USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Lincoln > Town Report on Lincoln 1963-1965 > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
b. Above program changed in final report somewhat. Struc- ture permits examination of economic impact of any com- bination of alternatives, but alternatives were selected for report partly to illustrate methodology and partly as step to proposed Future Land Use Plan.
131
c. Attempt made at outset to set up uniform operating pro- cedures for all three Study Committees. First meetings indicated that different requirements for each Committee necessitated three different approaches.
d. Each committee concerned to varying degree with:
- development of criteria for selecting land for each range or alternative
- examination of feasible limits to alternatives
- examination of key issues related to land use in question
- final selection of alternatives
- evaluation of results by consultants and outside experts.
e. Work of each committee described briefly below. Specific alternatives summarized at end of this section.
2. Residential Study Committee
a . Criteria for selecting land - decided that no future allo- cations of land could be made. No major location factors applicable in Lincoln situation and too hazardous to pre- dict timing of availability of large tracts for develop- ment. Therefore, work only with figures for total population and variations in density of development.
b. Limits to future growth set at projection of past growth rate at low end and full utilization of open land at other, but to include possible changes in density of development.
c. Higher density development - two key questions: economic range to be provided for, and development of design con- trols for review of future proposals.
- survey of Town employees was mixed success but did suggest that some demand exists for low rent units ($100 - $125 per month)
- total number of high density units.not likely to be high under any circumstances
- approach taken for South Lincoln General Residence Area provides good example of review procedures which should be followed,
- general agreement that any major shifts in economic make-up of Town not a matter which zoning can handle.
132
Houses on one acre lots not likely to be much less expensive than two acre houses, and rental housing would not necessarily be at low rates. Provisions of lower cost rental housing would need to come as part of other policy decisions.
3. Recreation-Conservation Study Committee
a. Consideration of purposes served by program of open space preservation :
- reservation of sites for future use by Town
- preservation of wetlands, drainage areas
- conservation of natural resources
- scenic view, enjoyment of natural world
- identify and preserve history of the Towm - houses and farms.
b. Identified all parcels which might be involved, based on above criteria.
c. Set up system for ranking the parcels. Criteria:
- contribution to conservation of natural resources
- size, location and accessibility of parcel for proposed use
- suitability for possible use for organized recreation
- preservation of scenic, historical and educational resources, including working farm lands
- contribution to conservation of human resources through provision for aesthetic, physical and social needs
- suitability for municipal needs.
d. Derive high, middle, and low ranges. High range basically contains all desirable pieces; middle range approximately what is currently contemplated.
e. Each piece ranked for land quality for purpose of esti- mating acquisition cost. Areas judged suitable for either cluster development or conservation zoning were subtracted from total area to be acquired. Cost of acquiring balance estimated at $3,000 per acre for good (high and dry land), $2,000 per acre for average land, and $1,000 per acre for poor (swampy) land. Estimated 50% of resultant total from state and federal aid and gifts. Balance spread over 20 year bonding period beginning in 1965, for all three ranges.
133
4. Industrial-Commercial Study Committee
a. Definition of limits of feasibility:
- for commercial - only local service uses in South Lincoln area or service uses related to Minute Man Park. No new local business areas or major regional facility.
- for industry - research and development firms; con- straint placed on water consumption. As general rule water consumption should not greatly exceed the probable level of consumption on land in question if residential development occurred. Criteria for selection - size of parcel, isolation to preserve Town character, access to roads (access to rail not considered important here)
b. Five areas selected and discussed with knowledgeable persons. Final alternatives include only three parcels :
- Virginia Road area north of Park
- Area between future Routes 2 and 2A, west of Mill Street
- Area between future Routes 2 and 2A, east of Mill Street.
c. Opinion of industrial developers consulted is that parcels 2 and 3 may be marketable in a few years, while parcel 1 has limited appeal.
5. Summary of Alternatives Selected
a. General information
- Land for residential development : land classified as Residence in Existing Land Use Table includes about 150 existing buildable lots. Conservation proposals include areas for cluster development sufficient to accommodate 250 houses. As of 1964: 2640 acres in residential use, 3985 acres of open developable land, 1048 houses. These figures reflect full impact of Minute Man Park. Future population figured at 4 persons per house.
