Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee Appeal: 2008-0100 RESPONDENT: Resort Village of Chorney Beach In the matter of an appeal to the Assessment Appeals Committee, Saskatchewan Municipal Board, by: Milton and Susan Derry 218 Flavelle Crescent Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 6L2 respecting the assessment of: Lot 16, Block 06, Plan 68H06717 57 Lakeshore Drive Alternate Number: 504504250-01 for the year 2008; BEFORE: David Wilkin, Chairman Jenny Lai Yu, Member Robert L. Edwards, Member Cynthia J. Schwindt, Secretary APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT: Milton Derry, Susan Derry APPEARED FOR THE RESPONDENT: No one appeared APPEARED FOR THE SASKATCHEWAN ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY: Michael W. R. Caskey, John Smysniuk This appeal was heard in Room 10.1, Sturdy Stone Centre, 122 – 3rd Avenue, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on November 12, 2008. APPEAL 2008-0100 [Page 2] This appeal is against the decision of the Board of Revision (the Board) for the Resort Village of Chorney Beach, pursuant to section 246 of The Municipalities Act (the Act). ISSUE: Did the Board err in its decision by failing to adjust the value of the property due to flooding? FACTS: (1) This is a 5,900 square foot parcel improved with a 1,024 square foot two storey summer cottage and decks of 125 and 718 square feet respectively. The improvements are all wood frame, residential type construction built in 2004 and 2005 . The cottage is of average quality (class B) and the decks are of economical quality (class D). The Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA) assigned a 15% unfinished allowance to the summer cottage. A functional obsolescence of 33% has been applied to all improvements. The land has been reduced by 33% due to flooding. (2) The property is valued at: Fair Value Assessed Value Land $22,600 $15,820 Building $64,300 $45,010 Total $86,900 $60,830 As a seasonal residential property, the assessed value equals 70% of fair value. (3) Due to high water levels in Fishing Lake, the lot is partially covered with standing water which reached a height almost level with the bottom of the floor joists. The owners have built a retaining wall around the cabin in order to keep the water from damaging the structure. (4) The grounds of appeal to the Board were twofold. The first issue appealed related to the influence of the flooding on the value of the property: “THERE IS NO BURM [sic] IN FRONT OF CABIN, THEREFORE WE STILL ARE SUBJECT TO FLOODING, IROSION [SIC] OF PROPERTY DUE TO WAVE ACTION AND WATER UNDER STRUCTURE APPEAL 2008-0100 [Page 3] THAT REQUIRES PUMPING. We still have 30% of our property under 3 – 4 ft of water unlike beaches with a burm [sic].” The second issue relates to the property next door to the subject. “BECAUSE THE LOT BESIDE OURS WAS FILLED WITH CLAY AND NO PROTECTION FROM EROSION THERE IS CLAY IN THE WATER WHERE SAND WAS (Mucky Mess, we can’t swim in it or use the lake as we usually do)” (5) The decision of the Board finds the following: “This is to advise you that the 2008 Board of Revision has denied your appeal of assessment on the above property. The reason for the Board’s decision is that the Assessment Manual is a legislated manual and the Board feels that there was no proof of an error made on the valuation of the property, and that equity in assessment is a very important factor.” (6) The record of the Board includes: a) Notice of appeal dated June 30, 2008; b) A notice of hearing dated June 3, 2008; c) Letter dated June 3, 2008 to SAMA from the secretary of the Board with copy of the notice of hearing and notice of appeal to the Board; d) An assessment report from SAMA including Appendices A through E attached; e) A fax to the Board by SAMA dated June 17, 2008 containing a revised recommendation of the assessment signed by Michael Caskey for the subject property; f) Copy of the minutes of the Board dated July 8, 2008; and, g) The decision of the Board, dated July 14, 2008. h) In addition to the above the appellant presented 54 photographs of the subject and comparable properties to the Board which was not part of the record supplied to the Committee by the Board. These photographs are included as part of the record. (7) The appellant presented a map of Chorney Beach which was identified as Exhibit A-1 (8) The grounds of appeal to the Committee are: “At this hearing neither was the process fair nor did it seem to be fair. The Resort Village of Chorney Beach Administrator, who was called an observer at the Board of Revision, met with the Board of Revision for at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. A representative from SAMA and myself were then invited to join the meeting. Then at the end of the