Stenton v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 64851

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 6, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 134736

Assessed Person(s): Robert Dale Stenton and Mary Anne Stenton

Appellant(s): Robert Dale Stenton

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 05

Respondent(s): Town of Greater Napanee

Property Location(s): 12 Oakwood Lane

Municipality(ies): Town of Greater Napanee

Roll Number(s): 1121-140-010-13048-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2996174, 3018144 and 3073232

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No. 596929

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

Heard: September 9, 2015 in Napanee, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

MPAC

Marsha Blakely

Robert Stenton

Self-represented

Town of Greater Napanee

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal concerns a 3,820 square foot waterfront home with three bedrooms, three full bathrooms and an unfinished walk out basement. The home was built in 2008 and is located on Lake Ontario with 150 feet of shore (the “Property”). The returned assessments for the Property were $883,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years and $708,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

2MPAC argues that the assessment should be reduced to $708,000 for all three taxation years.

3Mr. Stenton argues that the Property should be assessed at $591,000, which is 5.6% less than the value of the Property on the 2008 valuation day, as determined by a different panel of this Board. The percentage reduction is based on the average change in the assessed value of a number of other properties in the area between the 2008 and 2012 valuation days.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Board to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in section 1 as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.” That is, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arms-length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s.19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

5Once I have determined the current value, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that I 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.

DECISION

6For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property is $708,000 and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with other properties in the vicinity.

Current Value

7MPAC presented nine suggested comparable properties as evidence of the current value of the Property. Four of those properties are more than 30 km from the Property and, as a result, are not a good indication of the value of the Property. I therefore put no weight on the sales of 679 Massassauga Road, 99 Sandy Cove Drive, 2691 County Road 15 and 2618 Highway 49. Of the remaining five suggested comparable properties, two sold more than two years from the valuation day of January 1, 2012. Real estate value clearly changes over time. The further in time a sale is from the valuation day, the less use that sale is for determining the current value on the valuation day. I therefore put no weight on 16 Oakwood Lane and 12548 Loyalist Parkway.

8MPAC presented three properties that are similar enough to the Property, and sold close enough in time to the valuation day, to be of some assistance in determining the current value of the Property: 10814 Highway 33, 11000 Highway 33 and 12566 Loyalist Parkway.

910814 Highway 33 has slightly less water frontage than the Property, was built in 2010, or two years after the Property, and is over 1,600 square feet smaller than the Property. It sold in September 2013 for $730,000. The Property is likely worth at least that amount, being larger with more water-front.

1011000 Highway 33 has over 40 feet less water frontage than the Property, was built in 1993 and is both significantly smaller and of a lower quality than the Property. It sold for $500,000 in July 2013. The Property is clearly superior to 11000 Highway 33 in all respects and $500,000 sets a floor for the value of the Property.

1112566 Loyalist Parkway has nearly identical water frontage, though a more shallow lot. The house was built in 1880, so is over 125 years older than the building on the Property, though MPAC notes that it was substantially renovated in 1980. The building is also over 1,500 square feet smaller than the Property. It sold for $720,000 in July 2011. The Property is clearly superior to 12566 Loyalist Parkway with a larger lot and a much newer house. This indicates that the Property would have sold for more than $720,000 on the valuation day.

12Mr. Stenton primarily relied on the percentage increase the Property experienced between the 2008 and 2012 valuation days. The assessed value for the January 2008 valuation day was determined by a differently constituted panel of this Board to be $626,000 in WR 118548, released on April 17, 2013. The returned 2013 assessment of $883,000 therefore constitutes a 41% increase, which is substantial. Mr. Stenton presented a list of 31 properties in the area that had a reduction in their returned assessment between the 2008 and 2012 valuation days. The mean reduction was 5.6%. Mr. Stenton’s primary position was that his January 1, 2012 assessment should similarly be 5.6% less than the January 1, 2008 assessment as determined by this Board. I disagree.

13Assessments are conducted for each valuation day and the information MPAC has to determine the assessed value changes each time. It is impossible to speculate on why any property sees a particular change in its assessed value. MPAC may have better information, the property may have changed, or any other factor may be at play. I cannot use the change in an unrelated property’s assessment to determine the current value of the Property before me. Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires that I determine what the Property would have sold for on the valuation day. How MPAC assessed other properties is not evidence that I can validly rely upon in coming to that conclusion.

14Mr. Stenton also presented two sales, both from 2014 and therefore of limited assistance. 12497 Loyalist Parkway is a 30 acre parcel with a large house on the property. I do not know when the house was built or how it compares to the Property. It sold for $620,000 in July 2014 under a power of sale. 101 Bridge Street is a large house with a pool. I again have no information to directly compare it to the Property. It sold in September 2014 for $550,000.

15I put no weight on either of these sales. They are both over two years from the valuation day of January 1, 2012 and I do not have adequate information on which to base a comparison to the Property. As such, I only have the sales of 10814 Highway 33, 11000 Highway 33 and 12566 Loyalist Parkway as a basis for determining current value. These sales indicate that the current value of the Property is at least $730,000. MPAC is seeking a current value of $708,000, which they indicate was out of respect for the previous decision of this Board. The evidence before me clearly supports a current value of at least $708,000, and likely significantly higher. However, I expect that Mr. Stenton was under the impression that MPAC’s recommendation was the highest assessed value at play in this appeal. While I am not bound by MPAC’s recommendation, I do not want to impose a higher value than Mr. Stenton thought possible when he commenced this hearing. As such, I accept MPAC’s recommendation that the current value of the Property for the January 1, 2012 valuation day is $708,000.

Equity

16As set out above, I must also consider the value at which similar properties in the vicinity are assessed. As noted above, Mr. Stenton primarily relied on the reductions in assessed value of properties in the vicinity in his submissions. However, he did not demonstrate that the assessments of these properties is inequitable with the assessment of his Property. In my review of the evidence presented by Mr. Stenton I do not see any evidence of a systematic undervaluation of similar properties in the vicinity.

17MPAC provided a standard Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) report of thirty properties in the vicinity and demonstrated a median ASR of 0.98. This in an indication that, on average, the assessed value is very close to the market value of those properties. Based on that evidence, I do not find that any adjustment is required to make the current value of $750,000 equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

18I accept that the evidence before me supports MPAC’s recommended current value of $708,000 for the Property and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. As such, I reduce the assessed value for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years from $883,000 to $708,000 and I confirm the assessed value of $708,000 for the 2015 taxation year.