The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-07-21

rooms. front. and back stairs, etc.,, s.. per.
square foot From this we subtraoted,s as
Win cheap houses, tor age and for every
other indication ofsiower value. Tosathisssw I'VE
added Tor steam or hot water heating. for
t,n,, ne woodworkJ or any ether indica-
ton OF greater expense, ssas carriage porch.
rooms finished In attia large verandahs. bay
windows, towers. etc. $50 VII
y, house was veneered with common
nrlck ~ per cent per square foot was added;
II with pressed briclt5 25 cents. .isasss ~.
solid cheap brick swas 20 cents more per
Ioot than wood; solid pressed brick was
o. cents to 81 more 1per square foot than
indicate. -.
- Common. store buildings were made about
spending description. 3l,sss
Az the beginning, eater valuing several
puiLuings according TO these schedules, we
LOOK package or descriptions of hundred
nouses OF more and made personal inspec-
tlon OF each house. comparing the house It.
sell with the description and Its value as
~ appeared to US with the value we had
placed upon 1t In theplofice. Although some
changes were necessary, yet this comparison
served to confirm theIgeneral correctness of
the system, which we found suitable for or
about $1,000 down.
We also adopted schedule for ordinary
parns which was easy to apply and sufficiently
accurate for practical purposes:
For residences above about 81, 900 in value
personal inspection was had, or information
obtained from architect, contractor or other
available source. sss-.-
Many factory buildings Of a special charac-
ter were subjected to the same system as
was applied to the high-priced residences
All the great Office buildings come in here ..i
ordinary brick and stone warehouses and
business blocks were not particularly diff
cult With all such we employed the method
common among architects, of calculating the
cuDical foot contents of the buildings, and
tnen valuing them after from 7.cents to IA
cents per cubic foot The only difficult mat
ter was TO determine about where In the
scale. the building In question might belong.
Wherever there was doubt we made
persona! inspection. We made carefully
prepared table OF a large number of such
buildings to which We made constant refer
ence. ana which was of great service to US
In determining at what rate per cubic foot
building should be valued. 50
1t Will be observed that system OF this
kino VIII nave tendency to rather over
value the poor buildings in any class, and
to somewhat undervalue those >upon which
an unusual amount of artistic skill has been
displayed. very poor building In a good
location would be overvalued a little, while
one somewhat better than the average In q
poor locality would be undervalued. These
tendencies, however, are not particularly to
be deplored The man who leaves his house
implanted or his grounds unsightly has little
to complain IL his tax is no lower on that
account; while he who has expended little
more time and money to make his home a
beauty spot in his neighborhood, should
hardly have his BURDEN increased on that ac-
count.
1t should not be claamed that the system
is perfect. No system of taxing buildings
can ever be perfect gBut 1t will be hard
to find two houses valuedeat $4,000, each one
OF which cost only $4,000. while the other
cost about $4,000. We found another house
vailed at 50, 600 which we knew could be built
complete for less than s., 000
Errors will be found in the present as
sessment, but the data is on file in the office
by which those errors canseasily be corrected.
On the 18th day Of March, the As
SCISSORS Advisory committee requested
q number Of citizensn to assist in the
work of determining uvalues, and the
valuation committee was formed, con-
sisting of William Dawson, chairman;
and ]. G. Richardson H. S. Fairchild,
James Middleton. ,oJohn J. Watson,
Chester R. Smith, Reuben Warmer,
Thomas Cochran and o. B. Lewis.
These gentlemen allied to their assist
anee Messrs E. Vanish, E. w. Peet,
William c. Read, William Candy, Ansel
Oppenheim, r. B.4WheelergC. Il. Miller,
Peter 'Berkey, P. T. Kavanagh, Samuel
bearing, r. M. Lawton and J. ~J.
Cullen, all of-.whom devoted much. time
and study to the work of determining
the comparative values Of rlcts @iffrall
parts Of the city, beginning with the
district bounded by st. Peter street,
Jackson street, Eighth street and
Third street, which was designated as
District No. /. Working from this as
a center. the city was divided into
sixteen valuation districts. This work
was carried on by the add OF: an. outline
map, drawn to- Ia scale, sufficiently
large to admit OF ndicaTing values
plainly upon tin accordance with the
suggestion of Hon. William Dawson,
the chairman of the committee, Sand
this method was found to- be invalua-a
BILE, making 1t possible to readily COM
pare ALI paTfsoof the city, and toSarrives'
ct a ratio that was accurate and equi-8
table.
ea The next step ina the work was to-
determine the value Of each particular
tract Of land, using as basis the
frontageyyalae las arrived satts by74hen
valuation. committee. 4Tbisi was car
ried out by a SYSTEM gof rules and
scales. which resultedsftn eliminating
the question Of personal Judgment
from, the calculations, land reducing
the work to q clerical application of
the Judgment of the valuation commit
tee, as represented by the figures
placed upon the, map to represent the
value Of a middle lot on. each street
upon which the block. faces 81
The result sof theV work when COM
pared with the assessment of real es-5
tate for the year ofI1894, and the per
sonal property for ftf1e year 1898, de-
Quoting from the assessed value of the
personal property. athe exemption of
500, allowed to each Individual shows
the following comparisons of taxable
property: gs>
City of St. Paul 1894 T.. 1895.
Value of land tfax list $50, 5446 $3.50 $54 973 1870
Value Of improvements g as
Ctax LIST .....: 25.5s7,4so 2s475, s15-s
Value of personal prop
erty,, 1866 ..a...S.... 13, 279 473 H. 1885, 1858
Total City Of ST. PauR s122, 421 672 $s1, 2s5, OPS
Ramsey County, Outside of City
Value Of land (tax list. $4,627,22 81, 81, 496
Value of improvements 2
(tax LIST ............. 612, 1865 635, 200
Value OF personal prop-J
erty, 1866 .......... 47,582 212,226
Total ........ ........ $b,5471 1859 50, $50, ola
Total city valuation. .s122, All 572 SCI 2S5 OPS
County outside of city. -. 5,547 ,l69 1851, O12
Grand total, Ramsey ~
county .$127, 1858, 731 1914, $50, 04o
The reduction of the value of the
land within the oity limits Is s28, 500,-
600, being little more than "a per
cent less than the valuation of 1894,
and If we estimate that the new build
ings erected since 1894 are assessed at
81, 800, 600, the. actual reduction in the
value of improvements would be "a, $780,
00e-a little over I6 per cent reduc-
ton.
!, The total tax list of the city, includ-
ing both personal and real property Is,
for the year 1895 $31 ,136 544 less than
the assessment for 1894-95, and the re-
ductfon In the county. outside rof the
city limits, is S1,8s2, 147, making total