HUB status in Moultonborough

[phoenix]

I saw that a cost estimate for the HUB was on the agenda for the selectmen's meeting this past Thursday. Does anyone have any info?

[longislander]

It was actually a "The Hub" proponents request for funds from capital reserves to get a cost estimate for the plans; two contractors for a total of $23,050.

The Hub proponents realize a cost estimate needs to be done, now, for the bond etc. and the required 3/5ths vote at the 2023 May town meeting.

Some estimates thrown out there are $15-$20 millon, at today's prices, with a look to future price change.

[fatlazyless]

Here's their web site ..... https://thehubmoultonborough.com ..... and budda-bing-bang-boom ..... hut-hut-hut ..... ..... it includes "a 25-meter 5-lane pool for swimming lessons, water aerobics, and water polo" ..... plus a 40-foot therapy pool.

Also included is a Multipurpose Room with a basketball court layout, walking track, and accordion bleacher seating.

Well, well, well ..... the cold weather winter season happens every year on a regular schedule so these indoor exercise, basketball, pickleball, swim pool water sports facilities will be TOTALLY FANTASTIC.

This looks TOTALLY FANTASTIC and will be a very welcome addition for everyone in the area! .....

[phoenix]

i hope they told them they will take under advisement for the next year

[phoenix]

FLL maybe you can move

[tummyman]

So now we get an estimate in a few months....or a guess.... about ESTIMATED costs for something that may be built in 2 years. No architectural drawings are available to develop better estimates. No business would ever go out to build something without solid plans and FIRM bids from qualified builders. We have an outside group (The Hub) who surveys folks and have determined a NEED from a portion of the residents. Anyone see the results of the needs review? Who is going to provide the ten year annual operating costs for this behemoth? Or is this another guess in the offing? The legislative body deserves more than estimates and a passive Board of Selectmen so far. The BOS needs a full out financial analysis of the total project costs, bonding fees, operating costs, etc .etc. prepared by qualified neutral parties...certainly not a town employee. It is time to shift the focus to creating a non-for-profit organization to build and operate this facility on town donated land and not strap the taxpayers with another burden. If the NEED is there, then certainly there is a NEED to have those folks build and operate it.

[winni83]

Tummy man is spot on. With all of the fund raising activities the Hub group is supposedly involved in why not use their own funds for the “cost estimates”? Just another example of their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets.

[John Mercier]

Probably looking at a design-build rather than a design-bid-build format.

[fatlazyless]

Is SO very easy to see the architectural drawings ....... go to www.moultonboroughnh.gov/major-projects and click on "The Hub - Community Activity & Aquatic Centre." .......

[tummyman]

By architectural drawings, I meant the detailed building plans that builders need for all structural design elements including a full bill of materials, etc. All that is available are artist sketches, etc.

[fatlazyless]

Five different pages of architectural drawings .... .... made by www.stewarchitects.com, Laconia NH is what's easy to see when you click on "The Hub-Community Activity & Aquatic Centre" at www.moultonboroughnh.gov/major-projects.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The vote for the $23,000 was 4-1, with Kevin Quinlan against it.
By the way, Karel Crawford, who voted for it, is running for State Representative. She will not be getting my vote.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

By architectural drawings, I meant the detailed building plans that builders need for all structural design elements including a full bill of materials, etc. All that is available are artist sketches, etc.

Design-Build means that doesn't need to exist... just renderings.

Design-Bid-Build would need the plans to bid the job...

[longislander]

Design, build ...


https://www.symmetrybuilders.net/sym...he%20developer.

[longislander]

By the way, Karel Crawford, who voted for it, is running for State Representative. She will not be getting my vote.

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2022/08..._campaign=Grok

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by longislander

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2022/08..._campaign=Grok

So, what the heck ... is GraniteGrok ... www.granitegrok.com/about ... with their motto ... "Dominating the Political Bandwidth in New Hampshire"... so what's this all about?

Definition ..... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate ..... ...... "dominate"

[FlyingScot]

Even as a person who generally likes this sort of thing, it's hard for me to understand why a majority of year-rounders would want to pay for this. But I wonder how much of the cost will be borne by locals and how much from second homers. Does anyone know the percent of property value attributable to second homes? Second best number might be percent on the water?

Also--can Moultonborough get other towns or people, such as FLL, to bear a portion of the cost in exchange for membership?

[John Mercier]

They could. But I think if you have paying members that the insurance coverage has to be different.

