Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 4, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 156092

Assessed Person(s): David Aaron Robbins Appellant(s): David Aaron Robbins Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07 Respondent(s): Cavan Monaghan Township

Property Location(s): 711 Highway 7A Municipality(ies): Cavan Monaghan Township Roll Number(s): 1509-010-030-24921-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3286770 and 3292989 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No. 704968

Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: September 28, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
David Aaron Robbins	Self-represented
MPAC	Jacqulyn Irwin
Cavan Monaghan Township	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES

ISSUES

1There are two appeals before the Assessment Review Board ("Board"). The first appeal is pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 ("Act") in respect of a supplementary assessment, effective May 30, 2017, of a newly built home located at 711 Highway 7A, the subject property (“SP”). There is also an appeal of the SP’s 2018 assessment.

2The SP, at the beginning of 2017 was vacant land with a frontage of 291.45 feet ("ft.") and a depth of 516.70 ft. for a total land area of 150,592.21 square feet ("sq. ft.") or 3.32 acres. The assessment of the vacant land was $122,000.

3The Appellant, David Aaron Robbins, built a single storey home on the SP in 2017 that measured 1,435 sq. ft. The basement measures 2,176 sq. ft., of which 725 sq. ft. is finished. There is an attached garage measuring 719 sq. ft. and a basement garage measuring 719 sq. ft. The building is rated as a Quality Code 6.5. There is a walkout from the basement. A negative $4,000 adjustment has been applied to the assessment for heavy traffic nuisance.

4On May 7, 2017 a s. 34 supplementary assessment of $374,000 was issued for the value of the improvements that became effective on May 30, 2017. This value was added to the vacant land assessment of $122,000 for a total 2017 tax year assessment of the SP at $496,000. The Appellant finished a portion of the basement and this resulted in an assessment of the SP of $505,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

5Jacqulyn Irwin of MPAC entered six sales of comparable properties that she said were good comparators to the SP, in support of her recommendations. She said she used the direct sales comparison approach to value for both the land and structures to determine the assessment of the SP. She determined that the vacant land value was $122,000 for the 2017 tax year and that the building was valued at $374,000 for a total assessed value of $496,000 for the 2017 tax year. She said that the assessed value for the 2018 tax year increased to $505,000 to account for a portion of the basement being finished. She advised that a $4,000 negative adjustment had been applied to the assessment of the SP to account for a heavy traffic nuisance. She recommended the Board confirm those values.

6Mr. Robbins, representing himself, did not present any sales evidence to support his request for a reduction to the assessment of the SP. He focused his argument on prior properties he had built and how they were far more desirable than the SP but which he had to sell due to high taxes. He said he now lived on one of the busiest rural highways in Ontario and he was still being assessed unfairly. He said that the negative adjustment applied to the assessment by MPAC to account for the Highway 7 traffic was not adequate to account for that nuisance. He said he could not understand how the SP could be assessed as it was when comparing it to other more desirable properties in the immediate area. He implored the Board to reduce the assessment of the SP because if it was not he would have to sell the SP.

7There are three issues before the Board. First, what is the s. 34 apportionment as of May 30, 2017? Secondly, what is the correct current value of the SP for the 2018 taxation year and lastly, are those values equitable with the assessments of similar values in the vicinity.

DECISION

8The Board is required by s. 44.(3) of the Act to determine the current value of the land and have reference to the value at which similar lands in 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.

9The Board finds that the s. 34 assessment of the SP as of May 30, 2017 is $400,000 and when this value is added to the vacant land value of $122,000 the total assessment of the SP is $522,000 for the 2017 taxation year. This assessment is higher than MPAC’s value of $496,000 and MPAC has not applied for an increase to the assessment, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Therefore, the Board will confirm the supplementary assessment of $374,000 for the 2017 taxation year. The Board confirms the assessment of $505,000 for the 2018 taxation year because it is lower than the SP’s current value and finds that those values are equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Relevant Legislation

10Section 34.1 of the Act states:

34(1) Supplementary assessments to be added to collector’s roll. – If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices,

(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose;

the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect the change, and the clerk of the municipality upon notification thereof shall enter a supplementary assessment on the tax roll and the amount of taxes to be levied thereon shall be the amount of taxes that would have been levied for the portion of the taxation year left remaining after the change occurred if the assessment had been made in the usual way.

11Section 44.(3) of the Act states:

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, determine the current value of the land; and 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.

MPAC's Position and Evidence

12Ms. Irwin’s valuation report was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and her Equity Analysis as Exhibit 2. She testified that the direct sales comparison approach to value was used in determining the current value of the SP.

13Ms. Irwin entered the sales of six comparable properties that she opined were good comparators to the SP. She said that, although the properties were in different neighbourhoods, they were in reasonable proximity to each other. She said that all were the same structure type and were built within six years of each other. All of the properties had recent sales that had been time adjusted (“TAS”) to the valuation date.

14Ms. Irwin acknowledged that the SP had a recent sale on June 15, 2015, as vacant land, that she determined was an open market sale.

15Ms. Irwin’s Equity Analysis Report examined the sales of 30 similar lands located within 10 kilometres of the SP. She testified that the median Assessment to Sales (“ASR”) ratio returned at 0.99, which indicated to her that similar lands in the vicinity were being assessed at or near their correct current values.

