Senanus Drive is referred to in Real Estate circles as a "Luxury" waterfront area.

Zoning: There are 64 properties in the proposed LSA catchment: 21 RE-3 properties on Senanus drive, and 43 A-1 Agricultural / farm properties along Mount Newton crossroad. This map shows property assessment values in the West versus East catchment.

• The average value of the 21 RE-3 zoned rural estate properties demanding the water main connection
  is $2.3 Million. As currently proposed, these 21 homes will collectively shoulder 1/3 of the costs of the water main, with average taxation increases of 6.8%, assuming no project cost over-runs.
  
  
• Under the currently proposed arrangement, the approximately 40 farms in the East catchment, the majority of whom don't need water, will shoulder approximately 2/3 of the cost burden for the waterfront estate owners on Senanus, who are demanding the water, but will collectively pay approximately 1/3 of the costs - if the waterline proposal goes ahead.
  
  
• The proposal will, on a percentage basis, place the heaviest taxation burdens on those in the catchment area with the lowest assessed value properties. This conflicts with the intent of the principles of property taxation under the BC Assessment Act: "Property tax is a tax on wealth"
  
  
• Map showing estimated % annual taxation increases in RE-3 zoned West catchment, versus A-1 zoned East catchment.
  
  
• Assessed values by address for the area are available from BC Assessment, and are shown on this map.
  
  

• "We pay some of the highest taxes in the municipality. And what for?"
  [Answer: See BC Assessment Taxation Principles: "Property tax is a tax on wealth"]

• “We will not give up until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the residents and their families who have endured this deficiency while paying some of the highest taxes in the community” G. Denford, 1999 Waterline Public meeting
  
  
• "We’re probably on the highest taxed street in the municipality and we think that we deserve consideration and that’s all we’re really asking for.”  J. Damgaard, 1999 Waterline Public meeting
  
  
• "The Municipality has had no difficulty collecting heavy taxes while denying us our basic right to clean potable water"

• Several waterfront properties on Senanus enjoy
  farm taxation.
  • "a property on Senanus Drive (not a known agricultural hot-spot) valued at $3.8 million dropped to $2.1 million because it is used for agricultural purposes – is it ALR farmland, or is it real estate? This raises issues with the proposed water line to that area."
• http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/10/09/EnviroGrant/
  
  

• "Finally, Council wishes to correct the statement in the Executive Director's report that water service has been "denied" to the Senanus area. In fact, to date, Council has only stated that it is not prepared to apply for Infrastructure Grant funding for a Mount Newton waterline project, nor is it prepared to see the project proceed by way of a Specified Area Bylaw which would result in an unacceptable number of property owners being charged for a service which they neither require nor support."
  
  
• "Are you prepared to have significant tax dollars directed to a very small group that comes from the wealthiest part of our muncipality"

• DCS typically places Section 57 Notices on Title on homes in the District which have multiple dwelling units. This does not appear to have occurred in the case of Senanus properties. For example:
  • "Kingdom by the Sea" real estate advertisement states that this property has five dwelling units.
  • A CSWVA letter to Council also notes properties which are "already fully developed with multiple homes."
• Why do these properties appear to be treated differently by the District than properties in other areas in the District with respect to multiple dwellings?

• For updates, search for "Senanus" under miscellaneous searches on this page: http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/Search/Decisions.aspx
• PDF Printable version of selected appeals linked below: 2010-06-02-SelectedAssessmentAppealsSenanus
• Assessment appeals
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2009-01-00068_20091799x.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2009-01-00068_20091799.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2009-01-00068_20091799.asp?PrinterFriendly=yes
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2007-01-00010_20071280.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2007-01-00001_20071535.asp
    • From previous link [40]  Mr. Peard questions the assessment of 651 Senanus Drive, which has an assessment of $19,404 due to farm status for selling eggs.  I point out that agricultural use of properties is a specific classification detailed in the Assessment Act.  However, this property is not the subject of this appeal, nor is there any evidence to determine if this classification has been reasonably applied.
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2006-01-00063_20061637.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2003-01-00058_20031221a.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2003-01-00058_20031221.asp
  • http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/decisions/dfull/dec_2003-01-00021_20040298.asp