134
- Industrial Development
Assumed existence of new Routes 2 and 2A, as proposed herein, and existing zoning standards. Selection of possible sites guided by limitation that development not be detrimental to the open character of the Town.
- Recreation-Conservation Lands
Although suitability for recreational use was one of the criteria used, no attempt made to identify speci- fic sites for particular uses.
Low and middle ranges derived from high by eliminating entirely areas not highly ranked and by cutting back area of major parcels where this did not defeat reasons for its selection, e.g., if piece was selected to provide access to water for boat launching, the water frontage was not eliminated in any range.
135
III B. 5. Summary of Alternatives Selected
b. Residential Development Alternatives
No .
Description
Population
Houses
Land Utilization
Res. Acreage Added
1970
1980
1970
1980
1970
1980
1. a .
Low Growth Rate 20 houses/yr, 2 acre zoning
4700
5500
1170
1370
140
340
b.
30 houses/yr, 2 acre zoning
5000
6200
1230
1530
320 homes, 25%(80) on existing lots, 100 houses in clus- ter areas. Balance - 140 at 2 acres plus 20% = 340 480 homes, 20%(100) on existing lots, 140 houses in clus- ter areas. Balance - 240 at 2 acres plus 20% = 580
230
580
2.
Medium Growth Rate
a.
40 houses/yr, 2 acre zoning
5200
6800
1290
1690
640 homes, 120 on existing lots, 180 in cluster areas. Balance - 340 at 2 acres plus 20% = 820 acres 640 homes, 120 on existing lots, 180 in cluster areas. Balance - 340 at 1 acre plus 20%=410
160
410
3.
High Growth Rate
60 houses/yr, 2 acre zoning
5700
8100
1410
2010
960 homes, 140 on existing lots, 200 in cluster areas. Balance - 620 at 2 acres plus 20% = 1490 acres 960 homes, 140 on existing lots, 200 in cluster areas. Balance - 620 at 1 acre plus 20% = 740 acres
600
1490
b.
60 houses/yr, 1 acre zoning
5700
8100
1410
2010
300
740
4.
General Res. Developments
Probable maximum of 300 units under any circumstances
5 fam/acre plus 20% . 75 units planned in present zone
330
820
b.
40 houses/yr, 1 acre zoning
5200
6800
1290
1690
136
III B. 5. Summary of Alternatives Selected
c. Recreation - Conservation Alternatives
Low Range
Middle Range
High Range
Total Acreage Proposed
863
1295
1861
Cluster Areas, Buildable Portion
328
373
373
Acres open space
535
922
1488
Conservation zone
83
249
468
Net Acres to be Acquired
452
673
1020
COST -
Acres
$
Acres
$
Acres
$
Good Land ($3000/acre)
2 31
693,000
265
795,000
368
1,104,000
Fair Land ($2000/acre)
174
348,000
253
506,000
372
744,000
Poor Land ($1000/acre)
47
47,000
155
155,000
280
280,000
Total Estimated Cost
$1,088,000
$1,456,000
$2,128,000
Net Cost (50% of total met by state and fede- ral aid and gifts)
544,000
728,000
1,014,000
Annual Payments - 20 year bonding at 3.5%, beginning in 1965
Ist yr-$46,240 dec. $950/yr
Ist yr-$61,900 dec. $1270/yr
Ist yr-$86,200 dec. $1770/yr
1970 - $41,490
1970 - $77,400
1980 - $31,990
1970 - $55,600 1980 - $42,900
1980 - $59,600
Note : The acreage figures in this table differ slightly from the final figures prepared by the Recreation-Conservation Study Committee, due to the handling of cluster areas. If a parcel was considered suitable for cluster develop- ment, it was included intact for all ranges, except for some reduction in the low range. The total acreage figures therefore include the buildable portions of the cluster sites. The figures for "acres of open space" give the best comparison of the magnitude of the three ranges.
7
137
III B. 5. Summary of Alternatives Selected
d. Industrial - Commercial Alternatives
Parcel
Location
Gross Acres
Acres Developed
Low
Middle
High
Com.
Ind.
Com.
Ind.
Com.
Ind.
1
Kennedy land - south- east corner Winter St. and Old County Rd.
