Assessment Appeals Committee

Transcription

1 Assessment Appeals Committee DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL UNDER Section 16 of The Municipal Board Act and Section 246 of The Municipalities Act Appeal Number: AAC Date and Location: February 16, 2017 Saskatoon, SK Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 (RM) (as represented by the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency [SAMA]) - and - Mark Leakos Appellant Respondent APPEARED FOR: The Appellant: The Respondent: Tanya Kolbeck, Assessor, RM Nadine Seguin, Senior Market Appraiser, SAMA Brandon Danielson, Assessment Appraiser, SAMA Sebastian Leakos, property owner s son HEARD BEFORE: John Eberl, Panel Chair Gord Androsoff, Member Malcolm Eaton, Member

2 APPEAL AAC Page 2 INTRODUCTION: [1] The 2016 assessment for the property described below is under appeal: Assessment Roll Number Legal Description Valuation Agricultural Land Residential Land Residential Improvements Total Assessed Value South half of SE W3 Original Assessed Value Board's Assessed Value $29,800 $146,200 $104,500 $280,500 $29,800 $55,800 $5,800 $91,400 [2] The subject property is an agricultural/residential mixed-use parcel, approximately 80 acres in size. The 77-acre portion of agricultural land is regulated and valued pursuant to the Saskatchewan Assessment Manual. The three-acre portion of residential land and improvements is non-regulated and valued using the market adjusted cost approach. [3] The assessed value for agricultural land is not under appeal. Mr. Leakos appealed the residential land and improvements valuations to the Board of Revision (Board) for the RM. He asked in his Notice of Appeal to the Board that the assessed value on his residential land and home reflect a fair value. [4] The Board reduced the assessed value for the residential-classified property to the amounts shown in paragraph [1]. SAMA asks the Committee to overturn the Board s decision and accept their recommendation for an adjusted assessed value. ISSUE: [5] Did the Board make a mistake when it reduced the assessed values for residential land and improvements of the subject property? DECISION: [6] The Committee finds the Board made errors of fact and law when it reduced the assessed value for the residential land and improvements of the subject property. We allow SAMA s appeal to us and order the adjusted assessed value recommended by the Assessor.

3 APPEAL AAC Page 3 BACKGROUND: [7] Mr. Leakos filed a handwritten Notice of Appeal to the Board on a two-page form. He stated the residential improvements were appealed because he had been told by a real estate agent he could not get anything for his home, which he referred to as a house trailer. Mr. Leakos also appealed his residential land valuation, stating he believed it must be one of the highest in the RM. [8] After learning Mr. Leakos filed an appeal, SAMA inspected his property. Discrepancies were found in the data to which SAMA applied their model to determine an assessed value for the residential improvements. Prior to the Board hearing, SAMA prepared an Agreement to Adjust Assessment (Agreement) on behalf of the RM. The Agreement corrected the construction year of the home to 1970, and lowered the quality and condition ratings. The Agreement also removed items that were not present and would contribute to a higher improvements assessment, such as trailer skirting and a deck, plumbing units and a sewer/water connection. [9] In the Agreement, SAMA recommended a reduction of $33,900 to the residential improvements assessed value from $104,500 to $70,600. This value reflects the corrected data for the property that SAMA recorded during the inspection. Mr. Leakos chose not to accept the Agreement, stating that his taxes had increased over 300% in the past seven years and he wished to proceed with the appeal. [10] No one attended the Board hearing on behalf of Mr. Leakos and he did not disclose any evidence in advance of the hearing, as provided for in section 230 of The Municipalities Act, SS 2005, c M-36.1 [the Act]. Neither did Mr. Leakos attend the Committee hearing; his son represented him. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES: [11] SAMA: a) The Board had no market evidence to justify removing the size adjustment ( nonadjusted Land Size Multiplier [LSM] curve) calculated and applied to determine the residential land assessment. b) The Board did not provide mass appraisal evidence for its decision to remove the Site Improvement Adjustment (SIA). c) The Board ignored the equity provisions of the Act in removing the LSM curve and SIA in determining the residential land assessment. d) Mr. Leakos failed to meet the onus of proof.

