Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2018
Assessed Person(s): Ronald Kettle
Appellant(s): Ronald Kettle
Respondent(s): City of Thunder Bay
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 32
Property Location(s): 101 Logan Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Thunder Bay
Roll Number(s): 5804-010-074-15200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3260418 and 3314971
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018
Hearing Event No. 700967
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: June 28, 2018 in Thunder Bay, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Ronald Kettle
Self-represented
MPAC
Thomas Pesek
City of Thunder Bay
No one appeared
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE ON June 28, 2018
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property is a two-storey detached residential dwelling built in 1990 with a building area of 1,872 square feet. The quality of construction is 7. It has an attached garage with a quality of construction of 3 to reflect the presence of an asphalt floor. It is situated on a steep sloping lot of 0.15 acres in size.
BACKGROUND
2The appellant purchased the property in April 2001 for $168,800 which included some chattels.
3Notwithstanding the purchase price of $168,800, MPAC returned the assessment for the base year June 30, 2001 at $185,000. On appeal, the Board reduced the assessment to $169,000 to reflect the rounding up of the sale price, with no adjustment for the value of the chattels, as no evidence had been presented, see WR 24876 – R.F. Stephenson and Kettle v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 32, [2004] O.A.R.B.D. No. 20.
4For the January 1, 2016 valuation date, MPAC returned the assessment at $340,000 using the Direct Sales Comparison Approach. MPAC inspected the property on May 4, 2018. No data corrections or property changes were made.
5The appellant agrees with the approach to value but submits that MPAC has failed to take into consideration the condition of the property in relation to the comparable properties relied upon by MPAC. Further, MPAC has failed to consider that the comparable properties are generally situated on level lots whereas the subject is on a severe steep lot that requires a substantial retaining wall which now needs replacement. The appellant further challenged the results of the ‘model’ used by MPAC in its multi-regression assessments and submitted that the subject property has historically been over assessed by an average of 8% to 14%.
ISSUE
6The issue to be determined, therefore, was the correct current value of the property as of January 1, 2016.
DECISION
7The Board determined the correct current value for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years was $313,000. The Board further determined that no further adjustment for equity was warranted.
EVIDENCE
MPAC
8The assessor, Thomas Pesek, filed a Valuation Report proposing an assessment of $340,000 as of January 1, 2016 (Valuation Day) using the Direct Comparison Approach. He proposed the sales of six (6) comparable properties, all described as ‘relatively comparable’ with a range of values, not time adjusted, of $326,000 to $397,000 (rounded).
9Relying upon a study of 423 sales from 2014-01-08 to 2016-12-22, a period of 35 months, the assessor stated that there had been an overall change in the market of 1.92 per cent. The results of this study was challenged by the appellant, however the Board received no better evidence. The range of values of the comparable properties relied upon, time adjusted, was $329,000 to $394,900.
10Only one of the proposed comparable properties (151 Logan Avenue) was on the same street as the subject. It was built the same year but is larger in size, has a better lot, and higher quality of construction. That property sold on July 19, 2016, for a time adjusted sale price of $328,507 ($329,000 rounded), the lowest of the range as proposed by MPAC.
APPELLANT
11Mr. Kettle challenged MPAC’s evidence based on his personal knowledge of the comparable properties used by MPAC. The assessor had no response to the submissions of Mr. Kettle that:
a. the subject property had been historically over assessed by 8% to 14% as analyzed in appellant Exhibit 4;
b. the subject property has