My understanding of the law is that assessors are still required to
visit--or attempt to visit--a property once every four years. I suspect
that most often the assessor makes the in-person appraisal by eye-balling
the exterior of a given home, and then relies also on other
information--building permits, sales of comparable properties, etc.--to
make the appraisal.
By state law, the assessed value of all properities within a given
jurisdiction must fall, on average, within 90 percent to 105 percent of the
actual market value. If it doesn't, the jurisdiction would be penalized by
the state. Perhaps Scott Renne, the city's chief assessor, could provide
more illustrative details. I can't recall a time when Minneapolis was
penalized for this. All in all, I believe Minneapolis assessors are doing
an accurate job.
One other thing: People should keep in mind that assessors don't set
property tax policy nor assess taxes--they merely appraise the value of
properties.
>One of the things that annoys me more than anything else whenever the
>taxes subject comes up, be it income property or sales, is that the
>debaters seldom, if ever, equate taxes with services expected. Some
>folks want nice pathways around the lakes to walk, jog, bike, or blade on
>- other folks want clean well-swept streets - still others want well-lite
>alleys - the list goes on and on. So lets see the tax issue and the
>services issue intertwined in an intelligient manner.
>
>Now for my property tax beef - it lies in the way the city assessor
>establishes property market values. In the olden days (before their new
>shiny computers, anyhow) the assessors had to go look at properties,
>building improvement permits, and other comerable properties with eyes in
>order to have a basis for market value. Nowadays, it is all computerized
>to such an extent that if the house up the block from you sells (for an
>inflated price, say) the valuation of all other houses are upped within
>milliseconds from the time the sale hits the recording entry. Is this
>bad? My suspicion - during the past two market value cycles the
>properties the assessor used to judge our house were different -
>secondly, on the last cycle my personal windshield inspection revealed
>that two of the comparison properties had had building improvements which
>may have driven their sales at increased prices. These two instances,
>suggest to me that the 'process' is unfair, that objective standards are
>nedded, that the assessor had too much lattitude. Of lesser gripe - when
>I asked the assessor exactly how their 'system' worked I got much mumbo
>gumbo. Were I a shrewd accountant or money lawyer I suppose the mumbo
>gumbo would have been intelligible.
>Jack Ferman
>Minneapolis, MN
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
Mark Engebretson
Ward 8
Field Neighborhood
