Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 15, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 154742

Assessed Person(s): Cole Howson, Mark Howson, David Howson, Jocelyn Howson

Appellant(s): Cole Howson, Mark Howson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 31

Respondent(s): Sault Ste. Marie Locality Education

Property Location(s): 699B Trout Lake Road

Municipality(ies): Sault Ste. Marie Locality Education

Roll Number(s): 5727-030-002-33700-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3265535 and 3314910

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 701269

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

Heard: July 26, 2018 by teleconference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Cole Howson, Mark Howson	Self-represented
MPAC	Antonietta Bitonti
Sault Ste. Marie Locality Education	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN

OVERVIEW

1Cole Howson and Mark Howson (the “Appellants”) appeal the assessment of their property located at 699B Trout Lake Road in the Province of Ontario (the “Property”). MPAC submits that the correct January 1, 2016 current value of the Property based on the direct comparison approach is $143,000. The Appellants take the position that the correct current value of the Property is $110,900.

2For the reasons that follow, I find that the current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $110,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and that no equitable adjustment is warranted. The assessment is therefore reduced from $143,000 to $110,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

BACKGROUND

3The Property under appeal is in an unorganized territory, in the unincorporated township of Awares, approximately 20 minutes north of the City of Sault Ste. Marie. It is a waterfront lot situated on the south side of Trout Lake and is accessed by a winding, seasonal, private single lane roadway that is maintained by the Southside Trout Lake Property Owners’ Association. The lot is irregular in shape but has 328 feet of water frontage and has a site area of 2.4 acres. The shoreline is gravel and the lot is moderately treed.

4The Property is only accessible seasonally for about six months per year as the private roadway is not maintained. There is no electricity, no municipal water or well, and no septic system on the Property. The occupants draw water from the lake with buckets.

5The dwelling is a seasonal 523 square foot bungalow built in 1950 with no basement and has no bathrooms or bedrooms. There is a compost toilet in an outhouse and grey water is diverted into a stone filled dry well. The dwelling is heated by a wood stove. By all measures, and the photographs confirm, this is a basic, modest dwelling used by the Appellants to sleep and eat in. More elaborate homes are built closer to the marina and are located on two-lane year round roads with electrical services.

ISSUES

6The 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.

7In 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

8Subsection 40(17) of the Act states that MPAC has the burden of proving “the correctness of the current value of the land.” As this Assessment Review Board (“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 their 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.”

9Patry 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.

10I will follow that procedure here.

Can MPAC’s evidence prove its suggested current value?

11As 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.”

12Antonietta Bitonti for MPAC 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 $143,000 for the Property.

13To 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. Bitonti relies on six comparable properties in her current value analysis as summarized in the table below:

Feature	Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5	Sale 6
Date sold		12/11/2015	06/05/2015	08/10/2015	09/30/2015	08/15/2014	09/07/2016
Address	699B Trout Lake Rd.	31 Point Rd.	568 Trout Lake Rd.	493 Island View Rd.	278 Old Mill Rd.	498 Island View Rd.
Lot area (Acres)	2.74	0.48	0.59	1.14	0.61	0.72	1.19
Frontage/Depth (feet)	328/364	118/179	161/163	180/288	107/248	110/312	220/322
Primary building type	Seasonal Dwelling on Water	Single Family Detached on Water	Seasonal Dwelling on Water	Seasonal Dwelling on Water	Seasonal Dwelling on Water	Seasonal Dwelling on Water	Seasonal Dwelling On Water
Building area (square feet)	523	728	576	883	638	408	655
Year built	1950	1960	1971	1950	1950	1955	1950
Effective year built	1950	1968	1971	1981	1950	1955	1976
Quality of construction	3	5	3	3.5	3	3	4
Basement area (square feet)	n/a	728	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Electricity	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Access	Private Road Access	Year Round Road Access	Summer or Seasonal Access Only	Summer or Seasonal Access Only	Year Round Road Access	Year Round Road Access	Summer or Seasonal Access Only
Sale price		$200,000	$118,000	$157,000	$140,000	$155,000	$165,000

14All of MPAC’s comparable sales are located on either Trout Lake, like the Property, or on Upper Island Lake. Upper Island Lake is another similar sized lake within 10 kilometres of Trout Lake. MPAC’s evidence is that Upper Island Lake properties have similar physical characteristics as the properties on Trout Lake and are therefore considered to be comparable. That evidence is uncontested and so I accept that properties on Upper Island Lake can be comparable to properties on Trout Lake.

