assessment appeals committee › pubsask... · appeal aac 2013-0079 page 4 [8] the notice of appeal...

DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL UNDER Section 246 of The Municipalities Act

Appeal Number: AAC 2013-0079 Date and Location: April 3, 2014 – Regina, SK

Town of Wadena Represented by the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA)

as assessment service provider

Appellant

- and -

Jagdev Singh Bains and Sahib Prem Kaur

Respondents APPEARED FOR: The Appellant: Michael Uhryn, Associate Appraiser Susan Quiring, Appraiser The Respondent: Jagdev Singh Bains HEARD BEFORE: Lorna Cottenden, Panel Chair John Eberl, Member

Lee Fuller, Member

Lise Gareau, Director

Assessment Appeals Committee

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 INTRODUCTION: [1] The Saskatchewan Municipal Board, Assessment Appeals Committee (the Committee),

has received an appeal from a decision of the Board of Revision (the Board) for the Town of Wadena (the Town), dated June 27, 2013, which granted the appeal against the assessment of the subject property, Lot 1, Block 15 Plan C2572, at 97 Main Street North. The Appellant (SAMA) is appealing to the Committee, as permitted by section 246 of The Municipalities Act (the Act).

ISSUE: [2] Did the Board err by reducing the assessments on the property improvements to zero (with

the exception of the storage shed)? FACTS: [3] The subject property’s improvements consist of a two-storey structure with a supermarket

on the main floor and second floor residence, and a detached storage shed. Basic property characteristics and component values are indicated as follows:

Table 1 – Basic Property Characteristics and Component Values

Land Residence Supermarket Cooler Shed Size (Square Feet) 4,555 1,232 2,878 64 168 Quality Low Cost Low Cost Low Cost Low Cost Age 1920 1920 & 1984 1984 1960 Condition Very Good VG to Above Avg Avg Avg Value $7,610 $30,050 $58,850 $2,150 $240

[4] In the 2013 tax year, the Town applied the following assessed and taxable values to the

property: Table 2 – Assessed and Taxable Values

Property Class Property Assessed

Value Per cent of Value

Taxable Assessment

Residential Land $1,500 70% $1,050 Residential Improvements $30,100 70% $21,070 Commercial Land $6,100 100% $6,100 Commercial Improvements $61,200 100% $61,200 Total $98,900 $89,420

The retroactive base valuation date for assessments for 2013 is January 1, 2011. The

property is non-regulated for valuation purposes.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [5] The property was valued using the market adjusted cost approach. The basic steps in this

methodology are:

1. Estimate the land value based on sales of comparable land parcels.

2. If required, adjust the land value for size, location and other characteristics.

3. Determine the replacement cost new (RCN) based on building type, size, quality and other characteristics.

4. Estimate the depreciation percentage based on building age and condition.

5. Deduct the depreciation from the RCN to yield the replacement cost new less

depreciation (RCNLD).

6. Determine the Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) to apply to the RCNLD of the improvements using the following steps:

a. Gather the sale prices of comparable improved properties. b. Deduct the land value from each of the sales prices. The resulting amount

represents the dollar value of the improvements (or the building residual). c. Estimate the total RCNLD for each of the improved property sales. d. Divide the RCNLD by the building residual for each sale. The resulting

amount is the sale MAF. e. Array the sale MAFs from lowest to highest. f. Select the middle (median) sale MAF from the array. This is the final MAF. g. Multiply the final MAF to the RCNLD of each of the comparable sales. h. Add the land value to the MAF adjusted RCNLD to arrive at the assessed

value for each sale. i. Divide the assessed value for each sale by the sale price. The result is the

assessment to sales ratio (ASR). ASRs above 1.00 indicate that the assessment is higher than the sales price, while amounts below 1.00 show the opposite.

j. Apply statistical tests to measure assessment equity and accuracy. k. Apply the appropriate land value, RCNLD and MAF to the population of sold

and unsold properties. [6] In the case of the subject property, the land was valued at a net rate of $1.67 per square

foot. The subject improvements were valued via depreciated replacement cost with a MAF of 0.67 based on 10 sales of commercial properties in Wadena and Wynyard (see Board Exhibit R-1, Appendix C, for the sales listing and MAF calculation). Sales upon which the land rate and MAF were based occurred from 2008 to 2010.

