HUB status in Moultonborough

[longislander]

After this evening's select board meeting ... actually a 15 year bond at 5.25%, not 10 year at 4% ... no one knew how the $.36/$1000 was calculated, except given by the bond folks saying .36/1000 ... of what ... did the only rational thing.

Went to Buckeyes, had a couple of brews with dinner and came home.

Good Bye and so long!

[longislander]

15 year bond at 5.25% interest

Monthly payment $114,500 x 12 months = $1,374,000 annually
Total interest paid $6,366,520
Total cost of loan $20,609,935
Payoff date Dec 2037

[tis]

Just watching these towns spend money, I am beginning to think recreation is more important than police, fire, infrastructure. Is that what government is supposed to be about?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by tis

Just watching these towns spend money, I am beginning to think recreation is more important than police, fire, infrastructure. Is that what government is supposed to be about?

NH towns have their own local public school buildings that usually have gymnasiums that can be used for adult recreation during off school hours, when the student population is not using them. Volleyball, basketball, and pickleball programs are all doable in the off-hours at your local school gym.

For three dollars you can play pickleball from 10:15-11:45, Tues, Thurs, Friday at the Laconia Community Center ..... www.laconianh.gov/1030/Community-Center ....... two p-ball courts with a maple hardwood floor ..... where and when the best pickleballers go to play!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Just watching these towns spend money, I am beginning to think recreation is more important than police, fire, infrastructure. Is that what government is supposed to be about?

Boating, snowmobiling, alpine skiing, horseback riding, etc, etc, etc...
The towns/cities focus on what the population focuses on.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

This is definitely NOT the time to be pushing the ridiculous HUB on Moultonboro taxpayers. A perfect solution, percolating in my sick mind, would be to have nonresident waterfront taxpayers suddenly claim their NH property as their primary residence, and then appear at Town Meeting in May and vote against the warrant article. I realize this isn’t necessarily a practical solution, but a huge percentage of our taxes (70%?) are paid by non residents. Who knows? Maybe enough taxpayers will be sick of having their wallets picked!

[John Mercier]

You mean March?
They would just add it to the next cycle like they have been doing.

It is actually pretty hard to get a bond to pass... and that is on items that many may consider necessary; like fire or police.

[longislander]

You mean March?

Moultonborough changed the "town meeting day" to May a couple of years ago. For 2023, "ballot voting" day is May 9th, Tuesday, for voting on officials, zoning, and other items only allowed by statute. The second session is on Thursday May 11th, starting at 6:00pm, at the school academy.

Legally, the town voters (legislative body) decides the meeting month, either March, April, or May. The governing body, (select board for MoBo) decides the time and day, legally, of the second session.

For many, many years, the second session was on Saturday, starting in the morning around 9:30am or so, after the School District annual meeting at the same location.

Some believe the premise for the change away from Saturday, was because the change to May interfered a lot with warm weather activities, that were not affected as much in March; e.g., boating, outdoor sports etc.

Others believe the change to a night session during the week, not weekend, was to keep the seniors away from voting against The Hub.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by longislander

Some believe the premise for the change away from Saturday, was because the change to May interfered a lot with warm weather activities, that were not affected as much in March; e.g., boating, outdoor sports etc.

Others believe the change to a night session during the week, not weekend, was to keep the seniors away from voting against The Hub.

Great illustration of how the "pure...perfect..." romanticized version of democracy that is Town Meeting is among the least democratic structures. Basically, people have to "pay" (with their valuable time) to vote. Much more appropriate for major issues would be a ballot question in November and/or elected representatives with authority

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Great illustration of how the "pure...perfect..." romanticized version of democracy that is Town Meeting is among the least democratic structures. Basically, people have to "pay" (with their valuable time) to vote. Much more appropriate for major issues would be a ballot question in November and/or elected representatives with authority

Other people may have opposing views.

I grew up in a town with an open Town Meeting format. It gives every citizen the opportunity to question department heads, Selectmen, Finance Committee, School Committee and any town official about any issue. Anyone can go to the microphone and state their case and amend the wording of any line item or the amount to be appropriated.

If someone views their time as too valuable to get involved in the decision making they also lose the opportunity to educate themselves about the issues. A simple ballot question can be worded in many ways to push the desired outcome.

Many people move into a town and their only concern is trash disposal and how well their street gets plowed. They couldn't name one Selectman or town official and learn very little about how the town operates. Those are not the people I would want voting on important questions that will shape the future of the town.

[John Mercier]

We use SB2.
Ballot question in March.

The deliberative session allows for the question/answer/comment/amend without making the town meeting take all day.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I grew up in a town with an open Town Meeting format. It gives every citizen the opportunity to question department heads, Selectmen, Finance Committee, School Committee and any town official about any issue.

SB2 does the exact same thing. And cuts all the bulls**t out.

[longislander]

I wasn't a resident yet, but Moultonbourough has voted 4 times for SB2 adoption, in the past and failed. Senate bill SB2 passed in 1995 and put the question on the Tuesday ballot for adoption (need a petition). Most voters probably didn't understand what SB2 is/was. In 2019 the NH legislature changed the adoption process with HB415. It changed SB2 adoption from the Tuesday ballot ... to the business session of town meeting. There will be an SB2 petition on Moultonborough's 2023 warrant. Some of us are getting ready with handouts.

SB2 vs. Traditional Meeting

FOR SB2:
SB2: A Month to Research Warrant Discussions Before Voting.
SB2: All Warrant Articles Are Voted on Tuesday Ballot, not just electing
officials, zoning, and other required by statute.
All day voting. In and out in a little while. Not hours and hours waiting
to vote.
SB2: Absentee Ballots Include ALL Warrant Articles
Snowbirds, military, and other absentees can vote on all warrant articles.
SB2: All Voting is Secret, in curtained voting booth
Traditional meeting hand, card, or paper votes intimidate some voters.


AGAINST SB2:
Fewer Attendees at SB2 Deliberative Session
There should be! Many already know how they will vote.
SB2 Does Not Allow Debate of Warrant Articles
Not true! Yes, it does, at the deliberative session. Same as traditional.
SB2 Does Not Allow Amendments to Warrant Articles
Not true! Yes, It Does, at the deliberative session. Same as traditional.
Traditional Meeting Allows For More of a Social Event.
No, it doesn't. SB2 Deliberative Session social event can be the same.
SB2 Jeopardizes the Budget
Traditional imperils the budget more. SB2 has default budget or other.

[Descant]

We changed from traditional to SB2 in 1996. I've been active in town government since 1990 and active in the community since 1976. We used to have huge turnout to towm meeting-three gymnasia full, connected electronically, three big monitors, One Moderator with an assistant in each gym. Worked pretty good. Now, we get ~50 attendees plus department heads. Some union members if there is a contract to vote on, but generally, you can't amend the contract already agreed to by the BOS, just vote yes or no.
The default budget is a scam. Despite attempts to clean up the process, it frequently is closely equal to or even exceeds the proposed budget. All the folks who were afraid that ballot voting would kill the expansion budgets found a way around that by being liberal with the calculation of the default budget. The budget also gets expanded by taking must haves (new roof) out of the operating budget and putting them in as separate warrant articles to make the budget look more conservative. If you like voting by mail for President, you'll love SB2.

