Bills

Auditofthe PropertyAssessment Function. November2001. Audit Department

Categories
Published
of 23
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Auditofthe the PropertyAssessment Function November2001 Audit Department Winner of the 2000 Knighton Awardfor performanceauditing auditing Table of contents Table of contents...i Executive summary... 1
Transcript
Auditofthe the PropertyAssessment Function November2001 Audit Department Winner of the 2000 Knighton Awardfor performanceauditing auditing Table of contents Table of contents...i Executive summary... 1 CAO comments... 7 Chair of the Board of Revision comments... 9 Background Audit objectives Audit scope and approach Audit conclusions Acknowledgements Introduction to the property assessment function Brief history The Property Assessment Department The Board of Revision Observations and recommendations Audit objective one The past: Progress made on the Scurfield recommendations Audit objective two The present: The 2002 general assessment Audit objective three The future: Opportunities for improvement THE VALUATIONS PROCESS Current performance where are we now? Performance of the Property Assessment Department Current performance summary of performance results Future performance where do we go from here? Control framework Purpose: A sense of direction Commitment: Accepting responsibility Capability: Having the right stuff Monitoring and learning: Making things better THE APPEALS PROCESS Current performance where are we now? Performance results Summary of performance results Future performance Where do we go from here? Purpose: A sense of direction Commitment: Accepting responsibility Capability: Having the right stuff Monitoring and learning: Making things better Appendices Audit of the Property Assessment Function i Executive summary Audit objectives and scope Based upon an organization-wide risk assessment conducted in 2000, the property assessment function was selected as an audit candidate. We reviewed the function from three perspectives as captured in the following audit objectives: To determine progress made by the City with respect to the recommendations of the Scurfield Report. To assess the extent to which risks associated with the 2002 general assessment have been identified and plans developed and implemented to mitigate significant risks. To identify opportunities to improve systems and processes for subsequent assessments. In addition to reviewing processes within the Property Assessment Department, we looked at processes in the Planning, Property and Development Department that provide information that can impact on the quality of the assessment. In addition, since performance cannot ultimately be measured without reference to the results of appeals, the scope of our review also included the first-level appeal processes that are the responsibility of the Board of Revision. Audit approach In conducting the audit, we employed a variety of methodologies including conducting extensive interviews with managers, staff, Board of Revision members and key stakeholders; surveying other jurisdictions to develop performance benchmarks; analyzing documentation, policies and processes; attending Board of Revision hearings; and conducting Control and Risk Self-Assessment workshops with Property Assessment Department staff. Audit conclusions Based on the evidence gathered during the audit process, we concluded that Significant progress has been made towards implementation of the Scurfield Report recommendations. In general, with the exception of certain risks associated with commercial properties, key risks related to the 2002 general assessment were successfully identified and mitigated to a satisfactory level. Opportunities exist for longer-term improvements to the Property Assessment function with respect to both the valuation and appeals processes. Key observations and recommendations The past: The Scurfield Report recommendations With respect to the recommendations made in the Scurfield Report, the majority have been implemented or are in the planning stage. For example, there have been changes in organization with the appointment of a new City Assessor in 1997 and the reporting of both the Property Audit of the Property Assessment Function 1 Assessment Department and Corporate Finance Department to the Chief Financial Officer to enhance cooperation and improve control. Several new initiatives have been implemented, such as the preview program for residential properties, the use of Advisory Groups and technical experts to strengthen the assessment process, and the creation of a multidepartmental appeals task force. In addition, the Board of Revision has lengthened the tenure of its members, improved its training programs and designated certain members to hear the more complex non-residential appeals. Legislative changes have also been made. While challenges are still outstanding, the City is to be commended on the progress made to date. The present: The 2002 general assessment In assessing the risks associated with the valuation process, we identified several successful strategies that were employed by the Property Assessment Department to mitigate the risks associated with the assessment of residential properties. At the same time, we were not as confident about the success of actions taken with respect to non-residential property valuation. We believed that the inherently complex nature of commercial property assessment, the degree of volatility in valuations of some commercial property types and the need to improve internal quality assurance processes contributed to a higher degree of concern about the quality of the valuation of the non-residential properties. In fact, the subsequent rate of appeals to the Board of Revision has suggested that our risk assessment was accurate. To the credit of the Property Assessment Department, residential appeals have been reduced by 50% over the last general assessment. Non-residential appeals, however, have increased slightly reflecting the higher level of concern about the quality of valuations. Until the final results are known, when appeals have been exhausted at both the Board of Revision and Municipal Board, we will not know to what extent the Department will be successful in upholding the assessment values. In assessing the risks associated with the appeals process, we again were able to point to several successful strategies to manage risks associated with providing a fair, transparent and effective process with appropriate recognition for potential financial losses. At the same time, we noted the potential risks associated with a delay in the commencement of hearing commercial appeals and the absence of providing a rationale for decisions made by the Board. The future: Opportunities for improvement Finally, we turned our attention to the future. While not minimizing the gains made by the City in the past several years, we suggested that actions can be taken to enhance the effectiveness of the function for the next general assessment. We divided this portion of the report into two parts: the Valuation Process and the Appeals Process. Each part reviews the achievement of business objectives from two perspectives current performance and opportunities to improve future performance. The valuation process In the absence of formal accountability reporting which we believe is the responsibility of management, we looked to standards established by the Department, professional organizations and assessment 2 Audit of the Property Assessment Function authorities in other jurisdictions to identify key indicators against which to comment on the current performance of the process. These indicators are quality of assessments, timeliness of information, cost-effectiveness of administration and accountability to the community. Overall the results indicate the relative success of the residential assessment process both in increasing accessibility to the public and in lowering the appeal rate. The results are not as positive for the commercial program. It is also clear that improving cost-effectiveness should be made a higher priority. We recognize that a number of factors exist that impact on the comparability of City of Winnipeg s performance against other jurisdictions and these are discussed in the report; at the same time the cost of providing valuation services appears to be higher than other jurisdictions surveyed and this needs to be explored in more depth. Our statistics clearly demonstrate the benefits associated with economies of scale and open the door to the consideration of resource sharing or consolidation with the provincial government. While recognizing the need for continued improvement in current performance, the Department has also identified a number of new business opportunities including the introduction of marketable products and the provision of services to other organizations. It was clear in reviewing the performance of the assessment function that the City s legislative regime impacts on its effectiveness. While some strides have been made in revising legislation, we are recommending that the Department consider the merits of a transition to more frequent general assessments that is the trend across the country. We pointed to the need to improve business planning and risk assessment, update the policy framework and formalize performance reporting. The well known challenges faced by the Property Assessment Department in the years since the Scurfield Report have led to a long history of organizational problems which have been exacerbated by the magnitude of change that has been initiated by the current City Assessor. These problems have been well articulated by managers and staff within the Department and are apparent to those who deal with the Department on a frequent basis. While efforts have been made to address concerns, more needs to be done to provide a healthy working environment and ensure that business objectives will continue to be achieved. It is crucial that issues of inconsistent leadership and the sustainability of staff expertise be addressed. Several initiatives have been implemented which have led to a greater confidence on the part of residential property owners. This is reflected in the significant drop in the appeals rate. At the same time, we believe that there are opportunities to continue to strengthen the assessment process for residential properties. For example, the field inspection program conducted during 2000 resulted in information changes to 78% of properties inspected and identified an additional $28 million in assessed value. We believe that these results prove the merits of a formal inspection program. In addition, clearing the building permit backlog needs to continue to be a priority; our analysis indicated that the value of unprocessed building permit backlog as of July 2001, related to residential properties, exceeded $80 million. While the proportion of value that translates into lost tax revenue is not easy to calculate because the information may have been captured through other processes such as inspections, it is clear Audit of the Property Assessment Function 3 that the City has probably lost tax revenue in the hundreds of thousands of dollars through processing delays. For permits that relate to 1998 and prior, an opportunity for tax recovery no longer exists as the window for revisions to the tax roll for these years has expired. Our report also discusses opportunities to better coordinate building permit activities with the Planning, Property and Development Department through shared inspections and electronic interfaces. For non-residential property valuation, we discuss several areas where we believe that more diligence and rigour needs to be incorporated into the process. The commercial preview program should be expanded to all commercial property owners. Sanctions should be applied consistently when property owners do not provide information required for the valuation. Inconsistent enforcement makes the assessment process unfair and is disrespectful to those citizens who cooperate in its administration. Quality assurance practices must improve to ensure that valuations conform to industry standards and provide assurance that values are reasonable. In addition, while the transition to a neighbourhood assessor model has been accepted as appropriate and useful from a client service perspective for residential property valuation, there is a general concern about the appropriateness of this model for commercial assessment that is shared by professional staff and supervisors. With the relative success of the residential property valuation process for the 2002 general assessment, we believe that the focus must shift to realizing the same improvements to the higher value and more complex commercial properties. The appeals process Two parties contribute to the achievement of the business objective related to the appeals process: the Property Assessment Department and the Board of Revision. In preparing our Report on Performance, we selected five indicators: quality of appeal decisions, responsiveness, costeffectiveness, accountability for decisions and potential financial liability. There is no doubt that the City has achieved its goal of providing a timely first-level appeals process. Residential appellants also report that the process has been fair from their perspective. And both the Board of Revision and the Property Assessment Department have taken action to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the 