[longislander]

"The Hub" proposal is for a town property, not a private club. Anyone paying taxes to Moultonborough will pay, resident or not, second home or not.

Presently, the tax rate is 6.98/1000. How much of that will change if "The Hub" with the bond is approved by 3/5ths vote at the 2023 town meeting?

Payments, if applicable, will be for particuler functions in/at the center.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

"The Hub" proposal is for a town property, not a private club. Anyone paying taxes to Moultonborough will pay, resident or not, second home or not.

Presently, the tax rate is 6.98/1000. How much of that will change if "The Hub" with the bond is approved by 3/5ths vote at the 2023 town meeting?

Payments, if applicable, will be for particuler functions in/at the center.

He asked about non-residents/non-taxpayers using the facility.

[phoenix]

since this has been turned down for years why do we continue to elect selectmen who want it

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by phoenix

since this has been turned down for years why do we continue to elect selectmen who want it

From a (seasonal) outsider, it does seem very weird.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

How close has the vote been?

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by longislander

"The Hub" proposal is for a town property, not a private club. Anyone paying taxes to Moultonborough will pay, resident or not, second home or not.

Presently, the tax rate is 6.98/1000. How much of that will change if "The Hub" with the bond is approved by 3/5ths vote at the 2023 town meeting?

Payments, if applicable, will be for particuler functions in/at the center.

I agree that what you write is 100% true, but it is misleading. Waterfront homes, occupied mostly(?) by nonresidents pay the lion's share of property taxes. Let's call that amount 75%, just for fun. This enables the year rounders to build something for themselves while only paying 25% of the tab. In essence, they get a 75% discount on community centers, schools, and various other things of zero value to Summer people.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, or that the HUB should be built. Only pointing out the political/economic dynamic

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I believe that FS’s number is fairly close….at least that’s what it was about 10 years ago. It really boggles my mind that this HUB entourage is moving forward, full steam ahead, given the current state we’re in with inflation and other pressing issues. People are hurting…..and they are worried about putting gas in their cars/ trucks, food on the table and HEATING their homes this coming season! I am not whining on my own behalf, but I keep thinking of what the vast sums of money we are talking about could do to benefit our citizens who are in need….specifically, the retirees on fixed incomes, for example. I don’t know whether this whole situation makes me more sad or angry…probably both. This project is a terrible idea, particularly at this time.

[John Mercier]

SS adjusts to inflation.
One of the complaints the FED has on trying to get the inflation under control.

[longislander]

Even as a person who generally likes this sort of thing, it's hard for me to understand why a majority of year-rounders would want to pay for this. But I wonder how much of the cost will be borne by locals and how much from second homers. Does anyone know the percent of property value attributable to second homes? Second best number might be percent on the water?

Also--can Moultonborough get other towns or people, such as FLL, to bear a portion of the cost in exchange for membership?

He asked about non-residents/non-taxpayers using the facility.

Where do you see that?
The context was who pays for the build, not the use of the center. Maybe you want to debate his use of the word "cost".

Also, rentals etc. of the center I did address:

Payments, if applicable, will be for particuler functions in/at the center.

If that is what you meant.

I agree that what you write is 100% true, but it is misleading.

Not if you understand taxation in Moultonboroiugh. Moultonborough has been a cash cow for many years. Thank you! to the MA, NY, Conn. and other non-resident Moultonborough taxpayers, including NH, for providing the funding.

It is understood that lakefront property in Moultonborough is the major contributor to the tax base.

[John Mercier]

''Also--can Moultonborough get other towns or people, such as FLL, to bear a portion of the cost in exchange for membership?''

I found it through careful reading.

The SPT is not transferred to Concord, but used as an offset to determine educational grants to each district.
https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-02...of-donor-towns

[longislander]

The SPT is not transferred to Concord

What are you talking about? This ...?

You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes...

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inte...-presence-test

Where does being a US citizen come into "The Hub" posts?

How do you get "donor towns" from "The Hub" a private endeavor to create a town building, on present town property? This isn't part of the Claremont decisions and has nothing to do with education.

Your post:

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-02...of-donor-towns


There is no "membership" for "the Hub". It is proposed as a town property. There may be rentals for weddings etc. memberships to pickleball clubs, tennis clubs, etc that are supplemental to the build and maintenance (please don't go there).

You need to google some more.

