Docket LT96005
Order LT96-04IN THE MATTER of an appeal by Douglas Gallant against a decision by the Provincial Treasurer with respect to the 1995 assessment of Provincial Property Number 67553, located in Summerside, P.E.I.
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
on Friday, the 29th day of November, 1996.
Linda Webber, Chair
Anne McPhee, Commissioner
Carl Riggs, Commissioner
Order
Contents
Appearances & Witnesses
Reasons for Order
1. Introduction
2. Discussion
3. Reasons for Decision
4. Disposition
Order
Appearances & Witnesses
1. For The Appellant
Witness:
Douglas Gallant2. For The Department
Witnesses:
Kevin Dingwell, Manager, Residential and Farm Properties
Paul Olscamp, Supervisor, Prince County
Reasons for Order
1. Introduction
This is an appeal under Section 22.(1) of the Real Property Assessment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. R-4, by Douglas Gallant (the Appellant) against a decision by the Provincial Treasurer (the Minister) with respect to the 1995 assessment of Provincial Property Number 67553.
The municipal address of the subject property is 103 East Drive, Summerside, P.E.I. According to the Minister's submission, the property is approximately 1.0 acre and is improved with a 1,020 square foot, 1 story bungalow style residence with an attached single vehicle garage and a storage building (Exhibit D1).
The assessment history of the property is as follows:
YEAR
ASSESSMENT 1985 $24,600 1985 (REVISED) $16,000 1986 $16,000 1987 $16,000 1988 $16,000 1989 $16,000 1990 $16,000 1991 $16,000 1992 $16,000 1993 $18,800 1994 $19,200 1995 $53,900 1995 (REVISED) $47,900 The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission) received a Notice of Appeal from the Appellant on February 23, 1996 in connection with the 1995 assessment of the subject property (Exhibit A1). The assessment value under appeal is $47,900
The Commission heard the appeal on October 3, 1996 in Charlottetown.
2. Discussion
The Appellant
The Appellant's position may be summarized as follows:
In the letter attached to the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant submits that in 1994 when he and his wife purchased the property the assessment was $19,200. It is the Appellant's understanding that the assessment was held at this level for a number of years because the property experienced extreme flooding in the spring caused by run-off from melting snow from the fields to the south of the property.
In addition to the problems associated with the water run-off, a number of other problems exist, including:
- the property is located adjacent to the Lions Club where at times noise from the club disturbs his family and the patrons of the club throw beer bottles into his yard.
- the property is also located adjacent to a baseball field and baseballs are hit onto his property.
The Appellant contends that these problems are having a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of the property by his family.
The property was assessed in 1994 at $19,200. In 1995, the assessment was increased to $53,900 and on referral it was lowered to $47,900. The Appellant submits, that this still represents an increase of over 200% from the 1994 level.
The Appellant argues that "the property has had a low assessment for years and we do not see how and do not agree with the assessment of $47,900 because all the problems which gave the property a low assessment are still the same. Ownership of the property has not changed where the spring run off goes, nor has it stopped the balls from coming over the fence onto our property"(Exhibit A1). The Appellant adds that although a pipeline was installed several years ago to divert the run-off, it was improperly installed and failed to alleviate the problem.
The Appellant requests that the assessment be reduced to the level which existed prior to amalgamation.
The Minister
The position of the Minister may be summarized as follows:
In the submission to the Commission, identified as Exhibit D1, the Minister states that the previous owner of the property appealed the 1985 assessment to the Assessment Appeal Board (as it then was). The Assessment Appeal Board decided to reduce the assessment from $24,600 to $16,000 because of severe flooding problems and activities associated with the Lions Club.
The assessment was held at this level until an adjustment multiplier was applied to the property resulting in the assessment being increased to $18,800 in 1993 and $19,200 in 1994.
In 1994 the property was conveyed to the present owners at a purchase price of $68,000. The Minister submits that as a result of this transaction the assessed value was reviewed. As this was perceived to be an arms length transaction, the adjustments previously applied were removed, effective January 1, 1995, resulting in the assessment being increased to $53,900.
On December 11, 1995 the owner referred the assessment back to the Minister for reconsideration, and as a result of an inspection and re-appraisal of the unit a number of items were adjusted and accounted for:
- The grading was increased from 3.80 to 4.00 as a result of new exterior siding and some windows being replaced since the last inspection.
- The Lions Club erected a chain link fence as well as a "fly ball" net .
- A storm drain was installed to help drain the field located at the south of the property.
The Minister determined that considering the extent of the original problems and the steps taken to alleviate these problems, a factor of 15% was applied to reduce the assessment. This adjustment recognizes that the measures taken have not totally solved the problems. The Minister submits that the percentage adjustment is consistent with established policies for dealing with properties having similar problems.
The Minister argues that both the building and the property are not over assessed in comparison to other similar buildings and properties in the area. The Minister contends that allowances have been made for the problems as identified by the Appellant and recommends that the assessment of $47,900 be confirmed.
3. Reasons for Decision
The Commission has considered the submissions as presented by both the Appellant and the Minister and finds the following:
The parties agree that the property has and continues to experience problems associated with water run-off, activities from the Lions Club and fly balls entering the property. The issue between the parties and the primary issue before the Commission is to determine whether the allowance applied to the assessment is adequate and reasonable, based on the continued effects of these problems.