[longislander]

Moultonborough has about 5,000 residents. I haven't checked this year, but usually has close to 4,000 registered voters. At a normal town meeting there's about 250-300 voters that show-up, if no rec.center on the warrant. With rec. center like what will come up in 2023, probably 500-700 voters for the first 2-3hours. After the rec.center/bond vote that must legally be voted on first, attendance will drop by @50% or more for the balance of the articles on the warrant.

The same years will have 800-1200 Tuesday voters. Tuesday voter turnout is always much greater than second session.

Which is more important? How many folks show-up for a meeting or how many actually vote! SB2 absentee votes would provide even more democracy by allowing them to vote on all articles. They can't in traditional. They pay taxes. Why not provide a vote.

Does your town have an "official budget committee" ? MoBo doesn't.

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/town-cit...sponsibilities

"Default budget'' means the amount of the same appropriations as contained in the operating budget authorized for the previous year, reduced and increased, as the case may be, by debt service, contracts, and other obligations previously incurred or mandated by law, and reduced by one-time expenditures contained in the operating budget. “One-time expenditures” are appropriations not likely to recur in the succeeding budget.

https://www.nhmunicipal.org/town-cit...ned%20in%20the

Capital expenditures, like a new roof, don't belong in the operating budget. They belong in capital reserve that has projected future costs.

If there was a way to confirm voter ID and guarantee vote integrity in mail-in ballots, I'd be all for it. However, I have no confidence it can be done. Towns can do so ... if they are well managed.

Towns and voters are different, however.

[John Mercier]

Absentee voting is voting by mail.

[longislander]

Absentee is voting by mail ... and does have safeguards. Must obtain ballot from the town clerk, checked by the town for voter registration, checked by the town moderator and town clerk after the election. Is anything 100% ...

Then again, maybe all the town officials are crooks!

A lot easier to falsify "in-person" voting, than by absentee ballot.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../657/657-4.htm

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...state_5-22.pdf

Next ....

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Absentee voting is voting by mail.

A local, full time resident might have a medical appointment in Hanover or Boston on election day and they can vote their absentee ballot with the town clerk a day or two or three or four, earlier.

[longislander]

Absentee voting is voting by mail.

Based whose definition.

Absentee Ballot vs. Mail-In Ballot: Know The Difference
Published November 3, 2022

https://www.dictionary.com/e/absente...ail-in-ballot/

[John Mercier]

By how we do it.

From your linK...

"An absentee ballot is a ballot used to cast an absentee vote, which is submitted, usually by mail, by a voter known as an absentee."
"When someone is approved to vote absentee, election officials mail the voter an absentee ballot, which they complete and sign, and return by mail or, under certain circumstances, fax"

[longislander]

Is this the link you mention.!

Absentee Ballot vs. Mail-In Ballot: Know The Difference

[longislander]

Returning to the title of this thread ... HUB status in Moultonborough and
regarding the $.36/$1000 mentioned in the survey.

Found out from the source of the survey that the number is the last entry on the bond statement received by the source which is titled : FY-Est Tax Rate Inc.. Here's the last three columns (of 10) of a NH muni bond for MoBo 2022 Valuation $4,892,023,118 at 5.25% for 15 years

Fiscal yr. Total
Payment Assessed Valuation FY-Est Tax Rate Inc..
$356,085.38 $ 4,892,023,118 $0.07

My calculations seem to indicate the last number on the left is a ratio of Total Payments divided by Assessed Valuation:

($356,085.38/$4,892,023,118) X 1000 = $.072789, shortened to $ .07

Worst yet, they used the first entry (they said) which is interest only, no principal. The other columns have the interest and principal. The other columns each have a number for FY-Est Tax Rate Inc.. and seem to follow process of calculartion.

MoBo valuation this 2022 year $4,892,023,118; 2021 last year $3,943,560,976; difference $948,462,142. 24.1% Almost a billion dollars

The valuation on the bond is the same for all 15 years and does not change, not annually like our assessments and taxrate.

I'll let the reader dedcide what this has to do with "assessments" regarding the survey.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

Is this the link you mention.!

Absentee Ballot vs. Mail-In Ballot: Know The Difference

The quotes come from the link you posted.

[longislander]

What is it you don't understand?

Based whose definition.

Absentee Ballot vs. Mail-In Ballot: Know The Difference
Published November 3, 2022

https://www.dictionary.com/e/absente...ail-in-ballot/

Heading out for now ...
Let me know how I can help you understand.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Longislander, it sounds as though by their estimates, this HUB monstrosity will cost the taxpayer .07+/- per $1000 assessed value. Their figures do not take into account operating costs, which will be significant. Am I on the right track? Thanks.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

What is it you don't understand?



Heading out for now ...
Let me know how I can help you understand.

I quoted your link...
Maybe you should have read it before posting it.

[phoenix]

We have all seen how almost everything has gone up and to assume that this price won't go up if it gets out to bid is wishful thinking . Also interest rates may go up. So, whatever the estimate presented will end up going up. We need a great turnout of no voters as i assume all those in favor will be at the town meeting

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Longislander, it sounds as though by their estimates, this HUB monstrosity will cost the taxpayer .07+/- per $1000 assessed value. Their figures do not take into account operating costs, which will be significant. Am I on the right track? Thanks.

The 7 cents per thousand is the estimated annual operating cost for the first year.

[longislander]

Am I on the right track?

Just got back from Heath's. Making a stir-fry tonight.

Yes you are correct regarding the operating costs, they are not included. However, each of the 15 years has a different Y-Est Tax Rate Inc.., since the principal or interest has yearly change.The Hub estimate is $14,243,415 and the 2022 town valuation is $4,892,023,118.

I did two bonds, one, a Level Debt bond and the other for a Level Principal bond principal $14,243,415 at 5.25% interest for 15 years. I should say they are NHMBB, NH Municipal Bond Bank bonds, not mine. The calculation for what is the last column is mine, but the number is on the bond.

Here are the numbers from the last column of the Level Debt bond: the first year is .07 but is interest only. Year two is .27, the rest of the years are .28

Here are the numbers for the Level Principal bond: .07,.34, .33,.32,.31,.30,.29,28,.27,.26, 25,.24,.23, .22, .21, and two for last year .21,.20 (Feb & Aug.)


At the end of the 15years:
Level Debt bond: total Interest $6,692,400.02
Total payments for 15 years: $20,935,815.02

Level Principal bond:total interest $5,959,762.52
Total Payments for 15 years: $20,203,177.52.

Each year has a different total.

.07/1000 of $4,892,023,118 is $342,441 the interest only for the first year only, not what it will cost per year.
The $14,243,415 cost is 29% of the present town valuation of $4,892,023,118.

I won't post here the annual costs principal and interest for each for type of bond,but I have in the bonds in PDF format. Haven't tried to post a PDF yet.

The bond will probably be more because at the 12/15/22 select board meeting it was mentioned a number of $15 mllion was going to be used. Probably another million plus in the end.

This expense should show up annually in the budget (didn't say operating cost).

[longislander]

The 7 cents per thousand is the estimated annual operating cost for the first year.