1990s debacle where the City was presented with an unanticipated $54 tax liability. At the same time, we concluded that opportunities exist for improvement to both the costeffectiveness and quality of the appeals process when comparing results to those of other jurisdictions. In the past few years, the priority for both the Board of Revision and the Property Assessment Department has been on addressing the timeliness of the conduct of hearings and eliminating the backlog of appeals. In addition, the Board has prided itself on having an accessible and economical process where all citizens can exercise their right to be heard and be treated fairly and courteously. These are noble goals and Board members can be congratulated on having achieved them. But times have changed and, as times and conditions change, priorities and processes should also change. And new opportunities emerge. The premium placed on timeliness may have impaired the ability of the Board of Revision and Property Assessment Department to ensure a quality outcome. 4 Audit of the Property Assessment Function We have heard from the assessors, themselves, that they are not able to prepare a proper defense given the heavy workload at the Board of Revision. Tax agents and board members have echoed this concern and noted that it reflects on the credibility of the valuation process when Property Assessment staff appear unable to defend their values with confidence. The Board Chair counters that an earlier release of the assessment roll would provide more time to hear appeals before the setting of the City s budget. We are concerned that individual citizens and businesses may have won a victory at the Board of Revision at the expense of the public at large because of the inability of the assessors to prepare their best case. While we should keep in mind that only 10% of Board of Revision decisions are appealed to the Municipal Board, at the same time, only 23% of decisions are upheld. Furthermore, over 84% of the dollars in dispute at the Municipal Board relate to the larger value commercial and multiresidential appeals which will not be settled before the tax roll is set, defeating the purpose of a speedy process in these cases. The initiatives implemented by the Assessment Department have led to a dramatic drop in the number of residential appeals and a shift to a larger percentage of the Board of Revision workload being dedicated to commercial appeals. We believe that an opportunity exists to better structure the appeals process to capitalize on such initiatives as the preview program and customer website to place a larger onus on the Property Assessment Department, which has the accountability for fair valuations, to resolve complaints and disputes in the first instance. At the same time, the formal Board of Revision process should move from a one size fits all approach to recognize the considerable differences in the complexity of matters and significance of value in the types of appeals being considered. Right now, we use the same process to deal with a singlefamily dwelling as a first class downtown hotel. Our analysis shows that nonresidential appeals cost three times as much as residential appeals and yet are treated with the same rigour. Other jurisdictions have implemented processes that recognize that parties should have their disputes resolved fairly, at the earliest possible time, and at the least possible cost. Encouraging and facilitating the informal resolution of as many issues as possible can produce the best result for all parties. Encouraging (by legislation or policy) communication between the parties, case screening, case streaming and procedural pre-hearing conferences are all methods of resolving matters fairly, quickly and cost-effectively. Where matters cannot be settled without a formal hearing, adjusting the panel size can reduce the cost of the process without diminishing its value. Formally communicating a minimum tolerance for appeal adjustments or introducing a fees structure to discourage frivolous appeals may also reduce the number of applications filed. Transparent tribunal processes instill public confidence in the justice system and strengthen the confidence of a party to a proceeding in the outcome of the proceeding. It is not enough that members act in a manner that is fair; the parties must be able to see for themselves that the process is fair. In this regard, we have suggested formal criteria for member selection, adoption of rules of practice and procedure and, most importantly, the provision of a written rationale to support decisions made to demonstrate quality and consistency. Both parties to an appeal Audit of the Property Assessment Function 5 should be able to ascertain the board s reasons and logic used in making a decision. We are advised by both assessors and tax agents that this is currently not the case. It was also clear in discussions with both parties to the appeal process that there is a need to improve the communication and cooperation between the Property Assessment Department and the Board of Revision. The friction between the two organizations is having an impact on the morale of assessment staff; if this impacts their ability to successfully represent the Department s position, the public is the loser. While it is important to have a certain degree of separation between the two organizations for reasons of independence, from the perspective of the citizen, it is one function. We believe that it is important for the two parties to support each other in delivering quality service to their joint clients. are recommending that a structure be put in place to consider both legislative and procedural amendments. In the report, we have pointed to differences in legislative regimes that more clearly establish protocols for the appeals process and practices in several jurisdictions that, in our opinion, better balance the rights of the citizen to have fair access with the costs of delivering this service. We have also discussed many suggestions for strengthening the process and making the Board s accountability more transparent. Many of the recommendations are not new. They have been made before but have not been acted upon. We recognize that the changes may require a shift in priorities and the cooperation of the Province. We believe, however, that the time for change has come. The Board of Revision has successfully delivered an efficient process to the citizens of Winnipeg that has given all individual and business taxpayers an opportunity to challenge their assessments in an economical and risk-free environment. It is evident that there is a strong commitment to serving taxpayers and meeting their nee
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks