on a draft and will present it next Wednesday night. The Committee will be going to Robins Island Saturday, November 22 at 8 am. T HENRY E. RAYNOR, Jr.. Chairman FREDERICK E. GORDON JAMES WALL BENNETT ORLOWSKI, Jr. GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. Jr. Southold, N.Y. 11971 111 TELEPHONE 765-1938 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board was held at 7:30 p.m., Monday, February 25, 1980, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Chairman Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Vice -Chairman Frederick E. Gordon Member Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Millicent Gossner, League of Women Voters Arthur Gossner Frank Bear, North Fork Environmental Council Tom Huggard Robins Island (Southold Development Corp.) Present at this portion of the meeting were William Esseks, attorney for the developer; John J. Raynor, engineer for the developer; Dwight Holbrook, Sag Harbor school teacher; Paul Demery, L. I. Traveler -Watchman; Mike Stahl, Suffolk Times; Councilmen Drum, Nickles, Murdock and Sullivan. The following answers were given by John J. Raynor to concerns mentioned by Chairman Raynor. Access to the island. New Suffolk property. Details have not been worked out as to how this will be handled. New Suffolk is part of the purchase and it is anticipated it will be used for a parking and docking facility for a boat to go back and forth from the mainland to the island. Ferry to provide safety in terms of police, fire and other necessary functions of the town. There may be a ferry service. There may also be a boat capable of carrying one large vehicle back and forth for maintenance purposes but not to serve as a daily ferry for vehicles. The chairman stated that it would be incumbent on the developer to provide a boat capable of carrying several pieces of fire equipment. Planning Board -2- February 25, 1980 Utilities. These will -be brought'over ground as"per Public Service Commission heating have not yet been considered. by cable and installed under - requirements. Fuel and Open areas. With the exception of the six acre common area on the north end they are intended to be passive use open areas. The large area in the center was selected because of its recharge capabilities to keep sufficient water for individual well systems and it being the only area large enough to preserve the existing wildlife. It consists of 117 acres. At the south end there is an open space selected because the island narrow quite considerably and there may not be sufficient fresh water to sustain houses. On the westerly side there -are two common areas. It is relatively flat and soil survey maps indicate they contain clay and would probably be unsuitable for septic systems. The common area at the northwest end is shown as a wetland preservation area and will not be developed. The .developers would be willing to covenant that this remain a wetland preservation area. The active use will be in the six acre area on the north end. North end common area. What, if anything, would be done with the existing dock facilities. The present facilities are not suitable for any type of ferry terminus. Do the developers have any type of proposal with regard to this area? Mr. Raynor answered that there was no proposal at'the.present time as the developers are interested in what the Planning Board concerns might be. Individual docks on baV. Mr. Esseks stated that he doesn't anticipate any docks on the island except at the north end. Bluff line in order to determine setbacks. 'Althou'gh relatively well-defined on the sketch, will be shown on the preliminary map. The Chairman stated that the west side of the island has been subject to erosion from the west center to the southwest. Vehicle parking. One proposal would be to provide parking in New Suffolk and provide a vessel to transport one vehicle at a time to the island. Another option is a ferry to carry vehicles to the island which has other ramifications. The chairman would like both options presented to consider the consequences of either proposal. Water tests and substrata information. The Dept. of Health will be consulted as to suitable locations for test holes and wells. It is an inappropriate time of year to do the testing now. Highways. Profiles will be necessary before the board can proceed. There will be difficulty with movement of materials of the island. The developers are hopeful of building the highways with existing materials on the island that would be most acceptable. The width of pavement and drainage requirements are subject to discussions with the Planning Board and Town Engineer. They would like no curbs. They feel each lot has sufficient area to accept runoff. without a system of storm sewers. Support data will be provided. They would like some indication from the Board as to what type of roads and drainage system would be appropriate. They prefer not to have a recharge basin in the center open center nor unusually wide streets requiring cutting of side slopes and things of that nature. Planning Board -3- February 25, 1980 Several members of the Board have not had an opportunity to visit the island and the chairman would like them and the members of the Conservation Advisory Council to make a field inspection to determine what devices or structures may or may not be used on the island. Certificate of disclosure. A more informative statement will be required. Mr. Esseks has discussed this with Mr. Tasker and has forwarded the request to Mr. Lesser, president of the corporation. State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Southold Town Planning Board will request lead agency status. Mr. Raynor stated that with land subdivision the impact statement does not commence until there has been some information as to acceptance of a sketch plan by the town. He will go into more detail then. Mr. Gordon asked if the developers had given any thought to covenants and restrictions on the lots as to no further subdivision. Mr. Esseks answered that it is their intention that a statement as to no further subdivision would be placed on the map. Mr. Esseks feels that the town attorney would have a substantial position in seeing that the covenant is drawn so that any question of more subdivision on the open space would be obviated. Mr. Orlowski stated there would be a problem with fire protection and he would like to see what the developers plan in regard to this. Mr. John Raynor stated this will have to rely on what decisions are made in regard to access. He felt it might be possible that apparatus could be kept on the island. This will be referred to the Cutchogue Fire Commissioners. It was suggested that the developers meet with the fire commissioners to study the matter. Even though this was not a public hearing, the chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience that had anything pertinent that the Board should be knowledgeable about. Dwight Holbrook, a resident of Sag Harbor, asked about the consideration of the archaeology of the island. Mr. Gordon asked if aerial views of the island are available. Mr. Raynor said they have some and can get more. When the map is in preliminary stage vertical photography of the island will be presented. Mr. Raynor, chairman, read a letter from the Suffolk County Archaeological Association requesting that the archaeolozy of the island be considered when the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. John Raynor requested a copy of the letter. Frank Bear, president of the North Fork Environmental Council, asked if the public can go over the island for an inspection. Mr. Esseks answered that it depends on who and how many. The Planning Board is to be contacted. Mr. John Raynor requested a copy of the minutes pertaining to this discussion and the request was granted. APPENDIX F PICTURES OF BUILDINGS TOWN HALL COPY ONLY FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK RUN ROBINS ISLAND SINKING FUND AINALYSIS OF YEARLY COST AND RESULTING PERCENTAGE IMPACT ON 1981 TOWN -WIDE TAX RATE CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $100000 4750 92625 13549.375 17621.9063 ' 21490.8109 25-166.2704 28657.9569 3\975-0-1-79 35126.3061 38�19�9908 ' - ' - '-- 43665.7916 46232.5021 48670.877 509� 3331 53187.9665 5 52 78. �f6O� 57264.6397 59151.4077 $60943.8373 IS THE T�TAL PRINCIPAL PAY�E�NT OVER 20 YEARS. lF YOU FI�ANCE $100000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $3047. 119187 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $10000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $13047.1919 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A A�ER��E TAX INCREASE OF .0827701754 %: CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $200000 9500 18525 27098.75 35243 8125 42981.6219 5O332 5408 57315.9127 63950. 118 70252.6121 76239.9815 81927.9824 87331.5833 92465.0042 97341.7539 10|974.666 106375.933 110,557. 136 114529.279 1�O302 815 $121887.675 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. �F YOU FINANCE $200000 BY hEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND \ IS $6094.38373 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $20000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $26094.3837 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREA-SE OF . 165540351 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $300000 14250 277O7.5 40648. 125 52865.7188 64472.4323 7549G. 8112 -- - - ` ' O5973.8706 95925. 1771 105378.918 114359.972 122891�974 130997.375 138697506 146012631 |52961.999 159563.899 165835 704 17\793.919 177454.223 $182831.512 IS THE TOTALPRINCIP"L PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS` IF YOU FINANCE $300000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $914l.57556 PER YEAR. ' ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $30000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $39141.5756 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .248310526 / CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $400000 19000 37050 54197.5 70487-625 85963.2438 100665082 114631.827 127900.236 140505.224 152479.963 163855.965 ^ 174663. 167 18493(l0O8 194683.508 203949.332 212751.866 221114.273 229058.559 236605.631 $243775.349 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $400000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ' IS $12188.7675 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ` $40000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $52|68.7675 THIS WOULD RESULT IW A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .331080702 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $500000 23750 463125 67746. 375 88109.Sala 107454. 055 '25,::;":.'. 332 I4S2S. 724 1519875. 293 175631. 53 19059% 934 20#81% 936 218320 938 231162. 51 243354.305 25495& 666 263939. est 276892 841 206323. 199 295757 009 $304719.1187 IS THE. -TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $500000 BY MEANS of A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% P ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $1.55-2335. 9593 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF s50000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $65235.9594 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE of .41&850877 % CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $600000 28300 35575 81296. 25 105731. 433 128944. 866 150' 7. 622 17"947.741 19185&354 210757 837 228717 945 245783. 747 261994. 73 277 3 95. Ola 292025.262 . 305923. 999 819127 799 . 331671.409 342337. S38 . 35490& 446 $_265663.024 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEAR IF YOU FINANCE $600000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5 PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $40,288 1512 PER YEAR ADeED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $60000 THE TOTAL 2T PER YEAR IS $7'8283.1512 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .496621052 X. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $700000 33250 64837.5 94845-625 123353.344 150435.677 176163.893 20'0605.698 223O25.413 ' 245884. 143 266839.935 286747.939 30566U.542 323627.515 340696. 139 356911.332 372315.765 ' 386949.977 ' 4O0852.478 414059.854 $426606.861 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $700000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $21330.3431 PER YEAR. ADDE.-W, TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $70000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $91330.3431 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERA3E TAX INCREASE OF .579391228 X. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $800000 ' 38000 74100 108395 - 140975.25 171926.488 20133[\ 163 ' 229263 655 255600.472 2a 1010. 449 304959.926 32771l.93 349326.333 369860.017 389367.016 407898.665 425503. 732 442228.545 45O1l7. 118 473211.262 $487550.699 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $800000 BY ",EAmS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $24377.5349 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF . $80000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS ___-_ $104377. 535 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .662161403 C:ALiCULA`T I C lti : FOR A PURCHASE PR I CE OF $900000 42750 83-362.56i. J 121944. '. -3 7 55 158597. 156 193417. 29 2264 96. 434 257921'.612 287775.531 316136. 755 343'-.)79. 917 368675.92i 392992. 1.25 . 416-092. 51'7 438037. 89 3 458885. 998 478691. 698 497507. 11:3 515381.758 532362. 67 $543494.536 IE THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $910000 3Y MEANS OF A SINKING: FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE P ^i I;v,'1I PAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $27424.7268 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $900:00 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $1117424.727 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .744931578 1. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1000000 47500 '72625 1=4.93. 75 176219. 063 214908.109 251662.704 2665-79 1662.704 6657?. 569 219750.59 :351263. 061 381199.908 409639. 912' 436657. '717 462325.021 486708. 77 50'7,373. 3:31 531879. 665 5'52 785. 632 572646.:398 591514. C;73 $609438.374 1'-::; THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEAR'S. IF YOU FINANCE $1000000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YT ELD I NG 5% PER ANN _'M FOR 20 YEAR; , THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 0 I:J 530471. 9167 PE -R YEAR. AD'L ED TO A 'YEARLY I NTE:�EST C'LDST OF s l 0100'00 THEE TO ; AL _-'_-:ST F' = ; YEAR I $1310,47 1. 919 ly:S WOULD FicSuLi \! A AvE;;Ati:E TAX I;NCREASZ OF =,27701754 i. �_iR A c. UL." FOR UR P , ICL. r f F''1='C:yA:=E PRICE OF $1100000 ti 250 0.$7. C ,., 149043. 12'-5 193840,969 236:393. 92 276828.974 3. 5. 2.3 7. 5.25 351725. 649 3863:09. x:67 419319. a`l0 45060:3. 9C.3 - 48,03:123. 7C8 5-08557. 