Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 17, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 135886
Assessed Person(s): Halton Condominium Corporation Appellant(s): 820990 Ontario Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 15 Respondent(s): Town of Oakville
Property Location(s): See Schedule A Municipality(ies): Town Of Oakville Roll Number(s): See Schedule A Appeal Number(s): See Schedule A Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015 Hearing Event No. 594431
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: September 11, 2015 in Oakville, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel⁺/Representative |
|---|---|
| 820990 Ontario Inc. | P.J. Alexander⁺ |
| MPAC | D. Mitchell⁺ |
| Town of Oakville | S. Price |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY FAUSTO SAPONARA
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant is the owner of a number of tenanted office condominium units of various sizes in separate buildings, but in the same area of the Town of Oakville. The properties are located at 2902 South Sheridan Way and 406, 408, 416, 418, 420 North Service Road East. He claims that the current value of office condominium units which are tenanted, have a lower value than owner occupied properties, because the higher risk associated with an income property requires a higher capitalization rate than the financing rate that an owner occupier would use to value the property. The higher cap rate means a lower value for tenanted properties than what an owner occupier buyer would pay. MPAC counters that actual sales of similar condo units reflects their current values. The condominium units address, roll numbers and related appeal numbers assigned, are detailed on the attached Schedule A. In total before the Assessment Review Board ("Board"), there are 33 appeals for 11 properties for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years.
2All 11 properties are similar, are located in the vicinity of each other and have been assessed under the same valuation methodology. Because the issues for the Board's determination are common to all properties, on consent of the parties, the Board's decision is applicable to the 33 appeals before the Board and it is based on the same evidence presented by the parties for all 11 properties.
3The 11 properties returned and recommended assessments for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years are detailed on Schedule A. The assessments proposed by MPAC are in the range of $445,000 to $971,000 per unit, for a total assessed value of $7,762,000 for all units. The Appellant's proposed values result in a total assessed value of $5,100,000.
DECISION
4The Board concludes that tenanted properties do not have lower values, and that the sales of both owner-occupied and tenanted properties, reflects that. The Board's determination of the correct current values, are set out in Schedule A attached.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Legislation
5Section 19.(1) of the Assessment Act ("Act") states that "...the assessment of land shall be based on its current value..." and s. 1 of the Act defines current value as "...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 buyer..."
6Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.31 as amended , which in part states that "...the Board shall...determine the current value of the land."
Parties' Arguments and Evidence
Appellant
7P.J. Alexander, counsel for the Appellant disagrees with MPAC's valuation of the subject properties. It is the Appellant's position that the assessments are too high because the assessor is using the comparable sales of owner occupied office condominium units to assess the subject properties. It is the Appellant's position that the current value of office condominium units which are tenanted, have a lower value than owner occupied properties due to the existence of lease encumbrances.
8Mr. Alexander submits that since the subject properties are leased and are operated as income producing properties, the Net Income Approach should be used to value the properties. Counsel for the Appellant called on Kevin Antonides, Managing Partner of Antec Appraisal Group Inc., to give evidence on the Appellant's approach for establishing the properties correct current value. On consent of the parties Mr. Antonides was accepted by the Board as an expert on the valuation of office properties.
9Mr. Antonides valuation report was entered in the record as Exhibit 6. The report has four main sections: 1. Valuation practices/principles; 2. Valuation of leased v. owner occupied properties; 3. Subject properties valuations; and 4. Valuation of the leasehold interest of the subject properties. In his testimony, Mr. Antonides pointed out that under appraisal theory, valuation is focused on "property rights." For leased properties, a buyer is buying the Landlord's rights under the lease. In his opinion there is a big disconnect between what an owner occupied buyer would pay vs. what a buyer of a leased property would pay for a property. The difference according to this witness is due to financing interest rates paid by an owner being lower than the capitalization rate reflected in the purchase price of an income property.
10To illustrate his point, Mr. Antonides gave an example of a property with a fair market rent of $10 per square foot. A buyer who is purchasing the property for his own occupancy, will likely value the property on the basis that the acquisition can be financed at the current interest rate of 3%, hence attributing a value of $333 (10/0.03) to the property. Whereas, a buyer of the same property in taking into account the risk associated with vacancy, expenses and a rate of return on investment, will value the property using a 6% rate, hence attributing a value of $167 (10/0.06) to the property.