15
2
Off Conant Rd. - southeast corner of Town
60
3
Area between proposed Routes 2 and 2A west of Mill St.
80
-
-
-
-
40
4
Area between proposed Routes 2 and 2A east of Mill St.
50
-
-
5
20
10
40
5
Bedford Flats - west of Virginia Rd., north of Minute Man Park
60
-
-
5
30
10
40
6
South Lincoln Business Area
2
-
3
-
5
TOTALS
2
1 0
13
50
25
120
Notes :
1. Parcels 1 and 2 eliminated from any consideration after discussions with land developers.
2. Parcels 3 and 4 contain some minor additions from Cambridge Reservoir land.
3. Commercial expansion for local service uses limited to South Lincoln area. Amount open, but 5 acres judged to be upper limit.
138
c. ECONOMIC DATA - SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
1. Basic procedure was to use '57 - 163 period as basis for projecting future costs, with adjustments made wherever more detailed estimates possible.
No assumptions made without some firm knowledge of changing conditions, e.g., no additional revenues from state aid, assessment projections based on current system, no assumption about changes in price levels.
2. Costs
a. Data developed from '57 - '63 Town Reports.
b. Figured in constant 1963 dollars, inflation factor removed.
c. All accounting items (Hanscom School operation, temporary loans, stabilization fund, employee insurance) eliminated, so dealing with actual expenditures.
-
d. Because of problem of allocating revenues to specific department accounts, all non-property tax revenues con- sidered together. Therefore all costs are gross. Excep- tion is high school; since this is actually a separate governmental jurisdiction net costs can readily be deter- mined. Cost figured on net basis for high school only.
e. For each department procedure was as follows:
- establish 157 - 153 pattern and adjust for any unusual conditions not likely to recur
- check to see if figures adequately reflect quality changes in line with desires of citizenry
- school costs, most important factor in total picture, reviewed closely by both elementary and high school superintendents and other school officials. Other figures reviewed by Town Hall personnel
- develop variations for specific alternatives.
3. Revenues
a. Again used '57 - '63 period as basis, corrected to deal with constant dollars.
b. Non-property tax revenues - consistent relationship between total costs and non-property tax revenues. Figured at 353 of total cost for all alternatives.
139
c. Assessed value for '64 broken into components - residen- tial land and buildings, commercial land and buildings, open land, personal property. These figures used as base for all alternatives. Certain that value of this base will increase, but no sound way to project amount. Full impact of Minute Man Park subtracted.
d. Personal Property projected separately based on average annual increase in valuation since '57. Utilities are major factor here.
e. Value of Undeveloped Land - currently assessed value averages $90 per acre. Each acre subtracted figured at that amount.
f. Estimate of value of new residential construction based on assessed values of most recently completed houses. Developed land values from same source. Some adjust- ment made after discussions with realtors, particularly with regard to the likely value of housing built on smaller lots.
g. Commercial and Industrial Development - 1958 study of development along Route 128 derived figures of average investment of $3.39 per square foot, $2.29 for land and building, $1.10 for equipment. Unless manufacturing involved, latter amount would be taxable as personal property. Assessed value figured at 37% of above figures, in '63 $.
4. Methodology
.
a. Determine all costs associated with particular residen- tial alternative. Add costs for conservation and indus- trial alternatives selected.
b. Project assessed valuation for residential base, subtract impact on open land from development and conservation program, add impact from industrial-commercial alterna- tive. Subtract for non-property tax revenues at 356 of total cost (minus high school).
c. Compute implied tax rate based on net revenues and assessed value. Compute tax revenue per house and total cost per capita.
d. Diagram of study methodology shown on following page.
140
METHODOLOGY: LAND USE & TOWN FINANCE SURVEY
BASIC CONDITIONS : EXISTING FUTURE
POPULATION
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
SCHOOL OPERATING
NON-SCHOOL OPERATING
1980 LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
see III A and I11 B
NUMBER & TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SCHOOL CAPITAL
NON-SCHOOL CAPITAL
LOT SIZES
ACRES OF OPEN LAND
TOTAL COSTS
see III C. 2 ond III C.5
OPEN SPACE PROGRAM
NON-PROPERTY REVENUES
TAX
see III C.3
ASSESSED VALUE
DERIVED TAX RATE
REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES
see III C.3 and III C.6
see III D.2
INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
REVENUE PER HOUSE
see lll D.2
OPEN LAND
PERSONAL PROPERTY
TOTAL COST PER CAPITA
see III D.2
LESS **
III C. 5. Tabular Summary of Costs
a . Operating Costs - Non-school Expenditures
Department
57- 63 Pattern (63$)
Basic 1980 Figure
Quality Increments : All Ranges
1. General Governmt
1.1 Gen.Govt.
Increase of . 37/cap/yr.