16Ms. Irwin summed up her presentation by asking the Board to confirm the s. 34 supplementary assessment at $374,000 for the 2017 taxation year commencing on May 30, 2017 and confirming the assessment of $505,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

Appellant’s Position and Evidence

17Mr. Robbins entered a documentary package into evidence as Exhibit 3.

18Mr. Robbins did not enter any sales evidence to support his request for a reduction in the assessment of the SP. He spoke at length and passionately of how he would have to sell the SP if the assessment was not reduced. He spoke of another home that he had built but had to sell because the taxes had risen so drastically and he could not afford to pay them. He described his one time dream home, located in a quiet area not far from the SP, and related how he could not understand how the assessment of that property and the SP’s assessment could be nearly the same. He described living on Highway 7 and the inherent problems encountered in attempting to exit the property, due to the high volume of traffic. He said that the negative adjustment of $4,000 was very inadequate to account for this nuisance.

19Mr. Robbins summed up his presentation by imploring the Board to reduce the assessment so that he would not have to sell this home, as he had to sell other homes.

Board's Deliberations - Current Value

20The best evidence of current value is the sale of the SP if the sale meets the definition of current value on or near the valuation day.

21The Board usually considers the sales of comparable properties that have occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date as the ideal time period for consideration.

22The Board has carefully considered the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence tendered as exhibits.

23The Board, when comparing properties, does not expect exactness or sameness. Therefore, the Board looks at similarity of characteristics, amenities, and location to determine comparability.

24The Board usually considers the sales of comparable properties that have occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date as the ideal time period for consideration. The Board occasionally does extend the time period for considering comparable properties when the parties have demonstrated that there are an insufficient number of relevant sales during the ideal time period.

25MPAC entered the sales of six properties that are situated within a seven kilometre radius of the SP. All of the properties had recent sales; however, the sales of Property One and Property Five occurred in 2017, outside of the time limit that the Board considers ideal for comparison. Therefore, the Board will not consider those properties.

26The remaining properties are all the same structure type as the SP, have basement walkouts, and the building sizes are similar. All have attached garages, with the exception of Property Six, which has both a detached garage and attached garage. All of the houses were built within six years of each other. The Board finds that they are good comparators to the SP and will use them for comparison. Those properties are reflected below in Table 1.

27The Appellant did not enter any sales or equity evidence to support his request for a reduction. He focused his presentation on explaining to the Board how dire the consequences would be for him if the assessment was not reduced in that he would have to sell his home. The Board empathizes with the Appellant. However, the Board is bound by the legislation to fairly assess the evidence placed before it in order to determine what the correct current value is for that property. The Board cannot be swayed by emotional appeals for relief based on an Appellant’s inability to pay the taxes assessed on their property.

28Therefore, the Board will use the comparable properties identified above to determine the correct current value of the SP. Those properties are:

Table 1

Property	Year Built	Building Size (Sq. Ft.)	Lot Size (Acres)	Garage	Quality of Construction (QC)	Time Adjusted Sale Price	Sale Date	Assessment
SP	2017	1,435	3.32	Attached & Basement	6.5			$505,000
2	2013	1,859	1.0	Attached	6.5	$630,487	March 2015	$464,000
3	2012	1,614	2.35	Attached	6.5	$503,944	November 2016	$477,000
4	2012	1,845	0.99	Attached	6.5	$563,000	June 2016	$475,000
6	2012	1,208	14.96	Attached & Detached	6.0	$620,232	June 2015	$573,000

29As can be clearly seen by the above Table the comparable properties and the SP are similar in many respects. There is a relatively close range in the year built. The lot sizes vary considerably but this is offset by the relative similarity of the building size. All of the properties have attached garages while the SP and Property Six have additional garages. While not reflected in the Table, all of the properties have basement walkouts. There is a .5 QC difference between the SP and Property Six, but this is offset by the significant difference in the lot size.

30The Board, in determining the s. 34 assessment, will use the combined land and building improvement assessment of $496,000 for the SP, owing to the fact that the assessor did not apportion the values of the properties submitted for consideration. Therefore, once the total value has been determined the Board will subtract the land portion of $122,000 from that total to determine the s. 34 assessment.

31The Board will determine the average sale price per square foot of the comparable properties and apply that average to the square footage of the SP.

32The Board determined the average sale price per square foot of the comparable properties by dividing the sq. ft. of each comparable property against the TAS price. Using rounded values the Board determined that the average value per square foot was $367. This value was applied to the sq. ft. of the SP that returned a current value of $526,000 (rounded). The Board then deducted the $122,000 lot assessment from this value and found the current value of the SP to be $404,000. The Board deducted a further $4,000 from this value to account for the negative adjustment that MPAC applied to account for heavy traffic, as the Appellant did not provide the Board with a value that he thought was appropriate to account for the traffic nuisance. This resulted in a final value of $400,000 for the s. 34 assessment.

33The Board accepts MPAC's unchallenged equity study that found the median ASR to be 0.99 and finds that an equity adjustment is not required.

CONCLUSION

34The Board finds that the s. 34 assessment of the SP as of May 30, 2017 is $400,000 and when this value is added to the vacant land value of $122,000 the total assessment of the SP is $522,000 for the 2017 taxation year. This assessment is higher than MPAC’s value of $496,000 and MPAC has not applied for an increase to the assessment, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Therefore the Board confirms the supplementary assessment of $374,000 for the 2017 taxation year. The Board confirms the assessment of $505,000 for the 2018 taxation year because that assessment is lower than the SP’s current value.