11Using the Net Income methodology, Mr. Antonides submits that the actual rents under the leases, as of January 1, 2012, represent fair market rents. An analysis of the Oakville area office market lease rates is found on page 8 of Exhibit 6. The historical base and additional rents for the subject properties are summarized on page 10 of Exhibit 6. Continuing with his valuation of the subject properties, using the Net Income approach, Mr. Antonides's report addresses the other variables of the Net Income valuation model: vacancy allowance, non-recoverable expenses and capitalization rate, on pages 11, 12 and 13. Based on the estimates established for these variables, it is Mr. Atonides's opinion that the total current value of the subject properties is $5,100,000, as detailed on page 16 of Exhibit 6 and on Schedule A attached.
MPAC
12Mr. Mitchell, counsel for MPAC, called on Anthony Candito to give evidence on the accuracy of the subject properties assessed value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date. Mr. Candito is a Property Valuation Analyst employed by MPAC. On consent of the parties Mr. Candito was accepted by the Board as an expert on the valuation of office properties.
13Mr. Candito provided the Board with a summary of the returned assessments for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years and the revised recommended current value for the properties as of January 1, 2012, as per Exhibit 1, and reproduced in the attached Schedule A. In summary, the combined returned assessments for the 2013 amount to $8,170,000. For the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, the returned assessments were reduced to $7,625,000. It is Mr. Candito's opinion that the correct total current value for the subject properties as of January 1, 2012, is $7,762,000.
14The approach used by Mr. Candito in arriving at the proposed assessments is detailed in Exhibits 2 and 3. According to this witness, commercial office condominium properties are valued by MPAC using the Direct Sales Comparison approach.
15For the condominium units located at 406, 408, 416, and 420 North Service Road East, with a total area in the 2,200 to 2,300 square feet range, Mr. Candito has relied on three comparable properties of similar sizes and within the same condominium plan as the subject properties. Two comparable properties were sold in June 2011 for $460,000 each. The third property was sold in March 2012 for $540,000. Based on a median sale price of $242 per square foot being applied to the area of the Appellant's units, it is Mr. Candito's opinion that the correct current value for these units is as follows:
| Address | Unit No. | Roll Number | Current Value ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 406 North Service Road East | 303 | 2401-040-220-01302 | 552,000 |
| 408 North Service Road East | 302 | 2401-040-220-01305 | 550,000 |
| 416 North Service Road East | 106 | 2401-040-220-01312 | 541,000 |
| 416 North Service Road East | 206 | 2401-040-220-01313 | 541,000 |
| 420 North Service Road East | 304 | 2401-040-220-01320 | 558,000 |
16For the three units having a total area of 4,427 square feet, Mr. Candito submits that due to the lack of sales within the same building as the subject properties, he had to expand the search area. He was able to identify two comparable properties within 2.5 kilometres of the subjects, located at 1525 Cornwall Road, see Appendix 2b of Exhibit 2. The median sale price of these two comparable properties is $247 per square foot. Given that the subjects' current value assessment per square foot is $219, Mr. Candito submits that, after taking into account the difference in the age between the subjects and the comparable properties, the returned assessments reflect current value.
17Using the same valuation approach for the three units located at 2902 South Sheridan Way South, Mr. Candito identified a number of comparable properties that had been sold on the open market to establish the current value of the units located at 2902 South Sheridan Way. The details of the proposed comparable properties are found in Appendices 2a, 2b, and 2c of Exhibit 3. Based on the median sale prices per square foot of the comparable properties being applied to the area of the Appellant's units, it is Mr. Candito's opinion that the correct current value for these units is as follows:
| Address | Unit No. | Roll Number | Current Value ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2902 South Sheridan Way | Level 1 Unit 1 | 2401-040-211-04640 | 982,000 |
| 2902 South Sheridan Way | Level 2 Unit 1 | 2401-040-211-04642 | 680,000 |
| 2902 South Sheridan Way | Level 2 Unit 2 | 2401-040-211-04644 | 445,000 |
Municipality
18The Board also heard from Susan Price appearing on behalf of the Town of Oakville. Ms. Price's evidence is found in Exhibit 7. The first point made by Ms. Price is that one of the Appellant's units, unit 302 located at 408 North Service Road was sold in May 2014 for $600,000, which is higher than the returned assessment value of $552,000. Secondly, Ms. Price disagrees with the Appellant's position that owner-occupied units should be valued lower than tenanted units. In support of her position, Ms. Price provided two property sales. One property, located at 1660 North Service Road East, Unit 117 was owner occupied and was sold in July 2012 for $232 per square foot. In comparison, a tenanted occupied property, Unit 112 in the same building sold in May 2011 for $252 per square foot.