63-$10.90; plus .30/ cap/yr.
= '70 - $13.00/cap '80 - $16.00/cap
1.2 Other
Increase of .48/cap/yr.
'63=$33.30; plus . 50/cap/yr.
= '70 - $36.80/cap '80 - $41.80/cap
2. Protect. of Per- sons & Property
2.1 Police
Increase of .23/cap/yr.
'63=$9.70; plus .25/cap/yr.
= '70 - $11.45/cap '80 - $13.95/cap
This includes re- placement of rolling stock. Add one man at $6,000 to re- flect general con- cern for traffic control. None
2.2 Fire
Increase of .43/cap/yr.
.60/cap/yr.
= '70 - $11.90/cap '80 - $17.90/cap
2.3 Other
Increase of .15/cap/yr
'63=$9.30; plus .15/cap/yr.
None
= '70 - $10.35/cap '80 - $11.85/cap
Highways
Salaries :
'63=$33,200; plus 4%/yr =
'70 - $42,500
'80 - $55,800
Maint. & Construct. $53,200
Other $40,000
None
Also $16,000 for Park Dept.
4. Recreation
Increase of .08/cap/yr
'63=$1.60; plus ,15/cap/yr
= '70 - $2.65/cap '80 - $4.15/cap
5. Library
Increase of .85/cap/yr
'63=$8.05+.85/cap/yr
= *70 - $14.00/cap
Basic Figure
Including Increments
Non-School Total :
'70-$100/cap + $136,000
'70-$100/cap + $144,000
'80-$128/cap + $149,000
'80-$128/cap + $165,000
None
Av.inc.'55-63=9.3% Av. inc. '60-63-4.6% Other expenditures : Maint. & Construct: Av. '55-63=$53,200 Maint. & Construct; $23,500 other.
None
Per cap. increase doubled based on demand indicated in Recreation Survey
141
'57-'63 period re- flects some staff increase, but more is likely. Add ba- sic $10,000 to all ranges. None
'63=$7.70; plus
III. C. 5. Tabular Summary of Costs
a. (cont'd) Adjustments for Specific Alternatives
Residential
Department
Low - Less than $6500
Middle - $6500 - $7500
High - More than $7 500
1. General Govt.
1.1 Gen. Govt.
1.2 Other
None None
$10,000 for staff $20,000 for gen'1 cost increases, such as garbage collection
$15,000 for staff similar $20,000
2. Protection of
Persons & Propty
2.1 Police
None
One man - $6,000
Two men, one
2.2 Fire
None
One man - $6,000 None
Two men - $12,000 None
2.3 Other 3. Highways
None
5%/yr for 2 acre
6% for 2 acre zon.
zoning (adds $6000) (adds $11,000)
no change for one acre None for 2 acre zoning, $45,000
Increase sigure to $60,000 for 2 acre zoning No change for 1 acre None
4. Recreation 5. Library
Add $10,000
Add $15,000 None
Add $20,000 Increase to $1.00/cap/yr after '75; 1980 - $23.25/cap
Per Cap
Addition
Per Cap
Addition
Per Cap
Addition
SUMMARY :
'70
$ 99 $144,000
2 acre $100
$169,000
$100
$184,000
1 acre $100
$164,000
$100
$174,000
130
$124
$167,000
2 acre $128
$228,000
$129
$265,000
1 acre $128
$214,000
$129
$253,000
Notes : No specific cost increments for General Residence. Figure cost at per capita figure for residential alternative used.
Figures on preceding page are base costs, derived from '57 - '63 experience with adjustments affecting all alternatives. Figures under Summary above contain specific adjustments for each alterna- tive; they form basis for subsequent cost calculations.