No it's not. Operating costs aren't even the calculation. It is part of the building cost quote only.

The same contractor that did the $14,243,415 building estimate quoted $248,932 for total operating expense. If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell ya!

[longislander]

We have all seen how almost everything has gone up and to assume that this price won't go up if it gets out to bid is wishful thinking . Also interest rates may go up. So, whatever the estimate presented will end up going up. We need a great turnout of no voters as i assume all those in favor will be at the town meeting

Agree.

And please stick around for a vote on SB2, since the bond has to legally be one of the first warrant articles voted on at town meeting.

[longislander]

I quoted your link...
Maybe you should have read it before posting it.

No you didn't ... you quoted part of it, I suspect. I won't bother looking it up. I do read and understand the links I post. Ohhh ... that's right. You're the one that had trouble understanding "fixed" from "fixed income" when nobody else seemed to have the difficulty. Sometimes only God can help, presuming an acceptance that God exists ... not just in Google!

[John Mercier]

The portion all talk of ''mail''.
Fixed is not adjusted.

Like a ''fixed'' mortgage... the rate doesn't adjust.

SS is not fixed... it is adjusted.
And many times adjusted far beyond earned income.

It is why the kids say... ''OK Boomer''.

[longislander]

The portion all talk of ''mail''.
Fixed is not adjusted.

Like a ''fixed'' mortgage... the rate doesn't adjust.

SS is not fixed... it is adjusted.
And many times adjusted far beyond earned income.

It is why the kids say... ''OK Boomer''.

What the hell are you saying!

[pondguy]

"If you build it they will come"

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

What the hell are you saying!

Really?
You don't know the difference between ''fixed'' and ''adjustable''?
You didn't know that an absentee voter registration or absentee vote in NH was most likely going to go through the mail?

Do you think a resident of Moultonborough working long hard hours to earn a living and seeing low wage increases is going to have sympathy for someone that just saw a bigger increase than they did?

It would be like may stating, woe is me... I watched my $7 million dollar portfolio go down to $6.5 million. The average person, even in Moultonborough, is not going to sympathize as my ''loss''.

The Millennials know they are getting the raw end of the deal because they are not on a ''fixed'' income...

[longislander]

You are so confused with your opinions ...

The portion all talk of ''mail''.
Fixed is not adjusted.

Like a ''fixed'' mortgage... the rate doesn't adjust.

SS is not fixed... it is adjusted.
And many times adjusted far beyond earned income.

It is why the kids say... ''OK Boomer''.

What the hell are you saying!

Now add...

Really?
You don't know the difference between ''fixed'' and ''adjustable''?
You didn't know that an absentee voter registration or absentee vote in NH was most likely going to go through the mail?

Do you think a resident of Moultonborough working long hard hours to earn a living and seeing low wage increases is going to have sympathy for someone that just saw a bigger increase than they did?

It would be like may stating, woe is me... I watched my $7 million dollar portfolio go down to $6.5 million. The average person, even in Moultonborough, is not going to sympathize as my ''loss''.

The Millennials know they are getting the raw end of the deal because they are not on a ''fixed'' income...

Repeat: What the hell are you saying?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Getting back to my original question for longislander: are we assuming costs of $.36 + $.07 = $.43 per $1000 assessed value, to include operating expenses, such as staff salaries, utilities, insurance, etc., etc.? If so, a taxpayer with a property assessed at $1,000,000 would have an annual property tax increase of $430. Am I on the right track? So many unknowns, and this is so unnecessary!

[longislander]

Not trying to avoid the .$036/$1000 and $.06/$1000 but... maybe I am.

The survey says!:
"$0.36/$1000 of town assessed property value?"
"$0.06/$1000 of town assessed property value?"

$.36 + $.07 = $.43 per $1000 assessed value,

Definitely no, since operating costs are not part of the bond and the false .07 for intetrest only in the first year is ... is.

I'd suggest taking a different path and use the MoBo Tax Rate Breakdown;
Here goes and hope my math is correct:

Year Total =Municipal +County+ Local Ed +State Ed
2022 $ 4.78 $ =1.25+ $ 0.80 +$ 1.76 +$ 0.97

2022
Town tax rate is 1.25
Total tax rate is 4.78

The 1.25 is derived from dividing the tax effort by valuation = tax rate

For municipal rate 2022 it is $6,144,066/$4,892,023,118 X 1000 = 1.25
For total tax rate 2022 it is $23,355,110/$4862,373,529 X1000 = 4.78

Using an Amortization calculator

$15,000,000 bond for 15years @ 5.25% interest yields $120,582/month X 12 months = $1,446,984 (one year) X 15 years = $21,704,760
https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/a...on-calculator/

Add $1,446,984 to $6,144,066 = $7,591050 divided by valuation $4,892,023,118 = $ X 1000 = 1.55 new muni tax rate

Add $1,446,984 to $23,355,110 = $24,802,094 divided by valuation $4,892,023,118 =5.07 new total tax rate


To find the tax increase multiply your assessment by 4.78/1000 then multiply your assessmnet by 5.07/1000 and subtract the higher number from the lower number and that will be the dollar increase (with these numbers).

In other words subtract the present 2022 tax from the new tax and difference is the cost for that year. The added bond cost will be applied to the annual appropriation.

Check: 1.55+.80+1.76+.97 = 5.08 (close enough after rounding) new Total tax rate

[longislander]

Using the difference in tax rates, my tax bill would go up 21.3% if it had been done for this year.

[tummyman]

In my opinion, it might be good for this blog to get back to the real topic...the HUB instead of debating absentee voting that would not apply to this project. Just saying...

[longislander]

Just finished supper (stir-fry) and took another look at my calculation for my assessment. I must have been dazed before supper with the calcualtions. My bill would come in at an increase of 6.09% of the 2022 tax bill, not 21.3%.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I am not sure of your calculations, but don’t forget the 13%+/- rebate we got from the town in 2022 for tax overpayments returned to the taxpayers. If you figure that 13% + your 7%, the amount is roughly your original amount. Don’t forget….that tax rebate was a one time event.

[longislander]

The $1.8 million returned to the taxpayers was what brought the rate down to $4.78/$1000. That was part of the unassigned funds and the select board still had enough money for the 12.5% that is supposed to be kept for unexpected expense, according to town policy #32. I was part of that debate at the select board meeting, arguing for returning the $1.8 mllion to the taxpayers. Some of the 5 select board members wanted to put into capital reserves. One of the capital reserve funds is CR148. It happens to be the capital reserve fund for a Community/recreation center! The board vote was 3-2 to give back the $1.8 miillion to the taxpayers. Yes there are strong Hub supporters on the select board.

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...alance2015.pdf

[longislander]

Sue Doe-Nym

a property assessed at $1,000,000

$1,000,000 X $.00478 = $4780
$1,000,000 X $.00507 = $5070

$5070 - $4780 = $290


$290 is what percent of $4780
$290 = y/100 X $4780
6.1% = Y or the percentage increase in the 2022 tax bill
or
29000 divided by 4780 = 6.1

[fatlazyless]

North Conway NH ..... www.northconwaycommunitycenter.org/our-facility ..... has a community center which opened on November 13, 2016.

