Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 29, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 129742

Assessed Person(s): ABB Inc.

Appellant(s): Linamar Corporation

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 22

Respondent(s): City of Guelph

Property Location(s): 201 Woodlawn Road West

Municipality(ies): City of Guelph

Roll Number(s): 2308-040-016-37200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2025373, 2025374, 2343542, 2691265 and 2920449

Taxation Year(s): 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012

Hearing Event No. 569940

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

ARB Case Name: WR 129742

Heard: April 28, 29, 30, May 1, July 28, 29 and November 24, 2014

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

MPAC

C. Gryski⁺

City of Guelph

F. Tassone

J. Krauter

H. Klingenberg

Linamar Corporation

L. Palvetzian⁺

B. Dargel (Paralegal)

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property comprises 40.08 acres of land and a building area, including mezzanines of 390,991 square feet. The original structure of 362,887 square feet was built in 1954 as a heavy industrial steel frame building. Various additions were built from 1963 to 1991 in varying sizes and ceiling heights.

2The property was owned by Canadian General Electric (“CGE”) from 1959 to 1989 and was used for the manufacturing of electrical transformers. In 1989 CGE sold the property to ABB Inc. who continued to manufacture transformers until 2006.

3The Appellant, Linamar Corporation (Linamar) is the tenant of ABB Inc. It manufactures scissor lifts and related products under the trade name Skyjack. The Appellant has another manufacturing facility at 55 Campbell Road, City of Guelph, located one block from the subject property.

4At the outset of the hearing counsel for MPAC made submissions with respect to Minutes of Settlement which had been circulated. They had been signed by MPAC and ABB Inc. but not by the Municipality. Linamar was not an intended party to those Minutes. MPAC requested the Board to enforce those Minutes and consider the hearing a nullity. In the alternative, MPAC argued that because the fee simple in the subject property is owned by ABB Inc. Linamar has a leasehold interest and therefore not a proper party. I found the Minutes void and unenforceable. The Minutes had not been signed by all of the requisite parties and there was no enforceable settlement.

5Both parties were represented by experienced and competent counsel. In its Response, marked Exhibit 2, MPAC requested proof that the Appellant had complied with s. 40.(9) of the Act which provides:

40.(9) Where appeal concerns another person. – Where the appeal concerns the assessment of another person,

(a) the notice of appeal shall state a name and address where notices can be given to the person; and

(b) the appellant shall deliver or mail a copy of the notice of appeal to the person within the time limited by subsection (6), (7) or (8), as the case may be.

6MPAC did not raise the issue at the hearing and I found that Linamar was a proper party as contemplated in s. 40.(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Further, I found that by virtue of its leasehold interest it had an interest in the subject property. Linamar is, therefore, a proper party to a hearing to determine the correct current value.

7For the taxation years 2009 and 2010, the property is assessed at $11,488,000. For the taxation years 2011 and 2012, the property was assessed at $10,848,000.

8All parties agree that property was contaminated as a result of the manufacturing of transformers by CGE and ABB Inc. They also agree that the abutting lands, still owned by CGE, were also contaminated. As a result, in excess of $40 million has been spent on remediation costs since 1972 for both properties.

9MPAC assessed the property using the cost approach to value. Having considered the $40 million already spent on remediation, MPAC has concluded that the bulk of the remediation work has been completed and that any ongoing expense is for “monitoring” purposes only. Thus MPAC’s position is that the property is no longer contaminated and MPAC refuses to consider any reduction to value on account of contamination.

10The Appellant agrees to use the cost approach to value. It argues, however, that MPAC has failed to properly recognize and make reasonable allowances for functional obsolescence and super-adequacy for the excessive framing and overbuilt features of the heavy industrial building, including the very high ceilings.

11More significantly, the Appellant argues that the subject property remains contaminated and should receive an allowance for same.

ISSUE

12The central issue in these appeals is the correct current value for the subject property for the valuation date January 1, 2008.

DECISION

13For reasons that follow, the Board finds that the correct current value of the property as at January 1, 2008 is $5,984,000 (rounded).