[John Mercier]

Pointing out that you may soon be a real cash cow.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

''Also--can Moultonborough get other towns or people, such as FLL, to bear a portion of the cost in exchange for membership?''

Sure, they have a walk-in fee. For example anyone can go play pickleball in Laconia and it costs $3/two hours time ...... and buoy-O-buoy ..... is it ever busy, busy, busy .... so many people. What Laconia needs is a floating pickleball court in Weirs Beach on the dock spot that used to be home to The Dive for one summer.

How's about a county owned, floating community center, that travels all around Lake Winnipesaukee visiting different towns and is owned and operated by Belknap County ...... just like Gunstock Ski Area!

...... maybe a floating gambling casino operated by the Belknap Indigenous Lost Indian Tribe from high up yonder Alton Mountain ...... ugh! ....

[longislander]

Pointing out that you may soon be a real cash cow.

The town is already saying MOOO MOOO MOOO!

[longislander]

Sure, they have a walk-in fee. For example anyone can go play pickleball in Laconia and it costs $3/two hours time .

I (resident) went one time, years back to play pickleball on Moultonborough town courts ... run by the town rec. dept. ... with volunteer instructors ... $5 bucks!

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...eball_2022.pdf

[John Mercier]

I believe that Laconia already has the extra insurance...
As only a few recreational outlets are resident/taxpayer only.

[longislander]

"The Hub" will not be taxpayer/resident only. Nobody ever said it would be. The pitch will be made at some point that the center can charge for using the pool
or other amenities, non-residents included, and discount the residents or no charge to residents.

I have complete confidence that the town will have adequate insurance. Extra insurance is probably in the mind of the those unsure of adequate insurance.

[Descant]

The folks from MOOOOOultonborough need their own FB group where they could argue using real names. I nominate ThinkXingu as a non-resident shorefront resident to set it up. He is well known for FB Admin skills. Somehow, there is less animosity when you post under your real name.

[longislander]

They've already got more than their share of bloviaters and don't come to this forum because of the same repetitive posters.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Descant

The folks from MOOOOOultonborough need their own FB group where they could argue using real names. I nominate ThinkXingu as a non-resident shorefront resident to set it up. He is well known for FB Admin skills. Somehow, there is less animosity when you post under your real name.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but as a seasonal property owner I'm totes fine with "legit" Moultonboroughians running the show!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but as a seasonal property owner I'm totes fine with "legit" Moultonboroughians running the show!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

Hmm, I can read that two ways, Moultonborough-ians or Moultonbo- roughians. lol

I would love to see something like a YMCA come into town, isolated from politics. That would be the ideal situation IMO.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I believe that FS’s number is fairly close….at least that’s what it was about 10 years ago. It really boggles my mind that this HUB entourage is moving forward, full steam ahead, given the current state we’re in with inflation and other pressing issues. People are hurting…..and they are worried about putting gas in their cars/ trucks, food on the table and HEATING their homes this coming season! I am not whining on my own behalf, but I keep thinking of what the vast sums of money we are talking about could do to benefit our citizens who are in need….specifically, the retirees on fixed incomes, for example. I don’t know whether this whole situation makes me more sad or angry…probably both. This project is a terrible idea, particularly at this time.

It's too easy for people who are comfortable (or VERY comfortable) to remember that many folks in our area are struggling. My posts should have noted that. I agree that it would not be right to do this in a way that hit people on fixed incomes

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hmm, I can read that two ways, Moultonborough-ians or Moultonbo- roughians. lol

I would love to see something like a YMCA come into town, isolated from politics. That would be the ideal situation IMO.

Bravo!

And totally agree on the Y!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tummyman]

The BOS has been basically absent for this entire HUB process. Sure, some folks have needs....but others do not. If the BOS wants to be serious, they will issue a survey to every single taxpayer with results analyzed by a professional firm and including many specifics. This is absolutely needs data from every single taxpaying person....residents and non-residents. And it needs to be done before Town Meeting. Questions should include usage potential, impact on tax rates and bills, etc. etc. etc. Let's do a professional survey designed by folks who have this as their business. Enough of all this so called needs stuff that is not in the public domain. As usual, this could be another potential whim that has not been thoroughly vetted by the people responsible for running the town (BOS) and may end up being underutilized. If other towns want in, then let them share in the capital costs as well...not just the operating costs. Here's an idea...M'boro donates the land under a 99 year zero cost lease to the HUB group and they sell shares of the building to the various towns who want to buy in and use it for their residents. We already see the library with folks from other towns wanting to use our local facility as it is far better than what their town wants or has already. I believe now they have to pay. Set up a Board of Directors, make in non-profit, and enjoy! Local M'boro version of "Pay to Play" !!! Simple..... Private / public partnership....not all funded by M'boro taxpayers.

