County hears fiscal analysis, school impact for two proposed developments in Chester and Graysonville

Developers and their consultants presented fiscal-impact studies and answered commissioners’ questions Tuesday night as Queen Anne’s County reviewed two proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.

The Barnstable proposal would reclassify a site on Main Street (Route 18) in Chester from S-3 to S-2 to allow 82 townhomes. County staff told the commission there is sufficient sewer capacity for the project; the project’s concept plan previously received planning commission concept approval and staff found no off-site sewer infrastructure issues. Consultant Carson Bice of Tischler Bise presented a 20-year fiscal model that used a conservative “snapshot” method (no inflation) and estimated the Barnstable project would produce a net fiscal surplus to the county over 20 years. The study projects about 23 students from the 82 townhomes (about 9 elementary, 6 middle, 7 high school) and used county student-generation factors from the APFO. Bice reported an assumed townhouse market value of about $580,000 and an average household income used for the model of roughly $143,000; he said the model’s assumptions were conservative and actual incomes could be higher. Commissioners pressed on the student generation and on using a fixed per‑student maintenance-of-effort figure across 20 years.

Separately, representatives for an Aspire/Ewing Farm proposal in the Graysonville/Graceville area described a larger mixed subdivision: 290 units total (218 single-family detached, 72 townhomes) with a six‑year buildout. The applicant’s team said the site lies inside a designated growth area and is surrounded by existing sewer lines; county staff will include the full fiscal report in the public record ahead of any formal action. Tischler Bise’s fiscal model for the Ewing Farm project estimated a cumulative county net surplus over 20 years (the consultant reported a cumulative net impact of roughly $5.8 million across general fund and Board of Education). The study projected about 127 students from the development (60 elementary, 33 middle, 34 high school), and a weighted average household income of about $121,000.

Commissioners and staff asked detailed questions about the modeling assumptions: the use of a 12‑year home turnover assumption, the county’s maintenance‑of‑effort per‑pupil figure (the consultant used the FY25 local contribution), and whether to apply inflation to operating costs and school budgets. Consultants defended the “snapshot” method (current-dollar assumptions) as standard practice for these analyses but acknowledged that countywide cost escalation for education is a broader budget issue.

Both project teams said there are one‑time revenues (impact fees, building permits, transfer and recordation taxes) and that the modeling included impacts on general fund and education budgets; both teams noted their analyses were revised in response to staff comments and would be placed in the record for follow‑up public hearings. Commissioners did not take a formal vote on either sewer amendment at the meeting; staff indicated public hearings and required notices will proceed per the county schedule.