Tax confusion surfaces over Masterpiece facility

City councillors will consider speeding up a plan to correct one set of mistakes on its property tax assessment roll, while separately deferring a tax bill on another property to avoid a possible miscalculation.

The corporate services committee heard Tuesday that the Masterpiece Southlands Meadows continuing care had formally objected to how assessors applied tax exemption to its facility under construction in the south end.

Municipal tax code states that a portion of long-term care facilities are considered for use by Alberta Health Services and therefore that square footage is exempt.

However, since the AHS operations contract determines the portion, it can’t officially be determined since the building isn’t complete.

The company argues that the exemption should be 68 per cent of the facility, which would reduce the tax bill by about $80,000.

Based on blueprints, city assessors believe the portion is closer to 41 per cent.

“It’s understandable that the (company) would be concerned and would appeal,” said committee chair Coun. Robert Dumanowski.

Members suggested the taxes simply be deferred until such time as the facility is operating, possibly this fall, and the official figure is known.

“I think that’s the fair compromise,” said member Jim Turner.

Staff will draft a proposal for consideration at the next meeting.

Sent to council for approval was a committee motion to increase tax amounts on two pieces of vacant highway commercial land that are again facing large tax increases.

A 2014 audit of the farm property tax roll found that since two parcels on Saamis Drive had servicing, they should have had three acres assessed at its proposed development use.

In those cases, the difference raised the tax bills from several hundred dollars to more than $20,000 each.

Council has previously voted three times to cancel the portion of taxes above a 100 per cent increase, but in 2016 that only amounted to a combined $890 tax bill even though amounts doubled.

At that pace, it would take about seven and eight years to even out, while raising it $5,000 each year to cut the timespan in half.

“They were improperly assessed in the past, and the (increase) might be undesirable, but they need to be assessed correctly,” said CAO Merete Heggelund.

Administrators recommended no change or cancellation but three council members on the committee recommended an option to limit yearly increases to $5,000 on individual properties.