Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 07, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152442

Assessed Person(s): John Sidney Wilkinson

Appellant(s): John Sidney Wilkinson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 02

Respondent(s): Township of Montague

Property Location(s): 267 McGuire Road

Municipality(ies): Township of Montague

Roll Number(s): 0901-000-025-27201-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3233773 and 3288888 (deemed 2018 appeal)

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

Hearing Event No.: 696172

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

Heard: April 9, 2018 in Smith Falls, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
John Sidney Wilkinson	Self-represented
MPAC	Lincoln Pearce
Township of Montague	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1John Wilkinson is the owner of a swampy parcel of land in Montague Township. The only building on the property is a small cabin with no amenities. Mr. Wilkinson appealed the 2017and deemed 2018 assessment of $78,000 on the basis that it is too high. His position is that the value of the property is closer to $45,000 due to its swampy nature and some limitations on development. MPAC argues that the property is properly assessed at $78,000, relying on the sales of other swampy land in the area.

2I find that the current value of the property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years is $78,000. There is no evidence that an assessment at that current value would be inequitable or unfair. I therefore confirm the assessment at $78,000.

Legislation

3Clause 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act ("Act") requires the Assessment Review Board ("Board") to "determine the current value of the land." Current value is defined in section 1 as "the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a willing buyer." That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm's length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to section 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

4Once I have determined the current value, clause 44.(3)(b) 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.

5In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal filed by Mr. Wilkinson, there is a 2018 taxation year appeal before me. This is because, pursuant to subsection 44.(26), a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was "not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018."

Current Value

6The best evidence of current value is a sale of the property on or near the January 1, 2016 valuation day. When such a sale did not happen, the sales of similar properties on or near the January 1, 2016 valuation day are the next best evidence of value. Sales of other properties show how the market likely would have treated this property on the valuation day.

7MPAC provided the sales of seven properties to support its opinion of value. Mr. Wilkinson did not present any sales evidence. The most relevant aspects of the properties are described in the following table:

Address	Size (Acre)	% Swampy	Sale Date	Sale Price
267 McGuire Road	28.73	51-75%
1 Burchill Road	16.62	unknown	July 2013	$70,635
2 Burchill Road	9.26	unknown	Sept 2015	$99,000
3 857 William Campbell Road	92.34	11- 25%	July 2014	$101,000
4 Burchill Road	21.08	11- 25%	June 2014	$80,000
5 Burchill Road	6.0	0%	May 2013	$77,970
6 William Campbell Road	89.64	26-50%	Nov 2015	$100,000
7 1419 Pinery Road	100	51-75%	Sept 2015	$95,000

8Mr. Wilkinson disputed the degree to which these parcels of land were as low, wet, and swampy as his property. Specifically he argues that William Campbell Road is rocky and cannot be considered swamp land. He also noted that these properties have been developed since they were sold. While it may be true that these properties have been developed, Mr. Wilkinson did not dispute that, with the exception of Sale 7, they were vacant land when they were sold. These are all relatively comparable properties for the purpose of valuing Mr. Wilkinson's property.

9While these all have some degree of comparability, I will not consider Sales 1 or 5 because those sales took place in 2013, more than two years before the valuation day of January 1, 2016. Sales from 2013 are not a good indication of what property would likely have sold for on January 1, 2016. Markets change over time. That leaves five sales for consideration. The average sale price per acre of those properties is $3,529, which would indicate a value of $101,388 for Mr. Wilkinson's property. The average is even higher if the properties on William Campbell Road are excluded. However, the properties vary greatly in size and there are economies of scale in vacant land, so the average is not likely the best indication of value.

10The most similar property in size is Sale 4, which sold for $80,000. Further, that is the lowest sale price of the comparable sales that sold in the past two years. That evidence strongly supports MPAC's proposed value of $78,000.

11Mr. Wilkinson argued that all of the other property was developed and that he could not develop his land. He presented an email from an employee with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority noting that there are unevaluated wetlands and organic soils on his property and that the "development and site alteration should be directed away from the wetland." He points out that the only portion of the property that is not a wetland is in the middle of the lot, so accessing that dry site is difficult. He therefore suggested that it would be difficult and expensive to develop the property. While it may be expensive to develop this property, it is not impossible. There were likely similar difficulties with the wetland in the comparable sales. I put no weight on the cost of development because I have no evidence that this property is in a more difficult development position than the properties that sold.

12Mr. Wilkinson's main argument of value was a letter from a realtor, Lindsay Mahon, who opined that as of August 31, 2017 the property would have sold for between $40,000 and $45,000. The one page letter states that the opinion was made "on the basis of comparable values in the area" but did not list what those values were. The sales before me do not support that value, so I cannot say that Mr. Mahon's opinion is valid. Mr. Mahon was not at the hearing to defend the opinion, or point to sales that might lend some weight to his opinion. I cannot put any weight on Mr. Mahon's bald opinion.

13Finally, Mr. Wilkinson complained that his assessment has increased more than other people in the area since the last general reassessment. Unfortunately, this Board has no power to address changes in value between general reassessments. Subsection 44.(3) of the Act limits my inquiry to what the property likely would have sold for on the January 1, 2016 valuation day. How that value compares to the values levied on previous valuation days is not before me. I cannot, therefore, address Mr. Wilkinson's complaints about increases in the assessment of this land over time. Each valuation day must be addressed on its own market evidence.

14The evidence before me shows that swampy vacant land, like Mr. Wilkinson's property, was selling for more than $80,000 near the January 1, 2016 valuation day. MPAC's recommended value of $78,000 is well supported by that evidence. I find that the property likely would have sold for $78,000 on January 1, 2016.

Equity

15I was not presented with any evidence to show that assessing Mr. Wilkinson's property at its current value would be unfair or inequitable. There is no adjustment required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar property in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

16The sales evidence indicates that the property before me likely would have sold for $78,000 on January 1, 2016. There is no indication that it would be inequitable to assess the property at that current value. I therefore confirm the assessment of $78,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.