Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: October 24, 2016
Assessed Person(s): Indell Corporation
Appellant(s): Indell Corporation
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15
Respondent(s): City of Brampton
Property Location(s): 11 Indell Lane
Municipality(ies): City of Brampton
Roll Number(s): 2110-100-025-27809-0000
Appeal Number(s): 2941947, 3007060, 3083556 and 3154238 (deemed 2016 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No. 620639
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: May 25, 2016 in Brampton, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Indell Corporation
Lorne W. Bumstead
MPAC
Todd Willson
City of Brampton
Aida Karreman
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE ON MAY 25, 2016
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property comprises two acres of land and a steel frame building with brick exterior built in 1988. The building has a gross building area of 31,289 square feet (“sq. ft.”) including a mezzanine. The site is zoned M3A and coded as ‘Warehousing”.
2For the valuation date of January 1, 2012, the property has been assessed at $3,034,000.
ISSUES
3The issues to be determined are:
(i) The current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, being the “valuation day.”
(ii) Whether an assessment at current value is equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.
DECISION
4For reasons set out below, I find that the correct current value is $2,644,000.
5No further adjustments are warranted for equity.
6The assessments for the taxation years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 are reduced from $3,034,000 to $2,644,000. The classification shall remain as Commercial.
MPAC’s Position
7Todd Willson (the “assessor”) testified for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”). His report was filed and marked Exhibit 1. The assessor and Lorne W. Bumstead, Indell Corporation’s (the “appellant”) representative, inspected the property on April 27, 2016. He used two approaches to value: the Cost approach and the Direct Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost Approach is described by the assessor as an estimate of the cost to reproduce the structure(s)/improvements of equal utility to those of the subject property under current market conditions. That cost would be reduced through various forms of depreciation. Once that value is determined, the land value would be added. The land value is determined by sales, thereby using the Direct Sales Comparison Approach.
8Based on the Cost Approach, he determined a net improvement value for the building of $1,751,457 (Exhibit 1, Tab A)
9Based on the Direct Sales Comparison Approach he determined a land value of $733,094 per acre using the sale of six industrial properties in the vicinity.
10The result would be an assessment of $3,219,000. However, the assessor recommended a reduction to $3,034,000.
11Although the property would remain in the Commercial Tax Class, the assessor argued that the property should be assessed as ‘office’, given that a substantial portion of the interior, both main floor and mezzanine, was finished as office space.
12The assessor also provided a time adjustment study for the land for the period July 6, 2009 to May 10, 2016 (Exhibit 1, Tab B) of 140 land sales and an equity study (Exhibit 1, Tab C) of sales of 48 similar properties in the vicinity suggesting an assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) within an acceptable range.
13On cross-examination, the assessor confirmed that MPAC recommends adjustments to value at no greater than 20% - 30%. The assessor acknowledged that the six sales relied upon by him to arrive at his proposed land value were adjusted as follows:
5 Nuggett Court…
14%
6 Indell Lane…
71%
4 Indell Lane…
116%
12 Colony Court…
74%
8 Indell Lane
6%
2 Baker Road…
87%
14The assessor also acknowledged for the years 2011 to 2012 the market was generally ‘flat’. Accordingly no adjustments would be warranted.
15The assessor confirmed that his value of $3,219,000 resulted in a value of $102.30 per square foot, including the mezzanine. However, using the sales of the