Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1916-01-28

"a general feeling that property in
North Dakota was being assessed up.
on g! Is per cent basis. The tax COM
mission had sent out such instruc,
tions during a previous year. and
We're in favor Of recommending that
percentage this year. There seemed
to be no doubt but that an assess,
ment Of all property at 25 per cent
would produce total assessment
which would produce the required
state revenue. q.
Mr. Packard moved that this COM
mittee recommend that Is per cent of
the full and actual value. he used IN
the assessment Of all property. with
the exception of .moneys and credits.
The motion carried, all voting aye.
In the matter Of assessment Of
moneys and credits, Mr.. Packard said
it was his opinion that if a reason
able assessment be on this class, a
large portion of it, would he returned
for assessment. U.s.
Ut, was figured that the assessment
of moneys and credits at 5 per cent
of its actual. value would render that
classsaOf property liable to a tax Of
about $4.20 per thousand dollars OF
actual value: a. 49, -,
Mr.. Packard moved that this COM
mittee recommend the assessment OF
moneys and credits be at the rate of
5 per cent of the actual value.
instruct Assessors. /.
Instructions to the assessors was
next taken UP. Jorgenson stated that
it was not the wish of the state board
Of equalization, or himself, to compli-
cate the instructing of the assessors
by getting out a separate set of in
structions from that which would be
sent out tby the tax commission. He
stated that while the law seemed to
give him some authority along this
line, and the legislature had made
it the duty of the state board of
equalization to propose a new SEIZED
ule, only the general misunderstood.
ing which seemed to have arisen with
regard to the new schedule made it
seem wise for the secretary of the
state board of equalization to under
take such instructions on the scedule.
1t was his opinion that this commit
tee should recommend instructions
which were agreeable to the members
of the tax commission and the state
auditor, and said that it was his opin.
ion that the members of the state
board OF equalization would be very
glad If the tax commission would
have undertaken the instructions Gov
ering the schedule at the same time
instructions were sent out on the val
uati0n. Mr.. Packard said that on he.
half of the tax commission he could
state such ? procedure would be en-.
tirely satisfactory to that body. The
grouping of classlfications, and the
classifications were carefully gone
over, and the merits of the schedule
We're discussed both from a legal and
practical point of view. Mr.. Packard
expressed himself in favor of list of
!classifications as large as the new
schedule. and possibly further EN-,
large, if the county assessor system
were in use in this state, under the
present system it was his opinion the
best results would be obtained by the
NoV VI lAS IHC lC"'
est possible necessary classifications
Jorgenson moved that this commit
tee recommend that the tax commits
sion include in their instructions to
assessors. instructions on the man
ner in which property shall be listed
under each classification on the new
schedules. Further. that classified
tiOns appearing as No. So to No. 80
both inclusive, shall contain no othe1
property than that which may be SO
classified because of it's peculiar asso
citation with, that business. and all
other property owned and used in
such business shall be separately
listed and assessed under proper
classification covering that special
property. For instance, the furni
ture4 of hotel shall be assessed un.
der the classification, Hotel while
if.a bus were operated by a hotel, the
team would be listed under the prop.
er classification ri: covering Horses 2
and the wagon would be assessed I'M.