"After twelve years of planning, the dream became a reality!" ...

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

North Conway NH ..... www.northconwaycommunitycenter.org/our-facility ..... has a community center which opened on November 13, 2016.

"After twelve years of planning, the dream became a reality!" ...

Each community is different.

[phoenix]

FLL what no pool ?

[TheProfessor]

Note that the gymnasium at the Meredith Complex cannot be used for any official organized sports such as basketball.

Wrong type of flooring material.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

My point in all this was to try and get a general idea of the tax impact on our residents, and there are so many unknowns here….but this much I do know….this is a very ambitious and expensive project for a town the size of moultonborough, and the thought of pouring this much money into something that will undoubtedly be underutilized once the excitement wears off….and the costs will continue indefinitely. This whole thing reminds me of the proverbial dead horse: “when the horse is dead, GET OFF!” The proponents just won’t get off!

[Susie Cougar]

I would have thought that most of the people in favor of this were young people. But I noticed that one of the people speaking at the last meeting was a lady in her 70s who lived on Long Point Road. She does not live on the lake. Are most who are in favor of this people who live on back lots? Is there a way to break down who the average person in favor of this? Is it not broken down by age, but by location?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The proponents, for the most part, are the families of school age children, with adults thrown in who want to use the facilities. Those who will be paying the lions’ share and using it the least, if at all, are the non-resident waterfront taxpayers. If we had more residents, and if there were plans for individual and family memberships or single use charges, that might make this a more tenable plan. We’ll have to see what transpires.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

The proponents, for the most part, are the families of school age children, with adults thrown in who want to use the facilities. Those who will be paying the lions’ share and using it the least, if at all, are the non-resident waterfront taxpayers. If we had more residents, and if there were plans for individual and family memberships or single use charges, that might make this a more tenable plan. We’ll have to see what transpires.

Does anyone know what percentage of Moultonborough waterfront homes are year-round?

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Think, this is just a guesstimate, but I believe that about 70% of Moultonboro taxpayers are non- residents, and it would be logical to assume that a high number of those are waterfront owners. A call to Ashley at the tax office might get you a decent number.

I didn’t answer your question….. I don’t know how many are year round.

[longislander]

The last census indicates around a population of 5,000 residents. Registered voters is close to 4,000. Summer crowd swells to 25,000-30,000 in some estimates.

Here's a note to the Moultonborough town hall today:

Don't know if you're also getting email etc. about how much extra tax, folks will have to pay for a $15 million dollar bond. I'm including some thoughts I'm sharing with others.
$15 million dollar bond @5.25% for 15 years.
Using amortization calculator: $1,446,984 for 12 months; total interest paid $6,704,698;15 year cost $21,704,698

2022 "tax effort" $6,144,066 divided by 2022 valuation $4,892,023,118 =1.25 tax rate
Municipal +County+ Local Ed.+ State Ed. = Total Tax rate; 1.25+.80+1.75+.97 = 4.78/1000 total tax rate
Let's say the $1,446,984 is added to the "tax effort" to the municipal rate, then the new municipal "tax effort" is $7,591,050
Then, $7,591,050 divided by valuation $4,892,023,118 is the new tax rate for this exercise = 1.55/1000
1.55+.8o+1.76+.97 = 5.08 the new total tax rate

Then,
Sample 2022 tax bills
2022 Assessment x tax rates 4.478/1000 and 5.08/1000

Sample Assessments x tax rate = annual tax bill
For 4.78/1000
$200,000 x .00478 = $956
$300,000 x .00478 = $1,434
$400,000 x .00478 = $1,912
$500,000 x .00478 = $2,390
$750,000 x .00478 = $3,585
$1,000,000 x .00478 = $4,780
$2,000,000 x .00478 = $9,560

For 5.08/1000
$200,000 x .00508 = $1,016 tax; difference: $60 = 6.3%
$300,000 x .00508 = $1,524 tax; difference: $90 = 6.3%
$400,000 x .00508 = $2,032 tax; difference: $120 = 6.3%
$500,000 x .00508 = $2,540 tax; difference: $150 = 6.3%
$750,000 x .00508 = $3,810 tax; difference: $225 = 6.3 %
$1,000,000 x .00508 = $5,080 tax difference: $300 =6.3%
$2,000,000 x .00508 = $10,160 tax difference: $600 = 6.3%

Also, 5.08- 4.78 = .30; 30/4.78 = 6.3%

Can someone with a million dollar home afford another $300 ?
The idea is to let folks not panic by all the scuttlebutt, about whatever bond rates that they heard of, or misinformation thereof.

Maybe % of present tax instead of "something" to do with a bond might allay fears!

Let me know if the logic or math is out-of-whack.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Think, this is just a guesstimate, but I believe that about 70% of Moultonboro taxpayers are non- residents, and it would be logical to assume that a high number of those are waterfront owners. A call to Ashley at the tax office might get you a decent number.

I didn’t answer your question….. I don’t know how many are year round.

I understood something similar, though I am not certain--70% of the assessed value is waterfront.

This number or Sue's gets at the basic reason why many voters support the project--those not on the water, and planning to use the facility regularly are getting a great deal.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Much of what Flying Scot says is true, and I think it’s the attitude of entitlement that these people demonstrate that really annoys taxpayers. It’s the attitude that is so infuriating, rather than the dollar amount per thousand that would be assessed. These entitled people aren’t willing to put any demonstrable “skin in the game”.

[tummyman]

Well, this continues to be an exercise in making the imprecise precise. The Hub folks said $.36 /1000 for the bonding and $.06 /1000 for ongoing. Total.....$.42/1000. I suspect that things will change over the course of time between now and May Town Meeting. So what????

I believe overall $.42 /1000 may be a tad low. No indication about interest rate movement, no idea what assessed valuations are going to do, and the ongoing costs may need some buffing. Use $.50 / 1000 if it suits you. Easy math. At $.50/1000, each $100,000 of valuation costs $50. $500,000 equates to $250. Each million costs $500. It does not matter on the scheme of things if the rate is $.42, $.46, or even $.50 per 1000. Waterfront will most likely see impacts of at least $1000 at a $2M valuation. Non waterfront will probably be in the $250-$500 range. Done. Do not get lost of all these math gyrations. It is a range...that is all. Does it really matter if it is $210 vs. $250 for a $500,000 property? Or $420 vs. $500 for a $1M property? Just my opinion, but the real issues are totally being obscured. Maybe that suits some of the HUB supporters...keep away from the real issues.

The real discussion should focus on "need" vs "want". And it should also focus on demanding...really demanding the BoS, who to date are basically in a hands off mode and not doing ANY real work on this project... to go out for a formal bid on the overall project to seal the cost. They require it for a dump truck. The time to do it is now....4 1/2 months before town meeting. Have it priced in 2023 dollars and an escalation clause based on cost index as an example. Why not do it for this project? Where are our BoS leaders? And if some say that the documents are not complete enough to get a formal bid, then they are not complete enough for an estimate. One estimate is total baloney. Ask anyone on the HUB committee if they would build a house or have an addition put on with just one bid and they would laugh at you. People are being led down the primrose path to believe that the ONE estimate is gossipal. Up to now people ar being fd crumbs. Never has there ben a real discussion on needs......other than "we need this".