15However, I find that Sale 1 is not comparable to the Property. Sale 1 is located at 31 Point Road on Trout Lake and is approximately 1.5 kilometres from the Property. Other than water frontage and site area, Sale 1 is significantly superior in all respects. It has year round access to a public road and has electricity. The Property only has six months of seasonal access and is not connected to the electrical grid. I find that these two features are the most influential on current value. In addition to these features, the superior nature and quality of the dwelling on Sale 1 make it too difficult to compare to the Property.

16The dwelling on Sale 1 is 728 square feet and has a full 728 square foot basement. It has an effective year built of 1968 and has two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a fireplace, with a much higher quality of construction than the Property. Sale 1 also enjoys the use of a 773 square foot detached garage. The dwelling on the Property has no bedrooms or bathrooms; there is a compost toilet on site and the grey water is diverted into a stone filled dry well. It was built in 1950 with no significant renovations, has no basement and is only 523 square feet with a much lower quality of construction. In short, Sale 1 has a superior quality year round house on the lake whereas the Property has a seasonal cabin with no electricity, water or septic system. Due to the combined effect of the significant superior features mentioned above, I do not consider Sale 1 to be comparable.

17Nevertheless, the remaining five properties presented by Ms. Bitonti are sufficiently comparable and can be used in her analysis. In her Valuation Report, Ms. Bitonti stated that Sales 4, 5, and 6 are similar, Sale 2 is inferior, and Sale 3 is superior. Ms. Bitonti also explained why she believes that the comparable properties are inferior, similar, or superior to the Property. As detailed further below, I disagree with some of Ms. Bitonti’s opinions regarding whether a particular comparable sale is inferior, similar or superior. However, this is not considered in determining whether MPAC has met its burden.

18Ms. Bitonti opined that the current value of the Property must be significantly higher than $118,000, the sale price of Sale 2, because Sale 2 is significantly inferior to the Property. Ms. Bitonti further submitted that the value is below $157,000, the sale price of Sale 3. Based on that range and her opinion that Sale 2 is significantly inferior to the Property, Ms. Bitonti concluded that the correct current value of the Property is $143,000.

19With this evidence, I find that MPAC has met its burden. Ms. Bitonti clearly showed her pathway to arriving at the proposed current value of $143,000 and why, in her opinion, that value is correct. That is what is required as a minimum.

20I note that I am not making a finding that the correct January 1, 2016 current value is $143,000. 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?

21Following 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.

22In response to MPAC’s evidence, the Appellants entered into evidence the June 7, 2017 appraisal report of Judith Luzzi, an appraiser from J E Luzz Appraisal Services (the “Appraisal Report”). Ms. Luzzi is a registered appraiser with the Appraisal Institute of Canada. MPAC took no issue with Ms. Luzzi’s credentials or experience as an appraiser.

23As I stated in Bernier v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 2, 2018 CanLII 107728 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 26 and 27, an appraiser’s absence at a hearing does not necessarily result in her report being given less weight.

24The weight to be given to such a report will depend on the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the contents of the report. A report may have detailed opinions of value and the reasoned basis behind those opinions. In such cases, it may well be that a report could stand on its own without oral testimony.

25That is not the case here, however. As detailed below, I attribute no weight to the opinions in the Appraisal Report.

26In her Appraisal Report, Ms. Luzzi describes the Property including the lot and the structures in detail and then provides three comparable sales. The three comparable sales are the most recent sales of similar dwellings on Trout Lake. Ms. Luzzi lists the relevant characteristics of Comparable #1, Comparable #2 and Comparable #3 and then makes dollar value adjustments to each comparable for each characteristic that is either superior or inferior to the Property.

27Although a quantitative direct comparison is preferable to a purely qualitative approach, I cannot blindly accept the dollar value adjustments proposed in the Appraisal Report. The Appraisal Report does not explain how the dollar value adjustments are obtained. There is no explanation regarding the amounts assigned to the adjustments as opposed to another dollar value. For example, there is an adjustment of $25,000 for boat access but there is no explanation regarding that assigned value.

28Another concern with the Appraisal Report is that some dollar adjustments seem to be missing. For example, there are no adjustments for water frontage or lot size. It may be the case that Ms. Luzzi does not believe that such a dollar value adjustment is warranted, but without her testimony or more details in the report, I am not prepared to assume that is her opinion nor on what basis she holds that opinion.

