Hatter still hot over property tax bill

By Collin Gallant on September 22, 2017.

cgallant@medicinehatnews.com @CollinGallant

A Medicine Hat woman whose home was incorrectly valued on her tax bill says she feels let down by the system and says she can’t understand why it can’t be fixed.

And as for fighting city hall, Julie Tracey says she enlisted the help of a former city assessor and is calling for answers about why her tax bill won’t be revised by administrators or a portion cancelled by council.

“I’m not out for blood; I’m not here because there’s an election on,” Tracey told invited media members at her home on Thursday morning. “I’m not asking for perfection. I’m asking for accountability.”

Her case gained public attention in mid-July when she posted a video online discussing the issue, and warned residents that minor mistakes could cost them money.

In the video, she states she was unaware her home on Terrace View had been slated for a physical inspection to update its assessed value.

After an exterior examination in the winter, $120,000 was added to the assessment value (which determines the amount of tax owed, adding 20 per cent to her bill).

After complaining, Tracey says an assessor did a full inspection and the new value is only $15,000 higher.

That new figure though, won’t be used until the 2018 tax year, which officials say is standard when complainants miss a 60-day window to dispute assessments..

The city’s top finance official said essentially Tracey brought her problem to city staff too late in the process.

Corporate services commissioner Brian Mastel said in an emailed statement, “The city does not revisit assumptions made through the re-inspection if a property owner does not respond to the requests for information through the re-inspection process or participate in the 60-day legislated time frame to review, inquire or file a complaint regarding their assessment.”

Tracey disputes the city’s explanation of attempts to schedule the inspection, but admits she missed the deadline.

She says she noted an increase when the notice arrived in the spring, but didn’t check by how much.

She says she only realized the full implications when her first monthly installment was due after the general tax deadline on June 30.

“I don’t think I’ve shied away from admitting my mistakes,” said Tracey. “The (property tax) process is not fool proof, but the legislation allows assessors to make corrections on mistakes.”

A very basic web search by the News found that the role has been revised 19 times since March, mostly involving city property and vacant lots at various states of construction. There is also farmland that qualifies for reduction agreed to when the land was annexed, some industrial property, but also residential homes.

Only 13 individual properties have been revised since the tax due date at June 30. The News has not been able to confirm individual circumstances.

Tracey says since some revisions to the tax role were posted in August, hers should have been considered as well.

Failing administrative resolution, Tracey argued that for several years council has voted to cancel portions of tax increases on several commercial and farm properties. Those were reclassified several years ago, vastly increasing their tax bills. She said hers is a case that’s obviously a mistake, and council should consider it as well.

“I don’t know why the city is digging in its heels,” she said.

In August, Mayor Ted Clugston said he would ask council to discuss rectifying the situation, possibly asking staff to revisit the issue or perhaps cancelling the tax difference.

Neither has happened, and Tracey feels council is being misled.

To help navigate the specialized world of tax assessment, Tracey has been discussing the matter with Rick Belau, who worked for the city for 32 years in two stints before he left in early August.

He stated Thursday that he’s only guiding Tracey on how to access information that is publicly available, and explained common processes in the field.

“It’s a tough job at the best of times,” he said. “People need to be open to assessors and give them as much information as possible.”

He said his departure with the city was on good terms, but over the year he’s been increasingly concerned that the department’s operations were too opaque and the general public deserved a “better education” on the process.

27
-26

Comments are closed.