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...

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%.

:cheers:

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.

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

$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

North Conway Community Center
 

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!" ... :patriot:

Each community is different.

FLL what no pool ?

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

Wrong type of flooring material.

Trying to get a general idea of cost
 

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!

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?

Generalizing here…..
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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" !!

..... 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?

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.

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!

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.

Big difference between wants and needs

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.

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

Move!
 

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

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

HUB: The Silent Costs
 

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.

anyone know what happened at the meeting.

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

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.

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!

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). :D