523 -53 _;379. 647 560860.664 :s8•5067. 631 608064. 25 629911. 037 650665. 4:35 $670382.211 I3 THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1100000 Y MEANS OF A S I NK' I NU FUND ,YIELDING 51 FER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARN THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FEND I S $3:3519. 1105 PER YEAR. ADDED TO -A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $110000 THE TOTAL CONT PER YEAR IS $143:`-19.111 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVE Rr^,uE TAX INCREASE OF .910471929 %. .:ALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1200000 57000 111150 1 162592.5 5 211462. 875 257889. 7:31 '30,1995. 245 343395. 403 -•0.700. 700 42 1515. 67;3 457439. 80:9 - 491'567.:395 _.54790. 025 50:4050. 524 611847. 99 �- 2 55 Cell 7 X6:3:i.;4 . SIG=: 687175. 6,77 709116. 892, $731326.048 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS:. ----'-lF YOU FINANICE$1200�00 ' ---'--- 8Y MEAN3 OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS T�E PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $36566.3024 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST C�CST OF $120000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $156566.302 THIS W'JULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .993242105 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1300000 61750 1204125 176141.875 229084.781 279380.542 ' 327161.515 372553.439 415675.767 456641.979 495559.88 532531.886 567655.292 601022.527 632721.4 662835.32 691443.564 - 718621.386 744440.316 768968.3 $792269.885 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1300000 - BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCI�AL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $39613.4943 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $130000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $169613.494 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.07601228 %. ,-ALCULATIOMS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1400000 66500 \29675 189691.25 ' 246706.688 300871.353 352327. 786 40121l.396 ' 447650.826 491768.285 532679.871 573495.877 611321.083 647255029 681392.27O 7|3822.664 744631.53 773899.954 601704: 956 82311':x. 70" $853213. 723 TO; THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT _VEIR 20 YEARS. IF Y UFINMNCE $14.;c_000 BY �^E=v_; O A SINKING FUN: YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS T; E PRI NC I PAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND $42660. 6161 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $140000 THE TOTAL COT PER YEAR ::3 $ 1=2660. 6;—z,'6, THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.15878246 %. CALCULATIONO: FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1500000 71250 1 8'x+37. 5 203240. 625 94 322362.164 377494. 056 429869.353 479625. 835 526:394. 591 571799. 8'62 614459. 86'7 6c-54986.875 693487.532 730063. 155 7648,09.5-197 79781 . 497 `717e 522 858969.596 887271. 117 $914157.56 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1500000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $45707.878 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $ 1500 00 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR 13 $1195707. _:78 THIS WOUL : RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.224155263 i. _:ALCULATI�iN3 FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1600000 76000 148200 167'70 281950.5 2 ., � 5 •:,4•x•5. 7 402660. 3216 45 ,, 5 27. :31 11600. :744 562020.897 609919. 852 65542;:. 2555' 698652. _ 652. 666 7.19720. 033 778004. 031 _...... ---- .,.._. 15797. 33 �� J 851007. 46:21 0;:3,4457. 09 =i 16234. 236 946422.523 $975101.397 IS THE. TOTAL PRINCll,-AL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1600000 BY MEANS OF A SINKINCS FUNC, YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $4:3755. 0699 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $160000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $208755.07 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.32432281 'l.. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1700000 80750 157462.5 230339. 37,.E 299572. 406 365343. 736 427826.597 487-'85.267 543576. 004 597147.203 648039.843 696387.851 742318. 458 785952. 535 027404. 909 866784. 66:3 904195.43 939735.659 973498.876 1005573.93 $1036045.24 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1700000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FCR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $51802.2610 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $170000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR I8 $221802.262 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.40709298 8 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1300000 5500 166725 243888.75 75 317194. 313 386834.597 452992.867 515:343.223 575551. 063 63273. 509 686159. 834 73735L842 785984.25 832185'037 876075.786 91777L996 957383.396 995014.226 '03071 -.3. .1064725'. -'-'4 $1096989.A7 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1800000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS - THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $54849.4536 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $180000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS � $234849.454 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.48986316 2. '-CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $1900000 90250 175987. 5 257438. 125 334816.219 408325.408 478159. 138 54450L181 607526. 122 ' 667399.815 724279.825 778315.834 829650.042 878417.539 924746.663 968759.329 101057l.36 1050292.79 1088028. 16 1123876.75 $1157932.91 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $1900000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS . THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $57896.6455 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $190000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $247896.646 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.57263333 % CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2000000 95000 18525O _ 270987.5 352438. 125 42981��2|9 '- _ - -----' 5O3325�408- - ---' -'-- -- - - - -- -'-'-- - --' ---' 573159. 132, ' 63950L 181 702526 122 762399.815 819279.825 ' 873315.834 924650.042 9734|7.539 1U19746.66 1063759.33 i105571.36 1145292.79 |183028. 16 $1218876.75 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2000000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $60943.8374 PER YEAR. ADCED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $200000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $260943.837 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.65540351 X. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2100000 99750 1945125 284536.875 370060.031 ^ 451307 03 528491.678 601817.094 671476.239 ' 737652 428 800519.806 860243.816 916981.625 970882.544 |022088.42 107O734 1116947.3 1160849.93 1202557.44 1242179.56 $1279@20.,59 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2100000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $63991.0293 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $210000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $273991.029 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.73817368 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2200000 104500 _ ' 203775 298086 25 3O7681.938 472797.841 553657.948 630475i051 703451.298 77277O.733 83O639.797 90l2O7.807 960647.417 1017115i05 1070759.29 1121721.33 1170135.26 1216128.5 1259822 07 . 1301330 97 � $1340764.42 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS ' IF YOU FINANCE $2200000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $67038.2211 PER YEAR. - ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ' $220000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $287038.221 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.82094386 �. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2300000 109250 213037.5 ' 311635-625 405303.844 494288.652 578824.219 659133.008 735426.358 807985.04 876759.788 942171.798 1oo4az3.2/ 1063347.55 111943u. 17 ' 1172708.66 1223323.23 1271407.07 1317086.71 136048238 $1401708.26 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2300000 BY MEANS OF # SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $70885.412V PER YEAR. A-nDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $230000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $380085.413 THIS WCU�� RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.90371403 �. CALCCLATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2400000 114000 222300 3251O5 422925.75 515779.463 603990.49 687790.965 767401.417 843031.346 914879.778 983135.789 1047979 110"'9580. 05 1168101.05 1223696 . 1276511.2 1326685.64 ' 1374351.35 1419633.79 $1462652.1 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2400000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $73132.6048 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $240000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $313132605 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.98648421 %. CALCULATIONS FOR # PURCHASE PRICE OF $2580000 118750 231562.5 338734.375 440547.656 537270.278 629156.76 716448.922 799376.476 878157.652 952999.769 1024099.78 1091644.79 11558l255 12�6771'93 1274683.33 1329699. 16 1381964.2 1431615.99 1478785. 19 $1523595.93 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2500000 DY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $76179.7967 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $250000 THE TO`rAL COST PER YEAR • 'IS $326179.797 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.06925438 CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2600000 2.40-825 352283. 75 458169. 563 55076I.C84 84 654323.03 745106. 878 831351. 534 913283. 953 991119.76 1065063. 91119.76- 1065063. 17 - 1135310. 58 ' 1202045.05 1265442.8 S 1:125670. 66 12332887. 13 1437242.77 1468880.63 1537936.6 $1584539.77 IS THE TOTAL PRINC:IPAL.PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF Y`3U FINANCE $2600000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $79226.9885 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $2,6:1000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $339226.989 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX. INCREASE OF 2.15202456 X. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2700000 1'28250 250087.5 36 5833. 1'x'5 4757';/ 1. 469 =:c30,251. 895 6794:-:,'9. _201 773764.836 863326. 594 94841-0.264 1029239. 75 110607. 76 _ 1178976. S'S 1248277. 56 1314113. 68 1376657. 99 1436075. 09 149252 _. 34 1546145. 27 1597088.01 $1645483.61 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU F I NANC'E $2700000 3Y MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS --- -- THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND - ' '- ---------- IS $32274. !804 PER YEAR. A-l"3ED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $2700010, THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR ZS $352274. 18 Tj-fIS W�ULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 223479474 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2800000 133�00 259350 379382.5 492413.375 601742.706 704655.571 ' 802422 793 ` - 895301.653 983536.57 1067359.74 1146991.75 1222642. 17 12945i(l06 1362784.56 1427645.33 1489263.06 .1547799.91 1603409.91 1656239.42 $1706427.45 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2800000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $85321.3723 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $280000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $365321.372 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 231756491 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $2900000 137750 268612-5 392931.875 511035.28i 623233-517 729821.842 831080.749 ` 927276.712 1018662.88 1105479.73 1187955.75 1266307.96 1340742 56 1411455.43 1478632.66 1542451.03 1603078.48 1660674.55 1715390.83 $1767371�28 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. ' ---'_._--- IF YOU FINANCE $2900000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $88368.5642 .--'ER YEAR. ' ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $2900,10 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $378368.564 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.40033509 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3000000 142500 277875 406481.25 528657. 188 ' 644724.328 754988. 112 859738.706 959251.771 1053789. 18 1143599.72 ` 1228919.74 1309973.75. 1386975.06 |460126.31 1529619\99 ' 1595638.99 1658357.04 ' 1717939. 19 r 177454223 $1828315.12 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3000000 ' BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $91415.7561 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF _ $300000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $391415.756 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.48310526 %- CALCULATION$ FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3100000 147250 287137.5 42003{\625 546279.094 666215. 139 780154.382 888396.663 991226.829 1088915.49 1181719.71 1269883.73 1353639.54 1433207.56 1508797. 19 1580607.33 1648826�.96 ' 171;: 6:: 5. 1 - --- - 177520-":. 83 � 3 ;, _y 1:��,u6 - •�. I,4 $1889258.96 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3100000 BY MEAN: OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 10 YEARN THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $94462.9479 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 33100 :0 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR TS $404462.948 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.56587544 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3200000 151000 296400 4:3580 563901 637705, :75 805320. 653 917054. 62 1013201. 89 1124041.79 1119E:39. 7 1310347. 72 1397305. 33 ' 147.7440. C-17 1557468. 06 1631594.66 1702014. 93 1761914. 18 1832468. 47 i 9'845.05 $195002.79 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3200000 BY MEANS, OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $97510. 1397 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 3320000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $417510.14 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 64864561 1. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3300000 156750 305662.5 447129. 375 581 512. 906 7091 `76. 761 63, 0, 4 8 6. 923 945712.577 1055176. 95 1159168.1 1257959. 69 1351811.71 144097.1. 1' l 52567'. 5'7 1606138. 94 168258 1. 99 1755202. --89 1824-192.75 1889733. 11 1951996.46 $2011146.63 Imo: THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3::0002 s0 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE.PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $ 100557. 