Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 1, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 153094

Assessed Person(s): John Watt Robertson

Appellant(s): John Watt Robertson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 17

Respondent(s): Township of Muskoka Lakes

Property Location(s): 14A Fairylands Island

Municipality(ies): Township of Muskoka Lakes

Roll Number(s): 4453-040-026-02204-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3259833 and 3308931 (deemed 2018 appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.: 693980

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

Heard: March 6, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
John Watt Robertson	Self-represented
MPAC	Pam Mulligan
Township of Muskoka Lakes	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN

OVERVIEW

1John Robertson appeals the assessment of his property located at 14A Fairylands Island on Lake Rosseau in the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the “Property”). MPAC submits that the correct current value of the Property is $681,000 as of January 1, 2016, whereas Mr. Robertson takes the position that the correct current value is $450,000.

2For the reasons that follow, I find that the current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $520,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and I further find that no equitable adjustment is warranted. The assessment is therefore reduced from $681,000 to $520,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

BACKGROUND

3The Property is situated on Lake Rosseau, which along with Lake Joseph and Lake Muskoka make up the “Big Three” lakes in the Township. The parties agree that Lake Joseph is the premiere lake, followed by Lake Rosseau and then Lake Muskoka.

4The Property can only be accessed by water, has approximately 281 feet of water frontage, and a site area of 1.23 acres. The Property is seasonal recreational land and is only occupied from approximately May to November. It has a septic system and is connected to hydro. Water is obtained directly from the lake as there is no well.

5There are three structures on the Property: i) a 1,680 square foot, two storey, boathouse built in 1956 with a residence on the second floor (the “Boathouse”), (ii) a 288 square foot cabin built in 1956 and (iii) a 411 square foot cabin built in 1965 (together, the “Cabins”).

6The Boathouse contains three bedrooms, a bathroom and a veranda. It is not insulated and has limited electric heating. Mr. Robertson testified that the construction is very basic and that, due to its age, the foundation has been compromised and requires repair. However, the Boathouse was still being used as of the date of the hearing and the picture in evidence shows an impressive, maintained structure.

7One of the Cabins contains a bedroom and bathroom while the other contains a kitchen. The Cabins are not connected. Mr. Robertson testified, and I accept, that the Cabins are a basic construction and have deteriorated significantly. The Cabins have pine floors with two feet of crawl space off the exterior ground. There is no insulation and no vapour barrier. The walls are made of wood siding against studs and covered in the interior with thin pieces of plywood. The plumbing in the bathroom and the kitchen is exposed and the Cabins are subject to mouse and ant infestations. That being said, I also accept that Mr. Robertson sleeps, eats, and uses the Cabins from May to November inclusive. They have some utility.

8MPAC has attributed a value of $40,307 to the Cabins. Mr. Robertson submits that their value is between $0 and some nominal value. The parties agree that the major component of the Property’s value is the land, followed by the Boathouse.

ISSUES

9The first issue to decide is the current value of the Property. In other words, I must determine what the Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on January 1, 2016. Once the current value has been determined, clause 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) requires that I “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

10In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal, the 2018 taxation year appeal is also before me because, pursuant to subsection 44(26) of the Act, a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Current Value

11Subsection 40(17) of the Act states that MPAC has the burden of proving “the correctness of the current value of the land.” As this Board found in Jay Patry Enterprises Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05, 2019 CanLII 39629 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 70338 (ON ARB) WR 152892 (“Patry Enterprises”) at paragraph 21, the burden is around “current value” and not the assessment. That is, MPAC is not required to prove the correctness of its returned assessment. It is required to prove the correctness of “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length from a willing seller to a willing buyer.”

12Patry Enterprises summarizes the procedure to follow in an appeal where current value is at issue, at paragraph 40:

…first look at MPAC’s evidence on its own and make a determination as to whether it can prove its suggested current value on a balance of probabilities. If MPAC meets its burden, the Board should review all of the evidence before it and determine the current value of the property. However, if MPAC has not met its burden, the taxpayer’s evidence must be analyzed to see if it is capable of proving that a particular current value is more likely than not. If there is no evidence in the record that is capable of proving current value, the Board should fix the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value.

