SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER In the Matter of The Application of THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, for a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF ‘THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL. Respondents. SIRS: |OTICE O1 PETITION Index # (oOQS1/1/ Date filed: Sol! | RECEIVED Ms to 201 HY. Dom county on ne WSO eSTER PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, verified on the 9" day of March, 2011 and upon the affidavits of Timothy M. Costello, sworn to on the 9" day of March, 2011, Akia Shangai, swom to on the 9" day of March, 2011, the affidavit of W.L. “Tony” Sawyer, sworn to on the 9" day of March, 2011 and Derrick Claye, sworn to on the 9 day of March, 2011 an applicationwill be made Define. Hon. Cacace. fo be held at the courthouse thereof, located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York 10601, Westchester County, State of New York, on the Ot aay of Apa 2011 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment pursuant to N.Y. CP.LR. Art. 78 annulling the determination made by Respondents THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT & BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK approving and issuing a charter and provisional charter for Respondent AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL and for such other and further relief as may be just, proper, and equitable. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that an answer and supporting affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before the aforesaid date of hearing. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, Petitioners designate Westchester County as place of trial. The basis of venue is Petitioners” actual place of business. Dated: March 9, 2011 Queens, NY YOURS, etc. Jennifer Arditi, Esq. Deveraux L. Cannick, Esq AIELLO & CANNICK Attorneys for Petitioners 69-06 Grand Avenue , NY 11378To: New York State Education Department Education Building 89 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12234 Board of Regents New York State Education Department Education Building 89 Washington Avenue, Room 112 Albany, New York 12234 Amani Public Charter School clo Stephanie McCaine 1 Charles Place Mount Vernon, New York 10550 Amani Public Charter School 20 S. 2 Avenue Mount Vernon, NY 10550SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER In the Matter of FIED The Application of PETITION THE MOUNT VERNON CITY i) SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE # aS /I/ MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE RESPONDENT BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, Respondents. Petitioners, THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, by and through their attorneys AIELLO & CANNICK respectfully allege as follows: THE PARTIES 1 Petitioner BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter “Board”) is the governing body of the Respondent MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter“District”), a small city school district located in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester, State of New York. The Board and the District possess all of the powers and authority granted to boards of education and school districts for the governance of school districts pursuant to the Education Law of the State of New York and are responsible for the education of the students residing within the City of Mount Vernon. Respondent NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (hereinafter “NYSED") is part of the University of the State of New York under the direction of the Commissioner of Education. NYSED is responsible for the supervision of all public schools in New York, standardized testing, the production and administration of state tests and Regents Examinations. In addition, NYSED oversees higher education, cultural institutions such as museums and libraries, and the licensing of numerous professions. Respondent BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (hereinafter “Board of Regents”) is the governing body for the NYSED, organized and existing pursuant to Article 5 of the Education Law. The Respondent Board of Regents is also a “charter entity” under the Charter Schools Act as set forth below. Respondent AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL (hereinafter “Amani”) was the subject of an application for a charter which was subsequently approved by Respondent Board of Regents.BACKGROUND ‘On December 14, 2010, Respondent Board of Regents, at its full board meeting, voted to approve and issue a charter and provisional charter for Respondent Amani. The District of Location for Respondent Amani is the Mount Vernon City School District. The initial charter term is from December 14, 2010 up through and including a term of five years with an anticipated opening date of Fall 2011. See Exhibits A. Petitioners allege that Respondents’ determination at the December 14, 2010 meeting of the Respondent Board of Regents approving and issuing a charter and provisional charter for Respondent Amani was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedure and must be annulled. THE NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT OF 1998 The New York Charter Schools Act of 1998 (hereinafter “Act”) [Education Law Section 2850 et_seg.] authorizes a system of charter schools to provide opportunities for teachers, parents and community members to establish and maintain schools that will operate independently of existing schools and school districts. Pursuant to The Act as authorized by Article 56, charter