33'2 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $330000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $430557.332 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.73141579 "f.. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3400000 161500 314925 460673. 75 599144.813 730637. 572 855653. 193 974370.534 1087152. 01 1194294. 41 1296079. 69 1392775.7 1484636.92 1571905. 07 i654809. 82 1733569. 33 1:=X.'8390. 86 1879471.32 19469 97. 75 '011147. 86 $2072090.47 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3400000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 13 $103604.524 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $340000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $443604.524 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.81418596 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3500000 166250 324187.5 474228.i25 616766. 719 752178.383 880819. 464 1003028. 49 1119127.07 1'229420. 71 1334199. 6:. 1433739.69 1528302.71 1618137. 57 17C3480.69 1784556. 66 1661578.83 19 34749. 89 2004262.39 2070299. '27 $213.:034. 31 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3500000 BY "LEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $106651.715 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $3500t)0 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $456651.715 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.89695614 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3600000 171000 333450 487777.5 634388. 625 773669. 193 905985. 734 1031686. 45 1151102.13 1264547.02 1372319. 67 1474703. 68 1571968.5 1664370.07 175151. 57 1835543.99 1914766. 79 i 99os_i28. 45 206157. 03 2129450.68 $2.1193978.14 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3600000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% FER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND I S $109698.907 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $360000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $469698.907 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.97972631 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3700000 175750 342712.5 501326. 875 652010.531 ' 795i60.005 931l52004 1060344.4 1183077. 18 1299673.32 1410439.66 15i5667.68 1615634.29 17|06O258 180082245 1886531.33 1967954.76 2045307.02 2118791.67 2188602.09 $2254921'98 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3700000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS / THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $112746.099 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ' $370000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR 13 $482746.099 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.06249649 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3800000 180500 351975 514876.25 ' 669632.438 816650.816 ' 956318.275 1089002.36 1215052.24 |334799.63 1448559.65 1556631.67 1659300.08 1756835.08 1849493.33 �9�75�8,66 2021142.73 21O0585.59 2176056.31 2247753.5 $2315865.82 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3800000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $115793.291 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $380000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $495793.291 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.14526667 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $3900000 i 85250 361237. 5 52'8425.625 687254.344 833;1:1411. 627 961464. 545 1117660. 32 1247027.:: � 1369925.94 14116679. 64 1597595. 66 1702965. 87 1803067. 58 1898164. 2 1988505.99 20-74330. 69 , ' 1 6 2.11505864. ' 2233320.95 2306' 04. 9 $2376809.66 IE THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $3900000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $11L-3-840.483 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $ 9"__'000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $508840.483 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.22803684 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE -OF $4000000 1' 0(: %0 370500 `,41':75 704876. 25 96..2. 438 1006650. 82 1146318. 28 1279002. 36 14C5052.24 1524799.63 163855'39. 65 1746631. 67 1849300. 08 1'Y46 „3a. 08 2039492. 33 212751S.66 2211142. 73 225 0585. 99 2366056.31 $2437753.5 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4000000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS . THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $12.887.675 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $400000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $521887.675 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.31080702 X. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4100000 194750 379762.5 555524.375 722498. 156 88�'1.23.248 1031817.09 1174976.23 1310977.42 1440178.55 1562919.62 1679523.64 1790297.46 189553259 1995505.96 ' 209048O.66 2180706.63 2266421.29 2347850.23 2425207.72 $2498697.33 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4100000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $124934.867 PER YEAR ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $410000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $534934.867 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.39357719 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4200000 ` 199500 389025 569O73.75 740120.063 902614.059 1056983.36 1203634. 19 1Z,42952.48 |475304.86 1601039.61 1720487.63 1833Y6325 1941765.09 2044176.83 - 2141467.99 2233894.59 2321699.86 2405114.87 - 2484359. 13 $2559641.17 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4200000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $127982.059 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $40000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $-547982.059 059 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.47634737 CALCULATIONS, FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4300000 2042510 5:32623.125 398287.5 5Vi623. 125 7577411.969 9 924104.87 1082149. 63 1232292.15 1374927. 54 1510431.16 1639159. 6 1761451:62 1877629. 04 1987997.59 2092847. 71 21:92455. 33 22 87082. 56 2376978. 43 2462379.51 2543510. 462379.51 543510. 53 $2620585.01 IS THE TOTAL 'PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4300000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $131029.25 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $430000T THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $561029.25 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.55911754 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4400000 209000 407550 `'76172. 5 775363. 875 945 595. 631 1107315.9 1260950.1 1406902.6 1545557. 47 1677279. 59 1802415. 61 1921294. 83 2034230. 09 2141518. 59 2243442.66 2340270.52 24357 2519644.15 2602661. 94 $2681528.84 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4400000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5 PER A%i�UM FUR 20 YEARS - -' - '--'- -- ' '- --- ---'--- THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $1134076.442 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $440000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $574076.442 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVE -RAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.64188772 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4500000 213750 416812-5 _ 609721.875 792985.781 967086.492 11324O2. 17 ' 1289608.06 ` 1438877.66 1580683.77 1715399.58 �843379.6 1964960.62 208046259 2190189.46 2294429.99 2393458.49 2487525.57 2576908.79 2661813.35 $274247268 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4500000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $137123.624 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $450000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $587123.634 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.72465789 % CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4600000 218500 426075 623271.25 81O607'688 988577 303 1157648.44 1318266.02 1470852.72 1615810.08 1753519.58 1884343.6 200862642 2126695.1 2238860.34 2345417.32 ' 2446646.46 2542814. 13 2634173.43 2720964.75 $2803416.52 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU F I NA;ti--,E $460o.100 100 3Y MEANS C:= A SINKiNG FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM F R 20 YEARN THE PRIN.=IPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $14:1170. 826 PER YEAR. + ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $46C;CaC.10 THE TOTAL CONT PER YEAR I3 $600170.8,26 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAG=E TAX INCREASE OF 3. 80742807. -CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4700000 223'50 435337..E 636820.625 32"'8229.594 1010048. 11 1182814. 71 1346923. 97 1502827.77 1650934. 39 1791639. 57 19253o7.59 2052292. 21 2172927.6 226'37531. ' "7•�53 ti 1. 2396404. 66 2499834. 42 2598092.7 X691438. 07 2780116. 16 $2864360.36 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4700000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $1643218.01;3 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $470000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $61::218. 018 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.89019824 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4800000 228000 444600 650370 845851.5 1031558. 93 12079 80. 98 13'75581. 9 1534802. 83 1686062. 69 1829759. 56 1966271. 58 20 r -595 8 2'21'.-7160. 1 2336202. 09 2447:391.99 215 51Z�022. 3 / 2653371.27 274870 653371.'27 74874 2. 71 28392167.57 $2925304.19 IS THE TC:TAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4800000 BY MEANS O= A SINNING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THZ PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND I $146265.21 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $480000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $626265.21 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.97296842 /.. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE -OF $4700000 ;2750 453862.5 663919. 375 863473. 406 1053049. 74 1233147. 25 1404239.89 1566777.89 172118'7 1867879. 55 2007235. 57 r L1 V��6LtiJ. 7f 2265392.6 2-384872. 97 2498379.32 2606210. 36 2708649.94 26 05967.35 U•�5 ,+ 35 2898413.98 $2986248.03 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4900000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $149312.402 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $490000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR I8 $639312.402 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 4.0557386 Y... CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $5000000 237 500 463125 677468. 71 881095. 313 1074540. 55 1258313.52 14. 2897. 34 1598752. 95 1756315.3 1905999.54 204,E 199. 56 231165. 1 24 _.3.14.x. C5 2549366. 66 2659398.32 2763928.41 2195J7570. 3.5) $3047191.87 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEAR'S. IF YOU FINANCE $5000000 BY MEANS 0, A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $152359.593 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST GUST OF $500000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $652359.594 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 4.13850877 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $5100000 242'250 472387.5 691018. 125 898717.:'19 10'.j 6031. 36 1283479. 79 14615555. S. 1630728. 01 1791441. 61 1944119. 53 2089163. 5 5 2226955.38 2:157857. 61 2482214. 73 2600353. 99 2712586. 29 2819206. 98 2920496. 63 3o!6721.8 $3108,1: �5. 71 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 20 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $5100000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PER ANNUM FOR 20 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $155406.785 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST CONT OF ;510000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $665406.785 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 4.22127895 '1.. PROGRAM BY DOUG SHAW AND ROI; PIKE LIST 10 REM D. I . SHAW -' S SINKING FUND 20 REM INITIALIZE VARIABLES 40 REM X=PRINCIPAL AMOUNT FINANCED 50 Y = 20:X = 100000 52 PRINT " ROBINS ISLAND SINKING FUND" 53 PRINT " --'--'54 ___ PRlNT " -' ' 'AwALYSIS OF*YEARL9'COST "-'----- '- ------~---- 55 PRINT 56 PRINT " AND RESULTING PERCENTAGE ZMPACT" 57 PRINT 58 PRINT " ON 1981 TOWN -WIDE TAX RATE" 59 PRI%T " PRINT '60 FOR Z = 0 TO 50 70 YS = X / Y 80 REM RECURSIVE LOOP 90 YC = YS 95 PRINT "CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASEPRICE OF $"X 100 FOR'R = 1 TO Y 110 K = YC * .95 120 IF R { } Y THEN PRINT K 122 IF R = Y THEN PRINT "$"K" IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER "Y" YEA 130 YC = K + YS 140 NEXT R 150 YP = K / Y 152 PI = (YP + (X 10)) 15763156 - 155 PRINT 160 PRINT "IF YOU FINANCE $"X" 170 PRINT "8Y MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% 180 PRINT "PER ANNUM FOR "Y" YEARS 190 PRINT "THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND" 200 PRINT "IS $"YP" PER YEAR." ' _ 202 PRINT 204 PRINT "ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF" 206 PRINT "$"(X / 10)" THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS" 208 PRINT "$"YP + (% / 10)" THIS WOULD RESULT IN A " 209 PRINT "AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF "(100 * PI)" %." ^ 210 PRINT' PRINT PRINT 220 X = X + 100000 `. 230 NEXT Z 240 PRINT PRINT "PROGRAM BY DOUG SHAW ANDRO8 PIKE" 300 END ] ] 3 ] � ] ] ] ] 3 PI-R#O ROBINS ISLAND SINKING FUND —AIIALYSIS OF YEARLY COST AND RESULTING PERCENTAGE IMPACT eNt98t -TeWN-WIDE. TAX. RATE -eftetjLAT ll eNS FOR A PdR,'!HK, I RM- $tOOOOO 3166.66667 6175 3 'IL747.9375 1 4327 . 2073 1466?77- tr t :3 6 19105.3046 21316.706 i25413.3272 C. 27309.3275 t 0. 5 30821. 6631 32447.2513 45S: *6443 '375475 e '316852. 37eS 39434.2718 40629.2249 �42842.8, '755 1431867. 3983 45765.327 46643.7273 r474:7 -W. 2e:76 1482,70.9639 !?024.0823, L - -P 0"R 3e Y �-_049, !S—THE T-eTAL; PR!Ne v Q_ IF YOU FINANCE $100000, SINKIN&-FUND YIELDING 55.' PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS 1.THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 984&3�- PER -YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF fffff !$11657.9848 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .0739571748 %. "k,AL4.XUL'Ai I UN�i FUN f4-i-UHUHAbL'eH I L;L-UF' '$ZfL)UfUQU- 633'---'. 33333 121350 18065. 833'--. 23495.875 286 54. 4 146 33:210. 6091 4263�. 412 50826.6544 546-18.655 176239.9815 :181927.9824 92465.0042 97'_":;41. 75_"::9 106375.:33 110557. 136 118:102. 815 121887. 675 - 12u5'28. 6'.:'6 131602. 1 95 1345221. 085 137295.981 139931.182 -4 424G4. 623144812.892 147072. 247 $f492iS. 635 19 THE TeTAL PRlNF_-.lPAiz PAYMENT eVER 30 YEARS. I F YOU FINANCE $300000 -�`?�Z1 PER ANNU=M FOR :30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $8080e THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR 15 $234973. - $2.4973. 9545 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TRX' INCREASE OF .221871524 IF YOU FINANCE $400000 �'F MEANS OF PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 939e2 ER YEAR. !ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF `*410'000- Ti Tt3T-AL-- EQST--PE"EArt- 18$46631.9393 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .295828699 %. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $500000 15833.3333 30875 171636.0364 95526.5228 |065O3.53 ,-kI7087. 687 1127066.636 / 136546.637 154108.34 162236.257 184261. 894 197171.359 l |^~~~^-- ^~- 214214. 377 . 219336.992 228826.635 23@218.637 � 241354.82 ' !T OVER 30 YEA IF YOU FINANCE $560000 IPER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS 1THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND IS $8-2159. 9-241t PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF *W-516%".10459 THE TOTAt CbtT PER YEAR f:B ;tl$58289.9242 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A 'fAVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .369785874 337050 70487.625 85963 2438 i00665. 2 1114631.827 127900.236 40505. 224 152479.963 163855.965 212751.866 ' 221114.273 ��,n�o���' - '— ' ------ 236605.631 243775. 243775.349 . 250586.582 257057.253 263204.39 !27Y862.364 ` 289625.784 294144.494 ' :IF YOU FINANCE $600000 BY 'MEANS -e -F -A SINVINO-FUND YIELDING 5Y. PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ' iS $994:7. 9089-9 PER YEAR. !ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $69947.909 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .443743049 22166.6667 43225 82235.5625 10029[\451 - 133737. 132 149216942 11778-93.29 215751.676 227130. 759 /24821{\51 2579a6`65126:72e,4. 985 276():3'-,). '.5 3 284404.574 ,2f2���� '299900.128 :307071.789 320357 289 -- 326506.091 337O96.748 343168.577 IF YOU FINANCE $700000 _ PER ANNUM FOR au YEARS ' THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF �vnono'/Mt-- /u/*L cu5)'rt�� vL�Hx I �:i-- —''-- — ''---------- ------'--------^- $81605.8938 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .517700223 X. i 25333.3333,49400 939E3.5 11 7.658 't i 152842. 437 648 203306. 617 218474. 62 !246573.345 1259578.011 283669. 154 294G -i19.. 03 .�_~.^^ 315474. 175 3250-2:3. 799 34274 004 350939. 187 37:3149. 8 18 386167.711 392192.659 !IF YOU FINANCE $800000 Lt"�- MEAN A SINKING FUND YIELDING 57. PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ;ADILDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 31.9127.799 33167 331671.409 343587.838 354908.446 365663.024 3851-1585.' 379 411887943 419793.546 441216.741 $445765-55. 5104�S-THE TeTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OV R '30 YEARS, IF YOU FINANCE $900000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 5, el f) e 6 TOTAL e8ST PER YEAR 18 i$104921.863 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A 1AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .665614573 .7.. 131666.6667 117479.375 143272073 191053.046 213167.06 254133 272 c7oo*3 275 324472.513 9915.- 554 354586.443 368523-788 394342.718 :406292.249 -b 429428.755 438673.984 1457653.27 74782.077 482709.64 490240.824 497395.45 18 THE TOTAt FRINtIPAtz PAYMENT OVER 30 YEARS. 1IF YOU FINANCE $1000000 1w FUND YlEtDillb 5% PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND - � 1�-$�6a��� ��u� ��M�'Y�*x''------'—'--�----�---------------- -`- -� -^--'--'-'-^--~^� ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $100000 THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $116579.848 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .739571748 %. ' ' 3�833.3333 67925 ' 1157599.28 t 084552. 210158`35 Z34483.766 ' 1279546-599 1300402.602 339038.349 '356919. 765 --- - IF YOU FINANCE $1100000 iPER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS JHE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF :*ttO000 THE TQTAt CO2T PER YEAR 12 :$12,3,237.833 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A i�AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .813528922 X 2219263. 655 1-155800.472 304959.926 32771193 � -'-'-' 36 860. 017 3 :: 367. 016 407893.665 425503. 73'2 442220.545 458f t7. 1 tO 47:3211. 262 i427550.699 514114. 506 56408. 73 , 549 183. 924 ':5597'24.728 -569:7�:v:...-492 -- 579251. 567 58 •%88 •J 4J��itJt}. 9IJ9 1$5968:74. 539 118 THE TOTAL, F-11RINeff-AL PAYMENT OVER 26 YEARt, 'IF YOU FINANi_E $1200000 BY—�rNS fsF—A S NG—"E� fY JINO 5Y. =°ER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 15- .8i8 PER YEAR. :ADDED - :ACDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST GUST OF $t2Cl6t)t) THE TOTAL COST 818 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .887486097 %. 41166. 6667 8075 i c•` •` 1 7 .:_. 188 u8v 1865 695 X48368. 959 277117. 178 IF YOU FINANCE $1300000 1:�Y_ ;'IhHNB Ul- M �11NKiNU I-UNU- YlhLiJil\lU PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAY.11ENT INTO THE FUND 1:3 $21553-1. 8028 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF TAL COST PER YEAR 13 $151553.803 THIS WOULD -RESULT IN A !AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF .961443272 X. A URCHASE PRICE OF $1400000 443:33. 3334 86450 164471. 125 200580.902 1267474.264 298433. 884 `;127-8 45-7 -5-2-3 -:55786. 58 382330.585 '43.11503.353 1454261.518 496421.02 51593`3. 302 552079. 805 568809. 148 1176219.06a' q 1214908.109 286579.569 319750.59 -,81199. 90 4096,3 .J. 5112 4'366.57. 917 462325.021 486708. 77 531879. 665 552785.682 572646.398 591514. 073 6094 374 -626#66.5 . 642643. 133 658010.976 -6726 10. 606479. 905 699655.91 _ 7 t2 t73 --i t 4 724064.45'.:j 7:5361. 236 $747,5098. 1 7 I:,-T'rtE--Tt7TAL—Pf, I Nt. 'At A1fME-'�i.T OVER 30 YEARS. I F YOU FINANCE $1500000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND '[S *24869. i } R 7 E ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $i5ftab THE TOT -At COST PER YEAR 1:3 $174869.773 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.10935762 %. -eAEeuLATieNS FOR A PURCHASE F'RfCE OF *1600000 50666. 6667 98800 8t' L+V 187967 2292*25. 317 -26G440. 305684. 873 341067. 2196 406613. 235 4:36,-.149. 24 -4&5-7-6 :- 445 4'+'L X46. 689 519156. 021 5 4 e e6. VV 56-7338. 309 589638. 06 6it)82:21. _ '!630948.349 :1�6�5�006-.•7. 5 8 Jai' . _ e5 685486. 007 701870.37Z' 77-17-45 1--t `�-t- 732245. 232 i746299.637 772335.422 784385. 311 �/`.•�I�«�`�: •/ I� l;� ` I't-tt f U I HL YtiilVL:lYHL 1='HY1"i�1V i UV�1-C ,:1!) Ytrlh:s. .IF YOU FINANCE $ 1600000 BY MEANS; OF A SINK I NO FUND YIELDING 5% FER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS IN_:IPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND THE PR ; '.�..B 26527.--75-7-3- PER YEAR. ADDED TO A .YYEA.�RLYY TN..TERE�ST� COST OF TH-E R IS $1,:6527. 757 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.1833148 %. ,13033. 33,33 104975 243562. 524 324790.178 2,62384. 002 3r';?,-L--t-J--- ;432026.562 1464258.567 52 3968. 357 551603. 272 : :602796.953 :'626490.439 670382. 62 1 690696. 124 7283 28. 884 1745745. 773 778()1 i :. 56 792943.365 �007'129. 5 -:20606. 387 :833409. �� _,40:7. 4U 1 $254557c'. 264 _ h 3 .D. IF YOU FINANCE $1700000 ...��.•••..• ... ilrralry 1 •Jlr�• I1L�i•11�4J �•�,. .,. .. .. ... .. .: ...:'ca.: ;PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS ';THE .�PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND L 18 4�i•J t85.7#2t PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF •rai vti•vv 11 IL IV11-IL V•.-1 1 LI\ II -MIA iV $198185.742 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A " AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.25727197 %. - - --- fes - $0000,000 1 � 1 s 1CIE 157000 111150 211462. 875 257889. 731 ..- - ' - -- - -_ ' ---- -- -- - -- -- 36,*-- 70Q. 708 4? t Z 15. 673 45743 x. L,89 49.11 567. 89:5 i``. P;2,9. 5 55479o. 025 58405e). L'.::4 i J.-7yS - ti8255. .I 2. 663 •J 44 2. 818 7098'16. 893 11731326. 048 771171. 758 789613. 171 807132. 5t2 8237755. 6.?i •_IV -•9587. 092 ' 868877.35 5 C L •.l i3. J�•J��t.0 •1 i`_'•�.+5:2,i t. •f; T- 11 I (-7G TOTAL r1711Vb•PAYl,tr-NT OVER J ti:. !IF YOU FINANCE $1800000 -L A • -�1- �iV�; tFUND Y-Mt� PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND fS $29843.3-27 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST 'COST OF $20984-3.727 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.33122915 %. liA.LG•L1L. a JIVE FOR A 19.1 $t900000 . 60016.6. 6667 117325 `-1 7 6,25.- 223210. 612 27.�2y2216. 939 363000.787 4 ',-'5 017. 415 -444-5 48285 =,. 217 51;=,877. 22 �5utel _._t• -8J 611. 6'j3 616497. 775 ;673714.242 1700195.196 7' 74'7' 1. 164 771955. 272. ,-:79:5524. t767-- 814014.633 J814014.633 833430. 560 36':541. ':' 13 886230. 819 91714',91. 314 5,31457. 565 $945051.35=; IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 30 YEAR:.. IF YOU; FINANCE $1900000 J t i JPtIND YIELDINSJ. . PER ANNE I'l FOR 30 YEAR, 'THE Ph-IN=:IPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 1-5 AL DED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF THE -TCTC'Z2 1 .� $'221501. 711 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.40518632 %. FuRl-MASE PRICE OF $2000000 .63333.3333 1'123500 tS, e555 ----vim-- 234958.75 286544 4958.75 86544. 146 35 5C1. -22-7`1— 382106. 091 426334. 11 _ J8Tr . 48 508266. 543 546136. 54`7 -c - -- -5a�� .616433. 361 648945. 016 709171. 836 737047. 575- 788685.437 75788685.437 • ;125,4. 49�a-- 4.1�irJV. 4JV 856.17. 51 877:247.968 915306. 541 932874. 547 965419. 279 ..180481. 648 IME TOTAL FRINeIPAL FAYMEM:30 VEAKS. ! I F YOU FINANCE $2000000 MEANS O '731NKING r , ti. PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND .-rJ $33159. 605,66 PER YEAK.... ... ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST CONT OF $200000 TIM IcYrTAL $233159.697 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.47914335 %. CALCdLATIONS FORc OF $2100000 66500 129675 246706.688 3C,(-)-.-!.,7 1. 353 5:':=.27. 786 4,'.) 1211.:3'x%6 447650. 826 + i:768. 2 8 53:-,67,P. 871 _ 573495.877 �7_3_4, _�_Je 5 . 7 7 [� 1 i eel. eSS 647255. Q25 - 68l _:92. 278 7 8822. 664 ' 744631. 5-: 773899. 954 -e-0-1-70 4. 956 708 r-.5,: �y��L1��•= . i .3. Elle6 899700. 38.4 921215. 365 96 107 1. 867 97951-8. ,. 273 101-2690.24 1029505.73 $1044530. 44 1Q, THE T,--lTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 30 YEAR2.. IF YOU FINANCE $2100000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE �LPRINCIPAL PAYMENT TIINTO THE FUND 1 J- •M •- '- 1 68 G 1 R—YPIG R. AL:DED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ` THE TOTAL COST PEft-�AK--18 $244817.6e.1 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.55310067 %. 69666.6667 i 35850' ' ir-»2n 16 258454.625 1 '-5- 19 8. 561 G �-91-45r--2' ---- 42(-)316. 701 46-8967. 533 5c ** -- 44_ C� L�•J. •12• 559093.198 600805. J. 20 5 678,076. 697 713839. 529 1:747/8,i4. i 19 780090.). 175 '31 0)752. 3:2 86/553. 98 . 893842. 947 ;893842.947 � 6, 7 942543.26 965082. 76,3 1006837.19 1026162 1044520.57 1061961.21 1078529. 81 -104269. THE TOTAL- FRINCIPAt FAYMENI IOVER :30 YEARS. : I F YOU FINANCE $2200000 RY !iEA-A-'S'IitKI1�it,�FdN _% PIER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND :-f5 $-t6475. � ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF COST PERa $256475.666 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.62705785 %. =34 AT f ONS F01 -PbRf!�HAZLE-PRICE OF $2300000 72833.3333 142025 27020. 56:. 32-P525. 768 ... . 1 ti+�+..1+�+V i. L+ 1 •J 43942. 00 5 4:/0284. 238 56450/+ 525 628114. 5:32 7V +J 5J+.•/V. 365 746286. 78 151545. 819 847604. 712 906968.253 934472.173 J 515 198538-6. 1.:+6 10081950. 16 - T-35: - r 1052602. 52 1072305.73 1il''rt 98. 7,3 F-1-0 ' 1110232. 17 112755:3. 39 i!44009. ,J,.' 12, THE TIDTAt lNCfPAt PAYMENT OVER 30 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2:300000 �i AN.J OF A J 1 • ':PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS .THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF F��3 MO THE TOTAL COST PIER YEAR 1:3 t68183.651 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A 1AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.70101502 X. 4HLl_:ULH { 1Uiu".�,- rUFi H r'UKl:HH.t r'ti1L:c UI- $'�4UUUUU 76000 148200 1679:1 281950. 5 r/ 5- L♦♦��•Jc . _I L. _ 326. 1458527. 31 511600. 944 .57 2A2E). �Et97 609919. 852 6555423.859 73 720. 033 775734. 031 851007. 463 S84457.09 '&6- , ::�4' 6422. 52 975101.:397 1028229.01 01 105218i7. 56 109: 367. 85 j 119449. 46 1 V 1 5 , 85 J_. 1 1 v - 1t tiJ 1176577. 9,3 l F Y U FINANCE $2400000 L+f I IGf'114L �II 1"I •J 1141\11Vti. 1 NG t PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE F'RINC:IFAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND AZ LEU TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF tsr-TTf�t->�tf`JT-€SER-�tEA£t-� $279791.636 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.7749722 %. T-I-tf1 3 $2500000 79166. 6667 154"75 93698. 438 -419487. L . 4776:32. 615 5_22917. 651 5854S . 48 6353----:3. 1 682733. 187 770541. 701 ;111 S 1.tt:_ -338 1466. 10:1 921309. 468 -;�-t r--6Al2-- 'l• 58,56. 795 1015730. 62 1071071.89 1096684.96 1121017.38 1144133. 18 1166093. |8 1225602.06 IF YOU FINANCE $2580000 :PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS :THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF �$291449 621 THIS WOULD RESULT IN # 'AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.84892927 :L O�32 3333 i - .16055O 305446 375 372507. 39 �496737. 919 554224. 356 66O746.507 710042 515 801:363. 369 :843628. 534 883 921924.753 95816L848 /102529L 07 i1056359. 85 1118914.76 � 140552.36 F /--_'_'_ _ 12-12736. 91 ' 1255045.06 1274626. 14 . !lt2 3226-1-7- 18 THEE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 30 YEAF�S. 'IF YOU FINANCE $2600000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 1ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF HE TO' I At COIST PER YEAR 13 $303107.606 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.92288654 �� . - _--_- ' --- - --' _----__--'__-' _ CALCULATION:: FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $22700000 G5500 166725 17194. 313 38&:334. 597 515,34:3. 22: 575551. 063 - err •> 686159. 834 7.17351. 842 785984. i @32185. 0:37 176075. 786 -9 1 . 9,96 957383. x;96 995014. 226 v 13. 52 1064725. 64725. 34 109691,39. 07 ti27 3P. 2 1156757. 64 1134419. 76 12 35663. 83 12 511 9 8 0. 64 - 1y2L+ l 130 316. 03 ' 13231650. 1 32,.3 1 650 '2 r+ 21 ti�Y : .3l THE TOTAL FIRINCfFALPAYMENTJ J. IF YOU FINANCE $2700000 PER ANNUS! FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ?-- #47 -5 n� F E- ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 270ef)AIia^ TOTAL COST ' __ $_ 14765. 59 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 1.99684372 l.. 38666. 6667 172900 25i�Ti 1 . :323942.25 401161. 804 534948. 528 596867.768 711573. 161 764661.169 8631 %06. 70 90652;:. 036 "Ft=, 3-55 }- 992842. 04 103.11:366. 6 1|04|59.61 113761E}3 1169404.05 1199600.51 1228287. 15 46, 1351586.99 1372674.31 2t 12; THE TIDTAt PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 30 'YEARS. 