Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 31, 2019 FILE NO.: WR 156592

Assessed Person(s): Bertina Caldas Yates and Philip Yates Appellant(s): Bertina Caldas Yates and Philip Yates Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15 Respondent(s): Town of Oakville

Property Location(s): 103 Selgrove Crescent Municipality(ies): Town of Oakville Roll Number(s): 2401-020-120-03500-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3285255 and 3305456 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 707267

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

Heard: October 12, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Bertina Caldas Yates and Philip Yates	Self-represented
MPAC	Valerie Lamothe
Town of Oakville	Susan Price

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

Background

1Bertina Yates and Philip Yates are the owners of 103 Selgrove Crescent (the “Subject Property”), a single-family home located in the Town of Oakville.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016 (“current value”).

3MPAC has determined that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,230,000 but has returned an assessment of $1,107,000 and has not given notice that it is seeking an increase.

4The Appellants filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) and have been deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2018 taxation year pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. It was the Appellants’ position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that an equitable assessment is $1,054,000.

5Pursuant to s. 40.(11) of the Act, the Town of Oakville (the “Town”) is a party to this proceeding. It is the Municipality’s position that the correct current value exceeds the assessment as returned and, therefore, no reduction is warranted.

6Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute of the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer. Both MPAC and the Town take the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellants take the position, as mentioned above, that MPAC has unfairly assessed the Subject Property in relation to other properties and that a reduction to $1,054,000 is required.

7At the completion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. For the reasons that follow, I find that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, is $1,202,000. I further find that an assessment below current value, at $1,113,000, is required to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. However, this value exceeds the assessment as returned. Because no one is seeking an increase in the assessment, I confirm the assessment of $1,107,000 in the Residential Property Class for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

Relevant Legislation

8The Act states that:

1. “current value” means, in relation to land, 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.

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.

40.(17) For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

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,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(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.

ISSUES

9The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

1. The correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2017 to 2018; and

2. Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value of the Subject Property pursuant to s. 44.(3) (b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

Description of the Subject Property

10The Subject Property is a residential dwelling located at 103 Selgrove Crescent, located in an area known as South West Oakville in the Town of Oakville. The lot is 11,325 square feet (“sq. ft.”), or 0.26 acres. However MPAC has assessed it as having 10,018 sq. ft., or 0.23 acres to reflect the fact that it is located on a 90 degree curve on Selgrove Crescent and is bounded by the street on two sides. The lot is improved with a single family, detached, single storey residence, built in 1957. In 2015 the Subject Property underwent renovations to update the residence and 700 sq. ft. were added to the ground floor. The Subject Property currently has 1,973 sq. ft. of above-ground building area and there is 1,196 sq. ft. of basement area. There is an outdoor pool, built in 2008, and an attached garage of 461 sq. ft. built in 2015. Due to the renovations and addition, MPAC has amended the year built from 1957 to 2002.

Issue No. 1: What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2017 to 2018?

MPAC’s Evidence

11Valerie Lamothe represented MPAC and presented into evidence a valuation report dated June 29, 2018 which included six sale properties with detailed descriptions, locational maps as well as photographs of the sale properties and the Subject Property. The report also included a time adjustment study of 307 sales with time adjustment factors to adjust sale values from the dates they occurred to the January 1, 2016 valuation day. A summary of the sale properties are found in the following chart.

Table 1 MPAC’s Sales

	Subject Property	1395 Willowdown Road	192 Tracina Drive	162 Walby Drive	170 Talbot Drive	124 Westminister Drive*
Effective Lot Size (acres)	0.23	0.26	0.26	0.26	0.35	0.23
House Size (sq. ft.)	1,973	1,422	1,378	1,323	1,610	1,275
Number of Storeys	1	1	1	1	1	1
Basement Size/ Finished Area (sq. ft.)	1,196/0	1,198/401	1,295/570	1,323/584	1,407/667	1,275/915
Garage (sq. ft.)	461	240	480	480	480	0
Pool	Yes, built in 2008	No	Yes, built in 1980	No	No	No
Year Built/ Effective Year Built	1957/2002	1959/1998	1965	1962	1962/1984	1959
Assessed Value	$1,107,000	$959,000	$980,000	$898,000	$1,042,000	$772,000
Sale Date	N/A	July 2015	October 2016	May 2016	November 2015	April 2016
Sale Price	N/A	$1,063,000	$1,335,000	$1,191,000	$1,001,000	$995,000
Time Adjusted Sale Price	N/A	$1,168,582	$1,154,783	$1,109,203	$1,026,289	$940,901