schools are independent public schools that operate under five year charters. A10. ul. 12. charter school is free to organize around a core mission, curriculum, theme or innovative teaching model and controls its own budget and employs its own teachers and staff. A charter school must demonstrate success within five years or risk losing a renewal of its charter. The Act authorizes Respondent Board of Regents to serve as a “charter entity” which is one of three entities authorized to approve applications to establish charter schools pursuant to the Act. The Act sets for the eligibility requirements for persons or entities to open and operate a charter school as well as the process for application for a charter. Those requirements include an assessment of the projected programmatic and financial impact that granting the charter will have on the local public school district and requires the applicant to produce evidence of adequate community support. See, Education Law Section 2851 (2) (q). As part of the approval process, the charter entity must make certain affirmative findings including a finding that granting the charter application is “likely to improve student learning and achievement.” See, Education Law Section 2852.2 ‘The scheme for the funding of charter schools is also set forth in the Act and requires that the local public school district “pay directly to the charter school for each student enrolled in the charter school who resides in the school district an amount equal to one hundred percent of the expense per pupil.” In addition, the local school district is also required to pay directly13. 14, 15, 16. 7. to the charter school any federal or state aid attributable to a student with a disability attending the charter school in proportion to the level of services for such student with a disability that the charter school provides either directly or indirectly. See, Education Law Section 2856.1. ‘The per-pupil amount to be paid to a charter school for each school district is set by the NYSED and is based on its expenses and enrollment. The formula deducts certain revenues and strips out transportation, debt service and other expenses. See, Education Law Section 2856. ‘The amounts paid for a charter school’s initial year of operation are based upon the projections set forth in the charter. Education Law Section 2856.1. There is no commensurate increase or offset in aid to the local public school district for payments paid directly to the charter school. The current per-pupil amount to be paid to a charter school set by NYSED is $16,794.00 per pupil. APPLICATION PROCESS According to NYSED’s “2010 Charter School Application Kit” (hereinafter “Application Kit”) any applicant for possible approval must demonstrate four “essential competencies: 1. That the applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the New York State Charter Schools Act and what it means to comply with the Act. 2. The applicant's18. 19. 20. 21 proposed school demonstrates clear alignment with the educational priorities stated in the law. 3. The applicant presents a coherent and practical design for the proposed school. 4. The applicant demonstrates the necessary experience, skill and will to manage the challenging and dynamic process of opening and operating a public charter school.” See Exhibit B. By the same document, NYSED clarifies that the purpose of the Prospectus, which is part of Phase II of the same application process, is to allow the applicant to demonstrate two of the four key components before moving forward in the process. Those two components are demonstration of a clear understanding of the New York State Charter Schools Act and what it means to comply with the Act and demonstration of clear alignment with the educational priorities stated in the law. Most importantly, the Application Kit clearly states that “/bJeyond making assurances, the applicant must demonstrate educational alignment and operational compliance to the key requirements and educational priorities of the act.” (page 10) (emphasis supplied) The Act also requires that the application contain an “assessment of the programmatic and fiscal impact of the school on other public and non- public schools in the area.” Education Law Section 2851.2(q) According to NYSED’s Office of Innovative School Models Summary of Findings and Recommendations relating to Amani’s application dated December 2010, the “fiscal impact of a charter school on the district in22. 23. which it is located is based upon several assumptions, which may or may not occur: that all existing charter schools will also exist in the next five years and serve the same grade levels as they do now; that the charter schools will be able to meet their maximum projected enrollment; that all students will come from the district of location and no other districts; that all students will attend every day for a 1.0 FTE; that the District's budget will increase at the projected rate of 3 percent each year; and that the per pupil payment will increase at the projected rate of 4.5 percent year.” (emphasis supplied) In utilizing this framework, the fiscal impact to Petitioner District was projected by Respondents to be less than 5 percent over the next five years. See Exhibit C. DISTRICT'S FINANCIAL POSITI( Currently the Mount Vernon City School District services approximately 9,000 students at a cost of $23,560.44 per pupil. The current budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year is $201,795,143. The District is fiscally independent of the City of Mount Vernon and its financial base is comprised primarily of a combination of local revenues from real property and school taxes, state aid and federal aid. The District is currently operating under an austerity budget after the voters failed to approve the proposed budget for 2010-2011 at the May 2010 Annual Budget Vote & Election. This is the second austerity budget for the District in the past three years. 