Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-09 Council Minutes • • • KNEEHILL COUNTY 2002 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD - August 9, 2002 The 2002 Assessment Review Board of the municipality of Kneehill County was held at the Kneehill County office, 232 Main Street, Three Hills, Alberta on Friday, August 9, 2002, commencing at 8:30 A.M. • The following were present: Assessment Review Board Members: Carol Calhoun, Jerry Wittstock, and Murray Woods. Council Members: Ken Knievel, Vern Crawford, Ken Hoppins Terry Nash, Clerk of the Court Assessors: Steve Nedoshytko and Dennis Klein Complainants: Grant & Alice McIntosh (9:30 A.M. - 10:45 A.M.) Robert Larsen (Calgary Livestock & Feed Service) (10:46 A.M. - 12:32 A.M.) Mr. Wittstock moved Mr. Woods be appointed Chairperson of the Assessment Review Board for this session. CARRIED Mr. Woods then reviewed the procedure of the Assessment Review Board, including the • Order of Presentation, a copy of which was distributed to all the appellants (a copy of which is attached and forming part of these minutes). Mr. Woods advised the Board that Assessment Notices were mailed on June 11, 2002, and the Board had until Thursday, November 10, 2002, to render a decision. Mr. Woods further advised the Board had 150 days to render a decision from the date of mailing of any revised notices sent after June 11, 2002, as specified under the MGA Section 305.1. Mr. Woods called the Assessment Review Board to order at 9:35 A.M. It should be noted the "Order of Presentation" was followed for all appeal presentations. 1. Roll #1651000 S.W. 06-030-22-W4 McIntosh, Grant and Alice Mr. Woods outlined the hearing process and asked whether there were any preliminary matters that needed to be dealt with? Mr. Woods asked Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh if there was • any objection to the validity of the proceedings or to any of the members sitting on the board? Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh had no objections to the validity of the proceedings, or with anyone sitting on the board. Mrs. Nash read the letter of complaint received on the roll number 1651000. Mr. McIntosh noted that a property located on the map did not match the information on the property presented as a comparable. The assessors requested a 5 minute recess while they verified their data. Mr. Woods reconvened the meeting at 10:15 A.M. Mr. Klein reported that the spreadsheet data was correct, but the corresponding picture and the map location were wrong. Mr. Woods advised that both parties must have a full understanding of the information 40 presented. The hearing can be postponed for clarification. Mr. McIntosh stated that a postponement would not be necessary, and asked that the hearing proceed. Mr. McIntosh presented his case: BUMIN/ASSRVBD2001 Page 1 KNEEHILL COUNTY 2002 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD - August 9, 2002 The reasoning that fair market value of a farm must be the same as an acreage is absurd. His residence is necessary in order to make a living farming. No benefits are supplied by the county on his three acre out parcel. No direct access to pavement. Site is devalued due to the • intensive hog operation and the odor it creates. Comparisons provided are in no way similar to their property. One is a commercial operation, another is an acreage, and the third is too far away. Mr. Nedoshytko stated the parcel consists of 160 acres of land including a farm site. The parcel is valued with 3.0 Acre market site where the residence is located, along with the residence assessment. The balance of the parcel is valued at regulated farm assessment rates. The assessor referenced applicable sections of the Municipal Government Act 284 (1)(j), 293 (1) (a)(b), 289 (1), (2) (a)(b), 291 (1)(n)(r) and Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation 1 (d), 2 (a)(c), 3 (1) (a)(b)(c), 4 (1)(b), 10, 11, 12, 21 (a)(b), 22 (a)(i)(ii) and Quality Standards 1 (d), 2 and then presented comparable properties spreadsheet data. Mr. Nedoshytko advised separation of parcel legislation is used by all assessors throughout the province. Municipal services do not fall under the jurisdiction of the assessment review board. The intensive livestock operation is located within the environmental limits specified by the NRCB. Comparables reviewed by the Municipal Government Board in Lacombe, • Stettler, and Flagstaff Counties indicated no reduction in sales value. Mr. Klein summarized that provincial legislation requires that the same parameters be applied across the province, no evidence was provided to contradict values, and he recommended the assessment be confirmed. Mr. McIntosh requests that the decision be provided to them in writing. The hearing was closed at 10:35 and the board members left the room for deliberations. The Assessment Review Board reconvened at 10:43 a.m. The presiding officer delivered the decision of the board that no assessment changes be made to roll number 1651000. Reasons for decision: Taxes are not subject to appeal, only assessment. The legislation regarding the 3 acre parcel was deemed to be properly applied, and the review board has no authority to supercede assessment legislation. No evidence was presented that the assessment was improperly calculated. The Board agreed that the property had been assessed properly. Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh left the meeting at 10:45 a.m. 2. Roll #331000 S.E.15-028-22-W4 Calgary Livestock & Feed Service (Robert Larsen) Mr. Woods moved Mr. Wittstock be appointed Chairperson of the Assessment Review Board for the remaining sessions. CARRIED • Mr. Larsen entered the meeting at 10:46 A.M. Mr. Wittstock outlined the hearing process and asked whether there were any preliminary matters that needed to be dealt with? Mr. Wittstock asked Mr. Larsen if there was any objection to the validity of the proceedings or to any of the members sitting on the board? Mr. Larsen had no objections with anyone sitting on the board. BUMIN/ASSRVBD2001 Page 2 KNEEHILL COUNTY 2002 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD - August 9, 2002 Mrs. Nash read the letter of complaint received on the above roll number. • Mr. Larsen said the building in question is used for farm purposes only. The original development permit was issued for a machine shed. Last year Mr. Larsen was away until after the appeal period had elapsed. The assessor had advised it was too late to appeal, but assured him it would be reviewed the following year. Although at one time he had wanted to set up a consignment business, he had since decided against it. The amount of land used by this building has been assessed as 2 acres, but he measures it at 1 acre. Mr. Nedoshytko measured again later at 1.04 acres. Mr. Nedoshytko found the building vacant on inspections conducted on November 17th and December 12th, 2000. Construction was completed to the taping and drywall stage. A contractor at the site advised a good portion of the building would be complete by the end of the year and the building was intended for use as an auction building. In order to obtain more information, the assessor went to Mr. Larsen's residence but no one was home so he left a card on the door. A return call was not received by the end of the year. A further inspection on November 1St, 2001 revealed no farm machinery in the building, and only one office in use. The assessor referenced applicable sections of the Municipal Government Act 284 (1) (h), 289 (2) (a), 293 (1), (2), 1 (n) and Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation 1 (c), 2 (a), (c), 3 (1) (a), (b), 3 (3) (c), 4 (1) (b), 11, and 12 providing a definition of a farm building as any improvement other than a residence to the extent it is used for farming purposes. In his opinion, all the conditions laid out in the legislation and associated regulation have been adhered to in valuing this property. Mr. Woods asked what business is being conducted on this property and Mr. Larsen responded that the only business in the building is for farm purposes. Mrs. Calhoun questioned why the property was in the name of Calgary Livestock and Feed Services. Mr. Larsen replied that he had sold the assets of the fertilizer company, but continues to farm under the name for tax purposes. Mr. Nedoshytko presented spreadsheet comparables. Mr. Klein requested an adjournment to clarify a land value. The meeting recessed at 11:35 A.M. • Mr. Wittstock reconvened the meeting at 11:40 A.M. Mr. Klein gave a revised market land value of 32,000 for Roll# 331000 for a total market value of 310,810, and finished the presentation of the spreadsheet comparables. Mr. Larsen stated the building is used as a farm shop. There is no other business conducted in this building, and has no intention to add a business in the future. Mr. Nedoshytko recommended a reduction of the market land value from 32,000 to 8,400 to recognize the actual parcel size and taxable use. He felt the improvements were valued correctly and the 58,000 required no change for a total revised assessment of 66,950. Mr. Wittstock adjourned the meeting at 12:15 for deliberations The meeting reconvened at 12:25. • The presiding officer delivered the decision of the board that the taxable assessment of roll number 331000 be amended from 41,060 for improvements and 58, 550 for land to 9,380 for land. BL/MIN/ASSRVBD2001 Page 3 I KNEEHILL COUNTY 2002 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD - August 9, 2002 Reason for decision: The board found the building was used for farm purposes, and the land should be assessed at farm rates. • The hearing closed at 12:32 and the Board took a recess for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 1:47 P.M. 3. Roll #3157000 N.W. 34-31-25-W4 Marz, Richard and Janis Richard and Janis Marz did not appear. Mr. Woods asked the clerk if all persons required to be notified were given proper notice. Mrs. Nash read the letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. Marz on July 18, 2002 advising "if any person who is given notice of the hearing does not attend, the Assessment Review Board may proceed to deal with the complaint if it is satisfied that all persons required to be notified were given notice of it." 0 Satisfied that proper notice was given, the Assessment Review Board proceeded. Mrs. Nash read the letter of complaint received on the above roll number. Mr. and Mrs. Marz wrote that their taxes had increased 13% over last year, and did not feel that there were adequate sales of residential property in this area to justify this amount of an iricrease. Mr. Nedoshytko presented a spreadsheet of comparables, and advised the 3 acre site was valued the same as other properties. The assessor referenced applicable sections of the Municipal Government Act 284 (1)(j), 293(1)(a)(b), 289 (1), (2)(a)(b), 291 (1)(n),(r), and Matters Relating to Assessment and Taxation Regulation 1 (d), 2 (a)(c), 3 (1)(a)(b)(c), 3 (4) (c), 4 (1)(b), 10, 11, 12, 21 (a)(b), 22 (a)(i)(ii) and Schedule - Quality Standards 1(d), 2. Mr. Nedoshytko stated the comparables presented were close to the subject property. The variance ratios were within the regulated percentages. In his opinion, the assessment on this property was correct and fair, and recommended no change. Mr. Woods adjourned the meeting at 2:05 for deliberations. The meeting reconvened at 2:13. The presiding officer delivered the decision of the board to concur with the recommendation of the assessor that there be no assessment changes to roll number 3157000. Reason for decision: No evidence was presented to support claim that there may have, been insufficient residential sales to establish the assessed value. The assessor presented residential sales used to establish comparable values. The Board was convinced that the property had been assessed in accordance with the Act, the farmland was assessed at the regulated rate, residence was properly valued, and the residence exemption was properly applied. BUMIN/ASSRVBD2001 Page 4 IL- KNEEHILL COUNTY 2002 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD - August 9, 2002 As there were no other assessment appeals, the 2002 Assessment Review Board was declared adjourned. Time: 2:15 P.M. 0 c L Terry N?Skl er of the Board 0 0 BUMIN/ASSRVBD2001 Page 5