Determination of Current Value
19The Act requires that properties be assessed at their current value. Current value is defined as "the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a willing buyer."
20The fundamental issue of this case is whether the Direct Sales Comparison or the Net Income approach should be used to determine the current value of the subject properties.
21In support of their proposed valuation approaches, both counsel for MPAC and Appellant, provided the Board with a number of authorities to consider. The cases referenced by each party are cited below.
22Counsel for MPAC submits that owners and tenants interests in a property, are not relevant in determining current value. Counsel cites Detroit & Windsor Subway Co. v. Windsor (City), [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 79 Court of Appeal for Ontario, Dubin C.J.O., Krever and Galligan J.J.A. [December 18, 1995]. The case speaks to the basis for assessing the value of a property. Is it a party's interest in a property or the market value of the property itself? The Court found that it is the property itself which is subject to assessment, not any one's interest in the property.
23Three other authorities were cited by MPAC's counsel: Charolais Developments Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 16 [2004] O.A.R.B.D. No. 429 R. F. Stephenson, Member; Garber v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9 [2003] O.A.R.B.D. No. 313; S. B. Campbell, Member, and Halton Condominium Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15 [2010] O.A.R.B.D. WR 98766; J. L. Walker, Member.
24In the Charolais case, Member Stephenson in dealing with the facts of that case reiterates the established jurisprudence principles, that it is real property or the land itself that is subject to assessment and not the interests of the property owners.
25In the Garber case also cited by MPAC, Member Campbell finds that "the full bundle of interests, including both those of the landlord and the tenant are to be assessed. The encumbrance of a lease cannot work to reduce the value of property for assessment purposes."
26In the final case cited by MPAC's counsel, Halton Condominium Corporation, Member Walker makes two findings that are relevant to the current appeal. Firstly, she finds that multi-tenanted commercial condominium units can be compared to owner-occupied commercial condominiums. Secondly, she finds that "where value is in dispute, the Act directs the Board to examine value in exchange; actual use is not relevant to the Board's inquiry."
27Mr. Alexander disagrees. He submits that the leases do impact the current value of the properties. It is the Appellant's position that because a buyer's interests are impacted by the terms of the leases, the leases are relevant to the determination of current value. In support of this position, counsel has cited three authorities.
28The first case referred to is 3100 Steeles Avenue West Investments Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., [2002] O.A.R.B.D. No. 622, Cowan Member. At issue in the case is the assessment methodology for 61 office condominium units under single ownership. The most relevant finding of this case is that based on the available evidence, the Board relied on the Net Income approach, rather than the Direct Sales comparison to determine the current value of each condominium unit.
29The second case referred to by the Appellant is Assessor for Bramalea Ltd. v. British Colombia (Assessor of Area 9 (Vancouver)) (B.C.C.A) 1990 CanLII 284 (BC CA), [1990] B.C.J No. 2730 Carrothers, Lambert, Taylor, Cumming and Gibbs J.J.A. The principle issue of this case is the "the duty to deal equitably with all taxpayers."
30The third case cited by the Appellant is BCE Place Ltd v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9 [2010] ONCA 672, M. Rosenberg, Robert P. Armstrong, R.G. Juriousz J.J.A. This case is most pertinent to the issue before this Board as it directly addresses the interpretation of "fee simple, if unencumbered," per s. 1 of the Act. This decision is also more recent and is decided under the current Act. In paragraph 11, the Court states: "that the purpose of the phrase "fee simple, if unencumbered" as applied to income producing properties was to arrive at a value calculated without reference to leases at other than market value. It was not, however, to be based on the wholly artificial notion that the buildings were vacant at the time of assessment." The Court goes on to state in paragraph 23: "The simple amendment instructs the assessor to ignore encumbrances, such as leases that are not at market rents. Where the income approach is taken, the assessor is, as held by Lacourciere J.A., to use market rents rather than actual rents. I do not agree that this minor amendment was intended to accomplish the much more radical task of instructing the assessor to assume that an income-producing property was vacant at the date of assessment."
