Stringer v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16, 2016 CanLII 40914

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 30, 2016

FILE NO.:

WR 138487

Assessed Person(s):

Glenn Allen Stringer, Wendy Ann Stringer

Appellant(s):

Glenn Stringer

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s):

Township of Oro-Medonte

Property Location(s):

39 Pugsley Lane

Municipality(ies):

Township of Oro-Medonte

Roll Number(s):

4346-010-011-07100-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3060135, 3087907 and 3155373 (deemed 2016 appeal)

Taxation Year(s):

2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.

599634

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

October 21, 2015 in Oro-Medonte, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Glenn Allen Stringer

Glenn Allen Stringer

Wendy Ann Stringer

MPAC

Ralph Bradley

Township of Oro-Medonte

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARILYN SHARMA AND MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property, 39 Pugsley Lane, is a single storey, three bedroom detached house having a total building area of 1,323 square feet and a finished basement area of 1,140 square feet, with an attached 588 square feet double garage, situated on an effective site area of 35,940.95 square feet with an effective frontage of 115.00 feet and an effective depth of 312.53 feet. The property has a 520 square foot boat house built in 1920, predating the house which was built in 1987. The subject property has a quality class designation of 7.0.

2The assessment of the subject property for the taxation years 2014 and 2015 is $643,000 and $648,000 respectively, benefitting from a downward adjustment of 15% for negative externalities such as the close proximity of a Summer Camp, a concession road and a public dock. MPAC corrected the 2014 Current Value Assessment (“CVA”) to $648,000 and not $643,000.

ISSUE

3Ralph Bradley, appearing on behalf of MPAC, maintains that MPAC is prepared to confirm $648,000 for both, the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

4The Appellant Glenn Stringer, self-represented, argues that MPAC has over-assessed his property and believes the assessment as returned is too high in relation to similar properties in the neighbourhood. Mr. Stringer requests that the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reduce the assessment of the subject property from $648,000 to $548,294.

5The issue before the Board is to determine whether the subject property has been correctly assessed at $648,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

DECISION

6The Board finds that the correct current value of the subject property is $690,000 for both taxation years.

7The Board has made reference to similar lands in the vicinity and finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that a further reduction in current value of the subject property is required for equity under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, c. A. 31, as amended (“Act”).

8The Board notes that the current value established by the Board is higher than the assessment as established by MPAC. Since no party requested an increase in the assessment of the subject property, the Board therefore confirms the assessment of the subject property in the amount of $648,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

9Accordingly, as at the valuation day, January 1, 2012, the assessment of the subject property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years is confirmed in the amount of $648,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

10Under the Act the Board is required to do three things:

1. Find the current value of the property: The initial task for the Board is to determine the current value of the subject property as required by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act “…the Board shall…determine the current value of the land…” Section 19.(1) of the Act states that “…the assessment of land shall be based on its current value…” and section 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…”

2. Make reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed.

3. Adjust the assessment of the subject property if the adjustment would result in a reduction in the assessment.

Current Value Criteria

11The best test 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. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value would be arm’s length and market tested sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market, on or close to the valuation day. This measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject property and comparable properties.

12To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from a comparable property, there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as total building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition, etc.; and in terms of neighbourhood characteristics such as access to amenities, type and nature of housing etc., so as to enable a direct comparison to be made between the comparable property and the subject property.

13Furthermore, to be indicative of both the market and values on the valuation day, a sale of a suggested comparable property should occur close to the valuation day. Generally, the Board prefers the sale of properties that occur within six months on either side of the valuation day. When such evidence is either limited or not available, the Board has accepted sales of properties up to 18 months on either side of the valuation day, or in exceptional circumstances, greater time periods.

MPAC’s Evidence

14Mr. Bradley on behalf of MPAC provided four suggested comparable properties as shown in Table 1 below. A fifth property’s profile was included as evidence during the presentation, namely 47 Pugsley Lane, (Exhibit 2), but not used as a comparable in MPAC’s analysis. MPAC also provided two case references and eight photo exhibits.