And just wait for the courts and politicians to possibly reinstate donor towns or some other scheme to fund education.....as always it is just over the horizon and M'boro will get hit VERY HARD.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

It's too easy for people who are comfortable (or VERY comfortable) to remember that many folks in our area are struggling. My posts should have noted that. I agree that it would not be right to do this in a way that hit people on fixed incomes

I think voters tend to take that all into consideration.
We have quite a few tax exemptions that can be modified for income and net assets to allow a considerable amount of protection.

I think your earlier understanding of voter psychology is what is occurring; and should the vote yield more than 50 percent, but not the 60 percent needed for the bond... I think they will keep trying.

It is the youngest residents that opponents would need to appeal to...

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The voters who want the HUB don’t give a darn about anybody or anything, just as long as they get what they want……it’s that simple. We have watched this for over a decade, and the only changes we note are their increased determination and attitude of entitlement. Their behavior is, in many cases, reprehensible.
P.S. I should not have put everyone in favor of the HUB in the obnoxious category. There are actually some reasonable people who support it.

[winni83]

Does anyone else find the use of the word “Centre” in Moultonborough Community, Activity & Aquatic Centre to be pretentious to an absurd degree?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Yes…..perhaps it should be named Ye Olde Community Centre. ��
or, this might be better ….YOCC in Utopian Moultonborough Commons.
Or even Moultonborough Meadows….that has a nice ring…

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by winni83

Does anyone else find the use of the word “Centre” in Moultonborough Community, Activity & Aquatic Centre to be pretentious to an absurd degree?

Oh come on ..... is like the difference between gray and gray ......oopsie-doopsie ...... I mean gray and grey ....... not gray and gray ..... but gray and grey ........ you understand ......... so what is the difference between centre and center .....? ....... and any-who ..... Moultonborough was established in 1777 .....https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Moultonbo..._New_Hampshire so CENTRE seem highly and totally appropriate because George Washington actually slept in that corner store that's home to the museum.

You know that centre according to simple ..... https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre .... English refers to "a sports centre is where people go to use sports facilities, such as indoor gymnasiums and indoor swimming pools and indoor therapy pool located at The Centre in Moultonborough, NH."

Is so simple, even a cave man can understand this. ......

[neckdweller]

I'm fine with the $23K spend which will get some true cost estimates put together.

Regardless of the cost to build, which is sure to be high, I'd love to see detailed estimates of what it costs to run/maintain the facility. I'm one of those 2nd home lake people up here and our primary home is in the seacoast area of NH. There are a couple of larger cities - Dover and Portsmouth, with indoor pools that could probably provide some idea of what those expenses are vs. the revenue they produce. I found a presentation here on the Dover pool showing indoor pool costs of $607K with revenue of $150K. Not exactly a breakeven proposition. Similarly, the Portsmouth budget presentation found here shows a cost to run it of $596K with revenue of $446K. Both of those pools get revenue from not only the patrons using the pools (which I'm pretty sure draw from a larger population area than Moultonborough) but also from local swim teams which as of now are pretty limited up here. (Side note as a swim parent - those swim team fees ain't cheap.) If you assume the Dover deficit is closer to what it would cost that's $450K added to your yearly town budget which is around $.10 or $.11 per thousand. That obviously doesn't account for whatever bond repayment you'd have to do on the $15M-$20M cost to build the center.

I guess this is a long way of saying it would be interesting to see two proposals, one with an aquatic aspect and one without both from a build and ongoing cost basis. While I'm not saying everyone would jump on board supporting a community center with some indoor courts I do think that would have more support given the likely much smaller costs involved. I could be wrong but the pool aspect of this has to drive a decent portion of the build cost.

[winni83]

FLL – I usually ignore your rants but this time I think you should go back and look into your cave for the dictionary. “Oh come on ..... is like the difference between gray and gray, centre and center ..... Moultonborough was established in 1777”

I will readily agree that there is no difference between “gray” and “gray” since they have the SAME spelling. Could it possibly be that you mean one of those words to be “grey”?

