Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 03, 2016
Assessed Person(s): 2011090 Ontario Inc.
Appellant(s): 2011090 Ontario Inc. and S. Burki
Respondent(s): City of Cornwall
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 01
Property Location(s): 1142 Brookdale Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Cornwall
Roll Number(s): 0402-060-003-01800-0000
Appeal Number(s): 2967173, 3002621, 3070308 and 3143611 (deemed 2016 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.: 602240
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: January 15, 2016 in Cornwall, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| 2011090 Ontario Inc. S. Burki | Glenn Lucas |
| MPAC | Rox-Anne Poulain |
| City of Cornwall | Brad Maloney |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TERRY DENISON
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property, 1142 Brookdale Avenue, measures 225 feet by 500 feet with an area of 2.58 acres. It was developed with a building originally built in 1958 with additions in 1963 and 1979 and has been used as a motel or hotel with 47 rooms, a dinning room, and a second floor hall. It has operated under various brands such as “Howard Johnsons”, “Travellodge” or “Econolodge”. For the taxation years based on the valuation day January 1, 2012, MPAC assessed the property to have current value of $1,448,000 of which $61,000 is in the Residential Class and $1,387,000 is in the Commercial Class.
2At the commencement of the hearing, the parties agreed that the Residential portion of the property should be increased to $91,500 and the Commercial portion decreased to $1,356,500. This reflected that there were three rooms classified as Residential, not two as in the returned assessment.
ISSUES
3This is an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). The Appellants say that the assessment returned on the roll by MPAC is not correct because it is too high. The property classification of the assessment as Commercial is not challenged in this appeal.
4The Appellants disagree with the valuation methodology used by MPAC. MPAC relied on an income approach to value using a Gross Income Multiplier (“GIM”) to determine a current value of $1,448,000 for the subject property. The Appellant says that a net income approach to value should be utilized as it characterizes the subject property as a hotel rather than a motel and seeks to have the assessment reduced to $640,000.
5MPAC provided an equity analysis to demonstrate that the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at values that were close to the values that properties sold for and that there was therefore no need to make a further adjustment once the correct current value of the subject property was determined. The Appellants did not dispute MPAC’s position on equity.
DECISION
6For the reasons given below the assessment of the subject property as of a