13I will follow that procedure here.

Can MPAC’s evidence prove its suggested current value?

14As stated in Patry Enterprises at paragraph 23, in order for MPAC to meet its burden, MPAC’s evidence “must show how the current value MPAC is proposing is arrived at and why that value is correct. Without this bare minimum, the Board cannot possibly determine if MPAC’s proposed current value is correct.”

15MPAC submitted a Valuation Report to establish an opinion of current value. As with most residential properties, MPAC relies on the direct comparison approach to prove its suggested current value of $681,000 for the Property.

16To satisfy its burden when using the direct comparison approach, MPAC cannot simply present any properties. It must review the market data and select properties that are in fact comparable. In her Valuation Report, Ms. Mulligan relies on five comparable properties in her current value analysis as summarized in the table below:

Property

Sale 1

Sale 2

Sale 3

Sale 4

Sale 5

Date sold

2015/03/04

2016/05/31

2014/11/12

2015/09/03

2016/08/22

Address

14A Is Fairylands

Lake Rosseau

100 Is Tobins

Lake Rosseau

11 Is Tobins

Lake Rosseau

27 Playfair Island 3

Lake Joseph

31 Playfair Island 3

Lake Joseph

10 Is Fairhaven Lake Muskoka

Lot area (acres)

1.23

0.97

0.53

1.48

2.47

0.35

Water frontage (ft.)

281

325

112

290

300

312

Primary building type

Boathouse with res above

Single family detached

Single family detached

Single family detached

Single family detached

Single family detached

Building area/residential area (sq. ft.)

1680/758

1081/1081

960/960

1070/1070

1259/1259

1267/1267

Year built

1956

1939

1980

1996

1982

1959

Quality of construction

3

4

5

6

6

6

Secondary building

Cabin/cabin

Boathouse/

Cabin

n/a

n/a

Cabin

Boathouse with res above

Secondary building area and year built (sq. ft.)

411/288

1965/1956

1746/124

1929/1950

n/a

n/a

260

1998

1100 (440 on 2nd floor)

1990

Sale price

$775,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$690,000

17Like the Property, all of MPAC’s suggested comparable sales are island properties with water access only. I agree with the parties that mainland properties with year round road access are not comparable.

18Unlike the Property, all of the comparable properties have single family dwelling cottages with bedrooms, bathroom(s) and a kitchen under one roof. However, in her testimony, Ms. Mulligan, on behalf of MPAC, stated that, although the Cabins and Boathouse are in separate unconnected structures, the Property as a whole has structures that include all of the normal living features such as a bathroom, bedrooms and kitchen. Ms. Mulligan further states that the square footage is approximately the same between the structures on the comparable properties and the structures on the Property. For these reasons, Ms. Mulligan’s opinion is that the five properties are comparable.

19Ms. Mulligan’s opinion is that Sale 1 is similar to the Property, Sales 2 and 3 are inferior, Sale 4 is superior and Sale 5 is similar. Ms. Mulligan also explained why she believes that the five comparable properties are similar, inferior or superior to the Property. As detailed further below, I disagree with some of Ms. Mulligan’s opinions regarding whether a particular comparable property is similar, inferior or superior. However, this is not considered in determining whether MPAC has met its burden.

20Based on her analysis of the comparable properties, Ms. Mulligan’s opinion is that a value below $600,000 (see Sale 3 above) is too low of a current value and that a value above $800,000 (see Sale 4) is too high. She reasoned that the current value is at or slightly below the lower end of the range of $690,000 and $775,000 based on her opinion that Sale 5 and Sale 1 are the most similar to the Property.

21With this evidence, I find that MPAC has met its burden. Ms. Mulligan clearly showed her pathway to arriving at her proposed current value of $681,000 and why, in her opinion, that value is correct. That is what is required as a minimum.

22I note that I am not making a finding that the correct January 1, 2016 current value is $681,000. Rather, at this stage of the analysis, I am simply finding that MPAC’s evidence, if believed, can prove its proposed current value.

What is the correct current value of the property?

23Following the framework in Patry Enterprises, if MPAC has met its burden, I must then determine current value based on all of the evidence before me.

