Some city councillors believe a letter from the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency explaining its activities provides no new information, while another councillor thinks the media and business owners are confusing the issue.
City council discussed the letter during the Jan. 23 regular meeting, after the agency (SAMA) submitted it as part of its public relations campaign to better explain its property assessment practices.
This letter gives another side to the issue, considering during the Jan. 13 council meeting, the concerns of business owners dominated the meeting, said city manager Jim Puffalt. SAMA wanted council to know that it takes property assessments seriously.
“This was also publicized in the (Moose Jaw Express) newspaper a week ago, so this is to show both sides of the story,” he added.
Blurring the issue
“I appreciate that this is here. What I do find interesting is … I know SAMA asked you (city administration) to do this, but I think there’s more to it (the situation) than that,” said Coun. Dawn Luhning, a member of the SAMA board.
“And it has to do with concerns coming from the business property owners and the information that is being reported in the media,” she continued. “And the mix of lines between who’s responsible for what, and in particular, SAMA being responsible for assessment and the City of Moose Jaw being responsible for taxation.
“And there’s a lot of crossover in the media in these reports, and even some of the comments being made by the business owners, where things are getting a little bit confused.”
SAMA likely submitted this letter to address any incorrect information floating in public about its practices and assessment services, Luhning said. She also thought the letter was used to “unblur some of the lines out there” about what was happening with some business properties.
The councillor added that the SAMA board has a meeting on Friday, Jan. 27, so she would acquire more information then.
No new information
It’s good that the letter is present and on public record, but it doesn’t shed new light on the matter or the issues presented to council, said Coun. Heather Eby. SAMA’s comments about comparative assessments for buildings also don’t make much sense.
“So I know that SAMA follows policy and procedures, but none of this in here addresses what has been brought to us by the business community,” she continued. “And I understand that there is always people getting lines blurred and misinformation, but my questions have not been satisfied with what we’ve received from SAMA to date.”
Coun. Crystal Froese agreed that the document had no new information, even if it did provide a high-level view of what the agency does. She then wondered if there was any news about the secondary audit that council requested on Jan. 13.
City administration has spoken with SAMA’s quality assurance division director and shared information, said Puffalt. Even though there is a SAMA board meeting on Friday, he was unsure if that was enough time for the requested audit to make the agenda. Yet, he understood that the organization wanted to move quickly on the demand.
“I feel SAMA has had multiple opportunities to tell their side of the story. I really don’t see the need for this,” said Coun. Kim Robinson. “We need more concrete answers, rather than just ‘this is how we do it.’”
The next regular council meeting is Monday, Feb. 13.
