Of course! How else are they supposed to raise your taxes even more.

I know everyone is going to jump on me for saying this....but..... Increasing assessments don't result in higher taxes unless your assessment goes up more than the average in PG.

It is waste at City Hall (and inflation) that causes your taxes to increase. They hire a consultant to figure out the budget, then divide it by the total assessed value of all the properties or something like that. If everyone's assessment went up 100% then your taxes would still only go up by the increase in the city's budget. If everyone's assessment went down by 20% your taxes would still go up.

kolberg, you are forgetting that city hall always increase their budget, pretty much every year. They only have to let you know this when they increase the rate per thousand of your assessment.Raising our assessments and lowering the rate is just setting themselves up for more money in the future.

kolberg, unfortunately the general public does not understand how the mill rate works.

However, the city needs to get their spending and expenditures under control.

Assessment up. Jig the mill rate so the taxes will go up. Mine have increased over $600 in the past four years.Alberta or the prairies are looking better all the time.

Tractor, I don't think kolberg is forgetting anything. He is just stating that taxes change relative to assessment changes.

In other words, if the assessment of two houses in different subdivisions were the same in one year, and one subdivision becomes more popular than the other which may result in a higher assessment, then that homewoner will end up paying a higher amount of tax relative to the homeowner in the house that has not changed in value to a similar amount.
------------------------

For acrider54 who wrote: "How else are they supposed to raise your taxes even more."

Easy, let the assessed values drop and they will raise the mill rate.

Let the assessed value rise, and they will lower the mill rate if it rises more than the % increase in taxes they are looking for.

In other words, an increase in assessment of 10% does not mean an increase in taxes of 10% ... There is no simple direct relationship like that.

By now I am no longer amazed at how few people understand what appears to be such a simple thing AND such an important thing for taxpayers to understand. I think it results in a lot of hard feelings on the part of homeowners.

Sometimes it makes sense .Sometimes not
Our assessment went up $55,000 over last year.I'm looking at both forms in front of me. $245.000 up to 300,000 .

Camoose,

I hate to tell you, but your property taxes in Alberta will be just as high most places. And the houses will almost certainly be more (possibly much, much more) expensive. No HST or carbon tax, though. Better health care and schools, too.

If you want lower assessments just elect another NDP government! When those clowns were in power your assessment was 50% of what it is today

So, in 2009, my taxable value was $449,000
Then it dropped 10.46% in 2010 to $402,000
Then it increased by 1% to $406,000 in 2011.

Explain to me how the land value went from $100,000 in 2009 to $102,000 in 2010 and $110,000 in 2011 while my buildings depreciated in value? I know I have spent more than $50,000 improving the value of my home over these past 3 years. Is someone telling me the value of my lot has continued to increase in value? Inspite of the market?

It's just a shuffle game to maintain the revenue. When ever in your lifetime have your property taxes ever gone down?

Call them and let them know you've done $50,000 worth of upgrades. I'm sure they would bump up your assessment for you.

How many of you would buy a house in the VLA for 131,000 ? I wouldn't pay 1000.00 for an empty lot there.

The value of my land has decreased due to the flood issue, so I am expecting a lowering of taxes. (Eyes rolled back)

These assessments are not scientific. They may as well be done by a Witch Doctor, throwing bones on the ground, and hanging chickens in doorways.

My assessment last year was $168,500.00 and this year it is $182,600.00 the land went from $64,500.00 to $72,600.00 .

There has been no significant improvements in the buildings, and the sub division is in fact getting worse every year. So I dont see how in hell they can say that it has increased in value.

Some people cant even sell their houses in this town. Certainly not for the price they are looking for. Some have waited a year before the house sells. I know a few people who sold and took a $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 drop in price compared to what they were offered a few years ago.

Even with the loss they sold, and got the hell out of dodge. Kelowna, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, and Shuswap seems to be the destinations that are getting the action.

It matters little about the process. What we need is for the various levels of Government to back off spending and quit raising taxes. That is a concept that they cannot seem to grasp. Duhhhhhhhh.

"Explain to me how the land value went from $100,000 in 2009 to $102,000 in 2010 and $110,000 in 2011"

Easy. They do not make land anymore. Every new property that is developed costs more per square foot to develop than it did in previous years. The difference in the ASSESSED value of a house in PG and in Surrey, for instance is not in the cost of the house, given a similar sized and aged house, it is in almost entirely in the land and the location of the land within the community.

I bought my property in 1977 for $17,000 in an auction from the City. Last year it was assessed at $106,000. This year it is $113,000.

When it comes to the improvements on the land, it is the buildings that get considered. As far as I know, the assessed value of the building is based on the building permit value if 2010 was the year the building permit was taken out.

If it is older, they will base it on the building size and what similar buildings have been selling for in similar parts of town. The will also do a drive by every so often to see the roadside condition of the building. These days, of course, they can do a google-by of images that are 2 or so years old, although that would not be as good as looking at the actual building.

If the demand is for lower to middle cost homes, then those sized houses will go up more than say larger and newer homes which are not as much in demand.

It is a real science. You can see when there is an assessor at work. He/she is the person who wets their finger often and sticks it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. :-)

Oh, so the value of my property has gone up 6 fold over the 33 years year while the value of my house went up only 3.5 times. The rest plus some is depreciation. If the house was to burn down and I had to rebuild it, the replacement value of the building, excluding the cost to remove the old building, would be roughly 6 times the original building permit value as constructed.

Another 2 or 3 decades, houses like mine will be ready for reinvestment with a two family house infill - IF, the city were to grow.