Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 27, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 153148

Assessed Person(s): Nelson Stewart Taddeo

Appellant(s): Nelson Stewart Taddeo

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 32

Respondent(s): Township of Ignace

Property Location(s): 309 Garden Street

Municipality(ies): Township of Ignace

Roll Number(s): 6001-000-001-12100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3256755 and 3315215

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 696884

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

Heard: May 01, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Nelson Stewart Taddeo	Self-represented
MPAC	Carlene Steiner Dave Zabloski
Township of Ignace	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ANTHONY LaREGINA

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a single-family one storey detached dwelling located at 309 Garden Street in the Township of Ignace. The home was built in 1939 and an effective year built of 1957 and is noted as being in average condition. The property has a dwelling with 848 square feet of building area located on the first floor and 182 square feet of unfinished space in the basement situated on a 0.11 acre lot. The property also has a detached garage with 634 square feet built in 1938. The current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $51,000 for the 2017 tax year and $33,500 for the 2018 tax year.

2Dave Zabloski, the assessor from MPAC, provided the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) with an estimate of current value of $26,500 based on six comparable property sales located within the vicinity of the subject property. Mr. Zabloski made no further equity adjustment after presenting an equity study showing a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 1.0. Mr. Zabloski recommends a reduction of the assessment as returned from $51,000 for the 2017 and $33,500 for 2018 taxation years to $26,500 for both 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

3Nelson Stewart Taddeo, (“Appellant”) submits that MPAC has started with an assessed value of $51,000 and then reduced it to $33,500 and now as a result of the request for reconsideration has once again reduced it to $26,500. Mr. Taddeo believes that based on the depressed economy in the Township of Ignace, and the fact that his home is located in the older part of town, the assessment should be further reduced by 30% from $33,500 to $23,450 for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

ISSUES

4The issues to be determined are:

i.) What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation year?

ii.) Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable in reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

DECISION

5The Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years to be $26,500.

6The Board also determines that the current value requires no further adjustment in order that the assessment of the subject property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

7The Board will therefore reduce the assessment of the subject property from $51,000 for the 2017 taxation year, and $33,500 for 2018 taxation year, to $26,500 for both years.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value – Evidence and Analysis

8In accordance with s. 44.(3)(a), the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land”. Section 1 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) defines current value 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.”

9That is, for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by s. 19.2 of the Act.

MPAC’s Position

10Mr. Zabloski presented six comparable property sales located in the vicinity of the subject property. He testified that all six properties are relatively comparable to the subject property and the time adjusted sale range of the six comparable properties is between $28,052 and $64,969. As a result of the request for reconsideration process Mr. Zabloski reviewed the condition of the property as a result of an inspection and adjusted the quality of construction from 5.0 to 4.5. Based on the quality adjustment Mr. Zabloski submits that the best comparable to the subject property is 304 Front Street with a time adjusted sale value of $28,700. This property of the six sales provided by MPAC is the closest to the subject property, has an identical lot size of 0.11 acres and 823 square feet of building area compared to the subject property which has 848 square feet of building area.

11As a result of the mandatory meeting Mr. Zabloski is recommending a further adjustment from $28,700 to $26,500 to compensate for the fact that 304 Front Street has a 923 square foot basement as opposed to the subject which only has 182 square feet and also because 304 Front Street is slightly newer with an effective year built of 1965 compared to the subject at 1957.

12Carlene Steiner, MPAC’s advocate, submits that MPAC has inspected the subject property and based on the best comparable sale at 304 Front Street in conjunction with the adjustments made for size of basement and year built that the recommended current value of $26,500 fairly reflects the market value of the subject property.

13Ms. Steiner requests that the Board find the current value to be $26,500 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date.

Appellant’s Position

14Mr. Taddeo submitted that the Township of Ignace is very economically depressed resulting from loss of jobs in both the railway and mining industry. Mr. Taddeo argued that there have been many foreclosures and tax sales which are impacting the market value of property and therefore it is very difficult to place an accurate current value on his home.

15Mr. Taddeo further submits that it is MPAC’s job to determine the proper value of the subject property and believes they have failed to do so by reducing the property assessment several times from the returned value of $51,000 to $33,500 and now with the current recommendation of $26,500.

16Mr. Taddeo estimates that a further 30% reduction from the $33,500 is warranted because of the poor economy and the very depressed real estate market which exists in the Township of Ignace. Furthermore, Mr. Taddeo believes that the comparable sales presented by MPAC do not clearly reflect his property value because his property has had no improvements for many years, has a very small basement and is located in the old part of town.

17Mr. Taddeo requests a current value of $23,450 based on his estimate which is 30% less than the 2017 returned value of $33,500.

Board’s Analysis of Current Value

18The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property on or near the valuation date of January 1, 2016. When no such sale occurs, as in this appeal, the Board looks to the recent sale of other similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.

19The Board accepts the six comparable sales provided by MPAC as the only sales evidence in support of current value with sale dates that are within the shoulder years and sale values that have been properly time adjusted.

20The Board has not received any evidence of comparable sales from Mr. Taddeo in support of current value.

21The Board is in agreement with MPAC that of the six comparable sales the best comparable is 304 Front Street which is located less than one block away, has identical lot size, building area and quality of construction to the subject property and therefore the time adjusted sale value of 304 Front Street at $28,700 is a very reasonable and realistic market value for the subject property.

22The Board also notes the only other property with the same quality of construction of 4.5 is property sale number 1 located at 631 Pine Street which sold for a time adjusted sale value of $43,780. This property has a lot of 0.20 acres which is twice the size of the subject property at 0.11 acres and has a slightly larger building area and newer dwelling with an effective year built of 1973. The Board is in agreement with MPAC that 304 Front Street is a much better comparable for the purposes of establishing current value of the subject property.

23The remaining four comparable sales numbered 2 through 6 have a quality of construction of 5.0 or 5.5 and once again the Board is in agreement with MPAC that these properties are on the higher end of the comparable range to the subject property for the purposes of establishing current value.

24The Board also accepts MPAC’s further adjustment to current value from $28,700 to $26,500 to compensate for the superior elements of 304 Front Street compared to the subject property which includes the 923 square foot basement and the slightly newer effective year built of 1965 as compared to 1957.

25The Board finds the current value of the subject property is $26,500 based on a valuation day of January 1, 2016.

Board’s Analysis of Equity

26Section 44.(3)(b) directs that after determining current value, the Board shall 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”.

27The ASR of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, then a reduction in the assessment of the subject property to below current value is considered to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time adjusted sale price.

28Mr. Zabloski presented an equity analysis of 30 residential sales that occurred from January 1, 2012 to December 11, 2017, all located in close proximity of the subject property. Those sales have a median ASR of 1.0 and a coefficient of dispersion of 33.3. Mr. Zabloski submits that MPAC standards indicate that for residential property, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05. If the median ratio falls within this range, this reveals that the current value assessments are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity and therefore no further adjustment is required.

29Mr. Taddeo provided no evidence in support of an equity argument for the Board to consider.

30The best evidence on equity is the time adjusted sale and assessment evidence of the 30 properties presented by MPAC indicating a median ASR of 1.0. Based on MPAC’s equity study, the Board will make no further adjustment to the current value of the subject property in order to make the assessment equitable with the assessment of other property in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

31Based on all of the evidence, the Board reduces the assessment of the subject property from the returned value of $51,000 for the 2017 taxation year, and $33,500 for the 2018 taxation year, to $26,500 for both years.