Property Assessments Out and Up!

Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:08 AM

More than 76,000 property assessments have been sent out to Prince George property owners. Based on the property's market value as of July 1, 2005, most property's will see an increase in their assessed values.

The recent real estate boom means that in some cases, the increase may be over 20%!

According to BC Assessment's Prince George Deputy Assessor, Gerhard Brosch "For example, a typical single family home that was assessed at $121,700 in the summer of 2004, was assessed at $145,700 in the summer of 2005."

Here are some of the Assessment comparisons in the City of Prince George as calculated by BC Assessment

Residential	*2005*	*2006*	*% +/-*
College Heights	$145,300	$174,800	+20%
Hart Highlands	$163,900	$188,200	+15%
Lakewood/Heritage	$121,700	$145,700	+20%

Assessment information is available online at no cost. The service is provided through the BC Assessment website and is viewable by clicking here.

It is interesting to note the only dip in the asessments is in "Downtown Commercial". While there may be many differences on specific properties, according the B.C. Assessment, the "trend" is a drop in downtown commercial assessment. For example, a property that had been assessed at $458,500 is now assessed at $455,700

Will this all mean significant increases in your property taxes?

Technically speaking if the mill rate remained the same, yes, but, the City is preparing a budget based on a zero to 3% increase in taxes. One City tax department worker says all the expenditures will be calculated and the mill rate will be adjusted to reflect those financial needs. That means the mill rate may slide. That has happened in the past. In 2004 the residential mill rate was just over 18.02 per thousand dollars of assessment. That rate slipped to 16.9973 per thousand in 2005.

If you don't like the assessment you get in the mail, the appeal process is open till March 15th.
Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:08 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Chester on January 3 2006 7:43 PM

I have a major problem with BC Assessment Authority and their purpose.

Let me propose this. There are only two times when a property has a true value, the day it is was purchased and the day it is sold or refinanced.

All of the values in between are irrevelant and of no consequence to the owner.

It's just a number on paper. You are no richer or no poorer than the price you paid for the property. That is what it is worth to you.

Ask anyone who bought their homes at the peak of the market (like 1995) vs anyone who purchased their homes 8 years later in 2003 at the bottom of the market.

As if these temporary paper values somehow put more money in a taxpayers pocket.

A 3% tax increase on a $100,000 home is a whole lot more than a 3% increase on a $300,000 home. Just doesn't seem reasonable to me that each person uses the same amount of services the city provides, yet one is expected to shoulder more of the tax burden. Chester

Posted by: owl on January 4 2006 1:48 AM

"There are only two times when a property has a true value, the day it is was purchased and the day it is sold or refinanced."

So it has a true value when a mortgage is put on it. Two days later it has lost that value?

I think we need to look at the terms appraised value, assessed value, selling price, purchase price. To complicate it even more, for insurance purposes, there is replacement value which, when it burns down and is rebuilt will change to replacement cost. That, in today's market in PG will likely be more than assessed value and even selling price.

This is no different than a shirt for sale in a store. There is an asking price and a selling price. Until the shirt is sold it most certainly has a value, but it may not be the selling price.

I find you last sentence interesting. We tax on the basis of apparent ability to pay. It is assumed that just because you have a more expensive house, that you have a greater ability to pay. There are $150,000 houses on a 60 foot lot and there are $300,000 houses on the same lot sizes. All services to the houses which are paid from taxes are virtually the same, yet one pays twice as much as the other. In fact, those who live in the less expensive house are more likely to be a young family with children going to school and possibly even a roomer to help pay for the mortgage, while the more expensive home is more likley to have an older couple with children out of the house and, in more and more cases even a single individual whose spouse has passed away.

So, do we need property tax reform? I am sure the struggling young family will not be very happy with that.