*This sale was also submitted by the Town.

12Ms. Lamothe and the Appellants agree that an MPAC staff member visited the Subject Property and re-measured the building area prior to the Mandatory Settlement Meeting and this hearing.

MPAC’s Submissions

13MPAC argued that the Subject Property has undergone extensive renovations which make it more desirable in the market place compared to properties with older or no renovations. The assessments of similar properties with older renovations would be less than the Subject Property’s due to depreciation.

14MPAC argues that all of its sales comparable properties, with the exception of 1395 Willowdown Road, are inferior to the Subject Property because they have smaller building areas and lack renovations or recent renovations. MPAC argues that the range of time adjusted sale values for these inferior properties range from $940,901 to $1,151,783 which indicates that the Subject Property will likely sell for more than $1,151,783.

15MPAC argues that the most comparable sale is 1395 Willowdown Road. It was built in 1959 but MAPC has allocated an effective year built of 1998 to reflect a recent renovation. Unlike the Subject Property, it does not have a pool. MPAC argues that the time adjusted sale price of $1,168,582 plus $60,000 for the value of the pool results in a value of $1,228,582 which she rounded to $1,230,000.

16Relying on its evidence, MPAC argues that the correct current value for the taxation years 2017 to 2018 is $1,230,000. MPAC argues that its sales evidence support the assessment as returned of $1,107,000.

17In response to the Appellants’ argument that the Subject Property is a corner lot and should only be compared to other corner lot properties, MPAC submits that the Subject Property is not a true corner lot because it is located on a bend in the street and is not negatively affected by the noise and traffic nuisances usually associated with an intersection of two streets.

18In response to Appellants’ three sales, MPAC submits that:

a. 122 Selgrove Crescent has no additions or renovations and is, therefore, inferior to the Subject Property.

b. Both 190 Woodhaven Park Drive and 198 Tracina Drive are not directly comparable to the Subject Property because they have two storey residences and older renovations. MPAC submits that the ages of the renovations are reflected in their assessed values.

The Town’s Evidence

19Susan Price represented the Town of Oakville. She presented a report which contained four suggested comparable sales, all located on corner lots. She also submitted photographs and locational maps of the Subject Property and her sale properties. In addition, she submitted the listing sheets for 122 Selgrove Crescent to illustrate what this un-renovated property looks like (compared to the Subject Property). She submits that it is not an outstanding residence yet it sold for $850,000 in June 2015.

Table 2 Town’s Sales

	Subject Property	208 Woodhaven Park	108 Westminster Drive	124 Westminster Drive*	122 Selgrove Crescent**
Effective Lot Size (acres)	0.23	0.27	0.24	0.23	0.26
House Size (sq. ft.)	1,973	1,352	1,220	1,275	1,196
Number of Storeys	1	1	1	1	1
Finished Basement Area (sq. ft.)	0	608	672	915	956
Pool	Yes	No	No	No	No
Year Built/Effective Year Built	1957/2012	1957	1956	1959	1957
Sale Date	N/A	February 2016	August 2016	April 2016	June 2015
Sale Price	N/A	$930,000	$1,110,000	$995,000	$850,000
Time Adjusted Sale Price	N/A	$907,680	$987,900	$940,901	$952,000

*This sale was also submitted by MPAC.

**This sale was also submitted by the Appellants

20Ms. Price’s evidence also included the following:

a. 108 Westminster Drive was demolished in January 2017.

b. 124 Westminster Drive sold again in January 2017 for $1,300,000 and was then demolished in July 2017.

