DCAMM project doesn't "raise revenue", it raises the "levy limit" and adds some assessed value to the town. That's an important distinction.

 

The DCAMM development won't "raise revenue" as is often quoted.  It would create new assessed residential and commercial value, which raises the levy limit without an override vote.   If the town actually raised the "$777,043 in net-positive revenue" asserted in the DCAMM financial analysis, most of it would be taxed from existing homes and your taxes would increase.  In FY2026, the basis for DCAMMs projections, the town would have seen its tax rate and average tax bill increase and the percentage of taxes borne by business townwide decrease.

 

 

On November 16th Lancaster will vote on whether to approve zoning that will allow DCAMM's re-development plan for the old "Industrial School for Girls" on Old Common Road to proceed.

Several financial analyses have been released by the town. The financial analysis that show "net positive revenue"aren't considering how we actually raise taxes.   This is a town, not a Blockbuster Video, so new revenue isn't tacked onto the bottom line every time a video is rented or a house is built.   We approve a budget in June and then the tax levy is apportioned evenly over every dollar of value in town.

 DCAMM published a financial analysis of the development in October.   It calculates a $777,043 "net positive impact for Lancaster" including " "new value created from real estate taxes."  

The development would add $190.4 million in residential property to Lancaster -- but that would join $1.4 billion in existing residential property.    The $1.6 million in proposed commercial property would join $196 million in existing commercial, industrial and personal property value.  

Let's use the actual values for Lancaster in fiscal year 2026 as the baseline; that's what DCAMM did in their analysis:

  

 

In the real world FY26: Lancaster voted in May, 2025 to raise $26,572,309.05 from taxes.   Given the total value in the four taxed property classes, and the Select Board's vote in December to tax them all at the same rate, that resolved as a tax rate of $16.90 per $1000 of value.

Let's apply the figures from DCAMM's analysis to that model: 

 
The tax levy is increased by $3,278,100.    That is a sum of the following from their analysis:

• $2,172,200 to cover an increase in Gross Educational Costs
• $258,026 to cover an increase in Non-School Municipal Expenses
• $11,509 to cover a decrease in the PILOT payment received (less state-owned land)
• $200,000 to cover in increase in the Highschool Capital Expense
• $777,043 for "net positive impact" -- recognize the benefit in their material.

  The total residential value in town is increased by $190,450,000.

 The total commercial value in town is increased by $1,600,000.

The updated model looks like this:

        

The tax rate increases, from $16.90 to  $16.92.   The average home would pay an extra $10.92 per year.  Not earth-shaking, but not what we had in mind when we read that financial analysis.

Proposition 2 1/2 considerations

Proposition 2 1/2 is always a concern in town: it limits how much Lancaster can raise the tax levy from year to year.    Lancaster can levy up to it's allowed limit (a figure that increases 2.5% each year), plus an additional amount to pay debt we've voted to exclude from the limit.    The levy limit also increases for "new growth" each year:  the amount of new value added since the previous year, if it had been taxed at the prior year's tax rate.

In Real-World FY 2026 Lancaster the levy limit was $24,836,348, plus $1,744,246 for excluded debt.  That levy limit was an increase of $911,151 over the FY 2025 limit:  $598,130 for a 2.5% automatic increase plus $313,021 in "New Growth" for $19,370,111 of new assessed value at the FY2025 tax rate of $16.16.

In our alternate-universe model for FY2026, Lancaster would have seen an additional $3,103,528 in "new growth" increase to the FY2026 levy limit and an additional $200,000 for the increase in the excluded high school debt, giving us a new maximum levy of $29,884,122.   This appears to allow the levy in our alternate-universe model -- but with little additional levy capacity.

 

What if we didn't try to recognize the $777,043 in net benefit, and kept spending stable?

Lancaster tends to tax at its levy limit every year -- as the saying goes, excess levy capacity seems to burn a hole in our pocket.

But: if we kept expenses stable -- other than the increases DCAMM estimated in their finanical analysis -- taxpayers could see the benefit in slightly lower taxes instead.

 Here's an updated Alternate FY2026 model, where the tax levy has been reduced by $777,043.

 

The tax rate declines to $16.48, and the average home sees a $234.06 decrease in their annual taxes. 

Summary

Looking at DCAMMs financial analysis from the perspective of actual tax calculations gives a somewhat more subdued "net positive."     Applying the popular financial projections to actual tax calculations, Lancaster would:

• Recognize an extra $777,043 of tax revenue above expenses
• See it's tax rate increase slightly, and taxes on the average homeowner slightly higher
• See the percentage of taxes paid by business town wide decrease (from 12.34% to 11.09% in the models.)

 All of this assumes that the DCAMM projections are fair estimates.