Here are my non-binding thoughts. Computerization of property assessing information these days permits a great deal of detailed information to be used for automated generation of assessments. I imagine one huge intent is to create a standard, defensible method for determining a property's valuation for taxation, so as to eliminate as much as possible using an assessor's opinion of what a property would fetch if sold. Thus when an assessment is challenged, accuracy of the individual bits of information collectively used is really all that can be challenged.
Something that is attached to the property and not likely to be taken with the owner when the property sells thus might be just another "feature" included for assessing purposes. Something on wheels or skids (eg. ice fishing shack), arguably is movable and likely to be taken with the owner would not be part of the property for assessing purposes.
Thus a dock might well be considered part of the property, highly unlikely to be taken with the owner, even if it could be taken, physically, much as could the front door if removed from its hinges. On that basis, a dock arguably is part of the property, and thus part of a taxation basis that is standard, applies-the-same-to-all, and a really nice dock arguably adds more value to the property than does one that might collapse under its own weight. Similarly, you could argue that a paved driveway would not be removed when the owner sells and adds more to the value of the property than does a gravel driveway or none at all.
But there ought to be acceptable standards for assessing, state-wide, so everyone is on the same basis.
|