HUB status in Moultonborough

[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" !!