7:7. !IF YOU FINANCE $2800000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS . THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND..00e,e,f) THE TOTAL COST PER YEAR 1S ' AIDDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $326423.575 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.07080089 91O33 3333 179075 1143593.S8 1178247.52 ' 1272154.55 1327194.48 ' 1352668.09 139918-57. 95 1421 169 S. 3 9 INE !LIIAL MINCIPAL FAYMEN1 OVER 30 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $2900000 1PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS ITHE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF - *2';d0o00THt 'u/HL Cu::�> rtH Yt*x l!:5 $33O081.56 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.144758()7 % 185725.0 35.24-:8. 125 429816.219 573159. 138 639501. 181 762399.815 819279.825 , 8783i5. 834 1063759.33 1105571.36 t t 452192. 79 I 18:3023. 16 ,:1218876. 75 1285286.26 1316021.95 t!2.45'2120. 05 1372959. 81 1399311. 82 1448128.92 1470722 47 IF YOU FINANCE $3000000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF THE TeTC%L eeST PER YEAR 1S $349739.545 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.21871524 CAtt-C-t2tA:r,-l0N8 -FOR PRICE OF $,]lt00000 98166 6667 191425 280020.417 36,4186. 063 444143.426 592264.442 660817.887 787813. 143 ' 846589. 152 955471.709 1005864.79 1099217. 97 11424'23. 74 11:3346'7.22 12222462. 43 1259505. 97 1 1 "28125. 14 i3159889. 35 1415725. 14 1445955-55 i 7t22 . 414 1496399. 88 11511 9746. 55 $-t54 t.��2 . V J 1 V 11'1 PRINCIPAL OVER SO Y EARS. . IF YOU FINANCE $3100000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 5298 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ,*fjt0000 THE TIOTAt ee PER YEAR f:3' $361397.53 THIS WOULD RESULT UL IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.29267242 /.. 1134676. 62 1179.2,..�6.�7yy 6. 12 2. 1261896. 7 :1300135.2 77 1370972. 01 1403756. 75 :`.t 24 1464490. 46 1492599. 27 1544670. 84 156ti770. 64 'IF YOU FINANCE $:3200000 By MEANS -Or- SINKIING FUND YIELDING 5. PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS' THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND lz� YEAH. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $32"--'C'00 I i iE TOTAL COST PER YEAR IS $37:230515. 515 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX T',,<REASE OF S. 366622959 :i.. c*AttttATi! FOR A PURCHASE1 1 G OF $3-21)0000 10450 - -- 104500 203775 _--y 29 6. 3 8,7681. 938 . 4727?7?7. 841 55865:7. 948 630475. 051 70-2451. 298 772778. .J 838639, 797 901207. 807 1017115. 05 1070759. 29 l lil 1. S J 1170135. 26 1116128. 5 i259822. eff 1301330. 97 1340764. 42 1413814. 89 1447624. 15 1479742.94 1510255.79 1539243 -1-5)r�'8't 1592941.81 1617794. 72 IF YOU FINANCE $3300000 . L y-�- - FUNB YIELDIN13 FE R ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRII�NCIFAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 1 •J -J �t f 1 �.4994 1 YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF --84713-.499 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.44058677 "1.. 107666. 667 209950 . 399429.875 875 487125. 048 -570435. -4 649580. ,56 724761. 004 -7 56,1 6. 27-f-- - - 864053.124 928517. 134 10479:36. 71 1103206.54 11. 5712. 88 12055-93. 91 1252980. ). :38 r2�5 75-.1*3 - '1340765.24 13,8139:3. 65 "moi 9- 1456657. 77 1491491.55 ::1556021.12 !i 1585386.73 - 411177. 812 15,o1452. 255 6686:15. 66 746084. 711 '889466.452 '955826.462 1078758. 38 11 "5653. E, y t4. 4 1241052. 55 - - 1380199.51 1422022. 87 146t755. 06:.... L 1499500. 64 :1535358.94 �4243 1601786. 44 1632530. 46 `7-27-- 27-- :1689483.74 1715842. 88 c• `fit �fiUfit �Fµ�'�ntG`If'A�F' Yl'f€OVER 3 a. IF YOU FINANCE $3500000 r•U �grn4:r.. r.r- n... '-.esu: rrrr. r: ir:rvTr-� �.T 4�a^... rL• U t m=f-vN� UI- H L iVt i NU PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT I S $5802-19.469 PER YEAR I'>_iNL.i Y 1 CLU i IVU CIA - INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF -$:550tDOO THE TOTALeb,-5T PER_S $40:3029.469 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.58850112 '!.. !Oils - 3 - OF 36 114O00 222300 422925.75 515779. 46: 657790. 965 767401. 417 SE - • 346 778 9831'35. 789 110 580. 05 1168101. 05 i2,2 J 1276511.2 1326, ,05. 64 tf,�74:25t. `35 : 1419633. 79 1462652. 1 1t'. r 1542-243.52 1579226. 34 i G 1 T L L- 5. 02 • 1647551. 77 1679174. 1S i7t-192t5. 47 1737754.7 17648 66. 97 IF YOU FINANCE $3600000 BY MEANS ti: \ 1 1 E LDINO 5". PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND -I8 687. 45-- , PER YEAR. ADL+ED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF JJ t. J.r 1HE 1AL s 1 YEAR IS $419687.454 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.66245829 %. efteu,L-ATims eR A PURCHASE PRICE $3700000 117166.667 22E3475 434673.688 530106. 67 706896. 269 7687f - u� S. 122 u66**L�. tjdu . ' - . ' I ----------'---- 940293 105 1010445. 12 1077089.53 1140401.72 1200548.3 11311969.84 1459068.06 |5032O1.32 11623093.74 1693317. 1 1725817.91 /^'`'~~'`^ .67 IF YOU FINANCE $3700000 MEANS F A SINKING FUND YlEtlilING 57. IPER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS ITHE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 446421.625 544433.877 1347428.48 _ 1400390`39 11:�UIU�. /1 1%. 1Ht IUIHL h'HYM:7-Nl UVtti ;:,U YtANLi. YOU FINANCE $3800000 BY MEANS OF A SINKING FUND YIELDING 5% PIER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINI=IPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND z $6:5003. 2•�5 PER -Y€ n. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF 388-,, r00-T-F�E-�,&TAL-tr3sT-QE71--YEARis - $443003.424 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.51037264 %. CA C. u -FOR cam. PRICEOF23, 123500 240525 Z-2&3 458169. 563 ;53761. 084 654828. -H3- 745106. 578 ii,.s__ 1 --9-t`3283. i�J ��. /�t `328 J. 7 •J V - 991119. 76 1065063. 77 v52- , 5V 1201045. 05 _ 126.5442. =I -t32567(5. 66 1282887. 13 1437242.77 1537936. 6 1584539.77 11 X6770172. 14 - 1710820. 54 U v7.tt 17:34847. 47. 75 1819105. 37 1862567. 5c,� 1911939.21 $i93 -9E!4-2. r .; THE TOTAL PR 1 Ne. 1 L PAYMENT OVER 3,YEARS.- IF YOU FINANCE $3900000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRTNCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ;:n`3tirEn?THE TOTALe,5'-.Pjf PER YEAR 13 $454661.408 THIS WOULD RESULT INA ;..:.;.. :; .. AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.88432982 '1.. - :A� �L-rItNV'3`Ff7RA F a OF 126666. 667 247000 469917. 5 .J7C - -,,8:3. 292 ._ 0, f I Inu. z:,+u ' ' -------'------ '-- - ---- -- '--�----'^-`- 764212. 183 852668.24 936701.495 1016533.O9 ^ 1092373. 1 1232866.72 1297890.05 1418345.77 _ 1474095. 15 157737C). 87 1625169 1713715.02 1754695.94 1830613.08 1865749.09 |930838.56 1960963.3 6-1 'IF YOU 0 Y MEA IS OF A SINKING FUND Yir-tljlNu 57. PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS ' THE PRINCT.PAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND fS -0663t9. 3923 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $466319.393 THIS WOULD RESULT IN # AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 2.95828699 X. 129833 333 253175 1263688.39 1330337.3 1876378.41 1912392.82 1979109. 52 2009987. $210-29321. 34 IS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT OVER 30 YEARS. T F� YOU F I NAN%: E $4100� %00 ...�- fJ i� � _ 181- K!NO FUND 1 L 7 5 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND 5675--7-. u7e-F-`ER- YEAR—.---- ADDED EAR---- ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ` - Ili-- -.OST Cif-YEAR18 $477977.378 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A .AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.03224417. rti.�tA� I��NS-tfFr 133000 259;.50 I . ,-..-.982 i- 493413. 375 601742. 706 655. 5711 :,02422. 793 : :895301.653 1•J .J ti 106-7359.74 1146991.75 i7 .1294510.06 1294510. 06 1362784. 56 6 - 1489263.06 15147799.91 91 1656239.42 . 170%,427. 45 t / -J. &7-- 1799400.77 1842430. 73 i888210:. 1922143. 73 1959016. 55 027380. 48 2059011. 46 1S THE 1R 1 Nei 1 J S. - ... _....-. :... IF YOU FINANCE $4200000 BY 1 IL .•J _ ,_ 1 : _ . PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND i!B $696r:35. 3629 PER YEAR. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF eE ' i e88T , YEAR 13 $489635.363 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.10620134 i. `E�tE fiIONSFOR R SE:D00000 1.36166, 667 265525 50516-1. 313 616.06 9. 91;3 7214::;3. 064 �.•y,_, 916618. 359 1092773'. 07 1744301. 08 73 13;5'231. x.11 152471. 71 1584652.29 16915673.69 17470.56. 67 184243. 65 1886298. 13 -r , ;tom. -851- 1967909. 06 2005680.28 8 2075651. 45 . 2108035. 54 43 1-S. THE TOTAL FRINCIPAL PAYMENI OVER 30 YE IF YOU FINANCE $4300000 'PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS ITHE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF �Y•?�i J IJV 1 A1C 1 V 1 ML k.kJ•D 1 1-Qr% T QMr% 10 $501293.348 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A i AVERAG-= TAX INCREASE OF 3.18015852 Y.. _201-3674.39 2052324 2089041. 13 212392241 21570-5"9. 62 $2i8�5539. 98 le, THE TOTAL- F-RiNeIPAL PAYMENT OVER :tO YEAR5. IF YOU FINANCE $4400000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND . ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF $44E,'fte THE T0Tftt-Cff8T- P- - YEA is $512951.323 THIS WOULD RESULT IN # AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.25411569 %. 1425O0 277875 528657. 188 644724. 323 754'.988. lt2 859738. 706 959251.771 1228919.74 1386975.06 |460126-31 ^' 1658357.04 1774542.23 �G283�5. 12 1927929.4 1974032.93 2cii7s3i. 2e 20594:39.72 2098967.73 2172193.38 IF YOU FINANCE $4500000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS - THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE. FUND 18 $74609. 3i74 FIER YEAR. ADDED TO # YEARLY INTEREST COST OF I-RLC:ULH I i Uti'a F Uh H I- UKP riH _ t r K i[ t UI- $'4/�UUUUU 145666. 667 284050 415514. 167 540405. 125 65'=?' -'51. 53 873844. 011 9 10568. 477 '107:7206. 7-'i --- — - — - 11690 1 L:. 05 156229. 06 --t339084.-28 1417796. 73 1492573. 56 Wit:_-6-�-55-------------- ------ 1631097. 64 16':x•- 209. 42 :1813976.5 1868944. 35 1:?7.772. 27 eta 17'00. 33 206,2t.7 - ��rL� -�-{_ 4 - _,---- 21052 05. 04 :12145611.46 2t:52 -=K;'7. 55 2220464. 34 2255107.79 -fS THE TOTAL PR=fPAL PAYMENT OVER YOU FINANCE $4600000 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIP'AL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ..� -I iJ i%i / . .. v r "C% T cnn. ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF E TOTAL COSTEo $536267.302 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.40203004 % i -Ff. 552153. 063 1673378.743 L•,- 2:. .J 897949. 16 1001885. 18 1853410. 77 1901573. 57 20136 15. 15 206.1767. 72 2107512. 67 2150970. 37 2lµ92255. 1" -2 yT -. 2268735. 2304131.87 $2337:758. 58. IL i 1J THE TOTAL PRINeIRAL PAYMENT . J IA ti. IF YOU FINANCE $4700000 BY MEANS OF A S 1 PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARN THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF -x+70000--THE HE Tl-*TAt 6F-JST PER YEAR 18 $547925.287 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.47598722 722 %. FOR A--PtJR HArSE--PRI "$4860000 15�UU0 . 296400 38580 56390 1 /87705. '75 917054. 62 1023201. 89 i i2404i. -7'-7- 1219839. 7 1310847. 72 .. .'479440.07 1557468. 06 1702014. 93 17689i4.18 i2 47 . 1892845. 07 1950202. 79 -20 14692. 66 2056458. 02 210.5625. 1' —Zl-�2iiix-553. 97 2196735.7 2238898. 91 227e953.97 2*,1700C-I. 27 2353155. 96 -K27367498. i6 18 THE TeTAL PRINelFAL PAYMENT OVER 30 YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4800000 B ME G I"1M V I L l I K l i FUND PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND -1-S-- $79583.-27i9 PER ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF - 800tH) THE TeTAL Ct3ST PER YEAR 13- ,-=59583.272 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVENAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.54-9944-39 /.. CALCULATIONS FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4900000 155166. 667 =,02= 75 44i�7TT 575648. 9*38 702033.157 8220 8: 93615-9.924 1044518. 59 1245253.03 1338157. 05 1510161. 73 1589915. 31 17:37473. 57 1805766. 56 1932279.32 32 1990832.02 -20#6457. 09 . 1099;300. 9 :2149502.52 `-215,719r4. 06 24'2501. 02 2285'542..-G4 - 2365277. 23 ` 14 Ts--TH€ -TOTAL -€ r, Atz--PAYMEN I YEARS. IF YOU FINANCE $4900000 'f- ttE�tN ftF-'. I Ni; I'VrattNtiYIELDING 57. . PER ANNUM FOR tic] YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF ,$490a HE TiDTAt eosTit $571241.257 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.62390156 X. '158333.333 308750 . 5. U 587396. 875 716360. 365 • 1`•Vv�Gl. •1'G 1 `.-771711. 59 031461. 24 2088221.51 214214 7y7 i24�4QG4.:5 22-'3'66..35 . • U,} 2:332186. 37 as 2413548. 2 24512()4. 12 IF YOU FINANCE $5000000 T_.V MG'AhIT 1C A SINKING NKThl C IT1 YIELDING ITC1 T1Th G C"i PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND -Trte22 99. 2416 PER YEAR. ADDED eT�OTIA� YEARLY II�N�TTER�EyST YEAR OF �0 ! IE 1 V 1 AL -e -E'S- I PER TT FAST . $582899.242 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.69785874 X. 1 1 53 1 PURCHASE 5 161500 .-14921:7 y 6:7,03.7-tr- 599144. 013 730687. 57,2 - J a. U 974370. 534 1037152. 01 1296079. 69 1392775.7 14846861. -2 157190:3. 07 1654809. tit i7895 9. '-'.: 110% 390. 86 1879471. 32 19 '?7.-7`' 2011147. 86 207090. 47 9 2184986. 65 2237237.:3' 2334031.68 2378830. U9 242i. 3881. 59 2461819. 16 25002203.2 $2536:716...d 1 L PRlNelPAL PAYMENT OVER 3 YEARS. . IF YOU FINANCE $5100000 -BY-MEA.48-&F A SINVINCI FUND YIELEJI.Na ..: PER ANNUM FOR 30 YEARS THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTO THE FUND _1-.1- . J . 2264 PER, ADDED TO A YEARLY INTEREST COST OF Hh'- I IJ FHL UUff; F YIEM ­ l';:5 '$594557.226 THIS WOULD RESULT IN A AVERAGE TAX INCREASE OF 3.77181591 Dttjo -SHAW Allb ROB 10.11KE mo Green8916 - 41 A'°**� \ qq. Li TF h ON 17 Wi- -7 13 14 it 20 23 25 26 27 28 31 YS 30 VN Ivj31 34 36 37 38 39 41 4-L- 4-4 ILL 0 13 15_ 16 ii .i _14_. I U. cc T S — 1 hz we c ie �1 1 • BOARD ❑F ASSESSORS SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 3OUTHOLD 765-3020 AREA CODE 516 00 .I— C ct� 4--s c 1--c C, ls�,f cca-o� e . r7OQQ a -��. �13� vQ ¢a.tIS Cz Sao 0, 0'. 7zo.. �-- 3 C,C-C' >-e,S n �. � f Ct� �Zac.►�� Glaa-T� Z.000 0 111+e'\. i� ............ eta :�:in3t� 1 BOARD OF ASSESSORS SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: SOUTHOLo 765.-3020 AREA CODE 516 44 3 ?do J rJoz� _ 6000 r- es "v0 Q __.. - .. ZZ4;G; U SES �Z �• + :! 3A 1 �© -1 o8 ciCu r� Bks 434 l BOARD OF ASSESSORS SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: SOUTHOLD 76S-3020 AREA CODE 516 X60 104 �.b Briar Lv, � o o c 63 102- 58 0z- TIC (,4GP1UMNI"_ri �t � l rig = of CAST i�ANIPTeN. NO ��-?� t:c:i .�.