Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 5, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 137938
Assessed Person(s): 2214766 Ontario Ltd. Appellant(s): 2302021 Ontario Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): 1093 Lorimar Drive Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-050-116-64700-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3069828 and 3152880 (deemed 2016 appeal) Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal) Hearing Event No. 591136
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: November 30, 2015 in Mississauga, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| 2302021 Ontario Inc. | Paul Grosman |
| MPAC | Gary Charles |
| City of Mississauga | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY BARBARA KOWARSKY
ISSUE
1The issue is to determine whether the assessments of 1093 Lorimar Drive (“subject property”) located in the City of Mississauga as returned at $4,433,000 for the 2015 taxation year is correct, and whether it is equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.
DECISION
2In order to determine the value assessment of a property, the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is legislated to follow two steps:
3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) which requires the Board to:
(a) determine the current value of the land.
4The Board determines the current value to be $4,433,000 for the 2015 taxation year.
5Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act directs the Board to:
(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 the land.
6The Board finds that an adjustment for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) is not required in order to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Subject Property
7The subject property is a 53,957 square foot structure built in 2014. The plant is 50,100 square feet with a 24 foot ceiling height. There are two floors of interior office, each measuring 3,857 square feet with a nine foot ceiling height. There is also an interior wood shop of 1,296 square feet with a nine foot ceiling height. It is situated on a lot measuring 3.21 acres.
The Position of MPAC
8The assessor, Gary Charles, submitted a Valuation Report into evidence, marked Exhibit 1.
9Mr. Charles testified that:
a. The property was inspected on November 20, 2015.
b. There is an outstanding building permit that was issued in 2015. The work has been started but not completed.
c. The building was sold in 2015 for $4,925,000. Mr. Grosman is representing the new owner.
d. The sales investigation questionnaire has not been conducted as it does not impact this appeal.
e. He is using the cost approach to determine value and has used the direct sales approach to support the value determined by the cost approach.
f. Appendix A is the detailed cost analysis and breakdown of the components.
g. Appendix B is the sales analysis which presents six suggested comparables that are all situated within 10 kilometres of the subject property; have total building areas within 10,000 square feet more or less; site areas within one acre (with one exception); ceiling heights within five feet and were built no more than 10 years before or after the subject property.
h. His analysis produced a recommended value higher than the value under appeal, but MPAC is not looking to raise this value.
i. The MPAC adjustments are based on approximately 600 sales that occurred between 2009 and 2015.
j. He did not send this information in the disclosure package sent to Mr. Grosman because prior conversations with Mr. Grosman led him (Mr. Charles), to believe that Mr. Grosman doesn’t think that these adjustments would help the analysis.
k. The resulting median and mean of the direct comparison approach are higher than the current assessment of the subject property, and therefore the direct sales approach supports the cost approach used by MPAC.