Allen v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 43399

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 17, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 131638

Assessed Person(s): William Gordon Meyer

Appellant(s): Christine Allen

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18

Respondent(s): City of Port Colborne

Property Location(s): 2591 Firelane 3

Municipality(ies): City of Port Colborne

Roll Number(s): 2711-040-002-45400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3044921 and 3088935 (deemed 2015)

Taxation Year(s): 2014 (and deemed 2015)

Hearing Event No. 580532

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

Heard: March 23, 2015 in Port Colborne, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Christine Allen	Gino Stinziani
MPAC	Sheryl McRoberts
City of Port Colborne	Karen Powell

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ROBERT STEINBERG

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal came before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) on March 23, 2015 in the City of Port Colborne.

2The subject property is located at 2591 Firelane 3, Port Colborne. The lot has a frontage of 67 feet and an effective lot size of 34,170 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and is improved with a 1,831 sq. ft. structure used as a seasonal, single-family dwelling. The subject property is assessed at $532,000 for the 2014 taxation year in the residential property class (RT).

3Sheryl McRoberts appeared as a witness for MPAC.

4Ms. McRoberts takes the position that the assessment as returned, of $532,000 is correct based on her analysis.

5Ms. McRoberts submitted Exhibit 1 which included six comparable waterfront properties in the vicinity of the subject property and concludes that these comparable sales as adjusted for time at a rate of 15.7% over the time period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012 support a value for the subject property of $532,000.

6Christine Allen, the Appellant raises four issues namely:

• her property is only used seasonally and is not winterized;
• her four comparables are in the immediate vicinity and vastly superior properties
• The six comparables used by MPAC aren’t good comparables as five are located between 17 and 25 kilometres from the subject, one is in a gated community and five are in a different municipality
• the eleven properties in the immediate vicinity are in the majority vastly superior properties and have assessed values from $349,000 to $1,073,000

7The Board must determine the current value of the subject property for the 2014 taxation year. The Board must also determine whether the assessment is equitable, having reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

8The assessment of the subject property is reduced from $532,000 to $356,000 for the 2014 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

9In determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Assessment Act (“Act”)

10Section 1 of the Act states:

“current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buy

11Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

19. (1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

12In determining the value at which any land shall be assessed , s 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act requires the Board to do two things:

44. (3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years- For 2009 and subsequent years, in determining value at which any land shall be assessed, the board shall, (a) determine the current value of the land; and (b) 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 land, c.7,Sch.A,s.13.

Current Value

[13] The Board’s first task is to determine the current value of the subject property. The best indicator of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the subject property on the valuation day, January 1, 2012, or close to it. The subject property sold in January 2014. MPAC suggests that the date of this sale is too remote from the valuation day to be reflective of values on the valuation day.

14Ms. McRoberts provided the Board with the sales of six suggested comparable properties that sold between October 2009 and July 2012. Only Sale F, at 1025 Firelane 1, is in the same municipality and relatively close to the subject property being approximately seven kilometres from the subject property. All the suggested comparables are waterfront properties. In addition Sale E is in a gated community.

15Ms. Allen provides the Board with four suggested comparable properties in the vicinity of her property which sold between December 2012 and March 2014 all of which are vastly superior.

16Ms. McRoberts suggests that Sales B, E and F are the most comparable to the subject property. Both B and F have similar water frontages of 50 feet and 52 feet compared to the subjects 67 feet and the structures are closest in square footage to the subject property. Under cross examination Ms. McRoberts acknowledged that comparable E is in a gated community

17The Board finds that the most appropriate method of valuation of waterfront properties is based on the rate per front foot of the land. However for such an approach to be valid the improvements on the properties must be of a similar nature. The improvements of MPAC’s suggested comparables bear little similarity to the subject property. The Board finds that the distance of the comparables from the subject property, five being in a different municipality from the subject, is an issue. Only comparable F located at 1025 Firelane 1 is in the vicinity of the subject being approximately seven kilometres to the west. However pictures of this comparable introduced by the appellant shows it to be a superior property to the subject. The Board in considering MPAC’s six comparables finds none of them are of assistance in determining the current value of the subject property.