14Accordingly, the assessment for the taxation years 2009 and 2010 is reduced from $11,488,000 to $5,984,000. The assessment for the taxation years 2011 and 2012 is reduced from $10,848,000 to $5,984,000.

15The current value of $5,984,000 is apportioned as follows: Large Industrial – 90% - $5,385,600; Industrial Excess – 6% - $359,040; Commercial – 4% - $239,360.

16There is no evidence to support a finding that a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

Evidence

17Frank Copland testified for MPAC. A summary of his proposed testimony together with his Curriculum Vitae had been served and is marked as Exhibit 4. His testimony focused on the issue of contamination of the subject property, as raised by the Appellant. He is the Provincial Lead of the “contamination group” at MPAC.

18Mr. Copland explained that to qualify as contaminated property, it must contain levels of substances greater than those listed in Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Those substances and respective levels must be measured by testing samples of soil and water by a qualified Environmental Engineering firm or by Order from the Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”). Once a property is determined to be contaminated, MPAC would request a “remediation action plan”, generally based on the recommendations of the experts, to determine the preferred proposal and associated costs and time frame.

19Once the file gets to the contamination group, the group requests the assessor to determine the correct current value without any consideration for the issue of contamination. Once the current value (without considering the contamination) is determined by the assessor the contamination group then addresses the effect of the contamination on the value. Generally, the group would consider remediation and monitoring costs as well as any specific Order from the MOE.

20Mr. Copland expressed “his view” that if remediation and or monitoring costs are not being paid by the purchaser, but rather by a third party, the purchase price would be slightly discounted but the sale would be close to the market value of a clean property.

21On cross-examination, Mr. Copland confirmed that the “contamination group” at MPAC was established in or about 2006. He has been the Lead since 2011 (approximately). His formal training on the issue consisted of a one-day course in Florida which also included training on specific laws and commercial properties for the State of Florida.

22The subject property was not found to be contaminated by the group as it did not receive sufficient documentary proof of contamination or remediation costs incurred/to be incurred from the Appellant or from an Environmental Engineer.

23Niegell Reynolds, the assessor, testified. He had prepared and served an Appraisal Report, marked as Exhibit 5. He stated that he had received information that a substantial amount of soil had been removed from the site in 2003 and 2004 (see Exhibit 6). Thus, he assumed that the bulk of the required work had been completed and that ongoing costs were for monitoring purposes only.

24Mr. Reynolds determined that the highest and best use for the property was ‘manufacturing’. He prepared his report for purposes of the hearing. Using the cost approach, he arrived at a current value as of January 1, 2008 of $10,501,000, slightly less than assessments as returned on the roll. The revised assessment was apportioned as follows (rounded): Large Industrial – 90%; Industrial Excess Land – 6%; Commercial – 4%.

25At pages 22-23 of Exhibit 5, the assessor provides a break-down of the assessment. The land value is fixed at $5,041,262 ($125,780 per acre). The values for the buildings and yard work had been determined by using an Automated Cost System (“ACS”) developed by MPAC and employed where the cost approach to value is utilized to determine the cost of the improvements. It is a component based cost system and the data base is updated yearly (see Exhibit 21). The calculations take into account depreciation and functional obsolescence. Once those values were determined, the total value was adjusted further by a Market Adjustment Factor (“MAF”), in this case, negative 17%. At Appendix C of Exhibit “5”, Mr. Reynolds provided 59 pages of property details for the various component values of the buildings. He stated that depreciation of improvements is automatically calculated by the ACS Life Table inputs but acknowledged that discount factors for MAF and obsolescence were chosen by him. There was no adjustment to value for contamination but he agreed that the land value would be affected if there was contamination.

26The Appellant argues that the discount factors for MAF and functional obsolescence should be greater. It submits that the MAF should be calculated at negative 24% as opposed to the negative 17% allowed by MPAC. During the course of the hearing the Appellant abandoned the argument with respect to the MAF.

27The issue with respect to the appropriate discount to be applied for obsolescence however remains. The Appellant argues that MPAC failed to follow its own guidelines relating to functional obsolescence and filed a document marked Exhibit 16. The document is titled: ‘Valuation: Procedures/Work Instructions’.

28The assessor generally applied a 5% discount for functional obsolescence. He was questioned intensely on how he had arrived at the 5%. His response was that he had simply carried the 5% discount over from previous base years to account for any obsolescence, also described as impediments, piecemeal construction (additions and alterations over years) or lack of flow. He stated that he relied on the opinion of prior assessors who had applied the 5% discount. He also stated that the ‘modern’ approach is to analyze the actual impediments or functional obsolescence however he did not provide any particulars of any analysis carried out by him to satisfy himself that a 5% discount is reasonable.

29Mr. Reynolds was referred to the provisions of Exhibit 16 which provided in part, that where you had piecemeal construction, the obsolescence applied to all structures on the property, including the yard work, was to a maximum of negative 5%. Moreover, where there was a change in use of a heavy industrial steel frame building to standard industrial, such as the case under appeal, the obsolescence applied was negative 15%. He acknowledged that Exhibit 16 was one of MPAC’s own documents but would not agree that it represented the proper approach to valuation.

30Mr. Reynolds did agree that functional obsolescence should also include super-adequacy. Further, he agreed that very restrictive zoning by-laws, government restrictions and/or environmental controls are a form of external obsolescence.

31Exhibit 16 continued to be a source of heated exchanges between counsel with accusations against counsel for MPAC of non-disclosure and deliberate misrepresentations. This led Mr. Gryski to call a senior member of MPAC to testify in reply.

32David Overbury, Advisor to MPAC, reporting to the Senior Manager, Centralized Properties, testified, in part, that Exhibit 16 represents a method to assess issues of obsolescence from 1969 but was replaced by the ACS which came into effect in 2001 – 2002. Therefore, Exhibit 16 does not apply to the 2008 base year under consideration in these appeals.

33Mr. Overbury stated that the ACS recognizes ‘change of use’ now referred to as ‘functional obsolescence’. He agreed that where obsolescence is seen in a building, it should be recognized by way of the ACS. He stated that ‘piecemeal’ cannot be determined by the ACS.

34Mr. Overbury stated that the ACS is simply a tool and not policy. It must be applied by experienced assessors/valuators. When questioned about the 5% discount for obsolescence applied by MPAC in the present appeals, Mr. Overbury “assumed” that the assessor, Mr. Reynolds, had analyzed the various components of obsolescence on the subject property and was satisfied that a 5% discount was appropriated by applying the ACS guidelines.

35Five witnesses were called to testify for the Appellant. Each had provided a written statement or report received and marked as exhibits. All of the witnesses were examined in chief and cross-examined on all issues raised and factual positions advanced in their respective statement or report. Set out below is a summary of the evidence received. Full particulars of their evidence is found in Exhibits 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15.

36David Wade was called to give expert testimony. His written report, which also included his extensive biography, is marked as Exhibit 9. He is a Senior Geoscientist, licensed within the Province of Ontario and qualified to do environmental site assessments and for risk assessments as defined in the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. His biography lists many environmental projects in which he has been involved both for private corporations and government. He was qualified by me to give expert testimony on issues relating to land contamination, including identifying contaminants; explaining levels of contaminants and assessing risks of contamination considering acceptable levels of contaminants in lands or groundwater.

37He stated that the subject property, together with adjacent lands still owned by CGE, has been subject to remedial and monitoring programs implemented to extract light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL). In the present case the term LNAPL is used to describe the presence of mineral oil that contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) found in the groundwater surface. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOAC’s) and Semi-Volatile Compounds (SVOC’s) are also found in the groundwater.

38These remedial measures have been carried out since 1972, when the release of impacted mineral oil was first reported. According to Mr. Wade, the mere presence of LNAPL at a property is enough for the MOE to consider the property contaminated.

39Since 1972, yearly reports have been compiled by environmental engineering firms Gartner Lee Limited and AECOM Canada Ltd. The reports are prepared for CGE Canada and distributed to the MOE where required. Copies of the reports are archived in the City of Guelph Public Library. Excerpts of the reports from 2001 – 2012 had been provided to MPAC by the Appellant. The excerpts were marked Exhibits 10 and 12.

40Mr. Wade had reviewed Exhibits 10 and 11. As a result, it was his opinion that the subject property was contaminated as a result of manufacturing activities and remains contaminated to date. He visited the property and appreciated the extent of the remediation program in place, the size and number of wells to extract the PCB’s and other contaminants and the requirement of sub-strata under the driveway to keep from disturbing the contaminated soil underneath. He stated that the property is contaminated in accordance with MOE standards.

41Mr. Wade was questioned in respect to the costs to cure and costs to remediate. From the reports, he determined that in excess of $40 million dollars had been spent from 1972 to 2012. His evidence is that the present stage is remediation and not monitoring. He explained that the contaminants are in the groundwater, being an aquifer directly under subject land, including the buildings. Beginning directly under the buildings, the aquifer flows in two different directions. The ground water flow is influenced by the bedrock formation, pressure from the structures above as well overflow of rainwater. The rise and fall of the water level results in leaching of the contaminants into the side soil walls. This makes it more difficult to extract. Accordingly, he stated that it may take at least another $50 million in remediation expenses to cure. As well, he noted that although the process of extracting and then shipping the contaminants to Quebec for final disposition appears to be working well, the residual contaminants may take much longer to remove and removal my become more difficult over time.

42Ken McDougall testified. He is the President of the Manufacturing Group of American Companies for Linamar (Appellant). His written statement is marked Exhibit 8. Mr. McDougall stated that Linamar has an operating plant at 55 Campbell Road in the City of Guelph, just one block away from the subject property. In or about 2007 to 2008 Linamar required additional manufacturing and storage space. The subject property was suitable, and accordingly it entered into a lease with ABB Inc. Linamar was aware of ongoing contamination issues with the property and assured itself that it would not be liable for any remediation costs.

43Linamar remains in occupation of the property. During the course of the lease, it needed to construct a paint line for its operation. Due to environmental issues, it was required to build the paint line ‘above’ surface at additional expense. Further, it required a ‘test track’ however the track was unable to be constructed due to environmental issues. Testing of machines was carried out off-site however Linamar was required to ensure that no soil (dirt) was carried off-site on tires or any other part of the machines, on account of the contamination. Linamar is actively seeking alternate sites due to the increased costs and ‘frustration dealing with the environmental issues on the subject property,” Significantly, Linamar declined to exercise its option to purchase the property for $7.1 million due to the contamination issues.

44Mr. McDougall also testified that Linamar does not require various existing features on the property, such as a power house direct from the grid and a tunnel therefrom; a room to simulate “lightening”; very heavy doors or heavy duty columns. These are all features of super-adequacy.

45Zachary Oliveira, the Group Health and Safety Manager at Linamar testified. His written statement is marked Exhibit 13. His duties include ensuring compliance with regulatory and MOE environmental standards. He has personal knowledge of the monitoring and ground recovery wells on the property as well as a storm management pond predominantly on the property all for the recovery and treatment of contaminants on the property and the groundwater. He receives and reviews the yearly reports prepared for CGE and MOE by its engineers. He confirmed that Linamar has incurred extraordinary expenses to construct a paint line including; investigative expenses for a test track; costs of special arrangements for outside storage and costs to remove six (6) kilometres of interior piping and re-create lines outside the plant to carry the contaminated water to the Water Treatment Facility, since the piping was old and leaking. This was also a cause of angst for Linamar employees. He stated that on account of the contamination all operations of Linamar are severely scrutinized and controlled by MOE.

46Ray A. Robinson, a specialist in commercial real estate and a member of the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (SIOR). His written statement is marked as Exhibit 12. His office is based in Guelph. He stated that it is common knowledge in the area that the subject property is contaminated. He testified that any proposed purchaser would be concerned with costs of remediation. Moreover, he stated that financing is generally not available due to the future risks associated with the environmental issues associated with the contamination. Contaminated properties are simply not as attractive as clean properties and therefore sell at greatly reduced prices.

47Brian Dargel, a member of the Institute of Municipal Assessors and International Association of Assessing Officers, with 40 years in the assessment field, a well a paralegal licenced by the Law Society of Upper Canada, testified. His report, together with his written statement and curriculum vitae, are marked as Exhibit 15. The issues addressed by Mr. Dargel are summarised at page 2 of his report, namely that MPAC has failed to adequately apply discounts for functional obsolescence, super-adequacy and contamination. In respect to the issue of contamination he relied heavily on the oral testimony and documentary evidence of David Wade and the engineering reports marked as Exhibits 10 and 11. That evidence has already been dealt with accordingly there is no need to repeat it.

48He presented a market analysis of 19 contaminated industrial properties to support his testimony that all had sold at reduced values or had received reductions from MPAC on account of the contamination. The range of reduction was 30% - 72%. Mr. Dargel also relied upon this analysis to support his submission that the assessment should be reduce below current value for equity.

49Included in his analysis is 199 Woodlawn Road West, industrial lands abutting the subject property and still owned by CGE. That parcel of land comprises 56 acres, however 17.5 acres are noted as wetlands. Accordingly, 38.5 acres (non-wet lands) were considered by Mr. Dargel, which made it very similar in size to the subject lands. The 38.5 acres had been noted as contaminated and assessed by MPAC at $42,000 per acre in contrast to $125,780 per acre for the subject lands.

50In respect to the value of the improvements on the subject property, Mr. Dargel agreed that the cost approach to value is appropriate, however he argued that the issue of obsolescence had not been reasonably applied. He had not received a sufficient explanation from MPAC as to how the obsolescence had been calculated. It was Mr. Dargel that relied upon Exhibit 16 to state that MPAC had failed to rely upon its own guidelines in failing to allow reductions for all functional obsolescence as provided in Exhibit 16, referred to above.

51Mr. Dargel agrees with the value of the land, subject to consideration for the contamination issue, at $5,041,262. He also, eventually, agreed that the MAF should be calculated at negative 17% as proposed by MPAC. He stated that following the guidelines as set out in Exhibit 16, he arrived at a total current value, subject to the issue of contamination of $9,342,000. Therefore, the buildings were valued at $4,300,738. Based on the market analysis provided, he suggested a 50% discount on the total value for a current value of $4,671,000.

Legislation

52Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires the Board to determine the “current value of the land”.

53Section 19.(1) of the Act states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value and s.1 of the Act defines current value as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arms length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”.

54Section 19.2.(1)2 of the Act states that “for the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January1, 2008”. The valuation day in respect to these appeals therefore is January 1, 2008.

Analysis

55There is no recent sale of the subject property to inform the Board. The parties have agreed to use the cost approach and the Board accepts this as a valid approach to value.

56The central issue to be determined is whether the subject land is contaminated. The position of MPAC is that the land was contaminated in 1972 as a result of oil leaking into the soil from the manufacturing of transformers by CGE who owned the land. Contaminants were found under the plant and in the open lands at the rear. The subject property was sold to ABB Inc., the present owner. CGE has continued to pay for the costs of remediation required as a result of the contamination.

57From 1972 – 2012 CGE has spent $40 million for remediation expenses including water treatment, water recovery and removal and disposal of soil. MPAC submits that the majority of the remediation costs have already been incurred with the result that continued monitoring costs, also being paid by CGE, would not affect the current value.

58Mr. Dargel submitted that there were three main considerations when dealing with contaminated lands: cost to cure; use and affect; stigma. MPAC has addressed the cost to cure but not the other two considerations, which in my view are valid considerations. Further, I am not satisfied that since there is a third party assuming responsibility for the ongoing remediation costs it automatically negates the fact that the lands are contaminated.

59The level of contamination, based on the totality of the evidence presented by the Appellant, is significant. The best evidence on determining if the lands are contaminated and the best opinion as to the future costs came from Mr. Wade. The contaminants have leached into the aquifer and penetrated the side-walls resulting from the fluctuating water levels.

60Thus far the contaminants have been and continue to be extracted, treated and disposed. The extraction will become more difficult due to the leaching and penetration in the side-wall of the underground aquifer. Mr. Wade stated that the flow of the underground aquifer splits below the subject property, either by virtue of positive pressures from the buildings above or other activities on the open lands above. Accordingly, there is an underground river significantly contaminated with unacceptable levels of contaminants, being spread in two separate directions with a real and substantial danger of contaminating abutting properties with all its contingent liabilities.