29Further, the Appraisal Report is for an effective date of July 2, 2017. This is 18 months away from the January 1, 2016 valuation date. I have no evidence as to how Ms. Luzzi’s opinion of current value would change as a result of a different valuation date, if at all.

30For these reasons, I attribute no weight to the opinions in the Appraisal Report. I am not making a negative finding of credibility of the author of the report. I am finding that I cannot rely on the opinions in the Appraisal Report because the justifications for the opinions are missing and the author was not present at the hearing to explain her opinions. Nevertheless, the three comparable sales presented in the Appraisal Report may still be considered in determining current value. My analysis of these three comparable sales follows the comparable sales presented by MPAC.

31The details of MPAC’s six sales are summarized in the table at paragraph [13] above. I have found that Sale 1 is not comparable. As detailed further below, I further find that Sale 2 is the most comparable of MPAC’s sales. I will start with an analysis of Sales 3 to 6.

32Sale 3 is located at 493 Island View Road on Upper Island Lake and sold for $157,000 on August 10, 2015. Sale 6 is located at 498 Island View Road on Upper Island Lake and sold for $165,000 on September 7, 2016. Sale 3 and Sale 6 are in close proximity and are similar to each other but are both superior to the Property.

33Similar to the Property, both Sale 3 and Sale 6 have summer or seasonal access only. Also, Sale 3 and Sale 6 are inferior to the Property because of the smaller water frontage and site area. However, Sale 3 and Sale 6 are connected to the electrical grid and have far superior dwellings on them. The electricity also allows for the dwelling to be heated electrically. These factors outweigh the larger water frontage and site area of the Property. The dwellings on Sale 3 and Sale 6 are 1 ¾ storeys and 1 ½ storeys respectively. They are a higher quality of construction, have bedrooms and bathrooms and are larger in square footage. Significantly, the effective ages of the dwellings are 1981 and 1976, as compared to the effective year built of 1950 of the subject dwelling. Sale 3 and Sale 6 are both superior to the Property.

34Sale 4 is located at 278 Old Mill Road on Upper Island Lake and sold for $140,000 on September 30, 2015. Sale 5 is located on Upper Island Lake, near Sale 4, and sold for $155,000 on August 15, 2014. Sale 4 and Sale 5 are similar to each other but are both superior to the Property. The dwellings on both Sale 4 and Sale 5 are similar to the Property in terms of age, size and quality. Also, Sale 4 and Sale 5 are inferior to the Property because of the smaller water frontage and site area. However, Sale 4 and Sale 5 have year round access to a public road and are connected to electricity. These significant features outweigh the larger water frontage and site area of the Property. As stated earlier, these two features are the most influential on current value. Without electricity, a whole host of amenities are not available. There is no clean water, no bathrooms, and no heat. Sale 3 and Sale 6 are both superior to the Property.

35Sale 2 is located at 568 Trout Lake Road on Trout Lake and sold for $118,000 on June 5, 2015. Both MPAC and the Appellant’s expert rely on this comparable sale. MPAC’s opinion is that Sale 2 is inferior whereas the Appraisal Report suggests that Sale 2 is slightly superior. The dwellings on Sale 2 and the Property are similar in quality of construction, size, and in that they both have no bathrooms. However, the dwelling on Sale 2 is 21 years newer, which makes the dwelling on Sale 2 slightly superior to the dwelling on the Property. The site of Sale 2 is inferior because of the smaller water frontage and site area, and it has a steeper slope to the water.

36However, the major features to consider are electricity and access. Sale 2 is connected to the electrical grid and is heated electrically whereas the Property has no electricity and is heated with a wood stove. These are significant superior features of Sale 2.

37In terms of access, MPAC states that Sale 2 can only be accessed seasonally whereas the Appraisal Report states that Sale 2 enjoys year round access. The Appellants testified that Sale 2 is just down the road from them and that the occupants of Sale 2 enjoy year round access. The Appellants also stated that the seasonal piece of land identified by MPAC as not being maintained is a 100 metre driveway which is maintainable with a snow blower and that, because the Property is connected to electricity and electric heating, potential purchasers would consider this a year round access property. The Appellants say that this is a major advantage as compared to the Property which has kilometres of no road access or electricity and is therefore inaccessible for six months of the year.

