Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 9:13:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 5, 2012 9:21:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 9:54:47 GMT -5
Looks like an assessor went in there in the last year or so and evaluated all the buildings. Some of them would likely have been built without building permits which would have picked up the value of them at the time of construction. That's not to say that necessarily anything illegal was done as those buildings may have been built before building permits were required in the County. A few rural US counties have only introduced the requirement of building permits in the last decade.
Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 11:23:38 GMT -5
Looks like an assessor went in there in the last year or so and evaluated all the buildings. Some of them would likely have been built without building permits which would have picked up the value of them at the time of construction. That's not to say that necessarily anything illegal was done as those buildings may have been built before building permits were required in the County. A few rural US counties have only introduced the requirement of building permits in the last decade. Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance. Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such....
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jan 5, 2012 13:03:05 GMT -5
I wonder what the quit claim deed was all about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 13:23:07 GMT -5
Looks like an assessor went in there in the last year or so and evaluated all the buildings. Some of them would likely have been built without building permits which would have picked up the value of them at the time of construction. That's not to say that necessarily anything illegal was done as those buildings may have been built before building permits were required in the County. A few rural US counties have only introduced the requirement of building permits in the last decade. Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance. Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such.... Building permits have a number of purposes. One is, as you suggest, to make sure that zoning regulations are being followed. Even rural areas most often have zoning restrictions, ie, you couldn't build a chemical plant on land designated as agriculture. Building permits also ensure health and safety of the building design and construction upon inspection. However, the most important reason is to add to the tax base by having a system to track and add value to the property which in turn increases the property taxes. Some people don't get a permit to avoid the hassle on small projects but for most it is to avoid the new taxes. Nowadays though, there are disclosure laws on real estate sales that require the seller to disclose non-permitted construction on the property so in the long run, you're better off to get the permit right up front.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 5, 2012 19:15:16 GMT -5
Looks like an assessor went in there in the last year or so and evaluated all the buildings. Some of them would likely have been built without building permits which would have picked up the value of them at the time of construction. That's not to say that necessarily anything illegal was done as those buildings may have been built before building permits were required in the County. A few rural US counties have only introduced the requirement of building permits in the last decade. Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance. Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such.... Reassessing rural property has been popular in the midwest agricultural states in recent years. No unusual activity to do that. Edy, what does 'quit claim' mean? I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jan 5, 2012 20:30:16 GMT -5
Looks like an assessor went in there in the last year or so and evaluated all the buildings. Some of them would likely have been built without building permits which would have picked up the value of them at the time of construction. That's not to say that necessarily anything illegal was done as those buildings may have been built before building permits were required in the County. A few rural US counties have only introduced the requirement of building permits in the last decade. Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance. Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such.... Curious as to what is the standard machine shed per acre ratio one would use in justifying a statement like this.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 5, 2012 20:43:00 GMT -5
Hopefully none of those buildings classified as "church exempt" are used to earn profit at any time during the year or the convention owners will be in contravention of the exemption allowance.
I wonder how I could get some of the buildings on our farm classified as "church exempt". Maybe have a little meeting there once a year or? I doubt any would qualify, but it is interesting. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 20:51:54 GMT -5
Wow, you couldn't buy anything like that up here for only $701,180. And $3000 property tax is also very low by Canadian standards.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jan 5, 2012 21:14:56 GMT -5
Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such.... Reassessing rural property has been popular in the midwest agricultural states in recent years. No unusual activity to do that. Edy, what does 'quit claim' mean? I have no idea. You "quit" or "vacate" your claim to the property. This is sometimes done when the property is changed from individual ownership into a trust. Or, if you're giving the property away to someone else and no $$ is exchanging hands.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 5, 2012 21:23:29 GMT -5
Reassessing rural property has been popular in the midwest agricultural states in recent years. No unusual activity to do that. Edy, what does 'quit claim' mean? I have no idea. You "quit" or "vacate" your claim to the property. This is sometimes done when the property is changed from individual ownership into a trust. Or, if you're giving the property away to someone else and no $$ is exchanging hands. So seems like they are not the actual owners. Some thing changed hands in 2000 and no money was paid by them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 21:30:05 GMT -5
You "quit" or "vacate" your claim to the property. This is sometimes done when the property is changed from individual ownership into a trust. Or, if you're giving the property away to someone else and no $$ is exchanging hands. So seems like they are not the actual owners. Some thing changed hands in 2000 and no money was paid by them. The record shows it changed hands within the family. Probably passing it on from the older generation to the younger generation.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 5, 2012 21:30:51 GMT -5
Many estate counselors recommend putting farmland property into some type of trust if some of the descendants are involved in the operation and others are not. It appears that a younger (?) couple now holds the deed?