The other issue that needs to be addressed is that the ongoing operating cost must be covered by membership and/or use fees. FULLY self supporting, not on the backs of taxpayers. Well if people "want it and need it, then let the users pay for it and not keep charging the non users. Get real folks ! Called "pay to play" !!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by phoenix

FLL what no pool ?

..... apparently, not at the North Conway Community Center.

With many different motels, hotels, and Mt Cranmore could be North Conway has a swim pool venue somewhere else?

You know what NH community center does have a swimming pool? The Community Center in Claremont NH ..... http://www.claremontnh.com/claremont...mmunity-center ...... it says the CSBCC is home to a 25 yard indoor pool .... grand opening, March 2, 2013.

In 2021 Claremont had a property tax rate of 40.98 per $1000 of a property's assessed value while Moultonborough had a tax rate of 6.98 per $1000 in 2021.

So, yes Claremont has a community center with an indoor 25-yard pool, while Moultonborough with the much lower rate does not have a community center?

You know what they say: The richer you get, the tighter you get! ........ :eek2

So, how many Claremont home owners also own a vacation place in Florida?

[Shipfitter]

Not so much as how we will pay for it but who will take care of the day to day operations. I’m sure the rec dept head doesn’t want all those additional responsibilities without some additional pay. He may not want the extra responsibility at all. It’s going to take 5 to 10 people to man the desk, set up programs, clean and maintain the pool and building. It might take the addition of an entire department to run the complex. We don’t really have the population to justify the expense. Just because we can afford it doesn’t mean we need it. A smaller building that the Rec dept could handle in my opinion is what we need.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Shipfitter, you are spot on! The building and complex are just the beginning, and the costs to run it will be astronomical! Not to shift gears, but right now people are dealing with inflation. The HUB = Insanity!

[fatlazyless]

Looking at the Claremont Savings Bank Community Center website ....... http://www.claremontnh.com/claremont...mmunity-center ...... which has a high quality, 25-yard indoor, 82-degree warm, swimming pool ..... opened in 2013;

a 1-year non-resident family membership costs $475.00,

a 1-year resident family membership costs $350.00,

a non-resident day pass costs $7-adult, $5-youth, $5-senior,

a resident day pass costs $5-adult, $3-youth, $3-senior,

all to help pay the long list of operating costs which includes items like electricity, insurance, heat, and new pickleballs.

[phoenix]

Big difference between wants and needs

[tummyman]

An interesting number is that the Claremont Community Center, with one pool, has 2023 budgeted costs of some $1.4M I would hope that there was a detailed review and discussion with Claremont as to why their costs are 4+ times as much as the estimate to run the HUB. A reconciliation must be made, especially with uninterested M'boro third parties preparing an accounting. Should not be by people in M'boro that are invested in seeing the HUB pass. The Claremont model is what I have been saying for a while...membership and usage charges must offset the annual operating costs. Not sure how much of Claremont's costs are offset with these fees. Time to really hone in on the numbers.

[phoenix]

I have also felt the operating cost are understated. Keeping a facility open and staffed 7 days a week and I am sure 15 hours or more per day is more than 400k

[ACME on the Broads]

Perhaps a move to North Conway to enjoy their dream and expenses is in the cards for you?

[phoenix]

Looks like the HUB will be the agenda item at tomorrow's selectman's meeting

[longislander]

The 2/23/23 select board meeting is a scheduled "work session". I attend most "business sessions", usually twice a month. The town website has the videos:

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/cal...-event-type/16

https://townhallstreams.com/towns/moultonborough_nh


One of The Hub proponent members was at the 2/16/23 business meeting and requested that The Hub proponents be allowed to converse back and forth with the Select Board on the data and input the proponents have gathered. Also, the proponents still owe an update on their survey.

[longislander]

... presuming the meeting doesn't get canceled due to weather/snow.

[tummyman]

The HUB is being driven by a small group of folks and the BOS has really done little in the process. Surveys have been taken but the result are totally unscientific, not shared to date, and not by any third parties, which certainly makes one wonder about anything. Supposedly they have identified this "need" but no data to support that. Just the HUB groups word. I have zero confidence in any numbers that the HUB group tosses around. The project is not needed for this small community. We certainly do not need an Aquatics Center. If the HUB group wants one, let them lease some land from the town and run it as a self sustaining facility. This whole project will end up being underutilized. There have been ZERO bids that would realistically set the total price. There is limited data on the ongoing cost to operate. And I understand that many people might go along with a phased approach, but the HUB group is hell bent on doing all. They are selling something that many do not want.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by longislander

Based whose definition.

Absentee Ballot vs. Mail-In Ballot: Know The Difference
Published November 3, 2022

https://www.dictionary.com/e/absente...ail-in-ballot/

"Expanding access to voting by mail is generally considered great for all voters and their ability to exercise their right to vote."

Taken directly from link above. Thanks for posting.

[tummyman]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

"Expanding access to voting by mail is generally considered great for all voters and their ability to exercise their right to vote."

Taken directly from link above. Thanks for posting.

Until it gets mucked up with potential issues of fraud. I still like the in person with identification or absentee after verification when you request the ballot. Just mailing to everyone exposes all kinds of issues. Problem we have locally is the fact that non residents pay 70% or mor of the taxes but are totally disenfranchised from voting. Maintaining a "local election" voting list would solve that but nobody in government is willing to change the laws. In the case of the HUB, it will boil down to what side (pro/con)can drive the more people to vote in person on an article that they will pay less than 30% of the cost.

[John Mercier]

Those that are not residents knew the condition when we purchased the property.

[Chubby]

The lowball real estate development costs are not the real cost of a HUB. The associated payroll, employee benefits, pension/retirement funding, lawsuits, massive liability insurance, maintenance, etc, all of which will compound at 5% per year, are the overwhelming silent costs of this tax trap.

Before you lead us into this trap, think of the long time residents on fixed incomes who don't watch sunsets from the giant decks of their six bedroom waterfront McMansions. The older people must quietly leave, they don't campaign at town meeting.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The lowball real estate development costs are not the real cost of a HUB. The associated payroll, employee benefits, pension/retirement funding, lawsuits, massive liability insurance, maintenance, etc, all of which will compound at 5% per year, are the overwhelming silent costs of this tax trap.

Before you lead us into this trap, think of the long time residents on fixed incomes who don't watch sunsets from the giant decks of their six bedroom waterfront McMansions. The older people must quietly leave, they don't campaign at town meeting.

I agree with you on the tax issue. But let's not blame waterfront owners. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, the majority of waterfront owners do not vote at town meeting and have zero use for HUB, but do pay 70% of the taxes.

[phoenix]

anyone know what happened at the meeting.

[tummyman]

Full presentation is on the town web page under Major Projects.