24In response to MPAC’s evidence, Mr. Robertson raises three points in his evidence regarding current value:

a. The Township of Muskoka Lakes has a by-law restricting the use of the Property and this affects the current value of the Property.

b. MPAC’s five sales are not comparable to the Property.

c. The comparable properties that he has introduced into evidence are better than MPAC’s sales and support his proposed value of $450,000.

25I will address these points in turn. Mr. Robertson introduced The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes By-Law 2013-66 (the “By-Law”) into evidence. He submits that the By-Law restricts the use of the Property in that it prohibits a renovation to connect the Cabins. He would have to tear down the Cabins and build further away from the water. As a result, Mr. Robertson believes that the Property is less valuable. He further submits that the municipality will be requiring him to tear down the Cabins in the next few years.

26I agree that the By-Law sets a minimum setback requirement of 66 feet for the construction of a new building and that Mr. Robertson cannot simply connect the two Cabins. This was confirmed in an email to Ms. Mulligan from the Township of Muskoka Lakes on or around December 5, 2017. However, I do not agree that this By-Law or the prohibition on connecting the Cabins lessens the value of Mr. Robertson’s Property. The surrounding properties will have similar restrictions and setback requirements. These restrictions will be taken into consideration by the market in a sale to a willing buyer.

27As for tearing down the Cabins, Ms. Mulligan confirmed in an email with the Township on or around December 5, 2017 that it does not have much if any ability to require the structures on the Property to be demolished. I find that there is no real likelihood that the Township will require Mr. Robertson to tear down the Cabins. This speculative concern does not affect the current value of the Property.

28Mr. Robertson makes one overarching submission regarding MPAC’s sales. He says that the MPAC sales are not comparable because the properties have single family cottage dwellings on them. He submits that MPAC cannot compare such properties with his Property because it has two older Cabins and a Boathouse in need of repair. Although this may be a factor in determining whether an adjustment of the sale price is required for a particular comparable sale, I do not agree that this is sufficient to treat all of MPAC’s properties as not comparable. The five sales provided by MPAC are all island properties on water and located on one of the “Big Three” lakes and the parties agree that this is the appropriate market. The parties further agree that the Property is quite unique and that it is too difficult to find comparable sales with structures similar enough to the Cabins and the Boathouse. For these reasons, although it will be difficult to adjust for some of the building features, the MPAC sales can be used in this case to determine current value using a direct comparison approach.

29Mr. Robertson has also submitted comparable properties and believes that his sales are a better measure of current value than MPAC’s sales.

30I will therefore turn to an analysis of each of the comparable properties in evidence to determine the correct current value of the Property using the direct comparison approach.

31The details of MPAC’s five sales are summarized in the table at paragraph [16] above. Sale 1 is on Lake Rosseau, the same lake as the Property, and sold for $775,000 on March 4, 2015. However, Sale 1 has superior features in that it has 44 feet more of water frontage than the Property and it has (i) a single family dwelling built in 1939 that is of higher quality than the Cabins on the Property, (ii) a boathouse that is larger than the Property’s Boathouse and (iii) a small cabin. Sale 1 has an inferior feature in that it has 0.25 acres less of land but, as Ms. Mulligan confirmed, water frontage is the most significant feature when considering the value of land on waterfront properties. I agree with Mr. Robertson that the higher quality cottage with all rooms under one roof is a significant improvement as compared to his two Cabins. I am of the view that Sale 1 is significantly superior to the Property.

32Sale 4 is on Lake Joseph, the premiere lake of the “Big Three” lakes, and sold for $800,000 on September 3, 2015. It has 19 feet more water frontage than the Property, two times more acres of land and, most significantly, a 1,259 square foot single family detached cottage built in 1982. The family cottage is more modern and of a much higher quality of construction than the structures on the Property. Sale 4 also has a 288 square foot cabin. This property is significantly superior to the Property.