� I—i t`tl'r;:G1�'i, rr:�f: l.l•'9.37 �.. THE `BEST BUY' Is. OPEN SPAC173 e A New Method for the Evaluation of the Effect of Land Use and Development on the Financial Structure of the Community Curtiss-Wright Totally Developed Land Use Plan I. Present B Zoning MD Cl 2. Initial Proposal by Developer 3. Comprehensive Plan 2/5 Open'Space 3/8 AA - 2 Acre 4. Concerned Citizens AA - 2 Acre 5. Open Space Ist 20 years Ultimate BY Leon I. Hammer, M.D. Credit Deficit/yr $11,900,000 $16,500,000 $ 534,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 624,000 $ 30,800 THE 'BEST BUY' IS OPEN SPACE What we see .with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our noses, touch with our hands, taste with our mouths, is fashioned primarily by one parameter of human existence. Ian McHarg calls it "economic determinism." The ugliness in which our senses are immersed has been justified by our society and its institutions (both Church and State) by only one determinant: profit or loss. If it is good for us - but loses money - it must go. This has been equally true of land -use. The incred- ible transformation of America from rural beauty to urban and suburban ugliness has had only one argument in its favor: development brings money to government and reduces taxes. This argument appeals to everyone who wants or needs more money to spend on himself. A corollary of this theorem has been that, the lowPr t`�,zoning and the more houses you build, the lower will become each man's share of the tax burden in the community in which he lives. In this study, we will show the opposite to be true. For once, we can demonstrate that aesthetic planning and open space are profitable financially. In fact, these figures show that the Town can afford to buy open space, zone it to 'AA'- with "cluster -building," or even give the land to the poor who are already resident in the Town, and still save tremendous amounts of money - if it is not developed in the standard fashion. Let the figures speac for themselves. Copyright 1970 Leon 1. Hammer i -2- We will examine the economic impact on the Town of East Hampton of the land -use possibilities of three undeveloped areas now being considereowned by for the The first is 1,394 acres in the second is 569 acres in - Curtiss-Wright Corporation; an the Former Amagansett, owned by the Bene nson Company, The Springs, Be11.Estate; and there are MontauOk Manor." acres Each Swill gbe pre - called (irrationally) "en sented as presently zoned; as if upzoned to aximum por the zoning code; P en density as defined by if it differs as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, from these, as in the case of Curtiss-Wright. For the sake of clarity, we will,- deal with the Curtiss-Wright property primarily, and summarize the other two areas for reference in the Appendix. The methods used to reach these conclusions have been discussed with the Nassau -Suffolk Planninges are cion and are summa u eamethodrized 'describedn Charts 7onOCharts 8 and 9lai. determined by greater And income is WePindicateed nthisras7a credit. if f1expenses than expense, income, we show it as a (defici** Figures appearing . are greater than *#- between two sets of asterisks off to the nearest even amount. have been rounded •. The figures are accurate enough to reflect a general only enough picture of land oureprinciplehbut notto be exactenough forg to demons been made bookkeeping. These figures have intentionally ervi conservative. That is, school costs her thaneweshaveces" are, in many cases, considerably hig ' shown here. the ost We know tha8t (School)oto152% ("Other Seryfigure for the ices")f In Services runs 4 Suffolk County it ran 64% (School) and 36% ("Other Services"), though as the population increases the gap over-all figures are closes. „In East Hampton, current 52.9% school and 47.1% "other services." Chart ( TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON (Unincorporated Area Only) Comparative Changes in Government Expenditures. Assessed Valuation. Taxes and Population 1940 - 1965 lOP 91 8( 7a 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Expenditures (in ten thousands of dollars) Property Taxes (in ten thousands of dollars) Assessed Valuation (in millions of dollars) Population (in thousands of persons) 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 Note: Population growth is roughly parallel with growth in assessed valuations, but budget grows faster, causing an increasing tax rate. To bring this into balance (no tax rate increase) assessed valuations must increase as fast as the bud- get (or other sources of revenue must be found). Source: Town of East Hampton Financial Records. Plate No. 10 New York State Department of Audit and Control. Note - Computations adjusted to remove increases attributable to changes in price levels Increase in summer population not included. is t dor • .�____ �.-,..,...,. r. .: ,. ,. ,�w.. andu��w.:�,,:. i Chart 2 PER CAPITA TOWN GOVERNMENT COSTS 1940-1965 Index of Per Capita Cost Year Population* Actual Cost Per Capita 1950 = 100 1965 10,209 $96.99 272 1960 8,827 90.98 255 1955 7,576 57.96 162 1950 6,325 35.67 100 1940 6,529 24.09 68 * Includes all residents of East Hampton. Note -Computations adjusted to remove increases attributable to changes in price levels. Source: Town Financial Records New York State Department of Audit.and Control. * Government costs include, for the purposes of this discussion, Town General Fund expenditures and Town Highway expenditures. They do not include either school or special districts, since the Town acts only as a collecting agency for the independent trustees of the various districts. Significantly, the 1965-1966 Town budget showed that 46.7 per- cent of all taxes collected went to the six school districts In East Hampton. Other taxes collected for special districts amounted to another five percent of the budget. I Chart 3 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF POSSIBLE USES OF 1,394 ACRES OWNED BY. CURTI SS -WR IGHT Land Use Plan Conditions Income/year Expenses/year Credit/year Deficit/year 1. Present Zoning No Children $2,000,000 $ 7,200,000 $ 5,200,000 B = 1/2 acres 1/2 Chil� 2,000,000 10,600,000 8,600,000 Multiple Dw. Ultimate 2,000,000 13,900,000 11,900,000 C.I. 2. Proposed by No Children 3,000,000 10,100,000 7,100,000 Developer - 1/2 Child 3,000,000 14,800,000 11,800,000 Preliminary Ultimate 3,000,000 19,500,000 16,500,000 MD, B, Cl, Planned Unit Development 3. Comprehensive No Children 566,000 First 20 yrs. 227,000 Plan $220,000(Park) 2/5 Open Space +573,000 3/5 AA -2 Acre Final - 573,000 7,000 1/2 Child 566,000 First 20 yrs $220,000(Park) +838,000 492,000 Final - 838,000 272,000 Ultimate 566,000 1,100,000 534,000 • l i ..• a+r;..',ifidi@k3`ii'7�r,(�,•j� M,^:;diflfi'.!1dE"4!v:'v' ��'� I ' 4. '(Concerned No Children 940,000 1,131,000 1,653,000 191,000 713,000 Citizens) 1/2 Child 940,000 940,000 2,175,000 1,235,000' AA -2 Acre Ultimate 5. Open Space 20 years Camping Fees 674 000 , 674,0002 Discount Bonding 30,8002 Ultimate 30,800 I Ultimate = 1.7 Children/D.U. 2 Income from Park and possible Advanced Land Acquisition not subtracted. SUMMARY: Ratio of Cost of Development to Cost of Purchase/per yr Chart 5 Developer's B 1 'A' 'AA' Original Proposal 1st 20 Ult. 1st 20 yrs Ult. 1st 20 yrs. Ult. 1st 20 yrs. Ult. yrs. I1/1 226/1 7/1 168/1. 6/1 No Children 355/1 12/1 278/1 2.2/1 18.9/1 1.1/3 23/1 1/2 Child 17/1 Ultimate (national average of 25/1 532/1 18/1 384/1 3.6/1 28.9/1 1.8/1 40/1 children) I Chart 4 CHANGE IN COST PER CAPITA ACCORDING TO LAND USE _ COST PER CAPITA TODAY. $ 469 OPEN SPACE: Ist 20 yrs 521 Ultimate 471 DEVELOPER'S: No Child 1,000 ORIGINAL 1/2 Child 1.460 PLAN Ultimate' 1,746 'B' ZONE: No Child 821 1/2 Child 1,130 Ultimate 1,384 COMPREHENSIVE: No Child(Ist 20 yrs) 487 PLAN (final) 468.5 1/2 Child(Ist 20 yrs) 527 (final) 490 Ultimate 510 'AA' ZONE: No Child 484 1/2 Child' 524 Ultimate 564 TOTAL TAX WARRANT (1969-70) $6;099,165 POPULATION 13,000 COST PER = Present Tax Warrant + Deficit or - Credit CAPITA Population (see Summary - Chart 3 ) Chart 6 DEBT LIMIT - GENERAL TOWN - CLASS B A. 1965 - 5% of Debt Limit ($85,278.22) B. Debt Limit of Class B Town is 7% of Average Real Value for Past Four Years C. Real Value is four times the assessed value D. Assessed Value 69-70 $54,412,522 68-69 49,043,059 67-68 46,485,773 66-67 44,369,346 65-66 41,586,036 64-65 39,195,883 5)$272,093,519 Average 54,418,704 X-4 = Real Valuation Real Valuation $217,674,816 x 7% = Debt Limit Town Debt Limit $15,237,237 E. Potential Debt Limit - Unlimited Can borrow according to Districts -3 - Chart 9 shows that there is a way of arriving at total expenses, through percentages, if either school cost of the cost of 'other services" is known. This equation makes it possible to estimate the cost of "other services," which have always been the most difficult to establish. A rela- tively predictable relationship seems to hold throughout the country between school costs and other costs. Over a period of time in a particular area, as population in- creases, the cost of services soars well beyond the increase in income. :j The Comprehensive Plan prepared recently for the Town of East Hampton says: "Assessed valuation during the period 1950-19.65 has increased at a fairly constant rate of 1.8% per year. However, the much more rapid growth of expendi- tures has caused an increasing tax rate with the increased tax pressures of seasonal demands for services and facili- ties. Under existing Town regulations, every structure .)uilt is a potential year-round residence. A major reason why they have not become year-round residences, except for those occupied by retirement couples, is the fact that there are very few -year-round employment possibilities in or close to East Hampton. It is not now anticipated that the situation will change." It has changed. "Town and Village government costs are increasing in response to growing demands for services and facilities, and may increase even more in the future, or certain new services and facilities not now needed will be required.w—(italics added) We are readily able to arrive at the predictable school expenses for a given area by using standard tech- niques as outlined on Chart 8.' Knowing the average cost per student, the number of dwelling units (DU), and the national average of 1.7 children per dwelling unit, we can obtain a dependable, approximate figure. Using the national average as a guide (48% School - 52% Other), we can figure the total expense by the simple formula: TOTAL EXPENSE = SchoolExpense .48 -4 - If we imagine a development in which there will be no children, we deduct the estimated school expense from the total and have left an estimate of the cost to the community of "other services" as listed in Chart 9. An examination of older retirement -vacation communities show a steady, definite progression to the status of.bedroom community with a full compliment of children and final deterioration where zoning is low density. This is especially true on Long Island and on the New Jersey coast. The over-all experience is that houses built for this purpose rapidly become regular family dwellings, for.several reasons. Retired people are forced to move out of a growing community, because, as I will show. even when there are no children the increase,,in population causes a rapid rise in tax rates. Retired people, on a fixed income, cannot manage this. They sell to younger people with more flexible in- . comes, people who have or will have children. Secondly, areas like East Hampton traditionally become bedroom communities for business and industry within driving or commuting distance. This is particularly true of East Hampton and Suffolk County. where the East End is fast be- coming a bedroom community for the industrialized West End. - Whereas we must await the .results of the Census to obtain figures. inquiry at the elementary school in The Springs indicates that a large share of the rapid increase in students over the past ten years is due to already -formed families moving into the community, rather than to progeny of the local population. Areas that show the greatest .in- crease - Clearwater Beach, Sunny Dell Acres, and Barnes Landing - are all recent developments which were advertised as "vacation -retirement" communities. We have estimated these costs, therefore, in three categories. First. as if no children would live here (which has -never been borne out in the metropolitan area). Second, expenses during the first 20 years, assuming half the houses to contain the national estimate of children. C -5 - Finally, the figures for the ultimate stabilization as a bedroom community after twenty years. Experience in western Long Island, completion of the Expressway, pressure from the megalopolis, every regional study, as well as the Comprehen- sive Plan - all these point to East Hampton becoming a bedroom community. The facts are that it would cost the taxpayers about $700,000 a year, for 20 years, to buy the entire Curtiss- Wright tract of 1,394 acres and keep it as open space for- ever (with an unpredictable income from the Park and/or Advanced Land Acquisition to offset minor -expenses for upkeep). Compare this to a deficit of anywhere from 5.2 million to 16.5 million dollars a year, if developed as presently zoned or as proposed by the developer (depending on whether or not there are any children). Even if no school child enters this development, the minimum deficit is staggering. This deficit is reduced remarkably with upzoning to open density (2 acre), to the land use as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, or to outright purchase. To buy the land outright would cost about $30,000/yr in tax loss, which could be, along with the original price of purchase, be off- set by the sale of, say, 100 acres in twenty or thirty years to a private golf club. The cost to East Hampton, to pro- vide the leeway for proper planning through large-scale land purchase, is negligible. The argument against large purchase - that we cannot exceed our debt limit - is spurious for several reasons. At this time, our debt limit is over $15,000,000 (see Chart 6), of which the Town has used only 4%. The Town has unlimited borrowing power, if it borrows according to districts. For example, a Curtiss-Wright park in the Montauk Park District. The bond would be floated by this Park District and paid for by the people in the district, and held until the County, State, or Federal Government was in a position to buy, if this was desired. Money has been, and will be, available through Federal and State Land Acquisition Programs. Even if Government did not step in, the people of Montauk would save oney by keeping this land open. Charts showing similar information about the Bell Estate and "Montauk Manor" (Springs) support the thesis that develop- ment raises taxes and that the higher the density the higher the taxes. Open density costs less. The 'best buy' is open space. Speculators argue that development brings money to a town through an increase in. construction and an increase in buying by prospective home -owners. These are false argu- ments. The profit