38I accept the Appellants’ evidence regarding year round access to Sale 2 and I agree that this access is an advantage as compared to the seasonal access for the Property. However, I do not agree that it is equivalent to properties that enjoy year round access from a public, maintained road. The 100 metre strip of driveway is over land that is not owned by the owners of Sale 2 and so the driveway does not directly abut Trout Lake Road. Further, the occupants of Sale 2 are required to maintain a 100 metre swath of land that is not owned by them. The occupants of properties that enjoy year round access to a public road are not required to do this extra work to access their properties. Notwithstanding, I find that the year round access to Sale 2 is a superior feature as compared to the six month seasonal access to the Property.

39Of the six sales presented by MPAC, I find that Sale 2 is most comparable to the Property. However, the electricity, electric heating, and year round access outweigh the smaller frontage and site area, and steep slope. Sale 2 is slightly superior to the Property.

40The Appraisal Report listed three comparable sales. Comparable Property #2 is the same property as MPAC’s Sale 2. For clarity, I will refer to Comparable #1 and Comparable #3 in the Appraisal Report as Sale 7 and Sale 8 respectively.

41Sale 7 is located at 990 Trout Lake Road and sold for $85,000 on July 15, 2016. Sale 7 is not superior to the Property in any appreciable way. Sale 7 has a smaller water frontage and site area and it can only be accessed by boat. Boat access is a significant inferior feature as compared to the seasonal road access of the Property. Although the dwelling is similar to the Property in condition and in that it has no bathrooms, the dwelling on Sale 7 is slightly inferior in that it is smaller and 15 years older. Both Sale 7 and the Property are only accessible for around six months of the year and both are not connected to electricity. I find that Sale 7 is inferior to the Property because of the boat access, the smaller water frontage and site area, and, to a smaller extent, the dwelling.

42Sale 8 is located at 508B Trout Lake Road and sold for $82,500 on September 18, 2014. Sale 8 has a smaller water frontage and site area and it can only be accessed by boat. Boat access is a significant inferior feature as compared to the seasonal road access of the Property. Although the dwelling is similar to the Property in condition and size, the dwelling is slightly superior in that the dwelling has two bathrooms and is 22 years newer. Both properties are only accessible for around six months of the year and both are not connected to electricity. I find that Sale 8 is inferior to the Property because of the boat access and the smaller water frontage and site area. The slightly superior dwelling does not offset those features to any significant degree.

43In addition to the Appraisal Report, the Appellants provided testimony of two more sales that they believed to be comparable. I will refer to those properties as Sale 9 and Sale 10. Sale 9 is located at 699D Trout Lake Road and sold for $58,000 in 2016. It is only two lots away from the Property. However, pursuant to the Appellant’s testimony, this was a private sale to a relative of the previous owner of Sale 9 and was a bargain. For that reason, I find that Sale 9 should not be used in an analysis of current value. It is not an arm’s length transaction from a willing seller to a willing purchaser.

44Sale 10 is located at 699E Trout Lake Road and sold for $100,000 on June 23, 2017. The Appellants testified that this property was brought to their attention by Ms. Bitonti but that she did not include it in her analysis. According to the Appellants, Sale 8 is not connected to electricity and has the same seasonal access as the Property. Also, the Appellants stated that the dwelling is similar in quality and age but that it is a larger cabin. Ms. Bitonti obtained further details of Sale 10 during the hearing. The dwelling is a 570 square foot cabin built in 1960 and has a similar quality as the dwelling on the Property. She confirmed that it has the same access as the Property and that it has no electricity. She also testified that it has a water frontage of 172 feet and a steeper slope than the Property.

45When I asked why Sale 10 was not included in her analysis, Ms. Bitonti stated that the sale was outside of the shoulder years and that MPAC did not have the chance to investigate whether it was a forced sale. I do not accept these submissions. First, Ms. Bitonti used a sale, Sale 5, that is outside of the shoulder years in her own analysis. It is not credible to include Sale 5 when it sold in August 2014, or approximately 16.5 months from the January 1, 2016 valuation date, and at the same time reject Sale 10 because it sold in June 2017, or approximately 17.5 months from the valuation date. Second, although the Board prefers comparable properties within one year of the valuation date, Sale 10 is the most comparable of the properties in evidence. When the number of comparable properties within the shoulder years is limited, it is acceptable for the Board to consider properties outside of the shoulder years. This is especially the case when, as here, Sale 10 is the best available comparable. Third, a property is not excluded from an analysis because MPAC has not conducted an investigation. MPAC did not provide any evidence to suggest that Sale 10 was not an arm’s length transaction.

