Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee

Appeal: 0127/2005

RESPONDENT: Resort Village of Metinota

In the matter of an appeal to the Assessment Appeals Committee, Saskatchewan Municipal Board, by: Kathy & Nestor Fransoo Box 268 , Saskatchewan S0M 1X0 respecting the assessment of:

Lot 5, Block 14, Plan 91B11480 73 - 3rd Avenue West Alternate Number: 505022700

for the year 2005;

BEFORE: David Wilkin, Panel Chairman Robert L. Edwards, Member Jenny Lai Yu, Member Cynthia J. Schwindt, Secretary

APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT: Nestor Fransoo

APPEARED FOR THE RESPONDENT: Maryann Germann

APPEARED FOR CD CONSULTING SERVICES LTD.: Cameron Duncan

This appeal was heard in Room 5, Eiling Kramer Place, 1146 102nd Street in , Saskatchewan on December 1, 2005. APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 2]

This appeal is against the decision of the Board of Revision (the Board) for the Resort Village of Metinota pursuant to section 260 of The Urban Municipality Act, 1984 (the Act).

ISSUE:

Did the Board err in its decision in accepting the respondent’s recommendation and denying the appellant’s request for a Market Adjustment Factor (MAF) of 0.97 which is the MAF used for other similar mobile homes in the area?

FACTS:

(1) The property is legally described as Lot 5, Block 14, Plan 91B11480 and civically identified as being 73 - 3rd Avenue West in the Resort Village of Metinota.

(2) The subject improvement was built in 1978. It is a 952 square foot Class B mobile home with a very good condition rating. In 2002, a Class C porch of 154 square feet and a Class B detached garage of 624 square feet were added to the property. In 2004, a shed was added to the garage. The size of this shed was corrected from 12 x 26 feet to 12 x 24 feet in the respondent’s recommendation to the Board. A 20% unfinished allowance for this portion was also included in the recommendation.

(3) The grounds of appeal to the Board were as follows:

“Assessed value of improvements (1) should use mobile home sales from Battleford also in setting MAF. (2)Correct size & unf [sic] for garage.

1.27 is excessive & unfair given .97 is used for mobiles that are adjacent to us in Lakeview, Suttons & Meota.”

(4) The Record of the Board includes:

a) Notice of appeal to the Board dated April 14, 2005, with two page hand written submission by the appellant; b) Additional two page hand written response to respondent’s submission by appellant dated May 31, 2005; c) Five page assessor submission dated May 17, 2005; d) Assessment field sheet for subject property; e) Photocopied pages of the Saskatchewan Assessment Manual (the Manual); f) Color photographs of the subject property; g) Copy of the Committee decision for Appeal 0036/2002 and decision for Appeal 0089/2001; APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 3]

h) Minutes of Board hearings for Village of Meota, Resort Village of Metinota and the Resort Village of Aquadeo dated June 13, 2005; and, i) Decision of the Board dated June 20, 2005 with deleted phrase in the conclusion initialled by Maryann Germann and a note to the Committee explaining the deleted portion.

(5) The decision of the Board dated June 20, 2005, reads in part:

“The Board ruled: “Accept CD Consulting’s recommendation and acknowledge receipt of the joint recommendation to the Board of Revision. Reducing the fair value of improvements to $52,300 from $54,800; and the taxable values to $38,360 from $36,610. Appeal Accepted.”

(6) The MAF of 1.29 was originally applied to the subject’s improvements. Six sales from Cochin and Aquadeo were used. Through this appeal the appellant pointed out that one of the sales was actually a modular home which should be costed as “one family dwelling” under Document Number 5.5.1, page 2 of the Manual. This sale was removed from the group. The remaining five sales occurring from 1997 to 2002 were used to develop the revised MAF of 1.27.

The original fair value of improvements appealed to the Board was $54,800 (assessed value $38,360). With the adjustments processed through the Board, the fair value of improvements was reduced to $52,300 (assessed value $36,610). It is this value that is being appealed to the Committee.