[7] The record of the Board is set out in Appendix “A”.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [8] The notice of appeal to the Board is dated March 20, 2013, and included “Annexure 1” and

a copy of the Land Titles record of the property. The Land Titles record shows a title value of $39,000 and an issue date of April 26, 2011. “Annexure 1” contains the reasons for the appeal, and reads as follows:

“1. The building was built in 1920 and no major renovations or improvements were

done since then. 2. The building was purchased for $40,000 less than 2 years ago. 3. A building similar in size and construction in neighborhood was sold for $40,000

recently. 4. The building has been listed with Real Estate agents and local websites for the last

six months for $69,000 but could not be sold as the customers say it is over priced. 5. The real estate agents and the local market value assessors price the building not

more than $59,000. 6. Customers who were interested do not agree to pay more than $50,000. 7. That the building cannot be sold for the assessed value for 2013 tat is $98,900 in no

circumstances. 8. That this is not a fair assessment value of the property and neither according to the

local market value. 9. Attached is the Land Titles Registry as of May 16, 2011.”

[9] Submissions to the Board included a May 22, 2013, email including a Kijiji ad from the

property owners and a June 3, 2013, email. (SAMA was copied with this correspondence.) SAMA filed an undated 24-page brief, which included appendices A to E. The SAMA submission contained a recommendation to revise the condition ratings from very good to good on a portion of the improvements. This recommendation was made following an inspection of the property on May 10, 2013, in preparation for the Board hearing. SAMA recommended a reduction in the assessed value from $98,900 to $83,100, with the revisions summarized below:

Table 3 – Summary of Revisions

Land Residence Supermarket Cooler Shed

Total Assessed

Value (rounded)

Size (Square Feet)

4,555 1,232 2,878 64 168

Quality Low Cost Low Cost Low Cost Low Cost Age 1920 1920 & 1984 1984 1960

Condition Good Good to Above Avg Avg Avg

Assessed Value $7,600 $24,600 $48,500 $2,150 $240 $83,100

[10] The Board hearing took place on June 24, 2013. Mr. Jagdev Singh Bains was present at the

Board hearing via telephone conference call. The Board decision was dated June 27, 2013. The issues the Board identified were essentially the summarized grounds of appeal as shown in “Annexure 1”.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [11] The decision of the Board provided the following:

“CONCLUSIONS: After inspection by the Board, the building is in very poor condition and in our opinion not fit for occupancy of any sort. The building is in need of major repairs to bring it up to standards to operate a business and/or be used as a residence. In the Boards opinion this building is uninhabitable in its current state. With respect to SAMA’s current assessment, the board has found that this assessment does not reflect the true condition of the building. DECISION: The following motion was passed by the District Board of Revision: All assessments on improvements, with the exception of the storage shed, shall be removed. Therefore the following the values shall be used. Land - $7610 Storage Shed - $240”

[12] The Board decision indicated that the property owners had requested on June 3 through a

phone call that the Board “view the building”. Permission to enter the property was given on June 24. Based on the Board decision, the Board inspected the property sometime between June 24, 2013, (the hearing date) and June 27, 2013 (the decision date).

[13] The grounds of appeal filed by SAMA to the Committee are:

“The Board failed to recognize the MAct (sic) section 194(2) and erred in removing the improvement assessment. The Board should have recognized SAMA’s recommendation to adjust the assessment to recognize the condition of the improvements.”

The notice of appeal to the Committee was dated and received July 30, 2013. [14] SAMA submitted a 26-page brief, which included appendices A to H, dated February 28,

2014, to the Committee. A submission “of new evidence” was sent by the property owners to the Committee on March 1, 2014, which included an email and a 21 page “Order to Remedy Contravention” report dated February 12, 2014, by Tweidt Building Code Enforcement Services.

[15] On April 8, the Committee director sent an undertaking letter to SAMA requesting it to

provide an “analysis to justify your condition rating on all building sections.”