1024, 25. 26. 21. Upon information and belief, for the 2011-2012 school year projected spending will be increased by almost $18 million and revenue will decrease by $8.5 million, These amounts would result in a possible property tax levy increase of $26.5 million or 21.2%. Upon information and belief, in all likelihood the District will again be operating under an austerity budget for 2011-2012 because the residents of the District can not and will not sustain such an increase. Upon information and belief, the District anticipates a reduction in the District's New York State Aid for 2011-2012 of 11.73% or $8,843,417; loss of American Recovery for Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for Education Stabilization Fund (ESF), loss of Title I and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding of approximately $5,181,426, which equates to approximately 63 teaching positions; mandated fringe cost increases from the retirement systems of $6,400,000; a health insurance premium increase of $1,100,000 and legally mandated step increments of $1,817,564 in accordance with the Triborough Amendment. As in the previous years’ budgets, the District will again need to implement drastic staffing, programmatic and service reductions for the 2011-2012 school year. However, even with drastic reductions for the 2011-2012 school year, the potential property tax levy increase is still $17.6 million or 14.2%. This property tax levy, even if instituted, would still result in a $9.8 million revenue “hole” in the budget. W28. 29. 30. 31 In its application, Respondent Amani cited an estimated enrollment of 80 students for Year 1 which is scheduled to begin September 2011 with an ultimate enrollment of 320 students in Year 5. See Exhibit D. Upon information and belief, the District will pay the charter school $16,794.00 for each district resident student who enrolls in the school. As a result, the District will lose approximately $1.4 million in Amani’s first year of operation and over $5.3 million by Year 5. This loss will not be ofifet in any manner. Further, upon information and belief, the figures relied upon by Respondent Amani in the application process assume that the students who will enroll in the charter school are students who would otherwise attend Respondent District’s schools. Therefore, it is Respondents mistaken position that the District would not be losing any monies since it would otherwise be required to service these pupils if they did not attend the charter school. However, the enrollment figures cited by Respondent Amani failed to consider the fact that 1,950 of District residents who are eligible to attend the District's schools choose other private and parochial schools for their education. Therefore, it is highly likely that Respondent Amani’s enrollment will be comprised of students who would not otherwise attend the District’s schools resulting in additional cost to the District. Respondents also failed to anticipate the potential additional enrollment 1232. 33. 34. 35. 36. due to the closure of two parochial schools within the confines of the school district effective June 2011. By approving the charter, Respondent NYSED and Board of Regents clearly failed to consider the fiscal and programmatic impact upon the District which will result in drastic reductions in educational programs, staffing, building maintenance and safety and security. In light of the above, the issuance of the charter will severely and adversely affect the learning and achievement of those students who will continue to attend the District schools. AS & FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTI Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein, Respondents NYSED & Board of Regents acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of lawful procedure in approving Respondent ‘Amani’s charter without first making the requisite findings required by the Act. Specifically, the Act requires that “(a)n application for a charter school shall not be approved unless the charter entity finds that...(c) granting the application is likely to improve student learning and achievement....” Education Law Section 2852.2 1337. 38. 39. 40. Al. 42, The specific language of the statute, as set forth above, requires that the charter entity make an affirmative finding that granting the application is likely to improve student learning and achievement and does not specifically limit that finding to only those students attending the charter school. The record is devoid of any finding that the approval of the application is likely to improve student learning and achievement or what review Respondents undertook to make such a determination. Moreover, had the appropriate review been undertaken with respect to those students attending District schools, given the anticipated loss of revenue duc to the charter school and the concomitant costs, the requisite affirmative finding could not have been made by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents, The record is devoid of any independent analysis or consideration of the financial impact on the District by Respondents or any evaluation or verification of Respondent Amani’s analysis, which upon information and belief, was severely underestimated. Upon information and belief, the information submitted by Respondent ‘Amani was simply accepted as accurate with no attempts at corroboration or verification required or undertaken. Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. 1443. 45. 46. 47. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. AS & FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 43 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. ‘The method to determine the “fiscal impact” to the district is fatally flawed. First, it is based upon assumptions. Second, it is based upon assumptions that are known to be false to the charter entity. Specifically, one of the assumptions upon which fiscal impact is determined, is that the per pupil payments to the district will increase at the rate of 4.56 percent each year. Respondent NYSED, which is the entity that sets the per pupil payment, knows this assumption to be wholly inaccurate. In fact, the per pupil payments have actually been reduced for the past two years. Second, the assumption that the District's budget will increase at the rate of 3 percent per year is incorrect. The District's budget for the past six years has actually increased at the average rate of 6.55% per year. Year Budget Property Tax 2005-2006 11.51% increase _7.51% increase 2006-2007 6.79% increase 9.60% increase 2007-2008 8.54% increase 6.54% increase 1548. 49. 50. 51 52. 53. 54, 2008-2009 4.78% increase. 4.91% increase 2009-2010 8.39% increase 9.65% increase 2010-1011 68% decrease ——*7.49% increase ‘The fact that the loss of over $5.3 million dollars to Petitioners and the students its serves is based upon incorrect and inaccurate assumptions cannot be determined to be anything other than arbitrary and capricious. ‘Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. AS & FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs | through 50 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. The Act requires that the application contain an “assessment of the programmatic and fiscal impact of the school on other public and non- public schools in the area.” Education Law Section 2851.2(q) The record is completely devoid of any assessment or analysis of the programmatic and fiscal impacts required by statute. Without such an assessment, the approval of the charter by the Respondents NYSED & Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedure. 1655. 56. 37. 58. 59. AS & FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs | through 54 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents failed to analyze and address the fiscal impact to the Petitioner and the students it serves. Petitioners maintain that the issuance of the charter will result in irreparable financial harm to a school district that is already in severe fiscal distress. Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents did not conduct any type of analysis of the fiscal impact, but rather, simply accepted Respondent Amani's analysis. More specifically, Respondents, as part of the required analysis to determine fiscal impact, failed to consider the exacerbation of the dire existing financial issues, the devastating impact that the issuance of the charter would have on Petitioners’ ability to provide educational services to its existing student body, the fact that the monies that will be appropriated to the charter school cannot be recouped by the imposition of tax increase or offset in any manner, and most importantly, that the issuance of the charter will ultimately result in elimination of programs, staff, and services that directly affect the learning and achievement of the students in the District. 760. 61. 62. 63, 65. Issuance of a charter under these circumstances can only be deemed to be so arbitrary and capricious so as to require revocation of the charter. Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. AS & FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs | through 62 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. The Act requires sufficient evidence of community support before the application can be issued. The Application Kit states that “By Monday, November 15, 2010, NYSED will determine whether the application will be recommended to the Board of Regents for approval or denial.” Upon information and belief, at the time the recommendation was made ‘on November 15, 2010 for the application to go before Respondent Board of Regents for final approval, Respondents had yet to receive a copy of the public comments resulting from the public hearing held on November 4, 2010. 1867. 68. 69. 70. 1. 72. The fact that Respondent moved the charter application forward for final approval without having the comments elicited at the public hearing available for consideration was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of legal procedure. In addition, although there was evidence submitted in support of the charter, the public hearing was attended by approximately 100 residents of 68,000 resident. Assuming arguendo, even if 100% of the attendees at the public hearing were in favor of Respondent Amani’s charter application, and this was clearly not the case, 100 residents of a 68,000 person community could not be reasonable be deemed to equate to the required “sufficient community support”, Issuance of a charter under these circumstances can only be deemed to be so arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the requirements of the Charter School Act which clearly requires “sufficient evidence” of community support so as to require revocation of the charter. Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. 192B. 74. ah 16. 71. AS & FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTIO! Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 72 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. Petitioner submits that there are several deficiencies in Respondent ‘Amani’s application and prospectus and an overall failure by Respondent ‘Amani to meet the statutory requirements for the issuance of a charter. ‘A review of the application and Respondent NYSED’s own guidance documents reveal that Respondent Amani failed to meet the requirements set forth by statute, In addition, it is clear that many of the statements contained in those documents were not reviewed by Respondents for accuracy or veracity. Specifically, Respondent Amani’s charter was issued without Respondents verifying that Respondent Amani had secured appropriate space for the program, The documents submitted state that Respondent Amani had secured space with the Mount Vernon YMCA. Upon information and belief, this statement is false and to date, a site has yet to be secured. In addition, it is the position of Petitioner that the Prospectus as submitted did not meet the defined criteria for continuation in the process since it was replete with nothing more than the “assurances” that were clearly prohibited by the Application Kit and supposedly insufficient to allow for continuation in the process. 20B. 79. 80. 81. 82. For example, Respondent Amani provided no proof of alignment of curriculum with New York State Standards, only that it “intends” to develop a curriculum. Further, the prospectus was to include the framework for development of curricula for core subjects but failed to do so. Rather, the Prospectus states that the plans are being “considered”. As the Prospects relates to the core subjects of Math and Social Studies, it states that the program “will focus on number sense, computation with fractions, decimals and percents and other math concepts” and “will provide students with the understanding of history, government and civies.” This is clearly not a framework for curriculum development. It is, rather, only an “assurance” upon which approval cannot be based. The document is also devoid of any other statements or plans pertaining to NYSED’s other middle school program requirements such as technical education, art, career development, health and physical education. Respondent Amani also claims that it will offer a 8 hour 15 minute school day (emphasis supplied). However, upon further inspection, the proposed ™ grade schedule submitted by Respondent Amani actually includes two hours of non-instruetional time (breakfast and homework assistance before and after school) conveniently calculated as part of what appears to be an extended instructional school day. 2183. 84, 85. 86. 87. 88, 89. ‘The prospectus also lacks any clear plans regarding the services to be provided to special education students and English Language Learners, only that Respondent Amani “intends” to develop a plan. There is also no indication in the prospectus as to how the library will be established. Issuance of a charter absent consideration of the material information set forth above can only be deemed to be so arbitrary and capricious so as to require revocation of the charter. Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. AS & FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs | through 87 of the Petition as if more fully set forth herein. Education Law Section 2851 requires that the local school district receive appropriate notification at each stage of the chartering process. 221. 92. 93. Other than a notification on or about October 2010 regarding the requirement for a public hearing to be held, Petitioner District was not specifically notified of updates in the chartering process. ‘Therefore the issuance of the charter without the appropriate statutory notifications must be deemed to be in violation of lawful procedure so as to require revocation of the charter. Therefore, the approval by the Respondents NYSED and Board of Regents was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedures. Accordingly, judgment should be entered annulling the decision of the Respondent Board of Regents and setting aside the issuance of the charter. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully requested that this Court determine on the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action that the approval and issuance of a charter to Respondent Amani Public Charter School was so arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedure so as to warrant revocation of the charter and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just proper and equitable. Dated: March 9, 2011 Queens, NY YOURS, ete. Jennifer Arditi, Esq, Deveraux L. Cannick, Esq AIELLO & CANNICK Attorneys for Petitioners 69-06 Grand Avenue Maspeth, NY 11378 (718121 duh 23VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER __)ss.: DERRICK CLAYE, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is President of the Mount Vernon Board of Education, a Petitioner in this proceeding; that he has read the annexed Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to the knowledge of deponent except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true and that my knowledge is based upon personal knowledge as well as a review of the files and records maintained by Petitioner. DERRICK CLAYE Swom to before me this jth day of March, 2011 DEVERLY P. Monn COMMISSIONER OF DE 10 & for the City of Mt. Vernon Homey Fable erm pes Deca 34 ge DR‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER x In the Matter paver of . The Application of Index # Qi / iW) ‘THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- ‘THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF ‘THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, Respondents. STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER) TIMOTHY M. COSTELLO, being duly sworn deposes and states as follows under the penalties of perjury: am over the age of 18 and I reside at Mount Vernon, New York. I make this affidavit in support of the Petition in the above referenced matter. 