If so, then in your research you must have seen statements that both “Centre” and “grey” are British English spellings of the words “Center” and “gray”, although I do think that grey is far less pretentious than “Centre”.
It is the use of the British English word that I find to be so pretentious.
Oh and by the way, you should not have put the reference to Simple Wiki in quotes since you fabricated the quote.

If this pretentious boondoggle were ever to be built in Moultonborough I would be advocating for something like an FLL Tax – a large per user per hour fee for non-residents, especially those from Meredith, to be credited directly to the tax bills of property owners in Moultonborough.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

I'm fine with the $23K spend which will get some true cost estimates put together.

Regardless of the cost to build, which is sure to be high, I'd love to see detailed estimates of what it costs to run/maintain the facility. I'm one of those 2nd home lake people up here and our primary home is in the seacoast area of NH. There are a couple of larger cities - Dover and Portsmouth, with indoor pools that could probably provide some idea of what those expenses are vs. the revenue they produce. I found a presentation here on the Dover pool showing indoor pool costs of $607K with revenue of $150K. Not exactly a breakeven proposition. Similarly, the Portsmouth budget presentation found here shows a cost to run it of $596K with revenue of $446K. Both of those pools get revenue from not only the patrons using the pools (which I'm pretty sure draw from a larger population area than Moultonborough) but also from local swim teams which as of now are pretty limited up here. (Side note as a swim parent - those swim team fees ain't cheap.) If you assume the Dover deficit is closer to what it would cost that's $450K added to your yearly town budget which is around $.10 or $.11 per thousand. That obviously doesn't account for whatever bond repayment you'd have to do on the $15M-$20M cost to build the center.

I guess this is a long way of saying it would be interesting to see two proposals, one with an aquatic aspect and one without both from a build and ongoing cost basis. While I'm not saying everyone would jump on board supporting a community center with some indoor courts I do think that would have more support given the likely much smaller costs involved. I could be wrong but the pool aspect of this has to drive a decent portion of the build cost.

I have no dog in this fight but am just curious as to why a town located on the shores of the largest freshwater lake in NH and already has a beautiful town beach, needs a swimming pool??

Dan

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

I have no dog in this fight but am just curious as to why a town located on the shores of the largest freshwater lake in NH and already has a beautiful town beach, needs a swimming pool??

Dan

I would imagine the argument is that the lake is truly good for swimming 1/3 of the year. I can understand that one more than my next door neighbor who is here only in the Summer but has an inground pool.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The proposal will be for TWO pools, not one……and any comparison between Moultonborough and Portsmouth is ludicrous….our population simply doesn’t support such an endeavor.

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

The proposal will be for TWO pools, not one……and any comparison between Moultonborough and Portsmouth is ludicrous….our population simply doesn’t support such an endeavor.

I'm well aware of the differences between those two locations. The Moultonborough population doesn't exactly support the Taj Mahal Fire/Police building and various apparatus housed there but that didn't stop them.

Dover has a 6 lane 25 yard pool coupled with a secondary pool/dive well so roughly the equivalent to the hub proposal when you talk about cost to heat/maintain. I think $600K operating costs is a decent starting point for an estimate. I have no idea what they'd have to do for fees to make a dent in that cost nor do I have any idea what the membership numbers would look like. Portsmouth is $25/month resident adult, $45/month non-resident. Dover does a $170/year resident adult, $330/year non-resident.

[Descant]

There are several schools/colleges with pools and grand athletic facilities that can be used for cost comparisons, both building and operating costs. Paying $23K for somebody to develop similar figures is a waste of (taxpayer) $$.
If Moultonborough was founded in 1777, then the 250th Anniversary plans should be getting underway soon. Most towns have a small operating surplus at the end of the year, and Town Meeting votes as to what to do with that $$. Usually, the vote is to reduce taxes, but you could also vote to establish a capital reserve fund to build a recreation facility.
Of course, if such a facility were reasonably financially viable, many towns would have one, not just colleges and prep schools. (Watch and see what the colleges build when students start getting $10,000 loan forgiveness and tuition skyrockets.)