(7) The grounds of appeal to the Committee dated July 12, 2005 are in part:

“The Committee [sic] did not deal with my appeal of MAF FACTOR 1.27. My adajacent [sic] neighbor mobile home are at .97”

(8) During the Committee hearing, the assessor filed the original assessment field sheet for the subject with the MAF of 1.29. This was accepted and marked as Exhibit R1. A revised field sheet that contained the 1.27 MAF and corrected the size of the shed area with 20% unfinished allowance was also filed. This field sheet was marked as Exhibit R2.

(9) Four beaches are situated on the south shore of Jackfish Lake and they have the following MAFs:

Sutton Beach MAF of 0.97 Lakeview Beach MAF of 0.97 Metinota Beach (subject) MAF of 1.27 Meota Beach MAF of 0.99

APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 4]

(10) Three sales in Aquadeo and two sales from Cochin with MAFs ranging from 0.53 to 1.84 were used to develop the subject’s MAF of 1.27.

(11) Assessments in Metinota, Aquadeo and Cochin resort communities are assessed under CD Consulting Services Ltd. (the assessor) jurisdiction, while all other resort communities on Jackfish and Murray Lakes including Sutton, Lakeview and Meota beaches are assessed under the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA) jurisdiction.

LEGISLATION:

The Urban Municipality Act, 1984:

“237 All land and improvements in an urban municipality are subject to assessment.

238(1) Land is to be assessed at its fair value as of the applicable base date exclusive of the value of any improvements.

(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), land may be assessed together with the improvements on it for the purpose of using a valuation technique or method of appraisal set out in the assessment manual that requires that land and improvements be assessed together.

(1.2) If land and improvements are assessed together pursuant to subsection (1.1), the provisions of this section apply, with any necessary modification, to that assessment.

(2) The dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of land is equity.

(3) The value at which land is assessed is to bear a fair and just proportion to the value at which all similar lands are assessed:

(a) in the urban municipality; and

(b) in any school division situated wholly or partly in the urban municipality or in which the urban municipality is wholly or partly situated.

(4) In determining the value of land, the assessor shall take into consideration and be guided by:

(a) the present use, location and zoning of the land and any other condition or circumstance affecting its value, other than interim development controls;

(b) any profitable use that may reasonably be made of the land; and

(c) any applicable formula, rule or principle set out in the assessment manual.

(4.1) For the purposes of subsection (4), the assessor shall apply all the facts, conditions and circumstances required to be taken into account as if they had APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 5]

existed on the applicable base date.

239(1) Improvements are to be assessed:

(a) subject to subsection (2), separate from the land on which the improvements are situated; and

(b) as of the applicable base date.

(2) Improvements may be assessed together with the land on which they are situated for the purpose of using a valuation technique or method of appraisal set out in the assessment manual that requires improvements to be assessed together with the land on which they are situated.

(3) If a property is assessed pursuant to subsection (2), the provisions of this section apply, with any necessary modification, to that assessment.

(4) The dominant and controlling factor in the assessment of improvements is equity.

(5) The value at which any improvement is assessed is to bear a fair and just proportion to the value at which all similar improvements are assessed:

(a) in the urban municipality; and

(b) in any school division situated wholly or partly in the urban municipality or in which the urban municipality is wholly or partly situated.

(6) In determining the value of any improvement, 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 circumstances that may affect the value of the improvement.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), the assessor shall apply all the facts, conditions and circumstances required to be taken into account as if they had existed on the applicable base date.

251(1) A person may give to the secretary of the board of revision a notice of appeal to the board of revision, if the person:

(a) has an interest in any land or improvements or is affected by the valuation or classification of any land or improvements; and

(b) believes that an error has been made in the valuation or classification of the land or improvements or in the preparation or the content of the relevant assessment roll or notice of assessment.

(1.1) An urban municipality, other taxing authority or the agency may give to the secretary of the board of revision a notice of appeal to the board of revision where the urban municipality, other taxing authority or the agency, as the case may be, believes that an error has been made in the valuation APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 6]

or classification of any land or improvement or in the preparation or the content of the relevant assessment roll or notice of assessment.

(1.2) The agency is to be made a party to the appeal:

(a) where the agency has prepared the valuation or classification of any land or improvement being appealed; or

(b) where the appeal is by an urban municipality or other taxing authority.