PS. Thanks for the explanation, Edy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 21:55:08 GMT -5
Many estate counselors recommend putting farmland property into some type of trust if some of the descendants are involved in the operation and others are not. It appears that a younger (?) couple now holds the deed? That's what it looks like to me emy, it's merely a generational thing. And you're right, family trusts are not only popular with farm families, they are commonly used for urban families with assets. There are all kinds of advantages to using family trusts to hold assets. I think when people see convention property move into a trust, they shouldn't automatically jump up and down in delight that it proves the church is holding the property. Quite the contrary. This is common family estate and tax planning.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jan 7, 2012 2:02:08 GMT -5
This subject was fully discussed a year or so ago. The first four posts looked like duplicates from the original.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Jan 7, 2012 11:25:43 GMT -5
Poweshiek county is the next county down/over from mine and probably comparable in permit and building requirements for rural residences . ..virtually nonexistant here anyway.. .. .and one major cause for the increase in valuation is the new house Rick built. ..there is a pic of it in the assessors report. . very nice looking place!..
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 11:47:44 GMT -5
I wonder what the quit claim deed was all about? Looks like it passed from relative to relative!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 11:51:25 GMT -5
Looks like the majority of the buildings used are machine sheds..hmmm one would wonder about them needing that many machine sheds when the acreage is not all that high...perhaps they do have some land leased somewhere near for their crops. It does look like an agent went in in 2011 and nearly doubled the value of the land...phew....that would hurt to have to pay over 3000 dollars in taxes! I think "building permits" perhaps have more to do with the placement of the homestead...if in city limits it would be an absolute necessity to have one...however IF in the country area and there was some kind of previous building on that site and a new one was built as in adding to the old or incorporating the old into the new, then it would pass as only upgrading.....though most people would get a building permit for such.... Curious as to what is the standard machine shed per acre ratio one would use in justifying a statement like this. Come off it, Stargazer...reasonable number of machine sheds would have to do with types of business the farm would have. One large metal shed is enough room to store large amounts of bulk seeds etc and a couple of large tractors and implements...as I noted the number of acres that are within the home base is not high enough to think there'd be a lot of large machinery. And I also allowed they may lease land for their crops etc which WOULD excuse a need for more sheds. I see that they have declared ONE shed for "church"...etc. And it is tax exempt.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 11:52:53 GMT -5
You "quit" or "vacate" your claim to the property. This is sometimes done when the property is changed from individual ownership into a trust. Or, if you're giving the property away to someone else and no $$ is exchanging hands. So seems like they are not the actual owners. Some thing changed hands in 2000 and no money was paid by them. Looks like family to family to me!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 11:54:05 GMT -5
Many estate counselors recommend putting farmland property into some type of trust if some of the descendants are involved in the operation and others are not. It appears that a younger (?) couple now holds the deed? PS. Thanks for the explanation, Edy. My bil had his "incorporated" so that it would cover all 3 of his children and his second wife. Though not all of them would "work" within the incorporation!
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Jan 7, 2012 12:18:07 GMT -5
Curious as to what is the standard machine shed per acre ratio one would use in justifying a statement like this. Come off it, Stargazer...reasonable number of machine sheds would have to do with types of business the farm would have. One large metal shed is enough room to store large amounts of bulk seeds etc and a couple of large tractors and implements...as I noted the number of acres that are within the home base is not high enough to think there'd be a lot of large machinery. And I also allowed they may lease land for their crops etc which WOULD excuse a need for more sheds. I see that they have declared ONE shed for "church"...etc. And it is tax exempt. OK.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 7, 2012 14:04:53 GMT -5
Curious as to what is the standard machine shed per acre ratio one would use in justifying a statement like this. Come off it, Stargazer...reasonable number of machine sheds would have to do with types of business the farm would have. One large metal shed is enough room to store large amounts of bulk seeds etc and a couple of large tractors and implements...as I noted the number of acres that are within the home base is not high enough to think there'd be a lot of large machinery. And I also allowed they may lease land for their crops etc which WOULD excuse a need for more sheds. I see that they have declared ONE shed for "church"...etc. And it is tax exempt. Parcels of property are assessed individually, I think. Especially those with homes on them. So the assessment of other land may be in a different listing. That said, I know nothing about the family's situation!
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jan 7, 2012 14:43:49 GMT -5
Sharon For some time Apopka Florida convention was running with the housing for migrant workers thought. Suppose that is somewhat true. ken
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jan 7, 2012 14:49:22 GMT -5
So seems like they are not the actual owners. Some thing changed hands in 2000 and no money was paid by them. The record shows it changed hands within the family. Probably passing it on from the older generation to the younger generation. The generational passage was done in 1989 when Richard and Linda "bought" the property from Ernest and Hazel. (See below.)
In 2,000 Richard and Linda (listed only as SWANSON) quit claimed to themselves. What I would be interested in is seeing the quit claim to see if it was a trust, and then to see the trust to see who the beneficiaries and/or trustees are.
In some trusts, the workers could be the beneficiaries and/or trustees.Date Seller Buyer Recording NUTC Type Multi Parcel Amount 1/26/2000 SWANSON SWANSON RICHARD A & LINDA J 609/232 QUIT CLAIM DEED Deed $0.00 3/1/1989 SWANSON ERNEST J & HAZEL T SWANSON RICHARD A & LINDA J 462/219 SALE BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS Contract $135,500.00 I will add here, that the quit claim was LIKELY to a family trust that would protect the assets from the IRS "death tax" AND the need for the property to be sold in order to pay it. That would, of course, mean that the church would have to scramble for a new convention location or find someone to buy it pronto!
|
|