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I tried to respond to neckdweller awhile ago, but got knocked offline….maybe there’s a message there! Anyhow, those pushing the HUB have no interest in worrying themselves about maintenance costs. Nor are they worrying about user fees, memberships, and all that mundane stuff that should be part of the plan. I guess that’s one of the requirements for membership in the “Entitlement Club”….having the taxpayers willingly open their wallets for everything…..sort of an offshoot of college loan forgiveness. Anyhow, my mind travels to a future decade, and I look askance at the piles of timber, broken bricks, and other debris where the Community Centre of Moultonborough used to stand, a place we just had to have, but once the magic and glitter wore off and people got bored, it began a journey into obsolescence. Does that sound overly dramatic? Perhaps, but I can visualize something similar happening…..and the costs will continue. The loan must be paid.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

There are several schools/colleges with pools and grand athletic facilities that can be used for cost comparisons, both building and operating costs. Paying $23K for somebody to develop similar figures is a waste of (taxpayer) $$.
If Moultonborough was founded in 1777, then the 250th Anniversary plans should be getting underway soon. Most towns have a small operating surplus at the end of the year, and Town Meeting votes as to what to do with that $$. Usually, the vote is to reduce taxes, but you could also vote to establish a capital reserve fund to build a recreation facility.
Of course, if such a facility were reasonably financially viable, many towns would have one, not just colleges and prep schools. (Watch and see what the colleges build when students start getting $10,000 loan forgiveness and tuition skyrockets.)

I believe that the $23k is coming from the established capital reserve fund.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I believe that the $23k is coming from the established capital reserve fund.

Aren't those funds used to keep bond prices down?

[John Mercier]

Not really.

Think of it like setting a little aside every year to purchase a new vehicle instead of waiting till you need one and then financing the whole thing.

With the CRF you are paying ahead and earning interest (but usually losing to inflation), with a bond you are borrowing then repaying with devalued dollars.

Usually enough CRF gets used with the bonding to make the payment seem much lower.

Just various groups have realized that the CRF is a lower voting threshold than the bonding; so it has become much more popular.

[phoenix]

interesting you never see an advocate of the HUB post . I guess best to stay out of the limelight

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by phoenix

interesting you never see an advocate of the HUB post . I guess best to stay out of the limelight

I think the last vote had less than 100 in support.... so they may not even have someone on the forum.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

It must be true. You just read it on the internet.

And especially if our local jokester writes it!!

[phoenix]

John I would be shocked if they didn't monitor this site

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by phoenix

John I would be shocked if they didn't monitor this site

They might... but would it add value to their strategy?

I would guess few of the people on the forum are residents of Moultonborough, and even fewer are young enough to be in it for the long haul.

They have to convince that younger group that this type of recreation has merit.

That may be harder than they think, but it is the only strategy they have.
This forum probably doesn't have a strong target audience when that subset is the focus.

[loonguy]

A quick search of the Forum members identified 99 who said they were from Moultonborough or included Moultonborough in their member name. That is certainly a small percentage of the total Forum membership, but I suspect it includes some on both sides of the issue. 99 is also a very small percentage of the residents of Moultonborough, so the issue might still find majority support in Moultonborough at some point.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by loonguy

A quick search of the Forum members identified 99 who said they were from Moultonborough or included Moultonborough in their member name. That is certainly a small percentage of the total Forum membership, but I suspect it includes some on both sides of the issue. 99 is also a very small percentage of the residents of Moultonborough, so the issue might still find majority support in Moultonborough at some point.

Yeah, but how many—like me—don't have locations filled out? I think there's quite a few Moultonborough peeps here.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Residents that are Millennials.

You can move Boomers with senior tax exemption changes written into the article tied to the HUB, but that creates a problem for the younger voters. GenX... we don't have the numbers worth targeting. So Millennial residents need to be convinced of the value... not always an easy thing.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

You know, the more I think about it, my suggestion for a 200-yard open water swim test in order to qualify for a NH motorboat license is making SO much sense.

Probably 66.6% of all the NH motor-boaters are very lousy swimmers who can just barely swim 25-yards on a good day, so this new requirement could encourage them to learn better swimming skills.

Hey there Mr Motor-Boater out there reading this, so how bad is your swimming skill ...... and you know the honest answer is 'not very good!'

Even the Marine Patrol officers only need to swim 50-yards as an MP job entry requirement, and 50-yards in a swim pool is like nothing because you can push off the pool walls at the end of the pool for a good length of that 50-yards so it's really a 25-yard swim test.

Nobody swims very much on Lake Winnipesaukee anymore, everyone uses a motor and gets FAT, and that's all there is to this!