In reviewing this matter, the Commission understands from the Minister's assessment calculations that the property has received an adjustment of 15% to the functional value of the property. During the hearing Paul Olscamp clarified how this adjustment was determined and what factors were considered:
- A 5% factor was applied to account for the location of the property adjacent to the Lions Club and ball field. This is a standardized factor applied to properties which may be adjacent to institutional uses.
- An additional 10% was applied to account for the problems associated with water run-off. In considering this factor, Mr. Olscamp states that he examined the nature of the problem and determined that it was seasonal in nature and could be corrected if proper measures were taken by the owner. The 10% adjustment equates to approximately $4,000 which he believes adequately represents the cost associated with correcting the problem.
The Minister states at p. 7 of Exhibit D1: "Considering the extent of the original problems, and the steps taken to alleviate same, a factor of 15% has been applied to reduce the assessment recognizing that although the measures taken have helped, they have not totally solved the problem."
During the hearing Douglas Gallant argued that measures taken have not resolved the problems - in fact although a pipeline was installed several years ago to divert the run-off, it was improperly installed and his property continues to flood in the spring. Mr. Gallant submits that the problems associated with the flooding have limited the use of his basement. In order to correct this problem, he estimates that if he were to undertake the work himself it would cost approximately $1,600 to $2,000. If he contracted the work out it would cost an additional $1,000. As to the chain link fence and home run net placed along his property, the Appellant states that these measures have also failed to solve the problems.
The Commission has reviewed the Minister's assessment calculations, identified as exhibit C-2 in the Minister's submission (Exhibit D1) and finds that the calculations made by the Minister applied the standard values to the building components to arrive at the overall assessment. The Commission accepts that the component grade has increased from 3.8 to 4 as a result of recent renovations which, in part, would cause the assessment to increase. In addition, the Commission is satisfied that the Department has applied the appropriate adjustment multiplier to the property to account for the overall increase in property values in the area.
The Commission accepts the evidence of the property owner that he continues to experience problems associated with water run-off and the property's location adjacent to the ball field and the Lions Club, and that these problems limit the full use and enjoyment of the property.
However, in considering the submission of both parties, the Commission is satisfied that the Minister adequately considered these problems and adjusted the assessment accordingly.
With respect to the application of the 5% location factor, the Commission finds, at page 75 of Assessment Manual, that a 5% allowance will be applied to residential properties where proximity to institutional establishments reduce the value of the subject property. Paul Olscamp also stated during the hearing, that if no fence was installed or berm created the 5% allowance could be greater. However, in this case the representatives for the Minister determined that an adjustment of 5% was reasonable to account for the location of the property adjacent to the ball field and the Lions Club. The Commission believes that although the Appellant may not agree with this level of adjustment, this is a decision that in general - unless shown to be extremely in error - should be left to the Minister.
With respect to the application of the 10% adjustment to account for the flooding problems, the Commission understands from statements made by Paul Olscamp during the hearing that this adjustment is discretionary and upon his review of the property he was satisfied that this adjustment adequately reflected the problems. Again, although the Appellant may disagree with this level of adjustment, the Commission is satisfied that the Minister has adequately considered the impact associated with this problem and the adjustments made are reasonable.
Overall the Commission finds that the Minister has demonstrated that the assessment and the adjustments applied have been derived in a manner consistent with the procedures and factors contained in the Department's Assessment Manuall and the Department's Policy and Procedures Manual.2 The Appellant has provided insufficient evidence to support his argument that the application of the standardized adjustments would be invalid in this case.
In conclusion, the Commission believes the overall assessment of the property is adequate and the adjustments made are reasonable considering the impacts of flooding and the location of the property adjacent to the Lions Club and the ball field.
4. Disposition
For the reasons given the appeal is denied and the Commission affirms the 1995 assessment of $47,900.
IN THE MATTER of an appeal by Douglas Gallant against a decision by the Provincial Treasurer with respect to the 1995 assessment of Provincial Property Number 67553, located in Summerside, P.E.I.
Order
WHEREAS Douglas Gallant has appealed the 1995 assessment of Provincial Property Number 67553, located in Summerside;
AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal at a public hearing conducted in Charlottetown on October 3, 1996;
AND WHEREAS the Commission has issued its findings in this matter in accordance with the Reasons for Order issued with this Order;
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act and the Real Property Assessment Act,
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The appeal is hereby denied.
DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 29th day of November, 1996.
BY THE COMMISSION:
Linda Webber, Chair
Anne McPhee, Commissioner
Carl Riggs, Commissioner
NOTICE
Section 12 of the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act reads as follows:
12. The Commission may, in its absolute discretion, review, rescind or vary any order or decision made by it or rehear any application before deciding it.
Parties to this proceeding seeking a review of the Commission's decision or order in this matter may do so by filing with the Commission, at the earliest date, a written Request for Review, which clearly states the reasons for the review and the nature of the relief sought.
Sections 33 and 34 of the Real Property Assessment Act provide as follows:
33. Notwithstanding anything in any public or provate Act, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of the province from any order, decision, or award of the Commission, if notice of the appeal is given the other parties within forty-five days after the making of the order, or decisions sought to be appealed from.
34. The rules and practices of the Supreme Court respecting appeals apply with the necessary changes to any appeal.
1
Real Property Records Division, Assessment Manual.2
Real Property Records Division, Policy Manual.