LEGISLATION: [16] Legislation and regulations applicable to this appeal are listed in Appendix “B” attached

to this decision.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 CASE LAW: [17] Court decisions included in the submissions or referred to by the Committee are listed in

Appendix “C” attached to this decision.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE – NEW EVIDENCE: [18] At the Committee hearing, there were conflicting opinions expressed regarding the “Order

to Remedy Contravention” report that the property owners submitted to the Committee. SAMA stated that they had not received a copy. They also noted that the document was not part of the Board record. Based on the report, it appears that the property has deteriorated in condition since SAMA’s inspection in May 2013. The residence was occupied in 2011. SAMA inspected the property in 2011 as part of a general re-inspection program.

[19] The owner stated that the building has not been heated or cooled since 2011. It has been

vacant since September 2011. The report in question was done by a building official appointed by the Town and should be accepted as new evidence.

[20] After hearing the views of both parties on the matter, the Committee deliberated in private.

The panel members decided that the “Order to Remedy Contravention” report received on March 1, 2014, was new evidence and could not be accepted. This ruling was communicated to the parties at the hearing. The primary reason for this decision was that the Committee is restricted under provincial legislation to accepting new evidence only under limited circumstances. This limitation is elaborated in the Act – 253(1), which is reproduced in Appendix “B” of this decision. The facts that gave rise to the decision are: • The “Order to Remedy Contravention” report was dated February 12, 2014, after the

Board hearing and, therefore, could not be “… obtainable or discoverable by the person through the exercise of due diligence at the time of the board of revision hearing” (the Act 253(1)).

• The report was completed in order to compare the state of the building versus building code and building standards regulations. Its focus was on identifying deficiencies in the building. It is not a comprehensive inspection to determine an overall condition rating for property assessment purposes and is not relevant to the property’s assessment.

• The Act at section 195(4) requires that assessments “... must reflect the facts, conditions and circumstances affecting the property as at January 1 of each year as if those facts, conditions and circumstances existed on the applicable base date.” A circumstance affecting the property includes the property condition.

• The 2013 assessment is to reflect the property condition as of January 1, 2013.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079

• The “Order to Remedy Contravention” report was dated February 12, 2014, approximately 13 months after January 1, 2013. The property may have deteriorated since January 1, 2013.

• The report is not relevant to gaining a complete “picture” of the condition of the property as of January 1, 2013. These are the reasons for the Committee’s decision to not allow the report as new evidence.

CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS: [21] SAMA’s submission (R1) to the Board contained the following information:

• A summary of salient terms and conditions. • Photo of the subject property. • General explanation of assessment standards and approaches to value. • Relevant court cases. • Basic information regarding how the subject property was assessed, including a listing

of sales used to establish the MAF. • In reference to a May 10, 2013, inspection SAMA stated that the building had “…

deteriorated since the last property inspection.” A recommendation to reduce the condition rating on the “very good” portions of the building to “good” based on the inspection.

• Detailed costing information (appendices “A” and “B”) showing the change in value from the original $98,900 to $83,100.

[22] The owners’ information to the Board included “Annexure 1”, which the Board summarized

in the decision as follows:

“ISSUE(S): The building was built in 1920 and no major renovations or improvements were done since then. The building was purchased for $40,000 less than 2 years ago. A building similar in size and construction in neighbourhood was sold for $40,000 recently. The building has been listed with Real Estate agents and local websites for the last 6 months for $69,000 but could not be sold as the customers say it is overpriced. The Real Estate agent and the local market value assessors price the building not more than $59,000. Customers who were interested do not agree to pay more than $50,000. That the building cannot be sold for the assessed value for 2013 that is $98,900 in no circumstances. That this is not a fair assessment value of the property and neither according to the local market value.”

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [23] The Board stated under “facts” in the decision that the “building is in poor condition at this

time and requires extensive work to bring it up to an acceptable place of business or residence.” It is not clear whether this statement was made after hearing from the parties or following the Board’s inspection of the property.

[24] The Board did not provide any analysis of the owners’ information with regard to their purchase of the property in April 2011, their marketing efforts, or the opinions of local realtors.

[25] The Board appears to have discounted SAMA’s judgement as to the appropriate condition

rating, perhaps due to its own inspection. For its part, SAMA provided little information to support the revised condition rating other than a statement that the condition had deteriorated.