With this new 200-yard motorboat swim requirement, an indoor swim pool funded by the Moultonborough tax payers will fast become a VERY happening place. Almost no one goes swimming anymore by swimming the crawl, breast stroke or side stroke. Is very rare to actually see anyone swimming. 50 to 60 years ago, people would swim at the beach by doing laps along the outer most rope line. If someone did that today the lifeguard would whistle them in except there's NO lifeguard on duty anymore to whistle them in, plus no one do's it, anyway.

So, how did the lakes region become a non-swimming region despite the presence of a big lake? .....

For the same reason that sailing, canoeing, and rowing have lost their respective lusters.

We're getting beat up.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Residents that are Millennials.

You can move Boomers with senior tax exemption changes written into the article tied to the HUB, but that creates a problem for the younger voters. GenX... we don't have the numbers worth targeting. So Millennial residents need to be convinced of the value... not always an easy thing.

Maybe we need to start letting the people that want all these goodies pay for them!!

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Yeah, but how many—like me—don't have locations filled out? I think there's quite a few Moultonborough peeps here.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I do not dispute this point, but my perspective is that although the people commenting on the issue on the Forum are mostly negative, there are many more out there who are entitled to vote and might vote for it at some point even though they have not expressed support on the Forum. Negative comments on the Forum do not, and should not, preclude supporters from pursuing what they view as a worthwhile project for Moultonborough and campaigning for it in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Maybe we need to start letting the people that want all these goodies pay for them!!

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I think they should help me out with my taxes on my lakefront property? Why should I pay so much? (tongue in cheek of course)

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

Clear water year round?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

The”donor” towns pay a lot to Franklin for schools since you’re using Franklin.

[John Mercier]

There is no such thing currently as a donor town.
There is a group looking to recreate the donor towns.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...ding-solution/

[tis]

Technically no, but we the richer towns still pay a lot more toward state education than the poorer towns. That's why I put the word donor in quotes.

[John Mercier]

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

[longislander]

https://www.nhbr.com/new-school-fund...ax-inequality/


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit..._history_0.pdf


https://indepthnh.org/2022/06/28/new...unding-system/


https://www.seacoastonline.com/story...s/10059076002/

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

Sorry, you are wrong. We pay a local school tax and a state school tax.

[John Mercier]

And the receipts from both go right into the Moultonborough school system.
None of it is transferred to another municipality or school district.

It has not been transferred since 2011.

If we change back, then the SWEPT would be collected and redistributed... and since it would not all go back into the Moultonborough system... the local school taxes to be raised would need to make up for the difference.

The State figures the districts educational grant, minuses the SWEPT, and then should the district still need more, provides that money with the Lottery revenue (much like the Augenblick Formula) and covers the difference using unallocated funds... since the money from tobacco is drying/dried up... that is largely business taxes.

So if a district raises more than the total of its grant... it doesn't get any extra funding... but it doesn't send any money anywhere else. It is all used to offset the local school tax portion.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

This thread started as a commentary on the HUB. We are not now a donor town, but the threat is always there because we are known as a tax rich town. We spend in excess of $30k each year for each child attending our schools. What this has to do with the HUB is probably this: when is enough enough?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[loonguy]

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

[tis]

It's complicated because it doesn't actually go to the state but it raises more school money and in the richer towns cuts the amount the state gives them. It is still a mandatory STATE tax.

[John Mercier]

All State taxes are mandatory.
But since there is no ''donation'', it isn't a donor town to Franklin.

And since the Education Trust Fund grant money that does go to the other districts comes from mostly business taxes... that also would not be a significant factor in Moultonborough.

Moultonborough went from a farming community to a bedroom community, and it did so in about on half century.

But what does the next half century look like? That is the question that town voters will need to answer.
They may not get it right, but it almost certainly will not be what it is today.

Franklin was a huge mill town (city)... and it was doubtful that the voters at that time realized that the mills would not be there in the future. So it has suffered while it looks to rebuild on a different path.

What will Moultonborough be a half century from now? Right now, they are riding the Boomer Wave.

[tis]

Here’s what you need to know:

SWEPT is part of a home or business property tax bill, which means it is remitted to the home or business owner’s town or city. The town or city does not give SWEPT money to the state, despite being called a “state tax.”
Since it is a “state tax,” it appears on the state budget as a part of the education trust fund. In practice and for accounting purposes, SWEPT money is counted as state funds. In reality, these funds are all locally raised dollars.
State law has required NH property owners to raise $363 million per year in SWEPT funds since 2005.
Whatever a town raises in SWEPT, is deducted from what the state would pay the town in adequate education grants and stabilization grants for their schools.
Most communities have additional local education taxes, since SWEPT funding and state funding (including adequate education grants and stabilization grants) do not cover the total cost for their local schools.
There is a legislative proposal this year to eliminate SWEPT all together.

