a. Abatements/Ryland; Tessier
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
2003
>
06-16-2003
>
Consent agenda
>
a. Abatements/Ryland; Tessier
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2004 2:14:19 PM
Creation date
6/10/2003 1:04:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
INVESTIGATION OF ABATEMENT APPLICATION <br /> <br />ABATEMENT NO. 4229 <br /> <br />Following is a report on the investigation of the abatement application off Ryland Development <br />Corp. <br /> <br />Cass County Board of Commissioners and State Tax Commissioner: <br /> <br />The applicant is asking that the 2002 assessment on Lots 21-32 South Haven Addition be <br />reclassified and valued as agricultural land. Mr. Ryland states that the lots are being farmed. He <br />also states that there are no improvements such as water, sewer, gas, or roads into the property. <br /> <br />Stanley Twp. recommended denial of the application until the subdivision was vacated by the <br />City of Fargo. <br /> <br />NDCC 57-02-01 defines agricultural property as "platted or unplatted lands used for raising <br />agricultural crops or grazing farm animals." Lands platted after March 30, 1981 have additional <br />conditions for classification. <br /> <br />The facts would indicate that the land is being farmed with the adjacent unplatted land and the <br />lots were platted in 1964. Therefore, under the statutes, the correct classification would be <br />agricultural use and would therefore be valued at the agricultural land rate. There is no <br />requirement that the lots be vacated to receive the agricultural classification. <br /> <br />The question has been raised how long this land had been classified incorrectly. In 1983, the <br />land classification statutes were extensively changed, which could have possibly triggered a <br />reclassification. Also, it's not clear what years these lots were farmed and, if in other years, the <br />lots were simply left vacant. In any case, it would appear that the lots should be classified as <br />agricultural for 2002. <br /> <br />SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move that Abatement//4229 be approved, as recommended <br />by the Director of Equalization." <br /> <br />Dated this 27th day of May, 2003. <br /> <br />Francis Klein <br />Director of Tax Equalization <br /> <br />j :\tax\wpXabate <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.