Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 5, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 138938

Assessed Person(s): Kingston Terminal Properties Limited Appellant(s): Kingston Terminal Properties Limited, Bryon Springer Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 5 Respondent(s): City of Kingston

Property Location(s): 551 Victoria Street Municipality(ies): City of Kingston Roll Number(s): 1011-020-050-06100-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2980843, 3018414, 3073115 and 3145632 (deemed 2016 appeal) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal) Hearing Event No. 618233

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

Heard: February 18, 2016 in Kingston, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel⁺/Representative

Kingston Terminal Properties Limited Peter J. Radley⁺, Q.C.

MPAC Rox Anne Poulain

City of Kingston Maureen Petersen

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1These appeals concern the assessed value of a 150 year old two storey mixed use building in central Kingston (the “subject property”). The parties agree that the condition of the subject property is very poor, with MPAC referring to it as a “knock down.” Despite that, MPAC valued the subject property in comparison to the sales of other mixed use buildings, in various states of repair, in central Kingston. Kingston Terminal Properties Limited (“Terminal”) provided an opinion of valued based primarily on vacant land sales in central Kingston.

2For the reasons set out below, I accept Terminal’s direct sales comparison valuation methodology and find that no adjustment is required to make the assessment equitable with those of similar properties in the vicinity. I therefore reduce the assessment for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years from $968,000, with $670,640 in the commercial property class and $297,360 in the multi-residential property class, to $577,000, with $312,000 in the commercial property class and $265,000 in the multi-residential property class.

Law

3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires that I “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 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, I 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 of January 1, 2012 for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

4Once 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” if that adjustment would lower the assessment.

Current Value

5MPAC agrees that the returned assessment, of $968,000, is too high. After an inspection, and certain factual adjustments that came out of that process, MPAC suggested that the appropriate current value is $809,000. This conclusion was based, at least in part, on MPAC’s opinion that a potential purchaser would primarily be interested in the land and would likely demolish the existing structure on the subject property. Terminal agrees that the highest and best use of the land, in the long term, is as a vacant development site. Given the agreement between the parties on that point, I find that the highest and best use of the subject property was as a vacant development site for each taxation year.

6Both parties presented two methods for determining the current value of the