[26] There is no specific legislative authority permitting or prohibiting a Board to conduct an

inspection of the property; however, the Committee does have the authority to inspect properties under the Act section 20(5)(a). Given the role of the Committee, it would be unreasonable for the Committee to have authority to inspect properties and the Board being prohibited from doing so. It is acceptable for a Board to inspect a property provided the mandate of the Board and procedural fairness is respected. The Board’s role is to review the assessment for error, and if an error is found, to order a change in the assessment. It is not the Board’s role to assess properties. Procedural fairness requires that all evidence is disclosed to the parties and each is allowed sufficient time to review and respond to the evidence. The Board then is responsible for examining the evidence, weighing it and providing reasons for its decision.

[27] At the Committee hearing, neither party was aware of precisely when the Board

inspected the property. While the Board is allowed to do inspections, it must ensure that the parties to the appeal are invited to be present at the inspection. The Board should limit its involvement to ensuring that a full inspection is done and that basic factual information is gathered. It is the responsibility of SAMA, in exercising its professional judgment, to make and support its subjective conclusion regarding the condition rating. The owners should be given an opportunity to respond to SAMA’s conclusions. Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the Board should then decide whether or not SAMA made an error. When the Board undertook an independent inspection, it, in effect, became the assessor.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [28] SAMA’s submission to the Committee (AAC - R1) was largely the same material that was

presented to the Board. Additional information included the following: • A copy of an email from Mr. Bains to SAMA dated May 22, 2013. • A Kijiji ad listing the subject property for sale. • Copies of the Board decision and grounds of appeal to the Committee. • A SAMA request for payment dated July 30, 2013. • A copy of a portion of the Act flagging section 194(2).

[29] At the Committee hearing, SAMA referred to section 194(2) of the Act and stated that the

Board did not have the authority to reduce the assessments on the improvements (except the shed) to zero. Section 194 of the Act reads as follows:

“(1) All property in a municipality is subject to assessment. (2) An assessment must be prepared for an improvement whether or not it is complete or capable of being used for its intended purpose.”

[30] The owner did not take a position on SAMA’s allegation, perhaps because he was not

familiar with the legislation. He did believe that the Board’s decision was correct.

[31] The Committee agrees with SAMA that all property must be assessed. When the Board reduced the assessment to zero, it stated “… the building is uninhabitable in its current state.” The Act in section 194 is clear that an improvement is to be assessed whether or not “… it is capable of being used for its intended purpose.” The Board did not have the authority to reduce the improvement assessments to zero. The Committee finds that the Board’s decision contravened section 194 of the Act.

[32] Because the Board erred, the Committee must review the case and make a determination

to ensure that “… an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property may be placed on the assessment roll” [the Act s. 256(1)(b)(ii)]. The balance of the Committee hearing focused on the positions of the parties with respect to the condition and value of the property.

[33] SAMA made the following points to the Committee:

• The property was valued using the cost approach, with a base date of January 1, 2011. • A store operated from the property in the base year (2011). • The store did not operate in 2013. • The property was listed for sale on Kijiji and the listing shows that there had been

recent renovations. • SAMA used the condition rating guideline in the assessment handbook to determine

condition ratings on improvements.


• The property report shows that the property (R1 – tab A) was inspected on November 6, 2012, and at that time the very good condition rating was applied.

• The property was re-inspected on May 23, 2013, and a recommendation was made to the Board to reduce the portions of the building with very good ratings to good. The basis of this change was an observation by SAMA that the property condition had deteriorated.

[34] The owner presented the following to the Committee: • They purchased the property in April 2011 at $39,000. • The property was occupied by the owner from April 2011 to September 2011. • It has been vacant since September 2011 and has not been heated or cooled since that

date. • The property has not deteriorated in condition since SAMA’s inspection in May 2013.

The main concerns with respect to the condition are the leaking roof, water stains in the ceiling, cracks in the concrete floor in the main floor storage area, the poor condition of the staircase and the washrooms.

• The property has been listed for sale at $69,000, with real estate agents saying it should not sell for more than $59,000. Interested parties will not pay more than $50,000.

• A similar property recently sold for $40,000. • The building could not be sold in 2013 for the assessed value. The assessment is not

the local market value.

