Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
As I bantered back and forth with Tombe on Twitter - it's $15 if you attribute the full City cost ONLY to the residential taxpayer. But as Tombe himself argued, all money whether capital or operating is fungible. So taking the same principle - that cost should be thought of also as being allocated across all revenue stream types - including residential, non residential, sale of goods, etc.
Residential property taxes are about 25% of the City's revenue, therefore the "homeowner" share of the cost is 25% too. So that's about $3.75 per household per year.
Further, and as he acknowledged after I pushed back - by year 35 there are more households sharing that burden as well. You could expect 40-50% more houses being part of the assessment base, so that per household cost also decreases over time.
So, in reality, on average it might be closer to $3.00 to $3.25 per household cost per year, or say less than 1 cent per household per day. About half a cent per citizen per day.
|
Also, his $15 illustration was an example
if all city revenues were eliminated. (not sure everyone noticed that little detail)
There are multiple sources of city revenues in this deal. Turn them all off, then allocate
all of the costs just to homeowners, and those homeowners would be facing a $15 per year charge.
That's what he was saying - in an unrealistically bad worst case scenario, it's still a pretty small number.
But in reality, there are multiple sources of revenue - most or all of which the city was very conservative about estimating. And with those conservative assumptions, the NPV of the deal is about zero. In other words, no net cost.