The $291-$309 value you're referencing on that page is stated as 'Estimated tax impact *per $10 mil borrowed*'. That dollar value is also for the FY23 Median Home Value ($1,259,900, which has a median tax bill of $17,488), so it will vary based on individual home prices. There is also the chart on the right of that same slide that provides details on the impact based on how much is borrowed at multiple price points ($10M, $15M, $20M, $25M) of a CC. I believe this chart was provided by FinCom.
The other numbers you point out ($387 - $773 for the median tax bill) are for the prices that CCBC has estimated ($12.5M, $18.75M, $24.01M) for the three designs. It looks like they also used the median tax bill and the upper $309 value, just scaled to the actual price of the community center. Note, again these are based on median home price ($1,259,900), so if your property is more or less than that, it will scale accordingly (e.g. Not going to argue on the 'prominence' of the presentation, just pointing out that the values seem to be properly labeled and consistent. - Andy (not the FinCom one...) On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:20 AM Edward Young via Lincoln < [email protected]> wrote: > Be aware that the average $291-$309 per year number for the projected tax > impact of the Community Center project, as you will see prominently > displayed to catch your eye on the sixth page of the Select Board’s > November 16 mailing under the heading “Estimated Tax Impact” is far LOWER > than ANY of the actually projected tax increases for ANY of the proposals, > as set forth in small type on the fourth page of the same Select Board > mailing. The actual number ranges from “up to $387 increase” to “up to $773 > increase,” depending on the size of the project. > > The $291-309 number is printed in large boldface type, and the heading > “Estimated Tax Impact” above it is printed in even larger boldface type, on > a page with lots of white space. In contrast, the actual projections of “up > to $387 increase," “up to $541 increase,” and “up to $773 increase” are > printed in smaller, non-boldface type on a page of densely packed > information. > > Based on decades of responding to Securities and Exchange Commission > comments on clients’ drafts of securities law filings, I can say with > confidence that the SEC would never allow a company to present numbers in > the manner chosen for the Select Board’s mailing. > > Edward Young > Bedford Road > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