[35] The owner had not met with SAMA to discuss the basis of assessments in Saskatchewan and appeared to be unfamiliar with how his property was valued.

[36] The Committee finds that the property was vacant and unheated since September 2011.

Vacant and unheated buildings can be expected to deteriorate far more quickly than occupied ones. The question that arises with regard to the 2013 assessment is the condition as of January 1, 2013. SAMA had inspected the property in May 2013. Unfortunately, SAMA did not provide a detailed condition description and analysis to the Board. The owner was only aware that SAMA was recommending a decrease in the condition from very good to good on some portions of the building. This was insufficient information to allow the owner to provide an adequate response. It is in this light that the Committee asked SAMA, through a request for an undertaking dated April 9, 2014, to provide a detailed condition analysis based on their May 2013 inspection and to provide the owner with a copy. The owner had the opportunity to respond.

[37] The Committee received a 22-page undertaking on May 1, 2014. The document included

an excerpt from SAMA’s cost guide that has conditions rating descriptions used by SAMA. The undertaking also included detailed descriptions of each portion of the property improvements and indicated condition ratings of average to good (as was recommended to the Board).

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 [38] The owner responded to the undertaking with a hand-written note dated May 9, 2014, that

questioned some of the statements made by SAMA in the undertaking. [39] The following table compares the comments made by the parties with respect to the

condition of the various sections of the buildings.

Table 4 – Comments made by Parties Building Portion SAMA Owner Fire Exit Poor condition Poor Condition Retail Store Flooring - like new Flooring adhesive has released Interior finish - like new Ceiling leaks Other - well maintained Overall - Good Condition Retail & Residence Flooring - like new Flooring spoiled by mice Interior finish - like new Ceiling leaks Other - well maintained Windows are leaking Overall - Good Condition Light Commercial Crack in floor - needs repair Cracks in floor Roofing maintenance needed Drywall damaged Overall - Above Avg to Good

Condition Ceiling leaks

Walk in cooler Floor needs repair Was locked Overall - Good Condition Electrical & refrigeration need

repair Floor & ceiling rotten Storage Shed Original state Was Locked Overall - Average Condition Rotten walls Leaks General Comments Gas shut off - heating is

understood to be operational Furnaces need repair & gas cannot be restored until repairs are made (SaskEnergy)

Plumbing fixtures well maintained

General damage to plumbing lines as the property was not winterized

Generally roofing requires minor repair

Roof needs replacement

[40] There is clearly a difference in opinion as to the condition of the property. According to the

owner, the property’s condition has not changed since May 2013. There is agreement between the parties that the property has not been heated since September 2011. This is 15 months prior to the January 1, 2013 “condition” date for the 2013 assessments. Even though the property was occupied in the earlier part of 2011, and may have been quite well maintained at that time, the fact that the property was unheated for a long period of time is an important consideration in this case. The Board did inspect the property in June


2013, and stated that “The building is in need of major repairs … this assessment does not reflect the true condition of the building.” (SAMA rated most of the building as in good condition.) In effect, the Board corroborated the statements made by the owner with respect to the condition of the improvements. SAMA’s inspection may have missed some important factors that arose due to the building being unheated. According to SAMA’s Cost Guide, a building in good condition has: • Utility that is above standard • Long lived items (foundation, frame, floor and roof structures, plumbing piping, heat

ducts, insulation and wiring) have been repaired where necessary • Regular maintenance has occurred and no obvious maintenance required • A few short lived items (roofing, interior finishes, floor cover, heating system and

plumbing fixtures) are in like-new condition, others are well maintained, and some may require minor repair

The Cost Guide describes a building in good condition as one in which a minimal amount of maintenance is required. This is not what the Board observed and not what the owner has described. The Committee finds that the property is not (largely) in good condition.

[41] The Committee undertook a review of the condition rating descriptions provided by SAMA

in their undertaking. The summarized descriptions for the average, below average and poor descriptions are as follows:

Table 5 – Summarized Descriptions Average Below Average Poor Remodelling Building in its

original state with standard utility

Building in its original state with inadequate utility

Building in its original state with numerous functional inadequacies

Long Lived Items

Most repaired where necessary

Lack of maintenance has caused structural defects

Lack of maintenance has caused structural defects that are not economic to repair

Maintenance Normal maintenance with a few minor repairs & refinishing needed

Deferred maintenance is apparent with much repair needed

Maintenance has been neglected

Short Lived Items

A few major items may require repair. Others will not need replacing in the short term.