31Having heard the parties' arguments, and after due consideration of the authorities referred above, the Board makes the following findings on the interpretation of current value and its application to the appeals before this Board:
a) there is no statutory mandate as to whether the so called Direct Sales Comparison or Net Income approach must be used to establish the subject properties' current value. Either method can be used, depending on the strength of the available evidence. This conclusion is consistent with Member Cowan's decision in 3100 Steeles Avenue West Investments Inc.
b) consistent with the BCE Place court decision, if the Net Income valuation method is used to determine the current value of a property, leases need to be considered to ascertain whether they reflect fair market rents, or not. If the terms of the leases do not reflect fair market rents, they become encumbrances for the purpose of s. 1 of the Act. In such cases, actual rents are to be ignored and replaced by fair market rents in determining the property current value. In this regard, the Board does not concur with the Appellant's argument that encumbrances must be taken into account in assessing the subject properties and the properties must be assessed on the basis of their "leased fee interests."
c) the Board concurs with Member Walker's finding in the Halton Condominium Corporation case, that multi-tenanted commercial condominium units can be compared to owner-occupied commercial condominiums, for the purpose of determining the subject properties current value. The Board is of the view that whether a property is owner-occupied or tenant occupied, is not relevant to the assessor's mandate under s. 19.(1) of the Act which states: "The assessment of land shall be based on its current value...." As noted above, the main requirement for tenant occupied properties, if the Net Income approach to valuation is used, is to base the income from the property being valued, on fair market rents.
d) market value, as understood in property appraisal practice, does not necessarily have the same meaning as "current value" for assessment purposes. Within the context of the Act and the BCE Place court decision, it is the Board's interpretation that encumbrances are to be ignored for assessment purposes. However, for appraisal purposes, an encumbrance may very well impact what a buyer is willing to pay for the property and therefore its impact on value needs to be considered. This distinction was argued by counsel for MPAC and Appellant. In this regard, the Board concurs with MPAC's position that if leases provide for rents below fair market rents, they represent encumbrances and are to be ignored for assessment purposes.
32Within the statutory framework established above, the Board will make its determination of the subject properties current value as of January 1, 2012. The Board will assess the valuation evidence as provided by the parties to establish which valuation method is most appropriate. The initial task for the Board is to determine current value as required by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act which in part states that "...the Board shall...determine the current value of the land."
33The assessor is proposing that the Direct Sales Comparison approach be utilized to establish current value, whereas the Appellant has proposed the Net Income approach. The Board is not mandated to use any specific method to make its current value determination. Both methodologies are recognized as valid valuation methods and can be used interchangeably, for income producing properties. The main consideration in deciding on which method to use, is the quality of the data utilized.
34For the Direct Sales Comparison approach, the availability of similar properties sales transactions close to the valuation date, is a key consideration. In the case of the Net Income approach the availability of similar property sales, fair market rents, operating expenses and vacancy rates for similar properties, are the key data requirements. Fundamentally, both methodologies are estimating tools and the end result is only as good as the quality of the data utilized.
35The basic test applied by the Board in considering the parties' evidence is whether the proposed comparable properties are sufficiently similar to the subject properties to provide a valid indicator of their current value. The Board has considered the main characteristics of the proposed comparable properties and compared them to those of the subject properties. The main comparability factors considered are: property type, location, building character and age, size of the unit and market sale date. The Board does not give weight in assessing the comparability of two properties on whether they are owner or tenant occupied.
36The Board finds that the comparable property sales utilized by MPAC are better comparables, than the properties upon which the Appellant is basing his estimates. MPAC's proposed comparable properties satisfy the Board's similarity criteria. The proposed properties are similar to the subject properties because they are office condominium units, are located either in the same building or nearby, are similar in size and most of them are of the same age.