(2) The appellant shall give a separate notice of appeal for each assessment in which the appellant alleges that an error exists.

(3) A notice of appeal must be given to the assessor:

(a) within 30 days after the day on which the notice of assessment is mailed to the person; or

(b) if no notice of assessment is mailed to the person, within 30 days after the later of the date when the notice of assessment has been posted and published pursuant to clause 249(1)(a) and the date the notice of assessment is published in the Gazette pursuant to subsection 249(4).

(3.1) The appellant shall give a notice of appeal pursuant to this section personally, by registered mail or by ordinary mail.

(4) A notice of appeal must reference a specific parcel of land, improvement or parcel of land and the improvements to that parcel of land, be in the prescribed form, and state all grounds on which the appeal is based, including:

(a) a description of the valuation or classification with respect to which an error is alleged to exist;

(b) the nature of an error alleged in the preparation or content of any entry on the assessment roll or notice of assessment;

(c) the specific grounds on which it is alleged that an error exists;

(d) in summary form, the material facts on which the appellant relies; and

(e) the address of a place at which documents relating to the appeal may be left, or to which those documents may be mailed, for the appellant.

(4.1) If a property has been assessed pursuant to subsection 238(1.1) or 239(2), no person shall base an appeal on:

(a) the valuation of land apart from the improvements to the land; or (b) the valuation of improvements apart from the land on which the improvements are situated.

APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 7]

(5) Where a person fails to provide any information required pursuant to subsection (4), the board of revision may, at any time prior to determining the appeal require the person to provide the information during a specified time, and, if the person does not provide the information during that time, may dismiss the appeal.

(6) Where an appellant gives a notice of appeal pursuant to this section, the appellant shall, at the time of filing the notice of appeal, or at any other time within the 30-day period mentioned in subsection (3), pay any fee to the urban municipality against which the appeal has been taken that may be established by bylaw by the council.

(7) A council may, by bylaw, establish fees for the purposes of subsection (6) that do not exceed any prescribed maximum fee or the appropriate amount set out in a prescribed schedule of maximum fees.

(7.1) An appellant may withdraw his or her appeal for any reason by notifying the secretary of the board of revision in writing at least five days before the day on which the appeal is to be heard by the board of revision.

(7.2) Where an appellant withdraws an appeal pursuant to subsection (7.1), the council shall refund any fee that was submitted by the appellant to the urban municipality.

(8) Where an appellant is successful in whole or in part on an assessment or classification appeal at either the board of revision or the appeal board, the council shall refund any fee that was submitted by the appellant to the urban municipality.

251.1 Where an appellant fails to pay any fee prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in council or established by bylaw for the purposes of an appeal to the board of revision pursuant to this or any other Act within the 30-day period mentioned in subsection 251(3), the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

256 Notwithstanding that the value at which any specified land or improvement has been assessed appears to be more or less than its fair value, the amount of the assessment may not be varied on appeal if the value at which it is assessed bears a fair and just proportion to the value at which all similar lands and improvements are assessed:

(a) in the urban municipality; and

(b) in any school division situated wholly or partly in the urban municipality or in which the urban municipality is wholly or partly situated.

260 Subject to section 251.1, an assessor, any appellant to the board of revision or any other person has a right of appeal to the appeal board in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 261 to 263 against a decision of a board of revision on an appeal and against the omission, neglect or refusal of that board to hear or decide an appeal to it.

263.1(1) The appeal board shall not allow new evidence to be called on an appeal except where it is satisfied that:

APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 8]

(a) except by his or her failure to make a request pursuant to section 255.3, through no fault of the person seeking to call the new evidence, the written materials and transcript mentioned in section 262.2 are incomplete, unclear or do not exist;

(b) the board of revision has omitted, neglected or refused to make a decision; or

(c) the appellant has established that relevant information has come to the appellant’s attention and that the information was not obtainable or discoverable by the appellant through the exercise of due diligence at the time of the board of revision hearing.

