3 ms·
If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million
by cardiffspaceman 9y ago
If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million of value of the average home among the 4400. I paged through the report that is linked to the article [1] and it says that about $9.5 million is the city's share of the property tax revenue (table on page 14 of the consultant's report). So there's a gap to be understood.
[1] http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_04062017.pdf http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_...
- derekdahmer 9y agoI'd imagine the missing $8.5 million of profit goes towards the cost of services for ~10,000 new residents. That's only $850/year/person. This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27. [1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf