Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 130738
Assessed Person(s): OZ Optics Limited Appellant(s): OZ Optics Limited Respondent(s): City of Ottawa Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3
Property Location(s): 146 Walgreen Road Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-423-810-11325-0000 Appeal Number(s): Schedule “A” attached Taxation Year(s): 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015) Hearing Event No. 562773
Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: February 23, 2015 in Ottawa, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel+/Representative
OZ Optics Limited D. Taylor+
MPAC D. Lynch
City of Ottawa P. Poirier
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant built a special purpose property in 2001 for the purpose of developing and training a professional soccer team. The subject property, located in an industrial park at 146 Walgreen Road in the former County of West Carleton, now western Ottawa (the “subject property”), consists of a small apartment building with a large fitness center and pool as well as professional quality soccer fields with lights, seating and water sprinkler systems. The Appellant used the subject property as the home field for the Ottawa Wizards, a team in the Canadian Professional Soccer League, from 2001 through 2003. Following the 2003 season a dispute with the league ended the franchise. The subject property has not been used for its intended purpose since that time.
2MPAC has assessed the subject property using the cost approach to value and has taken the position that the subject property is in no way obsolete. The Appellant does not contest MPAC’s costing of the subject property, but takes the position that the fitness center, pool and soccer facilities are overbuilt for the current use of the land and thus functionally obsolete. The Appellant takes the further position that the entirety of the building on the subject property should be in the residential property class, while MPAC takes the position that the recreation centre and pool should be in the commercial property class.
ISSUES
3There are two primary issues before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”):
(1) should an adjustment be made to the value of the building for functional obsolescence ; and
(2) what is the correct classification of the subject property.
4The parties have agreed on the value of the land and the costing of the components of the subject property as determined by MPAC. The only dispute in value is if the subject property is, in any way, functionally obsolete. The Appellant states that a willing buyer would treat the subject property as a