46At the hearing, Ms. Bitonti agreed that Sale 10 is comparable in terms of no electricity, seasonal access and the dwelling. These are the major features that make Sale 10 the most comparable to the Property than any of the other properties presented in evidence. However, she opined that it is inferior because of the smaller water frontage and steeper slope. I agree that Sale 10 is inferior because of these features, but only slightly, as I do not find them to be as significant as the major similar features discussed above.

47The following table summarizes my analysis of the comparable properties in evidence from superior to inferior:

	Date Sold	Comparability	Sale Price
Sale 1	December 2015	Superior	$200,000
Sale 6	September 2016	Superior	$165,000
Sale 3	August 2015	Superior	$157,000
Sale 5	August 2014	Superior	$155,000
Sale 4	September 2015	Superior	$140,000
Sale 2	June 2015	Slightly Superior	$118,000
Sale 10	June 2017	Slightly Inferior	$100,000
Sale 7	July 2016	Inferior	$85,000
Sale 8	September 2014	Inferior	$82,500

48Based on the foregoing analysis, the current value of the Property is likely to be between $100,000 (Sale 10) and $118,000 (Sale 2). The evidence does not support preferring the lower or upper end of this range. I therefore find that the January 1, 2016 current value is at the approximate midpoint of the range and is therefore $110,000.

Equity

49Section 44(3) (b) of the Act requires me to consider whether an equitable adjustment to the current value is required:

44(3) 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.

50Ms. Bitonti 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. This is not the correct test for determining similar lands in the vicinity.

51In 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.”

52The 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 all points of comparison must be considered.”

53The 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.

54In the analysis on current value above, I only used comparable sales of single family detached seasonal/recreational dwellings on Trout Lake or similar lake in the Sault North Planning Area. I find that the points of comparison that must be considered for similar lands in the vicinity are:

a. Waterfront properties;

b. On Trout Lake or another lake in the Sault North Planning Area;

c. With a single family detached dwelling; and

d. That sold anytime between 2014 and 2017.

55The Property is in a remote location in an unorganized territory. The number of comparable properties in 2015 and 2016 was limited. In order to obtain a larger sample size for an equity analysis, I accept that the dates for sold properties can fall outside of the shoulder years and extend into 2014 and 2017.

56I note that it is the taxpayer’s burden to prove that an equitable adjustment is required. However, the Appellants did not present any evidence or make any submissions relating to equity.

57MPAC presented an equity report. Although Ms. Bitonti did not use the proper test in determining what properties are similar lands in the vicinity, I find that 21 of the properties selected by MPAC in its equity report are nevertheless similar lands in the vicinity for equity purposes because they satisfy all points of comparison listed above. The following properties are single-family detached dwellings or seasonal/recreational dwellings, on Trout Lake or another lake in the Sault north Planning Area and sold from 2014 to 2017:

Property Number	Assessment	Sale	Assessment to Sale Ratio
1	$179,000	$280,000	0.639
2	$163,000	$218,500	0.746
5	$236,000	$280,000	0.843
6	$50,000	$55,000	0.909
7	$277,000	$300,000	0.923
8	$185,000	$200,000	0.925
9	$111,000	$118,000	0.941
10	$149,000	$155,000	0.961
11	$159,000	$165,000	0.964
15	$188,000	$193,000	0.974
16	$155,000	$157,000	0.987
18	$85,000	$85,000	1.000
19	$492,000	$490,000	1.004
20	$142,000	$140,000	1.014
22	$222,000	$209,000	1.062
23	$154,000	$144,000	1.069
25	$209,000	$185,000	1.130
26	$121,000	$100,000	1.210
27	$213,000	$175,000	1.217
28	$143,000	$109,900	1.301
29	$102,000	$75,000	1.360

58Using these 21 properties, the mean assessment to sale ratio is 1.01 and the median is 0.987. Both measures of central tendency fall within MPAC’s target range of 0.95 to 1.05. The 95% confidence interval of the median is 0.926 to 1.05 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 the median is 12.3, which falls within the acceptable range of 5.0 to 20.0 for seasonal/recreational properties. This means that the assessments in the data are sufficiently uniform.

59The level of appraisal as indicated by the mean ratio of 1.01 is well within MPAC’s target of 0.95 to 1.05 and suggests that properties in the vicinity are equitably assessed. Further, the standard deviation from the mean is 0.171 and the 95% confidence interval is 0.948 to 1.07 which means that the true mean of the population based on this sample is more likely than not to be within the acceptable range.

60Based on the evidence before me, I find that no equitable adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

61The current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $110,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and no equitable adjustment is required. The assessment is therefore reduced from $143,000 to $110,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.