from large-scale developments is taken out of the local area and spent elsewhere. Curtiss-Wright and its contractors have their own sources of labor and supply. As for local merchants, an increase in population will wipe them out, with the advent of large shopping centers and chain stores with which they could never com- pete. This was spotted by the merchants of Sag Harbor, who were wooed by a firm that wanted to develop the 600 acres of Barcelona Neck and wanted their support in expanding the Village limits so as to include the tract in question and thereby downzone it. The local businessmen recognized that a development of that size would inevitably bring its own stores and.thus do Main Street no good, or even attract shoppers away from the Village. The hidden costs are never mentioned by would-be de- velopers. We have the horrifying example of Islip and Babylon, where a single Sewer District of 12 square miles was estimated at $650 million. It would take care of 240,000 people occupying 9,200 homes and businesses, at an initial cost of $270 per person - exclusive of operation and maintenance. Cesspools have polluted the underground water supply in the southwest corner of the Town of Islip and running into the southeast part of Babylon Town. But the plant would produce 120 gallons of effluent daily, per person, and this would go into the ocean. -7 - Another myth widely believed by government officials, businessmen, taxpayers - and spread by land speculators - is that industry and commercial development increases municipal income and decreases taxes. The increased income from industry is greatly offset by the costs outlined above, which are the result of increased housing to accommodate the people required to operate the industry. Furthermore, the area which might benefit from this increased income may not be the same district in which the in expenses will occur. If the industry goes into Wainscott and the houses and children go into Montauk, the former will become richer and the latter poorer. Let us summarize the facts as opposed to the myths. about the economic impact of land use on the community and the taxpayer. FACT: New York City has virtually no"open space. It has: One of the hiahest tax rates. FACT: In East Hampton - apart from inflation - an increase in population has led to a real increase in the cost of all services of 107% over the increase in income, between the years 1950-1965. A city income tax. A Grade B credit rating. No financial resources. An incredible, and increasing, rate of social problems, including: Crime Electric power Welfare Waste disposal Drugs Education Pollution Social anarchy Water Degradation of individual identy and self-respect (which are the foundation of a viable society) FACT: In East Hampton - apart from inflation - an increase in population has led to a real increase in the cost of all services of 107% over the increase in income, between the years 1950-1965. I" FACT: Further expansion means more money for new services: Sewer systems (see Islip/Babylon) Garbage Disposal Water Systems Public transportation Control of water and -air pollution FACT: Speculators advertise new developments as "vacation -retirement" villages. I. Rapidly turning into bedroom communities for industry farther west. 2. Retired people cannot keep up with increased taxes coming from increased population, and will sell to younger people with children. 3. Expenses for services/income from taxes, in a development with no children, in a 'B' zone are 7/2. FACT: Cost of open space is much less than cost of development (see Chart 3). Many hidden costs contribute to escalation of expenses over income. Each of the services mentioned on Chart 23, such as health, police, or mosquito control, requires new secretarial and custodial help, insurance, employees' benefits, equipment, office space, field personnel, and enlarged boards - like Town. Board and all subsidiary boards. The difficult costs for the taxpayer to understand are those for salaries, space, and equipment. For the rise in the taxes of one individual, depending on how land is used, see Chart 4. FACT: Cost of development goes on forever and increases with deterioration of area. Traditionally, high density development leads to early deterioration, and almost always the taxpayers are called upon to pay for reconstruction. For resort areas, see typical examples: Rockaway, Atlantic City, and Cape May. -9 - FACT: Cost of open space lasts only for term of bond. a FACT: Small businessman wiped out by nation-wide chain stores, as population increases. FACT: Local contractors and tradesmen not used in large- scale developments. Profits are taken out of town i and spent elsewhere, by contractors and workmen brought in from elsewhere. FACT: Industry creates more economic problems than it solves. I. Cost of housing for employees wipes out gain from industrial taxes. 2. Housing usually in district separate from industry - thus no benefit to school tax. 3. Industry changes character of area from rural to urban. 4. Industry brings pollution and costs of con- trolling it. 5. Industry means more trucks, larger airports, more dirt, noise, odors, and ugliness - as well'as the disastrous side-effects of transportation. FACT: East Hampton and towns that border on bays and oceans have built-in potential industry which creates none of the above problems and can draw upon the indigenous population. Aquaculture, or "under -sea farming", can produce at least 200 times as much fish or shellfish. as we are getting under present methods. One acre of 'controlled' bay bottom has yielded $24,000 yearly. Almost half the salt marshes on Long Island have been destroyed, mostly for house lots, and they produced food that was essential to fish. Connecticut now gets only $2 million a year from an area that in 1900 pro- duced $48 million in shellfish (prices adjusted). FACT: Increase in population changes entire fabric of I ife: Loss of personal feeling and contact Loss of freedom to move Loss of ineffable awareness of nature Loss of control over social disturbances FACT: � It is cheaper for a community to buy open space and give the land free to the now -resident poor, at 'AA' zoning but cluster -built, than pay for the services of an average middle-class housing development.: - FACT: The occupation of land by people inn anything less than open -density zoning is an alarming drain on our financial resources. FACT: Our financial and emotional bankruptcy benefits only a few greedy people. FACT: People armed with knowledge instead of myths have an' opportunity to build a beautifu'I, healthy community, sound economically and sane emotionally. AFTERWORD We are going to decide now whether East Hampton will a join the remainder of the wasteland we call Long Island or use the special opportunity to be unique which is given to it by its location and its time in history. East Hampton is the end of an unspoiled spoke of the metropolitan area. 70% of it is open space. Unique does not mean exclusive. Poor and rich can live here in a planneii community, in which we acknowledge our responsibility to our fellow man as well as our own freedom. tt Individuality - with responsibility - the very thing we i preach to our children and do not practice ourselves. Four percent of this country is developed; 96% is open. In the metropolitan area, the figures are reversed. In a country this size, with a moderate population and a modern transportation system, it is not necessary for any single community to sacrifice a decent standard of living, measured in terms of reasonable density, open space, aesthetics, natural resources, a viable income, and a -friendly social atmosphere. Once you become too big - you become unmanage- able. It is financially feasible to keep East Hampton unique. But the taxpayers of this Town have been "brainwashed" into believing that taxes go down when land is developed. This is the fallacy which has brought the tax rate to where it is today - and few understand how it happened. Those interests who stand to benefit from the division of land do not want You to know that they are the principal cause of your high taxes. The spreading deterioration of life in the megalopolis may.stop here, or it may go on to consume us all. East Hampton has a chance to set a precedent for the whole society. Chart 7 METHOD - INCOME INCOME = Total D.U. x Average Tax in Zone: (Average Tax - 20' x 100' lots = $100/yr). ( " " - 'B' Zone = $600/yr) ( " " - 'A' Zone = $1200/yr) ( " " - 'AA' Zone = $2000/yr) Chart 8 SCHOOL WENSE(METHOD) I. Cost per student per year: High School - $1700 - four years Elementary School - $1250 - eight years 2. State Reimbursement - $300 - Operating $273.60 Transportation grade 7-12 out of district Board of -Coop. Ed. Service 3. Average cost per student A. Total 12 years of schooling B. High School - 1/3 of total cost C. Elementary'School - 2/3 of total cost D. Formula for Average Cost = H.S. + 2(E.S.) - State 3 Aid Av. Cost/Student = $1700 + 2(1250) - Stats Reim 3 bursement = $1700 + $2500 - $300 4. Children per Dwelling Unit = 1.7(National Figure) 5. Total Number of Children = Total Dwelling Units x 1.7 6. School Expense(assuming average rate) = Total Children x Average Net Cost /Stu/yr il Chart 9 METHOD COST OF "OTHER SERVICES" - TOTAL EXPENSE I. Total Expense = School expense + Cost of Other Services 2. Total Expense = School Expense .48 3. School Expense - School Expense.+ Cost of Other Services .48 4. Cost of Other Services = School Expense - School Expense .48 5. Total Expense A. (National Average of Children 1.7/d.u. = Cost of Other Services + School Expense B. (1/2 D.U. occupied with Children = Cost of Other Services + School Expense at Natl.Av.) C. No Children = Cost of "Other Services" only 2 Chart 10 CURTISS-WRIGHT SUMMARY - DWELLING UNITS - PRESENT ZONING Acreage Disposition Reserved -Net Acres Roads, Etc. Net Acreage for D.U. TOTAL 1394.11 Acres % Acres' Development 1. B 1094.2 D.U. 10% 110 984 25% 246 738 1476 2. MD 191.4 D.U. 10% 20 171.4 25% 42.8 129 *(TownHouse) 1677 X153 CI 71.5 Industry *Zoningpermits p possibility of Ocean 37.0 Deed Restricted 3354 Apartments or 10320 Motel Unite instead of Town Houses* i s Chart 10 Footnotes I. Zone B - 738 Acres x 2 Dwelling Units /acre = 1476 2. Zone MD - Minimum of two acres to build apartments. Each apartment occupies minimum of 3000 square feet (house and grounds) Apartment houses per acre - 40,000 sq.ft. = 13 apt. houses/acre 3,000 sq.ft. Total apartment houses.= 129 acres x 13/acres = 1677 apt. houses Each D. U. occupies minimum of 400 sq.ft. Total sq.ft. available for actual dwelling unit = 25% of lot = 3000 sq.ft. = 750 sq.ft. 4 Total dwelling Units - 1677 Town Houses or 3354 Apartments or 10,320 Motel Rooms i I ,i i s r Chart II CURTISS-WRIGHT METHOD FOR INCOME - CURRENT ZONING 1. B Zone Average tax in B Zone with house (high average) $600/D.U./yr 2. MD Zone (Multiple Dwelling) No Precedent for apartments; assume $600/D.U./yr 3. C.I. Zone (Commercial Industrial) .(No way to figure total income) Current income from taxes = $18,914.22/yr 4. Ocean Zone Deed Restricted Present Zoning Income Summary - if Developed Zone Dwellinq Units Tax Per unit B 1476 $600 MD 1677 $600 C I' ? ? OCEAN 0 ? Income/Year $ 885,600 1,006,200 18,914 z t t Chart 12 CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPENSES - PRESENT ZONING I. Basic Facts A. Total Dwelling Units = 3,153 B. Children per unit = 1.7 (see Chart 7) C. Total Children = 3153 x 1.7 = 6060 Children 2. School Expense A. Average cost per student = $1100/yr/student B. School Expense = 6060 x 1100 = $6,666,000/yr 3. Cost of Other Services School Expense - School Expense = .48 $13,887,500 - 6,666,000 = $7,221,500/yr 4. Total Expenses (a) Ultimate(Nat. Av. 1.7 Children/D.U.)* = $13;887,500 **$13,900,000**/yr (b) 1/2 D.U. Occupied with children according to .Nat. Av. _ $10,554,500 **$10,600,000**/yr (c) No -children = $7,221,500 **$ 7,200,000**/yr 5. Credit -Deficit (a) No Children = $7,200,000 - 2,000,000 = ($5,200,000/yr) (b) 1/2 D.U./Child - $10,600,000 - 2,000,000 = ($8,600,000/yr) (c) Ultimate = $13,900,000 - 2,000,000 = ($11,900,000/yr) ( ) = Deficit ** ** = Figured to nearest round number Chart 13 CURTISS-WRIGHT PRELIMINARY PROPOSED ZONING (Planned Unit Development) A. .1 ncome I. Dwelling Unit = 5,000 (2500 Single Family (2500 Condominium 2. Average Tax Per Unit = $600 3. Dwelling Unit x Tax = Income/yr 5,000 D.U. x $600 = $3,000,000 B. Expenses I. Basic Facts (a) 5,000 D.U. .(b) Total Children = 5000 x '1.7 =-8500 Children 2. School Expenses/yr = 8500 x 1100/pupil/yr = $9,350,000/yr 3. Cost of Other Services = 9,350,0001- 9,350,000 .48 = 19,479,167 - 9,350,000 = $10,129,167/yr 4. Total Expense = (a) Ult. Nat. Av. of 1.7/D.U. = 10,129,167 + 9,350,000 = 19,479,167 **$19,500,000/yr** (b) 1/2 D.U. Occupied = 10,129,167 + 4,675,000 = 14,804,167 (c) No Children = 10,129, 4,8 167*0$00 100,+000/yr** 5. Credit -(Deficit) (a) No Children = 10,100,000 - 3,000,000 = ($7,100,000/yr) (b) 1/2 D.U./Child = 14,800,000 - 3,000,,000 = ($11,800,000/yr) (c) Ultimate = 19,500,000 - 3,000,000 ($16,500,000/yr) Chart 14 CURTISS-WRIGHT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -INCOME METHOD b SUMMARY ` Zone % Allot. Net Acres Reserved Net Roads, etc. Net D.U./Acre D.U. Tax INCOME % Acres % Acres D.U. AA 60% 837 10% 84 753 25% 188 565 1/2 283 $2000yr $566,000 Park 40% 558 0 0 538 0 0 538 0 0 0 0 Chart 15 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -EXPENSES I. Basic Facts A. 283 D.U. B. Total Children = 283 x 1.7 n 481 Children C. Cost of Open Space/yr (2/5 of area) for 20 yrs = $220,000 yr 2, School Expense = 481 Children x 1100/child/yr = $529,100/yr 3. Cost of Other Services = 529,100 - 529,100 = 1,102,292 - 529,000 = $573,292/yr .48 r j Chart 15 (continued) 4. Total Expenses A. Ultimate (Nat. Av. 1.7/Child/D.U. _ � $1,102,292 - $1,100,000 i B. 1/2 Children = 573,292 + 264,550 = $837,842/yr = **$838,000**/yr i C. No Children = 573,292 = **$573,000**/yr 5. Credit -(Deficit) A. No Children (First 20 yrs ='573,00 0 + 220,000 - 566,000 = (227,000/yr) (Final = 573,000 - 566,000 = $7,000/yr - CREDIT B. 1/2 Child (20 yrs = 838,000 + 220,000 - 566,000 = ($492,000/yr) (Final = 838,000 : 566,000 = ($272,000/yr) C. Ultimate = 1,100,000 - 566,000 = ($534,000/yr Chart 16 CURTISS-WRIGHT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARY OF COST OF BOND FOR PARK I. 2/5 of cost of purchase - 2/5 7,000,000 = $2.8 million 2. Interest - 8% for 20 years - $2.352 million 3. Total Cost of purchase - $5,152,000 4. Average yearly cost to purchase - $207,600 year 5. Loss of Tax Revenue - 2/5 x $30,799.44 = $12,320/yr 6. Net average yearly cost to purchase - (first 20 yrs) $219,920/yr = ($220,000/yr) ;;7.. Cost per year after 20 years - $12,320/yr (Loss of tax revenue) Chart 17 COST OF PURCHASE OF 1394.11 Acres I. Capital Investment - $7,000,000 2. Interest - 8% - 20 -year Bond - $5,880,000 3. Total Cost over 20 years - $12,880,000 4. Average Yearly Cost to Buy - $644,000/yr/20 yrs. 5. Loss of Tax Revenue/yr - $30,800/yr 6. Net Average Yearly Cost to Purchase $674,000/yr/20 yrs. 7. Cost after 20 years - $30,800/yr Chart 18 UPZONE TO 'AA' (Concerned Citizens) A. Income Total Reserved Net Roads, Etc. Acreage % Acres Acres % Acres Net DU/acre -DU Tax/DU INCOME 1394.11 10% 140 1254 25$ 314 940 1/2 470 $2000 $940,000/yr B. Expenses I. Basic Facts (a) 470 D.U. (b) Total Children = 470 x 1.7 = 949 Children 2. School Expense = 949 Children.x $1100/yr = $1,043,900/yr 3. Cost of Other Services = 1,043,900 - 1,043,900 = $2,174,792 - 1,043,900 = — 4�_ $1,130,892/yr 4. Total Expenses (a) Ultimate (1.7/child/DU) = 2,174,792 yr = **$2,175,000/yr** (b) 1/2 Child = $652,840 = **$1,653,000/yr** (c) No Children = $1,130,892/yr = **$1,131,000/yr** i 4 f 5. Credit -(Deficit) (a) No Children = $1,131,000 - 940,000 = ($191,000/yr) (b) 1/2 Child = $1,653,000 - 940,000 = ($713,000/yr) (c) Ultimate = $2,175,000 - 940,000.