18Ms. Allen, through cross-examination of Ms. McRoberts, points out several reasons why the comparable sales MPAC has shown are not relevant. The first being that only one, Sale F at 1025 Firelane Road, is in Port Colborne. All the others are in Fort Erie. Further three comparables are coded single family and three are coded seasonal; which is the same coding as the subject. Under cross-examination Ms. McRoberts confirmed that the coding does not impact the valuation, with only the waterfront being the key component.

19Ms. Allen’s first issue relates to the comparables provided to the Board by MPAC. None of the structures on the properties are similar to her property and five are in a different municipality. All are waterfront properties but two Sales D and E have waterfront frontages of 90 and 142 compared to the subject’s 67 feet.

20Ms. Allen’s second issue relates to MPAC categorization of the not separating in their analysis the properties that are coded as seasonally as opposed to those that are full time residence.

21Ms. Allen’s third issue relates to the CVA of subject property as compared to the CVA of 11 properties that are in the immediate vicinity of her property. The appellant provided to the Board the CVA of the 11 properties which are all located on the same waterfront location as her property. All were in the same neighbourhood of C30 and the CVA’s varied from $349,000 to $1,073,000.

22Ms. Allen’s fourth issue is related to the four comparables she provides to the Board along with a map showing their close proximity to the subject. The four comparables are as follows. Property 1 at 495 Pinecrest sold for $730,000 in April 2014 and the CVA is $722,000. Property 3 at 2559 Firelane 3 sold for $560,000 in December 2012 and has a CVA of $470,000. Property 8 at 2499 Firelane 3 sold for $570,000 in April 2013 and has a CVA of $560,000. Property 7 sold for $425,000 in March 2014 and has a CVA of $743,000. All are superior properties to the subject property.

23The Board rejects the comparables used by MPAC as five of the six are in a different municipality and all are superior properties as to the improvements as shown in the pictures provided to the Board by the appellant.

24The Board rejects the argument that MPAC should only use comparable properties that are used solely as a recreational/seasonal property as opposed to a full time residence. The Board relies on the nature of the improvements and lot frontage as being the main factors for waterfront properties that influence the market value not the time period the property is occupied.

25Ms. Allen reference to the four properties that sold in the immediate vicinity of the subject. Although one of the sales occurred in 2013 and two in 2014 they raise a question as to the relationship of the CVA to the selling price in 2013 and 2014. Two of the properties sold within 1-2% of the CVA even though the sales occurred 16 and 28 months after Jan. 1, 2012. The other two properties sold at a price of 19% higher than the CVA and 43% lower than the CVA. To the Board this demonstrates that in some cases MPAC’s CVA are very close to the selling prices of some of the waterfront properties. Other factors that the Board is not provided with, may account for the large discrepancy in the other two sales.

26Ms. Allen in providing to the Board eleven waterfront properties and their CVA along the same road. Most of the properties have larger large lake frontages and the mean is $619,000. Only two being 4 at 2547 Firelane 3 and 12 at 2511 Firelane 3 has lower CVA’s of $349,000. Only 12 appears from the photos as being similar improvements but this property has 100 feet of lake frontage as opposed to the subjects 67 feet.

27The Board did not receive any evidence of sales of properties located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property that it can rely on other than the four sales provided to the Board that occurred between December 2012 and March 2014. These four sales of superior properties indicate to the Board that the only evidence that can be relied on is the actual selling price of the subject in January 2014 at $356,000.

DECISION

28Accordingly the Board finds that the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is the actual selling price of $356,000.

29Accordingly the Board finds that the current value of the subject is $356,000.

Equity Analysis

30For 2009 and subsequent years, s. 44. (3)(b) of the act places an additional duty upon the Board once the current value has been determined.

31Section 44.(3) (b) states that the Board shall…”have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the eland to make it more equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.”

32Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44. (3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

33For the reasons stated above the Board finds that the current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, the valuation day is $356,000.

34Further the Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of subject property, as determined above, require an adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

35Accordingly, the assessment is reduced from $532,000 to $356,000 for the 2014 taxation year.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

36An appeal for the 2014 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40. (26) provides that the appellant is deemed to have been made the same appeal for the subsequent taxation year if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31, of the subsequent taxation year. The Board has not disposed of the 2014 appeal before March 31, 2015. For that reason, this decision also apples to the 2015 taxation year.

37Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property, (a) in relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and (b) in relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under section 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.