37The Appellant's search for comparable properties was limited to leased office properties. Consequently, the Appellant identified only one comparable condominium office property. In determining an appropriate capitalization rate which has a major bearing on current value under the Net Income valuation method, all properties, except one, are either retail condominium units or large office buildings. The Board finds that these properties are not similar to the subject properties. Consequently, the Board cannot rely on the capitalization rate distilled from those sales, and prefers MPAC's Direct Sales Comparison approach for determining the subject properties' current value.
38For the smaller units located at 406, 408, 416, and 420 North Service Road East, MPAC has proposed three comparable properties. The comparable properties are located in the same condominium complex, are similar in size and age. The median sale price of these comparable properties is $242 square foot. By applying this value indicator to the subject properties, the Board finds that the resulting current values, in round numbers, are as stated on Schedule A.
39For the three larger units on North Service Road East, MPAC has proposed two comparable properties located at 1525 Cornwall Road. The location of these comparable properties is 2.5 kilometres from the subject properties. The properties were sold in 2011 at a median price of $247 per square foot. These two comparable properties are 10 years newer than the subject properties, otherwise are similar in all other criteria. The Board finds that the estimated current values for these properties need to be adjusted for the difference in building age. MPAC's recommended adjustment factor of 0.65% per year, determined for the properties located at 2902 North Sheridan Way is applicable to these properties for being older than the comparable properties. Therefore, the estimated current value for these three units is to be based also on $210 per square foot. By applying this value indicator to the subject properties, the Board finds that the resulting current values, in round numbers, are as stated on Schedule A.
40For the properties located at 2902 South Sheridan Way, Units 201 and 202, MPAC has proposed seven comparable properties. The Board finds that the properties located at 1388 Cornwall Road Unit 3, 1660 North Service Road East Unit 108, 1545 Cornwall Road Unit 46 and Unit 47 are newer properties and therefore are not similar to the subject property. Because there are other comparable properties available, there is no need to rely on these properties. Instead the Board will rely on the comparable properties located at 414 North Service Road East and 408 North Service Road East. These properties meet the Board's criteria of being similar to the subject property. The Board finds that these three properties sold between June 2011 and March 2012 at a median price per square foot of $235. By applying this value indicator to the subject properties, the Board finds that the resulting current values, in round numbers, are as stated on Schedule A.
41For the property at 2902 South Sheridan Way, Unit 101, MPAC has proposed two comparable properties, the Board finds that both proposed comparable properties are located in a building which is 13 years newer than the subject property and therefore they do not meet one of the Board's criteria for similarity. However, in view of the lack of other comparable properties of this size and MPAC's evidence per page 5 of Exhibit 3, that newer buildings have a price differential of 0.65% per year, the reduction in the median sale price from $247 to $210 per square foot, is a reasonable adjustment for the difference in the properties age. Since the same two comparable properties were also used by MPAC to determine the current value of the three properties located at 418 North Service Road East, the adjusted median price of $210 per square foot is also applicable to these three properties. By applying this value indicator to the subject property, the Board finds that the resulting current value, in round numbers, is as stated on Schedule A.
Determination of Equity
42Having established the current value of the properties, the next task is for the Board to determine whether a reduction should be made to lower the assessment below current value in order to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
43Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act 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 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."
44The Board was provided with assessment and sales evidence of 19 properties in the vicinity of the subject property, to make a determination on account of s. 44.(3)(b), as detailed in Appendices 3 of Exhibits 2 and 3. According to the MPAC's analysis, the median assessment to sales ratio of these sales is 0.99. This result infers that overall there is no indication that properties in the vicinity are being under assessed. Relying on this evidence, the Board finds that equity has been achieved and no further adjustment to the current value of the subject property as determined above is necessary.
45Accordingly, the Board finds that the combined assessments for the subject properties for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015 is $7,618,000, as detailed on the enclosed Schedule A.