15Mr. Bradley testified that the suggested comparables are considered to be similar to the subject property on the basis of location, building and lot size. In his opinion however, only two properties he considered to be most similar, namely 67 and 77 Pugsley Lane, as they were the only properties that experienced a recent sale and therefore served as the best evidence as an indicator of value.

16Mr. Bradley is of the opinion that the property sale of 67 Pugsley for $690,000 being the most similar in terms of location, age, building size and having a boat house as well as a detached garage, should place the CVA for the subject property at $730,000. The quality differences of the subject property, larger lot and building size, when taken into account, suggests an estimated market value of $730,000 for the subject property, which is higher than the CVA of $648,000. However, MPAC will accept the assessment as returned of $648,000.

17MPAC arrived at its recommended CVA by taking the average sale price of the two sold properties.

Table 1

Property

Assessment

Sale Date

Sale Price ($)

Bldg. Area (Sq. Ft)

Lot Size Effective (Sq. Ft.)

Year Built/Reno Year

Quality

39 Pugsley Lane (Subject Property)

648,000

1323

115x312/ 35940.95

1987

7.0

598 Line 11 S

559,000

1615

102x301/ 30847.85

1961/2002

6.5

57 Pugsley Lane

693,000

2098

110x292/ 32158.50

1967/1995

6.5

67 Pugsley Lane

646,000

June 2013

$690,000

1263

110x279 30765.90

1984

6.0

77 Pugsley Lane

484,000

Nov. 2013

$599,000

1449

110x299 32918.60

1949/1970

5.5

18In defense of MPAC’s position, Mr. Bradley also pointed out that the subject property benefitted from a quality class reduction from 7.5 to 7.0 as a result of having only one bedroom on the main level, as well as benefitting from a 15% adjustment downward for negative external influences, thus resulting in one of the lowest assessed properties on the street.

Appellant’s Evidence

19Mr. Stringer presented his own valuation analysis of the subject property in Exhibit 9, based on a comparison of three of his neighbours’ properties allegedly used by the Board in arriving at a value for his property in 2008. The Appellant stated before the Board that no changes had occurred to those properties from 2008 until 2012 and that his property had not undergone any renovations from the date of construction in 1987 until 2012.

20Mr. Stringer’s analysis spanned two different base year valuation periods, namely 2008 and 2012, demonstrating with calculated precision his argument that his property was over assessed. Throughout the hearing, Mr. Stringer offered opinion evidence on the sales history of his neighbours’ properties, including his own purchase of the property now under appeal, concluding that sale prices were higher than they should be.

21Mr. Stringer argued that in his opinion the increase of 32.58% in his assessment over the last valuation period, is significantly higher than the 13.05% increase experienced by his neighbours’ properties, before adjustments.

Board’s Analysis

Analysis of Appellant’s Evidence

22The Board has considered the arguments of Mr. Stringer and the choice of properties used in his analysis and understands his efforts to bridge two valuation periods to offer continuity as a valuation approach.

23After hearing his testimony, the Board is unable to give any weight to his argument that the Board had used these three properties at an earlier time period to assess his property, because the Appellant failed to provide any documented evidence to corroborate his claim. No documented evidence was provided to assist the Board in determining current value. It should be noted that on one occasion the Board reminded the Appellant that his comments were just speculation. Based on the evidence before it, the Board dismisses this argument.

24The Appellant made reference to the fact that his assessment had increased by approximately 32% while the average increase for his neighbour’s property was 13% rounded. In response to the Appellant’s efforts to relate two valuation periods, Mr. Bradley of MPAC made reference to two previous Board decisions, namely, Morrison v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 17 [2004] O.A.R.B.D. No.518 (Board File No. 34881), specifically page 4, section 22, point 2, as well as page 6, section 34, and to the Assessment Review Board case of Armstrong v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9 [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 215 (ARB File No. DM 70414), specifically page 4, section 16. In the former decision, on page 4 it states that “….the Board’s task is to determine the current value of the subject property and not to concern itself with previous assessments or with percentage increases from previous assessments." On page 6, it states that "The Board agrees that there is no requirement that there be any correlation between assessments as of different valuation days, and that there is no requirement that the assessments of different properties increase by the same percentage." In the latter decision, reference is made to the following quote, "... as there is nothing in the Act requiring correlation between assessments as of different base years.”