263.2 On an appeal from a decision of the board of revision with respect to the assessment or classification of land or improvements, the appeal board may adjust, either up or down, the assessment of or change the classification of the land or improvements in order that:

(a) errors in and omissions from the assessment roll may be corrected; and

(b) an accurate, fair and equitable entry of assessment for the land or improvements may be placed on the assessment roll.”

THE MANUAL:

Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document Number 4.1.12, page 1 (Date: 03/01/22)

Preliminary Issues:

The Committee noted the changes in the conclusion section of the Board’s decision. The phrase “and acknowledge receipt of the joint recommendation” was deleted in the ruling. As well, the taxable values were stated incorrectly as “taxable values to $38,360 from $36,610”. It should read: taxable values to $36,610 from $38,360.

The appellant commented that the Board’s decision simply reflected the changes he brought forward to the Board’s hearing and they should have been made without holding a formal hearing. He further argued that had the Board accepted the appeal as it states it did, then the MAF should be changed to 0.97. There was no joint agreement between the appellant and the respondent as stated in the ruling.

The appellant further submitted that the Board erred by simply accepting the recommendation that contained the corrections and did not deal with the MAF of 0.97 issue. It is this ground of appeal that the appellant has placed before the Committee.

CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS: APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 9]

[1] The Committee has received an appeal against the decision of the Resort Village of Metinota Board of Revision, and on the basis of the presentations of the appellant and respondent, must decide if the record shows that an error has occurred. The role of the Committee is not to redo the hearing, nor to substitute its view for that of the Board. Rather, the Committee is to review the evidence from that hearing and determine whether the Board came to the proper conclusion in rendering its decision. Should the Committee conclude that the Board did not come to the proper conclusion based upon the evidence before it, the Committee is then required to do what the Board ought to have done. The onus is upon the appellant to demonstrate to the Committee where the Board has erred.

[2] In his written submission, the appellant detailed his grounds of appeal as follows:

“It is unfair that I would have to accept 30 points higher MAF that any other mobile home owner in the adjacent beaches just because CD Consulting does not have access to SAMA files for the adjoining resort beach community. I am asking that the board order that the MAF be similar to our adjacent neighbors .97”

[3] In his submissions to the Committee, the appellant noted that there were three other beaches along the south shore of Jackfish Lake (Sutton, Meota and Lakeview). The mobile homes located in these resort communities were receiving applied MAF’s of approximately 0.97 as compared to the 1.27 MAF that was applied to his mobile home.

[4] The appellant noted that there are approximately 23 other mobile homes in Lakeview. He specifically considered and reviewed the Mercer property as a direct comparison because of the almost identical characteristics it bore with the subject. According to the appellant, the Mercer property is located approximately 400 meters away from the subject. Both were built in 1978 and were similar in APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 10] model, style, and type. Both are lake front properties. The Mercer mobile home was 14 x 70 feet, while the subject is 14 x 68 feet. According to the appellant, this mobile home was assessed with a 0.97 MAF.

[5] The appellant argued that it is inappropriate to have a MAF applied to his mobile home that is 30% greater than that applied to comparable mobile homes situated in other resort communities that are also located on the south side of Jackfish Lake. It was his contention that similar properties, in similar areas, should have similar assessment factors and in order for his assessment to be fair and equitable it should likewise be calculated using the 0.97 MAF applied to mobile homes in all other surrounding resort communities.

[6] The assessor advised the Committee that the Resort Village of Metinota had opted to hire his firm to complete its assessment work. The assessor was also responsible for providing assessment services to the Resort Villages of Cochin and Aquadeo, which are also located on Jackfish Lake. Assessment services for all other resort communities on both Jackfish and Murray Lakes (including Sutton, Meota and Lakeview) were provided by SAMA. While the assessor had signed an agreement with SAMA which allowed for the provision of data characteristics, replacement cost new figures and depreciation amounts for all of the properties within the three communities that had opted for his services, no such agreement existed for the provision of property sales information. As a result of this, in order to determine the appropriate land values and MAFs, the assessor solely used sales from within the three resort communities that he provided assessment services to. The mobile home MAF of 1.27 applied in his resort communities was calculated as follows: APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 11]

