[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" !!