[tummyman]

Some of my take-a-ways....you look at it and make your own assessment.
Summary....
- HUB group put a lot of effort into project (Kudos for stepping forward!). - - Little town leadership involvement to date...mostly from afar.
- $15.4 Million projected costs to build. Very nice facility.
- $450,000 annual operating costs before some revenue offsets yet to be determined
- Not all operating costs have been included, so annual numbers will likely go up.
- Survey results show about 2/3rds majority of those who turned in survey want the facility, but not any type of scientific survey.
- HUB group wants BOS to sponsor warrant article for May Town Meeting.
- Three BOS members jumped on the chance to sponsor the article without any vetting of the data they just saw. Not unusual...
- Some donations and possible sponsors, but that is confidential for now. Apparently got to vote for it to see more....
- Cost to do a phased approach will be costly.

[longislander]

Full presentation is on the town web page under Major Projects.

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_02.23.23.pdf


Population
RE: voters, taxpayers in Moultonborough (obtained for SB2 petition for May warrant)
Data was obtained from the town.
Town population: 5,091 (census)
Number of parcels: 7,565
Number of registered voters: 4,276 (84% of population)
Number of "billed taxpayers" 8,509 ( 8,169 paper billed and 340 paperless billed)
(see the tax office for added info)


From the survey:
314 potential voters in support (I think) of building The Hub: 31400/4276=7.3%

Is the survey data statiscally significant? Is 7.3 % statistically significant with a voter "population" of 4,276!

[longislander]

314 potential voters in support (I think) of building The Hub:

This number is more relevant to town meeting. Classically, Moultonborough's town meeting has 200-300 attendees, if no warrant article on a recreation center. If a recreation center vote, then 450-500 attendees, historically. Moultonboroough has a long history of votes on recreation centers. This year will be The Hub at $15-$16 million dollar bond. In the past, the $6-$7 million dollar centers failed. All past votes were in March, Saturday morning, after the school district annual meeing. This year, for the first time, it will be Thursday evening after 6:00pm in May. Wonder what a nice warm evening in May will do to/for attendance.

Another reason for SB2 ... 7:00am to 7:00 pm to vote and go play or whatever. No neeed to sit around for hours.


A 2/3rds (60%) majority vote is required for passage (for either bond or SB2).

[phoenix]

Hard to believe you can operate this facility for 135K in total salary. I assume it will be open 7 days a week for a least 12 hours a day . If so that's 84 hours a week. I also assume someone needs to be there while it is open. Hope someone bores into that

[winni83]

I found it very disconcerting that at about 1:48:26 in the video, in response to a question from Ms. Crawford inquiring where the language in the proposed Warrant Article came from (item #9 on the Agenda and at page 35 of the materials) Ms. Johnson replied “This came from your counsel”. I can only assume that Ms. Johnson meant the Town Counsel for Moultonborough. So now a private group has access to the Town Counsel for advice on drafting a Warrant Article? Did the Selectmen authorize such collaboration between Town Counsel and a private group? If they did, where is this documented and if they did not, is the HUB group now running the Town?

[longislander]

... ,a question from Ms. Crawford inquiring where the language in the proposed Warrant Article came from (item #9 on the Agenda and at page 35 of the materials) Ms. Johnson replied “This came from your counsel”. I can only assume that Ms. Johnson meant the Town Counsel ..."

If I were to guess at what the response would be, it would be that the select board authorized at a past select board meeting, that thhe Town administrator is to be the focal point and all issues dealing with the town and The Hub activity goes through him. i would bet that the TA called the town counsel at their request.

All the stuff about RSA Chapter 33 and board authorizations is a bunch of crap to make the article look impressive. Counsel reviews the warrant, with or without petition, not to mention the NHDRA. The TA, Charlie, would have just called counsel to make it look good for them.

[John Mercier]

I think because it is a bond, they would have to.
The petitioners would need to go along with the changes in wording of the warrant.

[longislander]

Any petition can place a bond without anyone's approval. The wording of a petition cannot legally be changes except for very minor clerical errors. A $100,000 or more bond must be voted on first, before other non-bond articles.

If an article, especially petition artical, is "illegal" (contary to law) counsel at town meeting would state it is "unenforceable" . Sorry! No petition has to be reviewed by anyone. All the reason for a petition to be brief. Certain legal language must be adhered if specified by statute; e.g. my SB2 petition for the next MoBo town meeting. The language must be:

RSA 40:14 V. The wording of the question shall be: "Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:13 (known as SB 2) to allow official ballot voting on all issues before the (local political subdivision) on the second Tuesday of (month)?


Warrant articles can be amended at town meeting as long as "intent" is not changed, nor intruction of new matter.

[phoenix]

yes, it was well done and a typical big government proposal:
1) low ball the cost and say oops years from now
2) offer something to everyone
3) won't cost you anything
4) tax the rich


it may actually get 60% of the vote

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

Any petition can place a bond without anyone's approval. The wording of a petition cannot legally be changes except for very minor clerical errors. A $100,000 or more bond must be voted on first, before other non-bond articles.

If an article, especially petition artical, is "illegal" (contary to law) counsel at town meeting would state it is "unenforceable" . Sorry! No petition has to be reviewed by anyone. All the reason for a petition to be brief. Certain legal language must be adhered if specified by statute; e.g. my SB2 petition for the next MoBo town meeting. The language must be:

RSA 40:14 V. The wording of the question shall be: "Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:13 (known as SB 2) to allow official ballot voting on all issues before the (local political subdivision) on the second Tuesday of (month)?


Warrant articles can be amended at town meeting as long as "intent" is not changed, nor intruction of new matter.

A bond would not be ''contrary to law'' or considered unenforceable.
Dow vs Town of Effingham.

Counsel is used in matters of clarity.

[longislander]

I don't think "it" was well done.
A lot of town money has already been spent on trying to get "costs". Money given to private organizations.

The only thing that matters is how many voters will show up at town meeting and vote. My SB2 petition is an attempt to make it as easy as possible to get as many voters to vote. Won't help this May, although we tried via a Special town meeting petition last June/July and finally got a court ruling that ruled it needs to be done at the annual town meeting. Otherwise this May would have been SB2.

I have sent a lettter (2 pages with numbers) to the TA, select board, and The Hub proponents about the tax impact and valuations regarding the bond. Excerpts:

"Folks might try using, for example, .08 or .33 and use these numbers to figure the tax on their property ... which would be a mistake."

"That last column of numbers on the bond refer to the municipal tax rate. The municipal tax rate is only one of four rates that determine the total tax rate; namely, the sum of Municipal,County, Local Education, State Education formulate the total town tax rate."

"Additionally the town “Assessed Valuation” stays the same for the life of the bond, but will change with changes in yearly assessments. The 2021 valuation was $3,943,560,976 with a total tax rate of 6.98. The 2022 valuation was$4,892,023,118 with a total tax rate of 4.78, which is the valuation on the bond."

"To look at what the bond would have added to the 2022 tax rate, add the 2022 tax effort, $6,144,066 with each years payment listed on the bond (see above) ."

Plus a bunch of other stuff disputing the value of the .08 ,.33 etc

[longislander]

A bond would not be ''contrary to law'' or considered unenforceable

Who said a bond is unenforceable?

Any petition can place a bond without anyone's approval.

Is that difficult to comprehend?

Counsel is used in matters of clarity.

Clarity of what and when?

Counsel cannot a stop a petition from insertion in the warrant. He/she will give guidance to the governing body before the meeting and at the meeting comment on enforceability (legality) to the legislative body ... the voters.