33Sale 5 is on Lake Muskoka, the lesser of the “Big Three” lakes, and sold for $690,000 on August 22, 2016. It has 31 feet more water frontage than the Property and again, most significantly, a 1,267 square foot single family detached cottage built in 1959. The family cottage is of a much higher quality of construction than the structures on the Property. Sale 5 also has a boathouse that was built in 1990. This boathouse, although smaller than the Boathouse at the Property, is more modern and also has a residence above. Other than being on the lesser of the “Big Three” lakes, the other feature of Sale 5 that is inferior is that it is 0.88 acres smaller or is only about 28% of the size of the Property. Although this is a significant difference, it is not enough to make Sale 5 similar. I find Sale 5 to be superior to the Property.

34Sale 2 is on Lake Rosseau and sold for $400,000 on May 31, 2016. It is inferior to the Property because it has 161 feet less water frontage and 0.70 acres less of land. Sale 2 is also inferior because it has no boathouse or other secondary structure. A significant feature of Sale 2 that makes it superior is that it has a 960 square foot single family detached cottage built in 1980. The cottage is more modern and of a significantly better quality than the Cabins and the Boathouse. Although I agree with Mr. Robertson that a single family detached modern cottage is more valuable than the Cabins, Sale 2 remains inferior to the Property because of the significant difference in water frontage and land area as well as the lack of any other structures on the Property.

35Sale 3 is on Lake Joseph, the premiere lake of the “Big Three”, and sold for $600,000 on November 12, 2014. Sale 3 has only 9 feet more of water frontage and 0.25 acres more of land. A significant feature of Sale 3 that is superior to the Property is that it has a 1,070 square foot single family detached cottage built in 1996. The cottage is more modern, larger in square footage, and of a significantly better quality than the Boathouse and the Cabins. All of these features make Sale 3 superior to the Property. However, Sale 3 has no boathouse. Ms. Mulligan states that Sales 2 and 3 are inferior because a boathouse cannot be built on these properties. Ms. Mulligan explained that an owner with less than 300 feet of water frontage cannot build a boathouse because of zoning restrictions. This may be the case, however an owner may request a variance from the Township to allow for a boathouse. Even if a boathouse is not allowed, this feature alone does not counterbalance the other superior features and make Sale 3 inferior. I find that Sale 3 is superior to the Property.

36Mr. Robertson submitted details of 17 properties into evidence as Exhibit 5. However, at the hearing, Mr. Robertson narrowed down the properties he is relying on to four.

37I agree with MPAC that the two vacant properties located at 2 Is Beacon and 70 Is Tobins are not comparable. Vacant properties have no hydro, water, septic, dock, development fees, or service fees. Vacant properties would be considerably less valuable than built-on properties. In addition, to obtain a current value of the Property using sales of vacant lands, Mr. Robertson needs sufficient evidence regarding the values of the Boathouse and the Cabins. MPAC’s algorithm has attributed values of $185,270 and $40,307 to the Boathouse and Cabins respectively but there is no way to verify these numbers. There is no evidence before me as to how these values were arrived at and so I do not rely on them. Without sufficient evidence of the values of the Boathouse and Cabins or of the costs involved in turning a vacant land into a built-on property, the sales of vacant land are not useful.

38The third property Mr. Robertson relies on is located at 23 Pine Island on Lake Muskoka and I will refer to it as Sale 6. It sold for $775,000 in June 2015. Sale 6 is superior to the Property because it has more than double the water frontage and double the land. There was a single family detached cottage built in 1955 of higher quality than the Boathouse and the Cabins. Ms. Mulligan testified that the cottage was destroyed shortly after the purchase in June 2015 and a new cottage was erected in its place. The only inferior feature of Sale 6 is that is located on the lesser of the “Big Three” lakes. Sale 6 is significantly superior.

39Mr. Robertson submits that I should use the value per waterfront foot of Sale 6 and apply that value to obtain the current value of the Property. However, I have no basis for finding that the per waterfront foot value of such a large waterfront property in Lake Muskoka is applicable to the Property, which has less than half of the waterfront than Sale 6 and is on a different lake.