“C of T TYPE YY SALE ALTERNATE CALCMAF COCHI00B16892 MH 2000 26500 505010550 0.53 AQUAD01B07840 MH 2001 27800 424502201 0.84 AQUAD02B06321 MH 2002 41500 424502051 1.27 AQUAD97B10852 MH 1997 38500 434412500 1.39 COCHI01B06995 MH 2001 46000 525101250 1.84”

[7] The assessor argued that it would be inappropriate to adjust the MAF applied to the subject property without giving consideration to the subject’s land value. Further to this, as he had completed the sales analysis used to establish the land values used in the resort communities that had opted for his assessment services and as SAMA had completed the sales analysis used to develop the land values applied in the remaining resort communities, it is not possible with the information that was placed before the Board, to compare the two MAFs. He argued that further information would be required before it would be possible to determine whether or not the subject’s fair value was equitable with the fair values of similar properties within the resort communities, as submitted by the appellant.

[8] The assessor’s arguments in this regard are compelling. Pursuant to Document Number 4.1.12 at page 1 of the Manual, the following identifies the importance of the land value in the procedure used to calculate the applied MAF:

“Sales Comparison Method

The sales comparison method shall be used where there are sufficient improved property sales to establish a reliable market adjustment factor.

The market adjustment factor shall be determined by application of the following calculation procedure:

1. Identify improved properties with comparable buildings or structures that are arm’s length sales.

2. Determine the market ratio for each improved property sale:

i. Determine the improved property sale price. ii. Determine the fair value of the land in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 1 - APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 12]

Formulas, Rules and Principles, Section 1.2.1 - Land Valuation, Urban Land. iii. Determine the replacement cost new less depreciation of the buildings or structures. iv. Calculate the residual building value by subtracting the fair value of the land from the improved property sale price. v. Calculate the market ratio by dividing the residual building value by the replacement cost new less depreciation.

3. Calculate the market adjustment factor for the comparable buildings and structures by selecting the median market ratio.

4. Test the accuracy of the market adjustment factor in accordance with the sale price analysis procedures in Chapter 1 - Formulas, Rules and Principles, Section 1.1.4 - Rules of Assessment, Location.” (Emphasis added)

[9] While at first glance the appellant’s submissions that the significant difference in MAFs between that applied to the subject improvements and that applied to an almost identical mobile home located in an adjacent resort community is unfair and inequitable appears to have merit, closer scrutiny of the importance of the land fair value in calculating the applied MAF clarifies that in fact, it does not.

[10] As noted earlier, the assessor advised the Committee that there was no agreement between SAMA and the assessor to share residential sales information. The Committee further heard about SAMA’s reluctance to provide sales information to the appellant. The Committee is troubled by this. In all assessment jurisdictions, open communication and a willingness to co-operate with each other are vital elements required to ensure overall effectiveness of the system. In this instance it is clear that a more collaborative approach by all parties could have minimized the frustrations felt and would have promoted a greater understanding of the assessment process within the province. Even though the assessor and SAMA are working under different jurisdictions, both parties are mandated by the same Act and by the same Manual. Consistency and uniformity in the application of the appropriate formulas, rules and principles APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 13] are essential elements necessary to achieve equity and fairness within the assessment system.

[11] Pursuant to sections 239(4)(5) and 256 of the Act, the Committee concludes that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the Board erred in rendering its decision for this appeal. In order to conclude that the difference in MAFs is inappropriate, it would be necessary to ensure that the land fair values used to establish the various market ratios, were in fact, similar. As a result, it is not possible based on this record, to find that the fair value calculated for the subject land and improvements is inequitable in relation to the fair value calculated for similarly located lands and improvements.

DECISION:

This appeal is dismissed.

The filing fee shall be retained.

APPEAL 0127/2005 [Page 14]

DATED AT REGINA, Saskatchewan this

20th day of June, 2006.

SASKATCHEWAN MUNICIPAL BOARD Assessment Appeals Committee

Per: ______Wade Armstrong, Chairman

Per: ______Cynthia J. Schwindt, Secretary

David Wilkin, for the Committee

______

I concur:

______Jenny Lai Yu, Member

______Robert L. Edwards, Member