Dow vs Town of Effingham.
"In determining whether an ordinance is a reasonable exercise of the municipality's police powers and, therefore, can withstand a substantive due process challenge, the rational basis test is applied under which consideration is given to whether the ordinance bears a reasonable relationship to its objective and does not unduly restrict fundamental rights.

https://casetext.com/case/milton-dow...n-of-effingham

Who the hell is discussing "ordinances" ?

[longislander]

TO: TA, Select Board, two other participants of 2-23-23 work session

2-26-23
Hi Charlie,

By the time you read this you'll have returned from vacation. Hope you had a great vacation.
This note regards the BoS work session of 2-23-23 and possible/probable confusion by town folks regarding the discussion regarding “valuation” and “tax impacts”.

Use of the final column numbers in the 20 year bond, “FY-Est Tax Rate Inc.”are referenced and folks may think that is how they are taxed. I believe FY-Est Tax Rate Inc stands for: Fiscal Year Estimated Tax Rate Increase. Folks might try using, for example, .08 or .33 and use these numbers to figure the tax on their property … which would be a mistake.

Let me know if my calculations or premise is faulty.

That last column of numbers on the bond refer to the municipal tax rate. The municipal tax rate is only one of four rates that determine the total tax rate; namely, the sum of Municipal,County, Local Education, State Education formulate the total town tax rate. Additionally the town “Assessed Valuation” stays the same for the life of the bond, but will change with changes in yearly assessments.
The 2021 valuation was $3,943,560,976 with a total tax rate of 6.98. The 2022 valuation was $4,892,023,118 with a total tax rate of 4.78, which is the valuation on the bond. What will the town 2023 valuation be … or what will it be when/if a bond is approved … who knows. Assessments should definitely go down, but …. (one t).

Moultonborough Tax Rate Breakdown for 2022:

Jurisdiction Tax effort Valuation Tax rate (per 1,000)
Municipal $6,144,066 divided by $4,892,023,118 = 1.25
County $3,923,698 divided by $4,892,023,118 = .80
Local Education $8,588,853 divided by $4,892,023,118 1.76
State Education $4,698,493 $4,892,023,118 = .97

Total present tax rate $23,355,110 divided by $4,892,023,118 = 4.78

The bond affects the Municipal rate, not the other rates, other than total rate. Using some examples from the 20 year bond discussed at the work session:

First 5 years of the bond:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year5
FY-Est etc. .08 .33 .32 .31 .30
Year Pmt. $387,500 $1,606,188 $1,563,563 $1,520,938 $1,478,313
e.g.: $387500/$4892118 = .000079/1000 or .08 another:1,606,188/4892023118 = .000328/1000 or .33
and so on.

Not that meaningful if trying to figure out how much your tax bill will increase.






To look at what the bond would have added to the 2022 tax rate, add the 2022 tax effort, $6,144,066 with each years payment listed on the bond (see above) .
Sample
$6,144,066 + $387,500 = $6,531,566 = New Municipal Effort and so on, for each year

Bond Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year5
New Muni. Effort $6,531,566 $7,750,254 $7,707,629 $7,665,004 $7,622,379

Then,
New Municipal tax rate = Municipal tax effort divided by Valuation
sample: year 1: 6,531,566 divided by 4,892023,118 = 1.3 and so on for the other years
New Muni tax rate 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
New total tax rate 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13

Bond years 1 2 3 4 5 … and on 20 yr.
Tax rates (present 4.78 ) 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13
Tax for $200,000 property = $968 $1026 $1026 $1046 $1026
$300,000 property = $1452 $1539 $1539 $1569 $1539
$500,000 property = $2420 $2565 $2565 $2615 $2565
$750,000 property = $3630 $3848 $3848 $3923 $3848
$1,000,000 property = $4840 $5130 $5130 $5230 $5130
$3,000,000 property = $14,520 $15,390 $15,390 $15,690 $15,390

New total tax rate 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13
Additional annual tax with this bond if 2022 was year of execution.
year 1 year2 year 3 year 4 year 5 (on to 20yrs.)
$200,000 property = $12 $70 $70 $90 $70
$300,000 property = $18 $105 $105 $135 $105
$500,000 property = $30 $175 $175 $225 $175
$750,000 property = $45 $263 $263 $338 $263
$1,000,000 property = $60 $350 $350 $450 $350
$3,000,000 property = $180 $1,050 $1,050 $1,350 $1,050

It should be noted that first year is interest only, no principal, and why it is much lower.

Let me know if I've gone off the deep end!


(Original format of letter separating the numbers not preserved in this website)

[John Mercier]

The petitioners do not need to request.
They can present it to the BOS with any language.

With the permission of the petitioners (which the HUB proponents are smart enough to do), the BOS can ask counsel to clean up the language for clarity.

Which is what I believe they did.

Hence the ''wording'' came from town counsel, as the presenter stated.

[longislander]

Another note to the town.

Here's an email I got last night and my response:

I'm not following your train of thought. If I want to know the impact of paying $1.6m per year to the tax rate I would calculate that by dividing 1.6m by the total assessed value of the town and multiply x 1000. Then use that value of 33 cents to my assessed value/1000 to see the impact. I don't get why using 33 cents as you note is a mistake?

age 29
https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_02.23.23.pdf

The bond doesn't say $1.6m per year.
$1.6m x 20years = $32m ... not the $24m of the bond
It says in the third colunm from the right: Fiscal Year Total Payments,
Principal is level. Total 20 year payments $24,412,500.
Interest: $8,912,500 (declining)
Principal : $15,500,000 (level; $775,000 per year)
Total: $24,412,500

$1.6 m and .33 is relevant to only one year; year 2.

year ...payments ... payment divided by bond valuation (year of bond only)
1) $388k and .08
2) $1.6m and .33
3) $1.6m and .32
4) $1.5m and .31
5) $1.5m and .30
6) $1.4m and .29
7) $1.4m and .28
8) $1.4m and 2.8
9) $1.3m and .27
10) $1.3m and .26
11) $1.2m and .25
12) $1.2m and .24
13) $1.1m and .23
14) $1.1m and .22
15) $1.1m and .22
16) $1.0m and .21
17) $967k and .20
18) $924k and .19
19) $882k and .18
20) $839k and .17

Dollars are rounde-off

Total Fiscal year Payments: $24,412,500 for the 20 years of payments for the $15,500,000 bond.

$1.6m x 20 years = $32m not the $24m of the bond.


(I hope the formatting of this holds-up.) It didn't, so the colunm of numbers.

[longislander]

The petitioners do not need to request.
They can present it to the BOS with any language.

With the permission of the petitioners (which the HUB proponents are smart enough to do), the BOS can ask counsel to clean up the language for clarity.

Which is what I believe they did.

Hence the ''wording'' came from town counsel, as the presenter stated.

Glad you agree.
The wording of the article, however, is probably that of the petitioners and the TA (Charlie) and the attorney just advised that no legal issues are concerning. I happen to know all the participants, and have dealt with the attorney. The verbiage is too loquatious for a lawyer and fails to mention the pertinent statutes.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...TOC-III-33.htm

Charlie, the TA, has the list of fund's statutes that require town approval from previous town meeting acceptances.