Some major items may require repair. Others show noticeable wear.

Most items need major repairs or replacement

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 The building was used as a store and residence until September 2011, so it has standard

utility. There are no structural defects described by SAMA or the owner. Maintenance is lacking and a number of short-lived items need repair or replacement (roof cover, furnaces, some flooring, ceiling repairs and windows in the residence). There may be some less apparent deficiencies, like plumbing lines, caused by the lack of heat. On balance, the “below average” description is a reasonable fit to the state of the property on January 1, 2013.

[42] On May 15, 2014, the Committee requested a second undertaking from SAMA which was

to calculate the assessment for the improvements using a “below average” condition rating (except for the fire exit which is to remain at “poor”). The Committee received SAMA’s response on May 23, which indicated a reduction in the total assessed value to $25,300. The owner responded on May 25, informing SAMA of his intention to demolish the shed, but making no comment about the undertaking.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: [43] There was some confusion at the hearing regarding the assessment system in

Saskatchewan. The Committee assured Mr. Bains that the decision would include additional comments to increase understanding.

[44] The owner included information about the April 2011 purchase of the property at $39,000,

the (unidentified) sale of a similar property at $40,000, information about marketing efforts and realtors’ opinions of value (presumably in late 2012 and 2013). The Board did not provide any analysis of this information in its decision.

[45] Assessments in Saskatchewan are retrospective. In other words, the date of valuation is in

the past and assessments for 2013 are to reflect market conditions as of January 1, 2011. SAMA has the legislative authority to specify valuation base dates through Board Orders. (SAMA Board Orders can be searched online at www.sama.sk.ca.) The Board Order that relates to 2013 assessments reads as follows:

“This is an Order pursuant to clause 12(1)(d) of The Assessment Management Agency Act to: … establish January 1. 2011 as the base date for determining assessed values of properties for the years 2013 to 2016.”

Related to the base date is a second Board Order that specifies a cutoff date for market information.

“This is an Order pursuant to clause 12(1)(d) of The Assessment Management Agency Act.

http://www.sama.sk.ca/


1. Market data that occurred or arose after December 31, 2010 shall not be used to determine the assessed value of non-regulated properties for the years 2013 to 2016.”

This Order prohibits assessors from using market information (including sales and other data) after December 31, 2010. The Act requires that assessments are to be valued as of the base date (for 2013, this is January 1, 2011). The Act states:

“Preparing annual assessments 165(1) An assessment shall be prepared for each property in the city using only mass appraisal. (2) All property is to be assessed as of the applicable base date.” (Emphasis added)

SAMA was prohibited by the Board Order from using the April 2011 sale of the subject property in determining its 2013 assessment.

[46] Sales are used to establish assessments, as they are objective and verifiable facts. Realtors’

opinions of value are subjective, and their accuracy is heavily dependent on the quality and quantity of the information available and the realtor’s experience and analysis. Realtors’ opinions are not market facts and are not a substitute for valid arm’s length sales. Similarly, asking prices are not a substitute for sales, as they can be subject to various unusual terms and conditions, and even if an offering is typical, it only shows the maximum price, not the market price.

[47] The Board was correct in not considering the sale of the subject property, the realtor’s

opinions and the marketing history of the property. The information about the sale of an unidentified property at $40,000 is of no use unless sale details (like address, property type, sale date, etc.) are provided.

DECISION: [48] The Committee finds that the Board violated section 194(2) of the Act when it reduced

the assessment (of all but the shed) to zero. SAMA’s appeal is therefore successful. A property is to be assessed “… whether or not it is complete or capable of being used for its intended purpose”; however, the condition rating applied by SAMA was in error. A “below average” rating is better supported by the evidence rather than the original rating of the mainly “good” condition. Accordingly, the 2013 assessment for the subject property is to be as follows:


Table 6 – 2013 Assessment

Property Assessed

Value Percent of

Value Taxable

Assessment Residential Land $1,500 70% $1,050 Residential Improvements $5,500 70% $3,850 Commercial Land $6,100 100% $6,100 Commercial Improvements $12,200 100% $12,200 Totals $25,300 $23,200

[49] The appeal is successful, so the filing fee will be refunded.