2. Lam the Assistant Superintendent for Business for the Mount Vernon City ‘School District. I have held this position since August 2007.1. Tam over the age of 18 and I reside at Mount Vernon, New York. I make this affidavit in support of the Petition in the above referenced matter. 2. Lam the Assistant Superintendent for Business for the Mount Vernon City ‘School District. I have held this position since July 2009. 3. Currently the Mount Vernon City School District services approximately 9,000 students at a cost of $23,560.44 per pupil. The current budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year is $202,860,580, The District is fiscally independent of the City of Mount ‘Vernon and its financial base is comprised primarily of a combination of local revenues from real property and school taxes, state aid and federal aid. 4. For the 2011-2012 school year, projected spending will be increased by almost $18 million and revenue will decrease by $8.5 million, ‘These amounts would result in a possible property tax levy increase of $26.5 million or 21.2%. 5. The District anticipates a reduction in the District’s New York State Aid for 2011-2012 of 11.73% or $8,843,417; loss of American Recovery for Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for Education Stabilization Fund (ESF), Title I and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) fimding of approximately $5,181,426, which equates to approximately 63 teaching positions; mandated fringe cost increases from the retirement systems of $6,400,000; a health insurance premium increase of $1,100,000 and legally mandated step increments of $1,817,564 in accordance with the Triborough Amendment. Per pupil payments have also decreased over the past two years. 6. According to Respondents, in determining the fiscal impact of a charter school on the district, the following assumptions are made: that all existing charter school will also exist in the next five years and serve the same grade levels as they currently7. Since 2005-2006, the budget for the Mount Vernon City School District has increased over the prior year as follows: Year Budget Property Tax 2005-2006 11.51% increase 7.51% increase 2006-2007 6.79% increase 9.60% increase 2007-2008 8.54% increase 6.54% increase 2008-2009 4.78% increase 4.91% increase 2009-2010 8.39% increase 9.65% increase 2010-1011 ~68% decrease 7.49% increase 8. The current amount payable by the District for charter school tuition is the sum of $16,794 per pupil. This amount, which is set by NYSED, will result in a loss to the school district of $1,343,520.00 in Year 1 of the Amani Public Charter School's operation and $5,374,080.00 by Year 5 of operation. 9. It has been estimated that over 1,950 of Mount Vernon school-age residents do not utilize the public school system. As a result, it can be anticipated that a large portion, if not all of Amani’s students will be students who would not otherwise attend the District’s schools. This further contributes to the fiscal impact on the District and does not appear to have been considered as part of analysis. Dated: March 9, 2011 oa Mount Vernon, NY a Ce (MOTHY M. COSTELLO ‘Swom to before me this 9" Day of March, 2011 LEP Coord BEVERLY P, ao} k RRS 19CQMMISSIONER OF DeEDs {oF the iy of Mt. Vernon ‘Teem Expires Decoinne 31, 20 f=SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER In the Matter Of AFFIDAVIT The Application of Index # (DS / u THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- THE NEW YORK STATE. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE RESPONDENT BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, Respondents. STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER) DERRICK CLAYE, being duly sworn deposes and states as follows under the penalties of perjury:1. Lam over the age of 18 and I reside at Mount Vernon, New York, I make this affidavit in support of the Petition in the above referenced matter. 2. Iam the President of the Mount Vernon Board of Education, the governing authority for the Mount Vernon City School District, Petitioners in this action. Thave held this position since July 2009. 3. On December 14, 2010, Respondent Board of Regents voted to approve and issue a charter and provisional charter for Respondent Amani which will be located within the boundaries of the Mount Veron City School District. 4, The District is now responsible to pay directly to the charter school for each student enrolled in the charter school who resides in the schoo! district an amount equal to one hundred percent of the expense per pupil as well as any federal or state aid attributable to a student with a disability attending the charter school in proportion to the level of services for such student with a disability that the charter school provides. 5. It is estimated that the District will be required to pay directly to the charter school the sum in excess of $1.3 million for its first year of operation. 