[tummyman]

I received this from a friend. It outlines the expected real costs for the proposed HUB Community Center over the 20 year financing period. You will note all of the numbers are exactly from the material that the HUB folks have provided, except for an estimate of the costs the HUB folks admitted will be needed but they have not included. There is also a note at the end that a modest 5% inflation of operating costs…salaries, insurances, benefits, utilities, etc. over that same 20 year period could add an extra $6-7 Million, bringing the overall cost to +/- $40 MILLION !!! Yikes !! As I learned from reading this material, the $15M bond request at Town Meeting is the tip of the cost iceberg for a facility that, in my opinion, has a questionable need. However, if it is approved, then all these numbers will flow to taxpayers annually. I have been told that lakefront properties will pay +/- 70% or more of the costs (based on assessed valuations) but only represent a very small portion of voters who may approve this project. Well worth the time to review this material.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This Guest Commentary is the opinion of that writer. This sender email address is solely used to distribute that opinion.

Please share this information with neighbors, friends and Moultonboro voters. Town Meeting is Thursday, May 11th at 6pm.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't be blindsided by the HUB bonding request of $15.3 Million. That is in no way representative of what this project is going to cost Moultonborough taxpayers.

The project as presented could easily represent a potential increase of +/- 20% or more to the ongoing Municipal budget !


Amount Borrowed (Bond) $15.5 Million The HUB numbers

Interest Payments (20 years) $ 8.9 Million The HUB numbers
_____________

Cost to finance ONLY $24.4 Million The HUB numbers….like your home mortgage payment

Annual Operating Cost ($320,000/year) $ 6.4 Million The HUB numbers (without inflation), reduced by revenue
_____________

Total $30.8 Million

Potential Added Operating Costs ($200,000 year) $ 4.0 Million….HUB folks admitted they didn't have all costs captured.
_____________

Potential Total for 0ver 20 years $34.8 Million


With 5% added inflation of Operating costs, these numbers could realistically eclipse +/- $40 Million over the 20 year period.

The $15.3 Million bond is just the tip of the iceberg that Moultonborough taxpayers are getting obligated to, if approved.

YOU NEED THE FULL STORY !!!!

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by tummyman

With 5% added inflation of Operating costs, these numbers could realistically eclipse +/- $40 Million over the 20 year period.

The $15.3 Million bond is just the tip of the iceberg that Moultonborough taxpayers are getting obligated to, if approved.

YOU NEED THE FULL STORY !!!!

Please. Don't place data and statistics into the conversation. All just muddies the waters.

Instead of the $40 Million dollar estimate.

Take a smaller number such as the pennies added to the home tax evaluation. Folks like smaller numbers.

And no one wants to know anything about inflation. Nobody wants to know about interest for cost of money. No one want to know about the annual maintenance costs. No one wants to know about the annual labor costs.

Please keep the full story a secret !

[Cal-to-NH]

I have some answers but far from all the answers

You'll remember that in 2020 the Selectmen backed a total of $5.0 M consisting of $1.5 M in the "Lions Club building" to bring up to code, make ADA compliant, preserve meals-on-wheels etc.... for an additional 30 year lifetime, and then $3.5M to build a "Rec Center" with a track and basketball courts - with room to expand in the future - to be on the large Town-owned Taylor-lot near the Bank of NH.
That was when town bonds would have been at 1.3% for ten years, and we had enough cash for maybe $500,000 of it.... That's right, only $13,000 per year per Million dollars borrowed - basically the interest on $4.5M bond could have been paid by property taxes from 4 lake-front homes. There was also a warning that construction costs would go up by 7% per year (without knowing what would be hitting us for either interest rates or inflation rates as they actually did rise). Using their at-the-time numbers, that would be a 2024 value of $7.2M for the same $5.5M center + Lions Club improvements in using their numbers. The ACTUAL inflation from 2020 - 2024 I don't even want to know (shiver).

Two things got in the way in 2020. First, there was a "sect" of people who wanted much more than this proposed center and immediately rallied a number of voters to their cause, openly warred with the Selectmen, made for a sloppy town meeting with two different centers to vote on (does anyone else remember that town meeting?), and getting a majority - but not the required approval majority, of votes for the $5.5M selectmen plan. The other issue was some history-huggers trying to protect the Taylor property and rallying against the Rec Center on that lot. As it turns out the Selectmen took a wrecking ball to that house to solve that issue going-forward.

No, you can't have a regulation water polo or a regulation swimming competition in a 25 yard pool that is only 5 lanes, so any imaginings that there could be some revenue from that pool is folly.

I think in the end, getting something that could be expanded later - something that most townspeople would likely have compromised on - was replaced by the "i want everything - NOW" mentality.

As usual, we only hurt ourselves. The time came, and the time went. And what did we learn - to go for the I WANT EVERYTHING option again...

What happened to Yankee common sense?

[winni83]

Kevin, Jim and Karel did the right thing for the Town by declining to put the HUB proposal on the Warrant as sponsored by the Town.

For Ms. Johnson and Mr. Borrin to assert that the HUB proposal is not the product of a “special interest group” is laughable. Just look at all of the prior failed proposals to see at who is truly behind this push for a Taj Mahal in our Town. For example, see the post above by Cal To NH.

Kevin exercised more restraint that I would have been capable of in light of the repeated personal attacks, insults and aggressive behavior by Mr. Borrin.

The HUB proponents have a long history of trying to force the Town and its taxpayers to fund this monstrosity and their duplicitous public relations efforts clearly show that they will stop at nothing in their efforts. We need a strong turn out at Town Meeting to vote overwhelmingly NO.

[Cal-to-NH]

On March 2 the official vote by selectmen was to not put it on the Town Meeting. This is pretty much meaningless as this group has shown in the past that they can easily get a petition to add it anyway....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Request to put on warrant “The Hub”: This request was brought forward at the 02/23/23 Work Session. Mr. Mark Borin spoke on this request to put on the warrant article for the 2023 annual town meeting (versus a petition warrant article). The Board of Selectmen each discussed their concerns. Lengthy discussion ensued and
the Chair called for the vote.
Motion: Chair Quinlan
To deny the request to put “The Hub” on the warrant article.
Seconded: Selectman Crawford
Vote: 3 (Gray, Quinlan, Crawford) - 2 (Colby, Beadle)
Motion passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also interesting that if you look at the minutes of the 2/23 Selectmen's meeting, the presentation given for the HUB project was supposed to be uploaded to the town site under "major projects", but never was. Too bad, because those of us unable to be at each Selectmen's meeting would surely have loved to see it. -

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Borrin & Mrs. Johnson have requested that the Board of Selectmen take a vote at their 03/02/23 regular meeting to add an article for the Community Center to the May 2023 Warrant along with their unanimous support.
The Board thanked Mr. Borrin and Mrs. Johnson for all the work that they have put into this and for the detailed presentation. The Board will post tonight’s presentation/information on the town website under “Major Projects” along with the meeting video from tonight’s presentation on the website under “Town Hall Streams”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[winni83]

Cal:

I believe it was uploaded. See:

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_02.23.23.pdf

[phoenix]

the meaning of the vote was that the selectmen don't approve. Yes it will be presented as an article i assume by petition.