25The Board agrees with the position presented in the referenced Decisions and shall rely solely on the valid sales evidence to establish the current value of the subject property.

26For the reasons stated above, the Board places no weight on the evidence as submitted by Mr. Stringer, as it is lacking detailed information from which the Board can make any useful determination of current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

Analysis of MPAC’s Evidence

27After hearing the testimony of both parties, the Board finds the only acceptable evidence available is based on MPAC’s submissions. The Board therefore has four comparable properties to evaluate towards determining a current value for the subject property.

28The Board has reviewed the information pertaining to the four properties and the Board accepts MPAC’s position that only two of the four comparables experienced a valid sale and may prove useful towards establishing current value. The Board rejects the remaining two properties, as they do not have any sales history and are not considered to have sufficient similarity to that of the subject property. These include 57 Pugsley Lane and 598 Line 11 S. The Board notes that s. 19.(1) of the Act directs that the assessment of “land”, shall be based on its current value, where current value is determined on the basis of sales. As the above comparables have no recent sales information, they are rejected by the Board in its analysis.

29Upon closer scrutiny, the Board finds 77 Pugsley Lane’s 1970 renovation to be somewhat dated in comparison to the subject property, as well as its quality class of 5.5 far removed from the 7.0 for the subject property. Considering the above concerns, the Board does not find sufficient similarity to that of the subject property for this property to be used in its analysis of current value. As a sale however, the Board will recognize it as a comparable to the subject property with a sale price reflecting the lower end of the value spectrum and the Board will use it to demonstrate a possible value range for the subject property.

30The Board finds 67 Pugsley Lane to be the best evidence for determining current value for the subject property, having sufficient similarity in terms of vicinity, age, building area, lot area, a boat house, a detached garage and having recently sold. Its sale price of $690,000 suggests to the Board that this price point would better reflect an upwards valuation for the subject property and what it would sell for in an open market, given its superior condition and newer construction.

Determination of Current Value

31The Board accepts that the best approach to determining current value for the subject property is based on the sales of similar properties in the neighbourhood.

32As the Board has only one property with sufficient similarity to the subject property from which to arrive at a current value estimate for 67 Pugsley Lane, it is the position of the Board that although one sale does not constitute a market, the Board's mandate is to determine current value as defined in the Act. Therefore this sale satisfies the Board's mandate and as such, the Board shall consider it in determining the current value for the subject property.

33As no party has requested a higher assessment and MPAC’s position is to recommend to the Board to accept the assessment as returned, the Board finds no evidence before it warranting a further adjustment and therefore accepts the CVA as returned of $648,000.

34The Board is comforted in knowing that the assessment as returned of $648,000, while under assessed, falls within acceptable limits compared to other properties in the area.

Equity Analysis

35The Act was amended for taxation years beginning with 2009, to require the Board to lower an assessment below current value if required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

36Section 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.”

37For the purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable, they only need to be of a similar nature and within reasonable proximity.

38As neither party submitted equity evidence, the Board is unable to make a finding that the subject property’s current value would need to be reduced in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

39Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined above, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

40The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $690,000.

41The Board notes that the current value determined by the Board is higher than the assessment established by MPAC. As no party has requested an increase in the assessment of the subject property, the Board therefore confirms the assessment of the subject property in the amount of $648,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

42The Board is unable to make a finding that the subject property’s current value would need to be reduced in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity, as no evidence was provided by either party.

2016 DEEMED APPEAL

43An appeal for the 2015 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act provides that the appellant is deemed to have 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 2015 appeal before March 31, 2016. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2016 taxation year.

44Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

(26) 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.