[John Mercier]

I don't see a LSR for that...
Where did you find it?

Removal of SWEPT would require the State to raise an addition $363 million dollars through another format.

Which format are they proposing to do that through?

[tis]

https://reachinghighernh.org/2019/02...-locally-kept/

[John Mercier]

That was a 2019 legislative proposal...

It was voted down as the money would need to come from another tax source.
It is unlikely to be brought up, as we are attempting to lower taxation in other areas.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

Moving back on topic--this is a fundamental point--Moultonborough has had very low tax rates for a long time. We can debate whether that's good or bad, or whether HUB is good or bad. But there's no question that HUB runs against the traditional approach/values of the town, an approach that current homeowners had in mind when they moved in.

As you might have sensed from some of my other posts (haha), I like change, progress, etc. But this kind of thing always rubs me the wrong way. I don't like it when people move to woodsy areas and cut down trees, or put in strip malls and shopping centers, or crank up the tax base on folks who just want to be left alone.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That was a 2019 legislative proposal...

It was voted down as the money would need to come from another tax source.
It is unlikely to be brought up, as we are attempting to lower taxation in other areas.

You just asked me where i got the info about where the money goes and so I sent you the link.

If you look at your tax bill you will see you are charged for:

Town Tax
County Tax
Local School Tax
State School Tax

That is all I am saying. I do not like to argue.

[tis]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

You might not have viewed it as a tax rich town but the state considered it to be one when we had the donor town taxes. Yes the tax rate is low, but the value of the town is high, thus a donor town. Little towns like Freedom which doesn't even have a school was a donor town and was contributing to town likes Manchester (not a donor town). Moultonboro, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, Alton---most if not all towns around the lake were donor towns. I can't remember if Laconia was or not.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

If the HUB becomes a reality…UGH…. I don’t know how you can think that Moultonborough would remain a low tax town, given $20 million +/- for construction, plus annual maintenance costs, which will not be inexpensive.
My guess is the proponents of this will not want to charge for usage, but will want everything to be borne by the taxpayers.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

You just asked me where i got the info about where the money goes and so I sent you the link.

If you look at your tax bill you will see you are charged for:

Town Tax
County Tax
Local School Tax
State School Tax

That is all I am saying. I do not like to argue.

No. I understand how the funding works.
I was asking about the legislative proposal ''this year'' to remove SWEPT altogether.
I could not find the LSR, so I asked for the link.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

If the HUB becomes a reality…UGH…. I don’t know how you can think that Moultonborough would remain a low tax town, given $20 million +/- for construction, plus annual maintenance costs, which will not be inexpensive.
My guess is the proponents of this will not want to charge for usage, but will want everything to be borne by the taxpayers.

Based on bonding, probably increase the tax rate by 50 cents to $1...
that would still place Moultonborough in the bottom half of tax rates for the State.

I think the average tax rate is somewhere around $20/$21.

Not suggesting that the HUB is a reasonable expenditure; just that the low tax rate would still be a valid statement.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Based on bonding, probably increase the tax rate by 50 cents to $1...
that would still place Moultonborough in the bottom half of tax rates for the State.

I think the average tax rate is somewhere around $20/$21.

Not suggesting that the HUB is a reasonable expenditure; just that the low tax rate would still be a valid statement.

$1 isn't a huge sum, of course, but it would be something like a 14% increase on its own.

My biggest concern is that I just don't see it being useful to enough people. There are only two or three very small gyms in the area and what courts we have nearby are never busy.

I just don't see a need for meeting space and pools in such a small, seasonal town.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

$1 isn't a huge sum, of course, but it would be something like a 14% increase on its own.

My biggest concern is that I just don't see it being useful to enough people. There are only two or three very small gyms in the area and what courts we have nearby are never busy.

I just don't see a need for meeting space and pools in such a small, seasonal town.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

And when these towns want to push the passage of something, they always say it will only cost .05 a thousand or .10 a thousand. But you take 400 thousand or for lake front a million and add a lot of other pet projects that only add a nickel or a dime or a dollar per thousand and it adds up.

[longislander]

NH tax rates
See "total rate".

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.pdf

[phoenix]

And remember the operating costs will add forever