Dated at REGINA, Saskatchewan this 19th day of June, 2014.

Saskatchewan Municipal Board – Assessment Appeals Committee

Per: ________________________ Lorna Cottenden, Panel Chair

Per: ________________________ Lise Gareau, Director

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 Appendix “A”

The Board of Revision record includes:

a. BOR Information (letter from the BOR and anything else from the BOR) – none

received

b. Notice of Appeal to BOR including:

i. Annexure 1 ii. Land Titles Registry

c. May 16, 2013 hearing letter with Registered Mail Receipt and attached Notice of Hearing (two pages)

d. May 22, 2013 - Gmail from Jagdev Singh Bains to SAMA and Secretary of the BOR –

three pages e. June 3, 2013 – Gmail from Jagdev Singh Bains to the Town of Wadena, SAMA and

Secretary of the BOR – Re: Agreement to Adjust Assessment for 2013 f. Respondent’s Submission prepared by SAMA (24 pages) with the following

Appendices attached:

A. Detailed Property Record – Original 2013 B. Detailed Property Record – Adjustment 2013 C. Improved Sales List D. USPAP and CUSPAP References E. Certification/Qualifications

g. BOR Decision (June 27, 2013) including:

i. Attached information regarding further level of appeal with Form D attached ii. Canada Post Registered Receipts for all parties to the appeal

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 Appendix “B”

LEGISLATION: The following legislation relates to the appeal: The Municipalities Act: “Interpretation of Part

193 In this Part:

(e.1) “market valuation standard” means the standard achieved when the assessed value of property:

(i) is prepared using mass appraisal; (ii) is an estimate of the market value of the estate in fee simple in the

property; (iii) reflects typical market conditions for similar properties; and (iv) meets quality assurance standards established by order of the

agency; (e.2) “market value” means the amount that a property should be expected to realize if the estate in fee simple in the property is sold in a competitive and open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer, each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming that the amount is not affected by undue stimuli; (e.3) “mass appraisal” means the process of preparing assessments for a group of properties as of the base date using standard appraisal methods, employing common data and allowing for statistical testing; (e.4) “non-regulated property assessment” means an assessment for property other than a regulated property assessment;

Property assessable 194 (1) All property in a municipality is subject to assessment. (2) An assessment must be prepared for an improvement whether or not it is complete or capable of being used for its intended purpose.

Regulated and non-regulated property assessments

194.1(2) Non-regulated property assessments shall be determined according to the market valuation standard.

Preparing annual assessments

195(1) An assessment shall be prepared for each property in the municipality using only mass appraisal. (2) All property is to be assessed as of the applicable base date. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), land and improvements may be assessed separately


in circumstances where separate values are required. (4) Each assessment must reflect the facts, conditions and circumstances affecting the property as at January 1 of each year as if those facts, conditions and circumstances existed on the applicable base date. (4.1) Subject to any modification made pursuant to subsection 22(12.1) of The Assessment Management Agency Act, each assessment must reflect any decision of the appeal board that has been issued with respect to the property that is the subject of the assessment, unless the decision has been appealed pursuant to section 33.1 of The Municipal Board Act. (5) The dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of property is equity. (6) Equity in regulated property assessments is achieved by applying the regulated property assessment valuation standard uniformly and fairly. (7) Equity in non-regulated property assessments is achieved by applying the market valuation standard so that the assessments bear a fair and just proportion to the market value of similar properties as of the applicable base date.

Decisions of board of revision

240(1) After hearing an appeal, a board of revision or, if the appeal is heard by a panel, the panel may, as the circumstances require and as the board or panel considers just and expedient: (a) confirm the assessment; or

(b) change the assessment and direct a revision of the assessment roll accordingly:

(i) subject to subsection (3), by increasing or decreasing the assessment of the subject property; (ii) by changing the liability to taxation or the classification of the subject property; or (iii) by changing both the assessed value of the subject property and its liability to taxation or its classification.

