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_...

I'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

I don't know who is the genius who crunches such kind of numbers. Even though 4400 homes will only get $1 million in direct property taxes. There will be huge indirect economic boost that will happen because of the so many people that will stay. There will be new opportunities for the locals for employments & businesses. There will be lot of restaurants, shopping center etc that will cater to these residents. That will be more than building commercial properties and getting $9 million in property revenues.

Let's assume that the 4400 homes are $1 million each; that will be $4.4 billion in property value; property tax (aside from that dedicated to approved bonds) is fixed at 1%, so with million dollar homes it would gross $44 million in property taxes. So, it'd take much more expensive homes to net around $50 million for the city, and while I don't see a clear estimate of the price of the homes, the fact that the article points to affordability as an issue addressed suggest the plan isn't to build million-dollar homes.

who gets that property taxes??