142
cruiser - $15,000
None
Drop figure to $45,000
for one acre None
None
Decr. to .50/cap/yr after '68; 1980 = $18.30/cap
III. C. 5. Tabular Summary of Costs
a. (cont'd) Adjustments for Specific Alternatives
Conservation
Industry
Department
Low
Middle
High
Low
Middle
High
1. General Govt
1.1 Gen. Govt.
None
None
None
None
None
None
1.2 Other
None
None
None
None
None
None
2. Protection of Persons & Propty
2.1 Police
None
None
None
None
One man, 1 cruiser - $9,000
Two men, 1 cruiser - $15,000
2.2 Fire
None
None
None
None
One man, $6,000
Two men, $12,000
2.3 Other
None
None
None
None
None
None
3. Highways
$10,000
$15,000
$25,000
(Park Dept. carried under Highways )
None
$5,000
$10,000
4. Recreation
None
None
None
None
None
None
5. Library
None
None
None
None
None
None
Increments :
$10,000
$15,000
$25,000
None
$20,000
$37,000
2
143
III. C. 5. Tabular Summary of Costs
b. Capital Costs - Non-School Expenditures
Department
Project
Timing
Cost
Comment
1. General Government
a. Town Hall - needed for all alternatives; possibilities in- clude present bldg., Pierce House, Center School. No new
'70-75
$5,000 per year
No bonding
>
building. contemplated
b. Town Garage c. Dump Site
'67-70 '66-86
$5,000 per year $8,000/yr for 10 yrs; $2,000/yr thereafter
No bonding Costs from Cleverdon, Var- ney & Pike study
2. Protection of Per-
North Fire Station
'66-75 '76-80
$60,000; ave. $6,300/yr $5,000 per year
For any middle or high residential or ind.range Increase to $5,000 for high industry or residence
3. Highways 4. Recreation
(under operating costs)
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION
'65-85
19 80 : Low $32,000
See III. B.3. and III. B.5.c. for deri- vation of figures
5. Library
Addition
'66-69
$20,000
Presently programmed - No bonding Low or middle residence - High Residence
EXISTING DEBT
'70
' 80
Water Extension
$4,000/yr
For middle or high indust.
SUMMARY :
'70
'80
Low Residence
$39,000
$2,000
Note: Summary ex-
Middle Residence
$39,000
$7,000
cludes Open Space
program costs.
High Residence
$41,000
$13,000
With industry, same figures, except add $4,000 for water and $3,000 for fire equipment if not already included
144
Middle - $42,900
High $59,600
Addition
'72-75
$5,000/yr - 4 yrs
'72-82
Average payment=$6100 $11,600 None
sons and Property
North Fire Station Addition
Rolling Stock
$3,000 per year
III. C. 5. Tabular Summary of Costs
c. Operating Costs - Schools
Department
57 - '63 Pattern ($63)
Basic 1980 Figure
Quality Increments All Ranges
6. Schools
a. Elementary
Increase of $31/pupil/yr
'63=$602; plus $31 per pupil per year
= '70 - $820/pupil '80 -$1130/pupil
b. High Sch.
No set pattern - gener- ally a cycle based on new construction
$750/pupil
None
Note: Elem.costs are gross, high school net, so figures are not directly compar- able. Net cost of elem. schools roughly compar- able to high sch : 1963 High - $650/pupil Elem - $435/pupil
Future school enrollments are developed from projections of school enroll- ment as a percentage of total population. Past figures are as follows :
Year
K-8 Enrollment
Est. % of
9-12 Enrollment
Est. 7% of Total Pop.
59
805
21.0
180
4.7
60
894
22.8
209
5.3
61
920
22.8
227
5.6
62
972
23.5
240
5.8
63
974
23.0
247
5.8
64
1006
23.4
263
6.1
The following figures are used in the study :
1970
1980
Elementary
26.0%
24.0%
High School
8.0%
8.0%
These figures are in line with current projections of 1970 elementary School enrollment. The 8.0% figure for high school enrollment yields a 1970 figure somewhat lower than current projections, but one which is in line with the likely age distribution of 1970 and 1980 populations.
Enrollment from General Residence development figured at 1 student per 5 dwelling units.
145
None
Total Pop.