(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a non-regulated property assessment shall not be varied on appeal using single property appraisal techniques. (2) A board of revision or panel shall not exercise a power pursuant to subsection (1) except as the result of an appeal. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an assessment shall not be varied on appeal if equity has been achieved with similar properties.

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 Appeal determined on record

252 Subject to section 253, and notwithstanding any power that the appeal board has pursuant to The Municipal Board Act to obtain other information, an appeal to the appeal board pursuant to this Act is to be determined on the basis of the materials transmitted pursuant to section 250.

New evidence

253 (1) The appeal board shall not allow new evidence to be called on appeal unless it is satisfied that:

(a) through no fault of the person seeking to call the new evidence, the written materials and transcript mentioned in section 250 are incomplete, unclear or do not exist; (b) the board of revision has omitted, neglected or refused to hear or decide an appeal; or (c) the person seeking to call the new evidence has established that relevant information has come to the person’s attention and that the information was not obtainable or discoverable by the person through the exercise of due diligence at the time of the board of revision hearing.

(2) If the appeal board allows new evidence to be called pursuant to subsection (1), the appeal board may make use of any powers it possesses pursuant to The Municipal Board Act to seek and obtain further information.

Decisions of the appeal board

256(1) After hearing an appeal, the appeal board may:

(a) confirm the decision of the board of revision; or (b) modify the decision of the board of revision in order that:

(i) errors in and omissions from the assessment roll may be corrected; and (ii) an accurate, fair and equitable assessment for the property may be placed on the assessment roll.

(2) If the appeal board decides to modify the decision of the board of revision pursuant to subsection (1), the appeal board may adjust, either up or down, the assessment or change the classification of the property.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a non-regulated property assessment shall not be varied on appeal using single property appraisal techniques.

(3.1) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), an assessment shall not be varied on appeal if equity has been achieved with similar properties. (4) After a decision is made pursuant to subsection (1), the secretary of the appeal board shall, by ordinary mail, send a copy of the decision together with written reasons, if any, for the decision to each party in the appeal.


(5) If the assessment roll has not been confirmed by the agency pursuant to section 258, the assessor shall make any changes to the assessment roll of the municipality that are necessary to reflect the decision of the appeal board.”

The Municipal Board Act: “Determining matters of fact or law

20(1) The board has authority to hear and determine any question of fact or law as to matters within its jurisdiction. (2) The board may require employees of the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency, appraisers, assessors and other municipal officials to make any returns to the board with respect to any matter affecting assessment and taxation in any form that it considers advisable. (5) The board or any person authorized by it, in connection with any appeal, inquiry or matter before the board and on production of proper identification:

(a) may enter on and inspect any land, premises or other place where an inspection and entry is considered by the board to be necessary for the purposes of determining any matter before it; and (b) shall be given free access, at all reasonable times and on reasonable request, to all land, buildings, structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed on, in, over, under or affixed to the land, and to all businesses, for the purpose of making an inspection thereof in connection with any matter before the board.”

APPEAL AAC 2013-0079 Appendix “C” Case Law The case law referred to by the Committee or the parties is as follows: AAC 2009-0163, Gladstone Property Ltd. v City of Saskatoon, Pages 9 to 11, paragraphs [10] to [17], February 23, 2011 AAC 2009-0068 &0073, Sasco Developments Ltd. and SAMA (Moose Jaw), July 19, 2010 Bison Properties Limited v. Regina (City, 2008 SKCA 158, paragraphs [15] & [16] Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. Saskatoon (City), 2000 SKCA 84, 199 Sask. R. 72, paragraphs [36] & [37] Estevan Coal Corporation v. The Rural Municipality of Estevan No. 5, 2000 SKCA 82, 199 Sask. R. 57 [paragraphs 23 & 31 to 54] Regina (City) v. Laing Property Corp. (1994), 128 Sask. R. 29 (C.A.) paragraphs [28] & [29] Sasco Developments Ltd v Moose Jaw (City), 2012 SKCA 24, various paragraphs

assessment appeals committee › pubsask... · appeal aac 2013-0079 page 4 [8] the notice of appeal...

Documents