"Faustos Saponara"
FAUSTOS SAPONARA MEMBER Assessment Review Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
SCHEDULE A
SCHEDULE A-HEARING NO.594431
| Appeal Number | Roll Number | Property Location | CVA | MPAC Proposed | Appellant Proposed | Board Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3085578 | 2401-040-211-04640-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 1,005,000 | 982,000 | 730,000 | 982,000 |
| 3007444 | 2401-040-211-04640-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 1,005,000 | 982,000 | 730,000 | 982,000 |
| 2981526 | 2401-040-211-04640-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 1,143,000 | 982,000 | 730,000 | 982,000 |
| 3083717 | 2401-040-211-04642-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 660,000 | 680,000 | 410,000 | 663,000 |
| 3034314 | 2401-040-211-04642-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 660,000 | 680,000 | 410,000 | 663,000 |
| 2981528 | 2401-040-211-04642-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 765,000 | 680,000 | 410,000 | 663,000 |
| 3085577 | 2401-040-211-04644-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 473,000 | 445,000 | 270,000 | 441,000 |
| 3006939 | 2401-040-211-04644-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 473,000 | 445,000 | 270,000 | 441,000 |
| 2981527 | 2401-040-211-04644-0000 | 2902 S Sheridan Way | 554,000 | 445,000 | 270,000 | 441,000 |
| 3084335 | 2401-040-220-1302-0000 | 406 North Service Rd E | 574,000 | 552,000 | 330,000 | 552,000 |
| 3007446 | 2401-040-220-1302-0000 | 406 North Service Rd E | 574,000 | 552,000 | 330,000 | 552,000 |
| 2981518 | 2401-040-220-1302-0000 | 406 North Service Rd E | 574,000 | 552,000 | 330,000 | 552,000 |
| 3084550 | 2401-040-220-01305-0000 | 408 North Service Rd E | 552,000 | 550,000 | 330,000 | 550,000 |
| 3033055 | 2401-040-220-01305-0000 | 408 North Service Rd E | 552,000 | 550,000 | 330,000 | 550,000 |
| 2981519 | 2401-040-220-01305-0000 | 408 North Service Rd E | 552,000 | 550,000 | 330,000 | 550,000 |
| 3084551 | 2401-040-220-01312-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E | 467,000 | 541,000 | 335,000 | 541,000 |
| 3032826 | 2401-040-220-01312-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E | 467,000 | 541,000 | 335,000 | 541,000 |
| 2981524 | 2401-040-220-01312-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E | 545,000 | 541,000 | 335,000 | 541,000 |
| 3083716 | 2401-040-220-01313-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E 206 | 545,000 | 541,000 | 355,000 | 541,000 |
| 3032215 | 2401-040-220-01313-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E 206 | 545,000 | 541,000 | 355,000 | 541,000 |
| 2981520 | 2401-040-220-01313-0000 | 416 North Service Rd E 206 | 545,000 | 541,000 | 355,000 | 541,000 |
| 3083715 | 2401-040-220-01315-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 105 | 828,000 | 971,000 | 575,000 | 930,000 |
| 3007445 | 2401-040-220-01315-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 105 | 828,000 | 971,000 | 575,000 | 930,000 |
| 2981525 | 2401-040-220-01315-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 105 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 575,000 | 930,000 |
| 3085144 | 2401-040-220-01316-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 205 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 710,000 | 930,000 |
| 3034315 | 2401-040-220-01316-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 205 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 710,000 | 930,000 |
| 2981522 | 2401-040-220-01316-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 205 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 710,000 | 930,000 |
| 3083718 | 2401-040-220-01317-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 305 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 705,000 | 930,000 |
| 3034316 | 2401-040-220-01317-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 305 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 705,000 | 930,000 |
| 2981521 | 2401-040-220-01317-0000 | 418 North Service Rd E 305 | 971,000 | 971,000 | 705,000 | 930,000 |
| 3085143 | 2401-040-220-01320-0000 | 420 North Service Rd E 304 | 579,000 | 558,000 | 350,000 | 558,000 |
| 3033054 | 2401-040-220-01320-0000 | 420 North Service Rd E 304 | 579,000 | 558,000 | 350,000 | 558,000 |
| 2981523 | 2401-040-220-01320-0000 | 420 North Service Rd E 304 | 579,000 | 558,000 | 350,000 | 558,000 |
All Properties Current Value as of January 1, 2012
- 2013 CVA Total: 8,170,000
- 2014 CVA Total: 7,625,000
- 2015 CVA Total: 7,625,000
- MPAC Proposed Total: 7,762,000
- Appellant Proposed Total: 5,100,000
- Board Decision Total: 7,618,000