4 APPEAL AAC Page 4 e) The Board took on the role of the Appellant at the hearing. SAMA representatives felt they were being cross-examined by Board members. [12] Mr. Leakos: a) My home only has a battery for lighting, a wood stove for heat, and minimal water and septic systems. It can hardly be valued at $90,000. b) The use of mathematical manipulation to assess properties discriminates against poor people and has almost tripled my taxes in 10 years, while my income has gone down. c) It is unjust to overturn my appeal, which lowered my taxes from $1,800 to $700. It discounts the Board s finding that the method used to calculate the taxes is unfair. ANALYSIS: Property Valuation [13] Application of the Market Valuation Standard (MVS) achieves equity for non-regulated property assessments when assessments bear a fair and just proportion to the market value of similar properties as of the applicable base date [s. 195(7), the Act]. [14] Subsection 193(e.1) of the Act states the MVS is the standard achieved when the assessment: 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 [SAMA]. Taxation versus Assessment [15] The RM sets tax rates; therefore, they are beyond the authority of the Committee and SAMA. [16] The assessed value for a property is not the same as what a property may sell for on the real estate market. The assessed value for taxation is an estimate based on a range of similar properties. A market value for real estate purposes is whatever the market will bear at a particular point in time.

5 APPEAL AAC Page 5 Onus of Proof and the Board s Decision [17] If an appellant fails to appear personally or by agent at a hearing, boards of revision have the option to either hear and decide the appeal in the absence of the party or dismiss the appeal without a hearing (s. 237, the Act). We cannot fault the Board for hearing the appeal in Mr. Leakos absence, as the legislation allows that option. [18] SAMA points out in addition to not appearing at the Board hearing, Mr. Leakos submitted only a Notice of Appeal and cover letter; therefore, he did not meet the onus of proof required of appellants. The Court of Appeal has commented on the appellant s onus of proof, including in Alberta Inc. v. Regina (City), 2010 SKCA 136 (CanLII) at paragraph [11]: In the context of an assessment appeal, the assessment is presumed to be correct and, therefore, the appellant has the onus of establishing an error. See: Estevan Coal Corporation v Rural Municipality of Estevan No. 5 and Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency, 2000 SKCA 82 (CanLII), [2000] 8 W.W.R [19] Mr. Leakos made no submission of evidence to support the allegations made in his Notice of Appeal. The grounds submitted for the residential improvements appeal suggest only his residence is assessed higher than the amount he paid for it, along with the hearsay opinion of an unnamed real estate agent. [20] The grounds listed for residential land are even less focused. Yet the Board provided lengthy analysis on SAMA s use of an LSM curve and SIA in its evaluation process, and reduced the assessed values of both the residential improvements and land significantly. [21] Further, it is SAMA s position the Board took on the role of Appellant at the hearing. Under the heading Preliminary Matters in its decision, the Board provides analysis as to its determination to hear the appeal, stating at paragraph [6] [T]he Board also recognizes that the matter under appeal is of particular interest to the Board and requires further exploration. [22] The Court of Appeal in L & L Lawson Enterprises Ltd. v Regina (City), 2008 SKCA 43 (CanLII) dealt with fair exercise of the legislative powers of an appeal board, the appeal board being the Committee in that case: However, these powers must nonetheless be exercised in the context of a fair hearing in which the affected parties have a full opportunity to address the issues in argument and evidence. Where the possibility was not a remedy asked for or anticipated in the notice of appeal, the parties have been denied a fair opportunity to answer the position taken by the Committee (paragraph [21])