= ($1,235,000/yr) Chart 19 SUMMARY: BELL ESTATE Development Conditions Income Expense Credit Deficit 'A' No children $460,000 $ 810,000/yr $ 350,000/yr 1/2 child " 1,200,000 740,000/yr Ultimate " 1,600,000 1,140,000/yr 'AA' No children " 387,000 $93,000/yr 1/2 child " 566,000 106,000/yr Ultimate " 745,000 285,000/yr Purchase 20 yrs 276,000 315,115/yr + 39,114 Ultimate $ 39,114 (a) $ 39,114/yr (a) = Loss of current tax revenue I n Chart 20 SUMMARY: "MONTAUK MANOR" (SPRINGS) Zoning Conditions Income Expense Credit Deficit Present No children $200,000 $3,800,000/yr $3,600,000/yr (2,000 1/2 child " 5,600,000 5,400,000 sq.ft.) Ultimate " 70-400,000 7,200,000 'B' No children " 380,000 180,000 (1/2 acre) 1/2 child " 560,000 360,000 Ultimate " 740,000 540,000 'A' ' No children " 190,000 $ 10,000 1/2 child " 280,000 80,000 Ultimate " 370,000 170,000 'AA' No children " 85,000 115,000 1/2 ch.ild " 140,000 60,000 Ultimate " 185,000 15,000/yr Purchase 20 yrs(Bond) Camping,etc.(a) $ 46,000/yr $ 49,867.50/yr + $ 3,867.50 (b) Ultimate $ 3,867.50/yr $ 3,867.50/yr (a) Camping - Impossible to estimate this income. (b) Current Real Estate'Tax per year. I i r" Chart 21 Capital Left Interest Rate I. $2,800,000 8% 2. 2,660,000 3. 2,520,000 4. 2,380,000 5. 2,240,000 6. 2,100,000 7. 1,960,000 8. 1,820,000 9. 1,680,000 10. 1,540,000 11. 1,400,000 12. 1,260,000 13. 1,120,000 14. 980,000 15. 840,000 16. 700,000 17. 560,000 18. 420,000 19. 280,000 20. 140,000 X it CURTISS-WRIGHT PARTIAL (2/5) PURCHASE SCHEDULE Interest/Yr Capital Due/Yr Total Yearly Payment $224,000 $140,000 $364,000 212,800 352,800 201,600 341,600 190,400 330,400 179,200 319,200 168,000 208,000 156,800 296,800 1450600 258,600 134,400 274,400 123,200 263,200 112,000 252,000 100,800 240,800 89,600 229,600 78,400 218,400 67,200 207,200 56,000 196,000 44,800 184,800 33,600 173,600 22,400 162,400 11,200 151,200 $20352,000 + $2,800,000 = taxa $5,152,000 - _49'2.-868 it Chart"22 Capital Left to Pay I. $7,000,000 x 2. 6,650,000 3. 6,300,000 4, 5,950,000 5. 5,600,000 6. 5,250,000 7. 4,900,000 8. 4,550,000 9. 4,200,000 10. 3,850,000 II. 3,500,000 12. 3,150,000 13, 2,800,000 14. 2,450,000 15. 2,100,000 16. 1,750,000 17. 1,400,000 18. 1,050,000 19. 700,000 20. 351,000 Interest Rate 8% SCHEDULE - TOTAL PURCHASE Interest Capital Due Total Yearly Payment _ $560,000 + $ 350,000 = $910,000 532,000 882,000 504,000 854,000 476,000 826,000 448,000 798,000 420,000 770,000 392,000 742,000 364,000 714,000 36,000 686,000 308,000 658,000 280,000 630,000 252,000 602,000 224,000 574,000 196,000 546,000 168,000 518,000 140,000 490,000 112,000 462,000 84,000 434,000 56,000 406,000 28,000 378,000 $5,880,000 + $7,000,000 = $12,880,00 _t0;0(iQ wz;o06o Chart 23 LIST OF SERVICES (Other than School) Town (East Hampton Town Budget 1969-70) I. Hiqhway 2. Special Districts _ (a) Fire (b) Water (c) Light 3. Police 35. Narcotics Council 4. Social Services 36. Lighting (Docks, 5. Advertising & Publishing Parks & Arterial 6. Supervisor Highways) 7., Town Clerk 37. Signs & Markers 8. Justices 38. Vital Statistics 9. Assessors 39. Planning Board 10. Bay Constables 40. Zoning Board of 11. Dog Warden Appeals 12. Attendance Officers 41. Building Dept. 13. Elections 14. Buildings & Offices 15. Association of Towns 16. Insurance 17. Trustees 18. Recreation 19. Parks 20. Disposal Plants 21. Cemeteries 22. Engineer & Surveyor 23. Memorial Day Observance 24. Harbors & Docks 25. Purchase of Land 26. Shade trees 27. Debt Service 28. Employees' Benefits 29. Airport 30. Historian 31. Contingent 32. Civil Defense 33. Councilmen 34. Conservation Chart 23 (Continued) County I. Assessment 38. Police 2. Attorney, County 39. Probation 3. Audit & Control 40. Public Administrator 4. Buildings & Grounds 41*. Public Works 5. Civil Defense 42. Purchase 6. Civil Service 43. School Transportation 7. Clerk, County Physically Handi- 8. College, Community capped Children 9.. Community College, 44. Sewer Agency Out -of -County Tuition 45. Sheriff 10. Commerce & Industry 46. Social:Services 11. Court, County 47. Supervisors, 12. Court, District Board of 13. Court, Family 48. Traffic Safety 14. Court, Supreme 49. Transportation 15. Court, Surrogate 50. Treasurer, County 16. Court Law Library, 51. Vanderbilt Museum Supreme 52. Veterans Service 17. Crime Control Council Agency 18. Data Processing 53. Weights & Measures 19. District Attorney 54. Youth 20. District Superintendent of Schools 21. Elections, Board of 22. Executive, County 23. Fire Safety 24. General Services 25. Health 26. Historian, County 27. Human Relations Commission 28. Jurors, Commissioner of 29. Justices of the Peace 30. Labor 31. Medical Examiner 32. Mental Health 33. Mosquito Control Commission 34. Narcotic Addiction & Control Commission 35. Other Correction Agencies 36. Park 37. Planning Published by PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF THE EAST END, INC. CIVIC ASSOCIATION OF THE SPRINGS 14 QUEST/ONS and EXTENSION Cooperative Extension Association of Suffolk County 1 r . 246 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, A.Y. 1190 Tel: 516 727-7850 l .:TRUSTS Cooperatk» Extension In New York State provides Equal Program and EmPloynrnt OPPortunttlsa- ' New York State College of Agrltult— and Ufa Sciences, New York State College of Human Ecology, ; and Naw York State College of Val+rh�ary States DePartmant of Agrice at Cornell Un"WtV. ulture. Extension b - Asaodaff8. Countt/ Governing �' The need to save such endangered natural 're- sources as wetlands, forests, shorelines, and prime .farmlands has put great pressure on government at all levels to acquire. or otherwise severely restrict the use of such lands. However ''government is often unable or unwilling to -take such actions.. ,Thus, other means may be needed to save these ' resources. That alternative may be the "land trust." This pamphlet explains, in a question and answer format, what -land trusts..are, how they are organized and administered, and what.''they can and cannot do. It also includes information on. the tax status of trusts. Finally, the, names,' and addresses of some prominant trusts are cited as are some booklets dealing with the subject. We hope that this pamphlet will be of assistance -to those who are seeking ways to save our endangered natural resource's. •"• David""Newton`• .. ' .,Land,%Use Specialist January 1980 What is a Land Trust? A "land trust" or "land foundation" is simply an organization incorporated under the laws of New York State created fci the purpose of obtaining and holding lands for preservation and/or conserva- tion purposes. What types of land trusts are there? Land trusts or foundations may be "public" or "private" (non-public). Public land trusts, which are.supported financially by the general public, are the preferred type. -Those who donate to public land trusts are entitled to greater tax benefits. Public land trusts are subjected to less restrictions on their activities and they are exempt from the 2% tax on investments and net capital gains that is levied on private.trusts. How is a land trust created? The first step is to form a committee to draft , a policy statement which outlines the purposes and goals of the trust. Once this has been adopted, an attorney should be retained to draft the corporation charter (articles of incorporation) and handle other legal matters. A charter committee can be assigned to assist the attorney. Concurrently, by-laws, for conducting the business of the trust should be drafted. Once the charter and by-laws are drafted, a general organizational meeting should be convened for the purpose of adopting the charter and by-laws and electing the officers and board of directors. . Upon adoption of the charter, the attorney has it recorded and.applies to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for tax exempt status as a non-profit chari- table organization. Upon IRS approval, application is made to the State for income tax exemption. When all of this has-been done, the trust is ready to do business. 3 What laws govern land trusts? In what activities may land trusts engage? The creation and operation of land trusts are Within the constraints of its charter and IRS subject to two sets of New York State laws - the guidelines, a land trust may engage in the following Not -for -Profit Corporation Law and the Estates, activities: Powers, and Trusts Law. The former comprises Book 37 of McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York µ - accept gifts of land or cash; while the latter, of which Articles 7 and 8 apply - purchase and sell land and other real property; to trusts, comprises Book -17B. solicit cash donations; - acquire and hold land for subsequent govern - How are land trusts administered?, ment purchase; - litigate in court; The organization, administration and day-to-day - present views before administrative bodies; business of a land trust are dictated by the by-laws. -appeal to the public on matters other than These are the guidelines under which the trust oper- legislation. ates.. -In what activities may land trusts not engage? By-laws specify (1) Membership (types and"quali- ` fications, dates, dues); (2) Officers (usually presi- Just as the IRS tax exempt status grants certain dent, vice president, secretary, and treasurer, terms, privileges, it also limits some types of activities. election); (3) Meetings (annual, special, voting, Trusts include: quorum); (4) Board of Directors (authority, election; " meetings); (5) Committees (type, appointment, member- - lobbying for the adoption or rejection of ship); (6) Parliamentary Authority (usually Robert's legislation; Rules of Order); and (7) Amendment of By-laws. - intervening in any political campaign. The officers plus a selected number of other members constitute the Board of Directors. The pro- What, if any, taxes must land trusts pay? perty, business, and affairs of the land trust are managed by the Board.. Although a trust or foundation is granted tax- exempt status by the IRS, it still may be required What are the benefits of tax-exempt status? to pay real property taxes. It all depends on - whether or not the lands are open to public use. Tax-exempt status presents several advantages to both the trust and to donors. These include the Until recently, all trust and foundation lands following: were subject to property taxation because they were privately owned. However, in a case involving the - the trust is not required to pay corporation, Mohonk Trust, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Social Security, or unemployment taxes; in 1979 that lands owned by non-profit charitable - the trust is eligible for special postal rates: or educational organizations can qualify for a tax - the trust is not required to pay certain state ? '`. exemption when "used for environmental and conserva- and local taxes (excluding property taxes); tion purposes which are necessary to the public good - donors of land or cash may claim the value of r and which are open to and enjoyed by the public." these as deductions on their income or cor--• Such use must not only be allowed,but must be encour- poration taxes. aged also. 4 5 Lands which are held for non-public use, such as the preservation of farmland for private agricul- tural purposes, are not eligible for an exemption unless the development rights are divested through sale or easement agreement. How do trusts obtain funds for operations and projects? Fund-raising is a major activity of any trust since such organizations are not financed by govern- ment. Some of the most common sources of funds are' philanthropic charitable foundations, trust member- ship dues, gifts -from wealthy individuals and from corporations, and special fund-raising events. What are some of the major land trusts in the North- east? One of the best known land preservation organi- zations is the Nature Conservancy. Its main activities include the identification and design of natural area preserves, acquisition of natural areas, and proper management and use of natural areas. These are accomplished by purchasing land, accepting gifts of natural areas, and acquiring and subsequently trans ferring lands to governmental agencies. The organi- zation's address is: The Nature Conservancy 1800 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 and The Nature Conservancy. Long Island Chapter P.O. Box 72 Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. 11724 6 The Trust for Public Land trains land acquisi- tion specialists and, by using private capital, acquires endangered lands which it holds until government is in a position to purchase them. In essence, it serves as a land -holding foundation. •Its address is: Trust for Public Land 11 Hill Street Suite.52 Newark_;' N.J..', ',07102:. To help save the' -prime farmlands of Eastern Suffolk County from.developmenE,-the South Fork Land Foundation was established.:.-It.'accepts cash and land gifts and purchases the development rights or full title of endangered;farmlandls'.--Its address is: South Fork Land Fpundation P.O'.--. Box 440 Bridgehampton, N.Y.; 11932 Where is additional information about land trusts available? The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests'has published an.excellent booklet.which _. describes how to form land --trusts. Entitled The Formation of Land Trusts and Watershed Associations, it may be purchased from the Society, 5 So. State St., Concord, NH 03301. IAnother excellent source of information is Foundations: A Handbook available free of charge from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Ser- vice, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20243. It explains how to form a foundation, 1 and raise funds, and it presents several case -studies of.. successful foundations: 7