61It is not enough for MPAC to say that the ongoing expenses are for monitoring purposes only being paid by a third party and therefore there is no negative affect on the current value of the lands. The evidence is overwhelmingly different.

62On the issue of contamination, I accept and prefer the testimony of Mr. Wade, a noted expert who has advised government and private institutions on similar issues for many years.

63The other main issue was the “costings” and the appropriate allowances to be made for obsolescence. MPAC provided tables derived from ACS guidelines to be followed by assessors when determining appropriated allowances to the replacement cost of the structure(s). Mr. Overbury stated that ACS is simply a tool. He acknowledged that “obsolescence” is recognized and appropriate discounts are applied by assessors on individual components using the ACS guidelines. He further stated that the method proposed in Exhibit 16 is no longer a valid approach and “assumed” that Mr. Reynolds had followed the ACS guidelines.

64Mr. Reynolds had applied discounts for obsolescence by simply carrying over discounts which had been applied by different assessors in prior assessment cycles. There was no evidence that he or prior assessors had arrived at the proposed discounts based on the ACS guidelines.

65Mr. Dargel argued that some components of obsolescence were missed. Further, that he submitted that the discounts applied were not sufficient. He submitted that in considering the use of the buildings, there is a substantial amount of superadequacy, including: heavy-duty steel framing; excessive ceiling heights and lack of use of certain buildings which were functional and necessary for CGE. The superadequacy leads to functional obsolescence. He stated that MPAC had inspected the property on several occasions. The superadequacy was readily apparent and in any event could have been confirmed by inspecting the Appellant`s other plant at 55 Campbell Road, very close the subject property.

66Mr. Dargel used the methodology and applied discounts for obsolescence set out in Exhibit 16. Using the same land value as MPAC, he arrived at a total value, before any consideration for contamination, of $9,342,000 and requested a discount of 50% on account of contamination.

CONCLUSION

67I have already stated that on the issue of contamination, I am satisfied that the subject lands are severely contaminated and that the ongoing work is remedial in nature.

68On the issue of appropriate allowances to be made for obsolescence, I find that the assessor did not carry out any of his own analysis for any of the various components. I heard no evidence as to any analysis done by prior assessors pursuant to the ACS guidelines. I infer, therefore, that discounts from prior cycles had been arrived at by the methodology set out in Exhibit 16. Accordingly, I find that it was reasonable for Mr. Dargel to apply the same methodology. To be blunt, it would be unreasonable to expect Appellants to follow the dictate “do as I say but not as I do”.

69I find, therefore, that the current value, before any consideration for contamination, is $9,342,000 apportioned $4,300,738 for the improvements and $5,041,262 for the lands.

70Mr. Dargel suggests a discount of 50% for contamination based on the market analysis provided by him with a resulting discount range of 30% - 72%. There is also support for this proposition in various cases filed by him. Indeed some decisions have held that contaminated lands have zero value. I am more impressed with unchallenged evidence that contaminated non-wet lands of the abutting property, still owned by CGE, are assessed by MPAC at $42,000 per acre. Clearly, MPAC has accepted that those lands are contaminated and has adjusted their value. Using this figure for the subject lands results in a value of $1,683,360 for the lands alone. Adding the value for the buildings, as I have already found, at $4,300,738 results in a correct current value for the subject property of $5,984,098 or $5,984,000 (rounded).

Equity

71Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act requires that the Board “have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land”.

72Based on my findings and use of some of the evidence submitted by Mr. Dargel on the issue of equity, I find that equity has been achieved and no further adjustment is warranted.

73No submissions or arguments were presented in respect to classification, accordingly the current value of $5,984,000 will be apportioned as follows: Large Industrial – 90% - $5,385,600; Industrial Excess – 6% - $359,040; Commercial – 4% - $239,360. This is consistent with the apportionment by MPAC.

*Note: Sadly, Leon Palvetzian, counsel for the Appellant died prior to the end of the hearing. Brian Dargel, a licensed paralegal and witness who had assisted Mr. Palvetzian throughout the hearing was permitted to complete the hearing, upon his own request.