Posted by: Mike on January 4 2006 9:58 AM

There are other reasons for varying tax amounts. Now I'm not saying any of this is a proper assessment but for instance....
I live in South Fort. The regional district has my land declared as a flood zone and consequently I cannot buy flood insurance. Should I be taxed the same as those 25 ft higher and able to buy flood insurance? Why would a person living atop cranbrook hill want flood insurance? The stupidity mystifies me. Seems to me that folks in a flood zone would be the probable candidates for the coverage. I have been denied insurance and therefore have appealed and had my taxes reduced to reflect that. On the other hand, I have paid more money in renovations alone over the years than my house is appraised at. Go figure.

Posted by: ammonra on January 4 2006 1:49 PM

Well, of course, insurance companies aren't really interested in protecting people from loss, they are interested in making profits for their investors. Actually insuring people who might make a successful claim is a huge no-no. They prefer to cherry-pick customers and insure those who will never make a claim. Those people get good rates, though. The rest can go fiddle with themselves. The only insurance company I know who insures everyone is ICBC, the people's company. They used to do home insurance too at one time I recall. What happened to that?

Surely, the true value of a home is what you think it is. If you like living where you live, surely that gives the house value. Not everything can be judged on the basis of metal disks and bits of paper.

Posted by: Mike on January 4 2006 2:26 PM

Please ammonra, do not say things like that too loud. If the provincial liberals see that, they'll sell ICBC to the Yanks!

Posted by: fedup on January 4 2006 3:17 PM

Ok when the market for houses crashed they told us that we still had to pay the same tax amount.My house went from 18500 to 145000 assesst value now that its going back up to where it was why should I now have to pay more.

Posted by: Mike on January 4 2006 6:18 PM

Someone has to pay for our delegation of 'wine tasters' Italian tour.

Posted by: owl on January 4 2006 10:32 PM

Fedup

Who says you have to pay more? If you have been in your house long enough, lokk at the assessed rate of your house over a 10, 15 or 20 year period, then look at the tax you had to pay every year. There is no constant linear relationship between the two.

In July of 2006, for instance, your tiax might go up by 3%, let's say, while your assessement may have gone up 15 to 20%. In the previous year you assessment may have gone down by 5%, while the tax also went up 2 or 3%.

Why do taxes go up every year? Because running the city costs more every year. The money going into road maintenace has doubled and will be tripling soon. That money either comes from the taxpayers, or from taking fewer trips ...

;-)

Posted by: diplomat on January 5 2006 12:05 PM

Owl:" The money going into road maintenace has doubled and will be tripling soon. That money either comes from the taxpayers, or from taking fewer trips ..."

If there isn't enough money raised by the city to maintain roads, streets and sidewalks (we have only a few sidwalks!) what exactly is the money being used for?

Isn't it a fact that City Hall has allowed the road infrastructure over the last couple of decades to degrade to such a degree that now only a $ 60 million grant from the governments (according to former Councillor Dan Rogers) will put us back on track again?

Come and have a look at Cook Crescent, Croft Road, Highland Drive, Austin Road West and so forth!

It is totally inexcusable, below any standards if standards even exist.

Posted by: ammonra on January 5 2006 11:13 PM

"If there isn't enough money raised by the city to maintain roads, streets and sidewalks (we have only a few sidwalks!) what exactly is the money being used for?"

Why, to get cheap loans for the gas company of course!

Posted by: gypsy on January 6 2006 7:49 PM

Gosh, sakes alive, I cannot help but feel good about paying more taxes every year, and I do not make a penny more income.
Know why I feel so good???
I quit smoking, and now the money I save on cigarettes has paid the increase in taxes, plus my gas and hydro.
Makes me breathe a little easier.
Yep, I was a world class smoker-but I can sure put that money to better use elsewhere.
Have to pay my share for those holidays that our Mayor and his buddies need. Cannot figure out why George is going to China. About time he retired isn't it???
They have to ease off-have nothing else to give up to help pay for their good times.
Shucks-good way to start the New Year-knowing we will just be a touch poorer!!!!!
Like I always say, "lighten up-but do not light up."