meeting the representative and myself were dismissed while the APPEAL 2008-0100 [Page 4] Board of Revision and the Village Administrator stayed and met for a period of time. To me this lacks even the appearance of impartial consideration. There was an obvious opportunity and at least the appearance of political and third party influence. The Village Administrator has a stake in the result of that hearing and should not be meeting with the Board of Revision prior to and after the hearing. As an observer, the Village Administrator should have been invited in and dismissed at the same time the SAMA representative and myself were. ... Specifically properties at Chorney Beach do not have the advantage of protection from a government-financed berm as most other beaches have. The berm provides protection from flooding, erosion, wave action and ice movement. Beaches with berms have access to their entire property. As well there are several properties on Chorney Beach that were basically unaffected or minimally affected by the flood, hence the village council conducted a vote and it was decided not to accept the building of a berm. Upon discussing the assessment with Michael Caskey, Assessment Appraiser for SAMA, he indicated that the assessment of all properties around the lake had to be equal and fair. It is our belief that in order to be fair that assessment cannot be a simple blanket reduction for all cabin owners. Since the Board of Revision on July 8, the annual general meeting for the Resort Village of Chorney Beach was held on July 13, 2008. At that meeting one of the councilors [sic] reported that they had met with SAMA and decided how to proceed on the reassessment and had decided that all properties at Chorney Beach would have a 33% reduction in property assessment. Again this is equal, but far from fair or reasonable. We do not have access to 1/3 of our property, since it is currently underwater. We also continue to struggle with erosion, wave action and remain vulnerable to flooding and possible ice damage. The only protection that we have is a retaining wall that we built to try to protect our property. We are presently pumping water from under our cabin. The lake in front of our cabin has been turned into a mucky mess due to the clay dumped on our neighbours lot with no retaining wall or protection. This clay continues to erode daily into the lake. It is our position that in this case fair is not equal. Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA) decision to do a blanket recommended assessed value for the cabins a [sic] Fishing Lake, although quick and easy, does not deal with the discrepancies in affect on individual property owners. APPEAL 2008-0100 [Page 5] At Chorney Beach, some properties had little or no affect; others experienced extensive loss and damage. Some cabin owners lost the part of their beach that was public property, while others have lost as much as ½ of their property under water. To treat everyone the same is simply not fair.” LEGISLATION: The Municipalities Act: “195(1) The assessor shall prepare assessments for all property in the municipality. (2) All land is to be assessed at its fair value as of the applicable base date separate from any improvements on the land. (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. (5) The dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of property is equity. (6) The value at which any property is assessed is to bear a fair and just proportion to the value at which all similar property is assessed: (a) in the municipality; and (b) in any school division situated wholly or partly in the municipality or in which the municipality is wholly or partly situated. (7) In determining the value of any property, the assessor shall take into consideration and be guided by: (a) any applicable formula, rule or principle set out in the assessment manual; and (b) any facts, conditions and circumstances of the property that may affect its value. (8) For the purposes of subsection (7), the assessment shall reflect all the facts, conditions and circumstances of the property on January 1 of each year as if they had existed on the applicable base date. 219(1) Subject to subsection (2), the assessor shall make any supplementary assessment that may be necessary to reflect a change if, after assessment notices are sent but on or before December 1 of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment mentioned in the notices, it is discovered that the assessed value of any property is not the same as the value entered on the assessment roll by reason of: APPEAL 2008-0100 [Page 6] (a) destruction of or damage to the property; (b) demolition, alteration or removal of an improvement; (c) construction of an improvement; or (d) change in the use of the property.