40The fourth property Mr. Robertson relies on is located at 59 Is Mazengah on Lake Rosseau and I will refer to it as Sale 7. It sold for $440,000 in September 2016. Ms. Mulligan agrees that Sale 7 is a fair comparable but notes that there can be no boathouse built on the property because it is less than 300 square feet. Once again, an owner may request a variance from the Township to allow for a boathouse. Even if a boathouse is not allowed, this would only be one feature that makes the property inferior. Sale 7 has 35 feet less of water frontage which also makes it inferior. It has a single family cottage built in 1919 with electric baseboard and wall insert heating. The cottage has all rooms under one roof and is a higher quality of construction than the Boathouse and the Cabins. Nevertheless, I find that the cottage on Sale 7 is slightly inferior to the Boathouse and the Cabins due to its age and basic heating. Mr. Robertson agreed that the cottage would not have contributed much to the sale price. Sale 7 is only superior in that it is 1 acre larger than the Property. Overall, I find that the absence of a boathouse and the smaller water frontage make Sale 7 inferior to the Property.

41The following table summarizes my analysis of the seven comparable sales in evidence from superior to inferior:

Address

Date Sold

Comparability

Sale Price

Sale 4

31 Playfair Island 3

Lake Joseph

2015/09/03

Superior

$800,000

Sale 1

100 Is Tobins

Lake Rosseau

2015/03/04

Superior

$775,000

Sale 6

23 Pine Island

Lake Muskoka

June 2015

Superior

$775,000

Sale 5

10 Is Fairhaven

Lake Muskoka

2016/08/22

Superior

$690,000

Sale 3

27 Playfair Island 3

Lake Joseph

2014/11/12

Superior

$600,000

Sale 7

59 Is Mazengah

Lake Rosseau

September 2016

Inferior

$440,000

Sale 2

11 Is Tobins

Lake Rosseau

2016/05/31

Inferior

$400,000

42Based on this analysis, I find that the current value of the Property is between $440,000 (Sale 7) and $600,000 (Sale 3). The evidence does not support preferring the lower or upper end of this range. I find that the January 1, 2016 current value is at the midpoint of the range and is therefore $520,000.

43There is another method that supports this current value of the Property. Similar to his submission on Sale 6, Mr. Robertson says that I should use the value per waterfront foot of Sale 7 and apply that value to obtain the current value of the Property. Unlike Sale 6, I find this to be a useful indicator of current value because Sale 7 is on the same lake and has a similar water frontage as the Property. In fact, Sale 7 is on the island directly behind Fairylands Island on Lake Rosseau and only has 35 feet less water frontage. Also, Sale 7 sold within 9 months of the valuation date of January 1, 2016. These factors make a per waterfront foot approach more reliable.

44Sale 7 has 245 feet of water frontage and sold for $440,000 in September 2016. This gives a value per waterfront foot of approximately $1,796. The Property has 281 feet of waterfront and so a current value of $505,000 is indicated using $1,796 per waterfront foot. There is insufficient evidence to determine how the value of the single family cottage included in Sale 7 compares with the value of the Boathouse and the Cabins. Nevertheless, I have found that the cottage is slightly inferior to the Boathouse and the Cabins. I therefore find that the value per waterfront foot indicates a value slightly higher than $505,000. This confirms a January 1, 2016 current value of $520,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

Equity

45Section 44(3)(b) of the Act requires me to consider whether an equitable adjustment to the current value is required:

44(3) Same 2009 and subsequent years: For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(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.

46Ms. Mulligan submits that the proper test for “similar lands in the vicinity” for equity purposes is that the properties only need to be of the same general nature, character or function as the Property. Using that test, MPAC submitted an equity analysis report based on 30 properties. Ms. Mulligan’s search criteria for these properties were that the properties be seasonal/recreational dwelling on water from January 1, 2014 to October 1, 2016 and that they be within 17 km of the Property. Ms. Mulligan did not restrict the properties to island properties on the “Big Three” lakes.

47Mr. Robertson submits that mainland properties are very different than island properties because they have year-round access and buildings can be constructed for less money. He also stresses that there are serious challenges to island properties such as access and costs for repairs and services. For these reasons, Mr. Robertson submits that island properties sell for significantly less and are valued differently than mainland properties and should not be used for an equity analysis. His position is that just because mainland properties may be valued equitably, it does not follow that island properties are being valued equitably.

