2013 Tax Assessment

By Collin Gallant on April 16, 2013.

 

Joanne Birtz, representing the Medicine Hat Coalition of Commercial Taxpayers, speaks out against the 2013 tax assessments at Monday night's city council meeting.--NEWS PHOTO CHARLES LEFEBVRE

A two-year deferral for major tax increases, and even one-year cancellation in the most extreme cases, is on the way for business owners facing stiff property tax increases.

But even the expanded motion to give relief while appeals are launched alongside City Hall’s call for a provincial audit of the local assessment appears not to have appeased about 100 angry non-residential taxpayers who attended Monday’s city council meeting.

Joanne Birtz, a spokesperson for the medicine Hat Coalition of Commercial property Owners, renewed her group’s call for the City to do everything in its power to revert back to the 2012 assessment a move council says is not within its power.

“I suggest respectfully that going to the 2012 assessment is still a possibility,” said Birtz, who told council her group has evaluated about 1,000 of the 1,400 non-residential properties in town and characterized the issue as a “state of emergency.”

“We’re asking you to go to the minister and tell him that this is a complete mess. (Appeals and audit) is a great process but it was never meant for this much of a mess.”

Aldermen and the city solicitor Bob Schmidt confirmed that only Municipal Affairs Minister Doug Griffiths could make such an order and only then with a cabinet order.

“I know the provincial government,” said Ald. Jeremy Thompson. “It’s all about process, process, process… The motion that we just passed sets us down the path of correcting the situation.”

The issue arose last month when a move to a Mass Evaluation system of assessing property apparently set in motion a massive increase in taxation values for some businesses.

The City says the overall increase is in the 10 per cent range, and the overall share of tax paid by the business sector will actually decrease once the millrate is factored in.

But, the group is adamant the assessments do not reflect market value, and they want it thrown out.

The Administrative Committee brought forward the tax deferral motion, and an amendment by Ald. Ted Clugston removed the condition that increases be above a value of $5,000.

Now all non-residential tax increases amounting to 35 per cent higher will be able to defer some of the increase until 2015.

“(The $5,000 cap) didn’t capture very many businesses, which was a concern,” said Clugston, whose motion also directs the city to request that the minister “audit/alter/investigate or uphold our 2013 non- residential tax assessment roll.”

Clugston said: “I feel that it captured what they were asking for… the process will go forward, and if the composite review board starts overturning all these assessments… we’ll contact the minister again and ask for help.”

The cost of such a deferral program could be about $1.5 million, said Corporate Services commissioner Merete Hegglund.

Ald. Robert Dumanowski called the deferrals the “right thing to do,” and called on council to support a motion to support an evaluation of the Mass Appraisal process.

“Asking the province to get involved is essential,” said Ald. Graham Kelly.

The original amended motion passed 7-0, with Ald. Wayne Craven and Mayor Norm Boucher absent.

The City has already requested that a regular five-year audit of the assessment, set for next year, be moved up.

Those whose tax bills are increasing by at least 100 per cent for a total of least $5,000 could have half the increases cancelled for the current year.

According to the city finance department, 12 properties would qualify for cancellation, which would cost the city about $69,583.

They would also be eligible for deferral, and still have the right to appeal their assessments something that council is encouraging.

“I’m asking everyone to appeal,” said Ald. Phil Turnbull. “Once the appeals process starts, the city will monitor. That’s what has to happen. I know it’s not what you want to hear but that’s the process.”

Members of the gallery, however, felt the motion puts them back at square one, and that the appeals process is onerous and costly.

“They may get their $200 (appeal fee) back but what about the thousands they’ll spend (on professional fees) and countless hours fighting this,” said Barry Knodel, a spokesman with the Coalition.