6. Upon information and belief, all Respondents assumed during the application and approval process that the students who would be enrolled in Amani would be students who would otherwise attend the District’s schools, so there would technically be no loss to the District because it would otherwise be responsible to educate these children, 7. The fiscal impact analysis did not take into consideration the absolute likelihood or even the possibility that the students would attend Amani would be that thelarge portion of District residents who did not normally attend a District program. For this reason alone, the fiscal impact analysis is wholly flawed. 8. _ It is important to note that since the issuance of the charter, two parochial schools located within District boundaries are now scheduled to close in June 2011. This student population has not even been taken into consideration and will result in additional loss of monies for the District. 9. This loss of monies to the District is in addition to an expected $8.5 million loss in revenue. 10, Simply put, the District cannot sustain such an impact. 11, As in the previous years’ budgets, the District will again need to implement drastic staffing, programmatic and service reductions for the 2011-2012 school year. However, the issuance of the charter to Amani has now resulted in a need for even more drastic cuts and reductions. 12, Had this additional loss of monies to an already financially distressed school district been properly assessed and a proper fiscal impact analysis undertaken, the charter could not have been issued. Dated: March 9, 2011 ‘Mount Vernon, NY RRICK CLAYE Swom to before me this 9" day of March 2011. BEVERLY P. MORRIS COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS In & for the City of ML ton Expires December 8120 J2-SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER In the Matter of AFFIDAVIT ‘The Application of Index # (pF | i lf THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ~against- THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, Respondents. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER) WL. “TONY” SAWYER, Ed.D., being duly swom deposes and states as follows under the penalties of perjury: 1. Tam over the age of 18 and I am the Superintendent of Schools for the Mount Vernon City School District since July 2007. I make this affidavit in support of the Petition in the above referenced matter.2. It is anticipated that with a projected enrollment of 320 students, the Amani Public Charter School will result in a loss of approximately $5.3 million dollars to the Mount Vernon City School District. 3. This is in addition to a drastic loss of funding at the state and federal levels. 4, Not only will this loss of funding result in severe and drastic staffing, programmatic and service reductions but it will also adversely impact the safety and security of the students attending the District’s schools. 5. Some of the programs that will be severely compromised with the anticipated loss of funding are Nelson Mandela High School, an altemative school designed to meet the needs of students who proved to be unsuccessful in the larger settings of the District’s high schools; the Second Chance Program which is designed to address extended school suspensions by enabling the District's secondary schools to maintain a certain degree of safety while providing suspended students with an alternative setting to address their academic and social needs; a GED program designed to meet the needs of overage students who require an different educational structure and the Pre-K program which is essential to future academic success. 6. I believe that had consideration of these issues as set forth in my letter dated October 22, 2010 been appropriately undertaken and evaluated, the charter would not have been issued. 7. It is my opinion that the issuance a charter for the supposed benefit of 320 students but to the detriment of over 9,000 can only be deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. Dated: March, 2011 Mount Vernon, NY ONY SAWYER, EdD. Swom to before me this FO day of March 2011 LZ er me term Expires Devemher aSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER In the Matter of AFFIDAVIT ‘The Application of Index # (7. 5] yy U/ THE MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT & THE MOUNT VERNON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioners, For a Judgment under Article 78 of, the Civil Practice Law and Rules -against- THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK & THE AMANI PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS, Respondents. TATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER) AKIA SHANGAI, being duly sworn deposes and states as follows under the penalties of perjury: 1, Tam over the age of 18 and I am the Clerk of the Board for the Mount ‘Vernon City School District. I make this affidavit in support of the Petition in the above referenced matter.2. As Clerk of the Board it was my responsibility to forward the public comments elicited at the public hearing as well as a copy of the video relating to the Amani Public Charter School's application to NYSED. 3. Due to formatting issues with the video, I was not able to forward that information to NYSED until November 18", 2011. 4. ‘The required information was sent via Federal Express on November 18", 2010. Dated: March 9, 2011 Gd, Mount Vernon, NY ene AKIA SHANGAI Swom to before me this 9” day of March 2011 Notary Public BEVERLY P. NORRIS COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS Ja & for the City of Mt, Vernon ‘Term Expires Docembor 31, 201%