48In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), the Divisional Court specifically considered whether the test of “the same general nature, character or function” was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Regional Assessment Commissioner, v. Downtown Oshawa Property Owners [1978] 2 SCR 1030, 1978 CanLII 36 (SCC) (“Downtown Oshawa”). The Divisional Court found, at paragraph 22, that the Supreme Court of Canada in Downtown Oshawa did not adopt the test of the “the same general nature, character or function” as set out by the Court of Appeal in that case. Rather, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to “many points of comparison” in determining whether properties were similar. The Divisional Court further found, at paragraph 26, that the Downtown Oshawa Decision “does not decide the appropriate test”.

49The Divisional Court in Loblaw confirmed, at paragraph 25, that the “the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered.”

50The Divisional Court further found, at paragraph 25, that a single point of similarity, such as use, is not necessarily determinative of what “similar lands in the vicinity” are.

51In my analysis on current value above, I only used island properties on the “Big Three” lakes, being Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph and Lake Muskoka. The parties agree that island properties on the “Big Three” lakes are the proper comparisons for current value and that mainland properties with road access would not be appropriate comparable properties. However, Ms. Mulligan submits that for equity purposes, we can use the mainland properties. I disagree. Since mainland properties were excluded from comparable properties in the current value analysis, I find it difficult to accept that those properties should be included in an equity analysis in which all points of comparison must be considered.

52I find that the points of comparison that must be considered for similar lands in the vicinity are:

a. Island properties with only water access;

b. On one of the “Big Three” lakes;

c. That are used as seasonal/recreational dwellings; and

d. That sold either in 2015 or 2016.

53Of the 30 properties used in MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report, only the five properties identified as properties 11, 12, 25, 26, and 29 satisfy these points of comparison. However, Mr. Robertson submitted another 17 properties into evidence and there are an additional six properties that satisfy these points of comparison. These are the properties identified by Mr. Robertson at Exhibit 5 as properties 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Properties 5, 6 and 7 at Exhibit 5 also satisfy the points of comparison however they were already included in MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report as properties 29, 12 and 26 respectively. Property 17 at Exhibit 5 was not included because MPAC advised that the assessment of that property included a new cottage that was built shortly after the property was purchased. There is no evidence of the assessment of property 17 prior to the new cottage being built and so I cannot use it.

54The table below summarizes the 11 properties that qualify for an equity analysis:

MPAC Equity Report Property #

Address

2016 Assessment

Sale Date

Sale Price

Assessment to Sales Ratio

11

20 Is Tobin

$2,915,000

Jul 2016

$3,000,000

0.972

12

11 Is Tobin

$392,000

May 2016

$400,000

0.980

25

156 Is Tobins

$1,243,000

Feb 2016

$1,200,000

1.036

26

27 Is Tobins

$888,000

Oct 2015

$849,300

1.046

29

59 Is Mazengah

$480,000

Sep 2016

$440,000

1.091

Appellant Property #

8

70 Is Tobins

$317,000

Jun 2016

$439,000

0.722

10

26 Is Penman

$2,365,000

Nov 2015

$2,400,000

0.985

12

9 Is Badgerow

$877,000

Aug 2016

$950,000

0.923

13

24 Is Badgerow

$1,672,000

Aug 2016

$1,575,000

1.062

14

50 Is Silver Birches

$1,060,000

Jul 2016

$1,060,000

1.000

15

2 Is Elsinore

$2,945,000

Jun 2016

$2,900,000

1.016

55Using these 11 properties, the mean assessment to sales ratio is 0.985 and the median is 1.000. Both measures of central tendency fall within the acceptable range of 0.90 to 1.10. The 95% confidence interval of the median is 0.958 to 1.051 which means that the true median of the population based on this sample is more likely than not to be within the acceptable range. Further, the coefficient of dispersion for this dataset is 6.06, which falls within the acceptable range of 5.0 to 20.0 for seasonal/recreational properties.

56Although a sample size of 11 is small, that is the evidence that I have before me on equity. Therefore, I find that no equitable adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

57The current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $520,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and no equitable adjustment is required. The assessment is therefore reduced from $681,000 to $520,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.