III. C.5. Tabular Summary of Costs
d. Capital Costs - Schools
Elementary School - costs figured as percent of operating costs.
Current proposal will accommodate 1300 pupils. Figure additional construc- tion to meet levels of 1500, 1800, and 2200. Timing will of course vary for each alternative.
Debt-to-operating cost ratio in '64 : 25.3%. This figure will decrease as costs go up and debt service down, but each new building will alter the pattern.
Timing of new buildings varies with each alternative, so pattern of ratio would vary for each. But for purposes of study following figures are sufficient :
1970 - Total School Debt at 18% of Total Costs 1980 - Total School Debt at 12% of Total Costs
Regional High School
Currently Lincoln enrollment is 27% of total. Figure future Lincoln costs as follows :
1970 - 25% of total 1980 - 23% of total
Total capital cost for Lincoln based on existing debt (Total 1970 - $155,600, 1980 - $51,900), plus amount for each new phase, based on projec- ted costs of current project (1st year net cost $108,100, decreasing by $3,800 each year).
146
6. Summary of Revenue Projections
a. Assessed Value of Real Estate - 1964
$
Acres
Land
Residential
$ 1,776,600
14.2
1960
Non-Residential
48,600
.4
45
Open
478,500
3.8
5430
Buildings
Residential
10,062,400
80.5
Non-Residential
135,000
1.1
Total
$12,501,100
100.0
Average assessed value per acre, Open Land - $90 Average assessed value per house, land and buildings (excluding land assessed as open) - $11, 300
b. Assessed Value - Personal Property
1964 figure - $1,079,530. 90% of total accounted for by utilities (Boston Gas Co., Boston Edison, New England Tel. and Tel.). Remaining 10% has fluctuated with no discernible pattern over past five years. Increases for the utilities, '60 - 164, averaged $30,000/year. Figures used in study -
low residential - $30,000/yr.
middle residential
- $35,000/yr.
high residential - $40,000/yr.
c. Assessed Valuation - New Development
- Residential (figures derived from most recent new construction and discussions with developers) Assessed value per 2 acre lot* $2200 Assessed value per 1 acre lot in cluster development $2000
in regular development $1800
* For existing lots average of $2,000 was used, because some are less than two acres. Assessed value per house - $14,000
Implied Cost Range:
Assess. Rate
Cost Range
Land
20-25% $8,800 - $11,000
Building
35-40% 35,000 - 40,600
Total $43,800 - $51,600
147
Garden Apartments Total value estimated at 100 months' gross rent, or 62 - 7 times gross annual rent (includes land). Assessed at 372%.
- Industrial
Figures derived from 1958 study of industrial develop- ment along Route 128, corrected to 1963 dollars. Adjustments made after discussion with industrial land developers. Figures used:
Investment Acre
Land and buildings - $84,000
Equipment
-
41,000
Total - $125,000
Unless manufacturing involved, the investment for equipment would be taxable as personal property.
- Commercial
Investment per acre less applicable to commercial development. However, investment relative to that for industry would be higher. Also higher percent of total for equipment. Figures used in study:
Investment Acre
Land and buildings - $100,000 Equipment 50,000
Total - $150,000
For both commercial and industrial development assessed value figured at 372% of total investment.
148
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
4,500
4,453,100
4,000
SCHOOL NON-SCHOOL
OPERATING CAPITAL
3,500
3,282,900
3,000
2,770,600
2,500
2,347,500
70%
2,000
68 %
1,500
1,418,500
69%
1,000
753,500
32%
500
55 %
32%
34 %
31%
45 %
0
1957
1963
1970
1980
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Note: "LOW" "HIGH"
combines lowest range of the three land use categories.
combines
highest range of the three land use categories.
COMPARATIVE PROJECTIONS OF COSTS TOWN OF LINCOLN 1957-1980
149
68%
66%
30%
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
40,000
35,176,000
30,000
20,000
21,805,200'
12,719,700
13,580,600
10,000
9,000
8,000
9,328,200
7,000
6,000
5,000
5,253,200
4,000
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Note: Top line combines highest range of the three land use categories. Lower line combines lowest range of the three land use categories. Curve for 1956-63 fitted to new assessment base. 1964 figure adjusted for full impact of Minute Man National Park.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.