6 APPEAL AAC Page 6 [23] We find the Board made an error of law by extensively analyzing SAMA s use of the LSM curve as a size adjustment and application of the SIA to determine the subject property s assessment based on personal interest in these matters. They were not articulated in the Notice of Appeal and the Appellant made no further submissions to the Board. This error by itself is enough for us to overturn the Board s decision and order the assessed values recommended by SAMA; however, SAMA alleged further error in the Board s decision as to the use of the LSM curve and SIA in the assessment process. We will provide analysis on those matters, as well. LSM Curve and SIA [24] SAMA provided evidence (Appendix C, R-2, page 27) and analysis to the Board that supported their decision to apply a size adjustment curve in determining the land valuation for the subject property. That evidence included a list of the six vacant land sales analyzed in the appropriate neighbourhood and a chart that provided statistical analysis results. The evidence provided supports the application of a size adjustment to determine land values; therefore, we do not see a mistake in the Assessor s decision to apply the 180% non-adjusted LSM curve as a size adjustment. [25] At Appendix C, SAMA also provided evidence (pages 37-39) and analysis to support the decision to apply a SIA to achieve equity within the RM rather than use a Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) derived from the same sales data. SAMA stated at our hearing the use of the SIA, based on analysis of 128 improved residential sales, was more reflective of the market in the RM. The analysis of the sales produces a MAF of 1.30 or greater, which leads to excessive assessed values for newer residences with high quality and condition ratings, compromising equity. [26] Again, we see no mistake in the Assessor s decision. In the case of either LSM curve or SIA adjustment applied by SAMA, there is no allegation by Mr. Leakos such adjustments were mistakes. We provide thorough analysis of SAMA s use of a non-adjusted LSM curve in AAC , Rural Municipality of Blucher No. 343 and Edward McAleese et al (McAleese), as SAMA points out. The circumstances in this appeal are similar; the Appellant does not point out a mistake in SAMA s use of a size adjustment in determining the land assessment. In McAleese, the Committee wrote as follows: It is the Committee s view that SAMA showed the Board how the Assessor met the equity and mass appraisal requirements of the Act. The Board appears to have ignored SAMA s sales evidence. SAMA provided statistical testing results of their model to the Board and the results are adequate; the Board also appears to have ignored those results (paragraph [34])

7 APPEAL AAC Page 7 [27] Further, we analyzed the Board s decision to remove a SIA from the process to determine the assessed value for a residential improvement in the RM in AAC , Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 and Terrance Schnurr [Schnurr]. That analysis applies in this appeal as well: [17] SAMA used the same site improvement adjustment for all similar properties in the subject neighbourhood. The valuation of similar properties must meet the MVS and be treated the same because the dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of property is equity [s. 195(5), the Act]. [18] When the Board removed the site improvement adjustment from the subject property, it resulted in inequity. The Board did not consider the impact it would have on the MVS and equity. [28] In our view, the Board s analysis in its decision targets the use of the LSM curve and the SIA as assessment practices. The Board relies heavily on analogies that have no basis in the brief allegations made in Mr. Leakos Notice of Appeal. Further, the Committee upheld SAMA s application of a non-adjusted LSM curve and SIA in determining assessed values in the decisions cited above. CONCLUSION: [29] The Committee finds the Board made an error of law when it went into extensive analysis on matters not articulated in the Notice of Appeal. Further, Mr. Leakos provided no supporting facts, evidence or argument to support his appeal and did not appear at the Board hearing; therefore, he did not meet the onus of proof. [30] We also find the Board made an error of fact when it removed the LSM curve and SIA applied by SAMA to determine the assessed value of the subject property. SAMA provided reasonable evidence, argument and statistical testing results to support the use of the assessment methodology applied to calculate the assessment for the property.

8 APPEAL AAC Page 8 [31] We allow the appeal. The residential improvements assessment is reduced by $33,900, as recommended by SAMA to the Board and the Committee. The assessed value of the subject property for 2016 shall be as shown below, exclusive of any exemption provided for in the Act: Assessment Roll Number Legal Description Agricultural Land Residential Land Residential Improvements Total Assessed Value South half of SE W3 $29,800 $146,200 $70,600 $246,600 Dated at REGINA, Saskatchewan this 3 rd day of May, Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee Per: John Eberl, Panel Chair Per: Lise Gareau, Director