The Town’s Submissions

21Relying on its evidence, the Town submits that the returned assessment of $1,107,000 is reasonable because corner lots located in the same area as the Subject Property, that have not been renovated, have time adjusted sale values ranging from $907,680 to $987,900.

22The Town submits that it is difficult to find comparable single-storey residences with a similar lot size and that most properties have been renovated. The Town also argues that the renovations must be close in date to the Subject Property’s renovations to properly reflect a current value.

23In response to the Appellants’ arguments that 122 Selgrove Crescent is similar to the Subject Property, the Town argues that they were similar before the Subject Property was renovated but now the Subject Property is much larger. The Town argues that although 122 Selgrove Crescent is inferior to the Subject Property, it has a time adjusted sale price of $952,000 which is very close to the Subject Property’s assessed value of $1,107,000, indicating that the Subject Property is likely under-assessed. She submits that the time adjusted sale price of 122 Selgrove Crescent plus the Subject Property’s $250,000 renovation costs result in a value of $1,202,000, again, indicating that the Subject Property is likely under-assessed.

Appellants’ Evidence

24Bertina Yates and Philip Yates represented themselves. They argued that their property should only be compared to corner lot properties because the road abuts it on two sides. As such, they do not have a traditional back yard and the abutting road results in development restrictions. They argue that corner lots are, therefore less desirable and will sell for less. They argue that whether the Subject Property is at an intersection of two streets or at an L-shaped corner of a continuous street, it appears to be a corner lot in the mind of the purchaser and, therefore, the value is reduced in the purchaser’s mind.

25They presented details of 10 properties, the data for which they obtained from MPAC’s website. Appellants presented their 10 properties to argue that MPAC is tending to assess properties less than theirs or less than the respective sale prices. I will address this Appellants’ 10 properties in the Equity portion of this decision. Five of the 10 properties have sales. These sales are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Appellants’ Sales

	Subject Property	117 Selgrove Crescent	122 Selgrove Crescent	88 Selgrove Crescent	190 Woodhaven Park Drive	198 Tracina Drive
Effective Lot Size (acres)	0.23	0.29	0.26	0.28	0.27	0.25
House Size (sq. ft.)	1,973	2,892	1,196	1,402	2,273	1,936
Number of Storeys	1	2	1	1	2	2
Basement Size/ Finished Area (sq. ft.)	1,196/0	1440/912	1,196/956	702/300	1,273/363	808/600
Year Built	2012	2008	1957	1957	1959	1965
Assessed Values	$1,107,000	$1,588,000	$817,000	$824,000	$1,111,000	$1,090,000
Sale Date	N/A	January 2013	June 2015	April 2013	June 2016	May 2015
Sale Price	N/A	$1,339,000	$850,000	$875,000	$1,470,000	$1,320,000
Time Adjusted Sale Price	N/A	Not Available	$952,000	Not Available	$1,347,990	$1,506,120

26The Appellants took the position that the Subject Property is identical to 122 Selgrove Crescent, which, they stated, had a small addition in 1973. On cross-examination by the Town, the Appellants testified they spent $250,000 renovating the Subject Property including adding 700 sq. ft. to the residence.

27The Appellants also took the position that 198 Tracina Drive is directly comparable to the Subject Property because it has a similar building area of 1,936 sq. ft. It sold in May 2015 for $1,320,000 and is assessed at $1,090,000. The evidence for 198 Tracina Drive shows it has two storeys and is not a corner lot.

Appellants’ Submissions

28The Appellants argued that the sale values in the area are inflated, mostly due to developers out-bidding non-developers.

29The Appellants objected to MPAC’s building area measurement of 1,973 sq. ft. From their architect’s drawings, they calculate the building area is about 4% smaller at 1,894 sq. ft. Both MPAC and the Town objected to the Appellants raising this issue because it was not previously disclosed nor was it raised during the Request for Review process or the Mandatory Settlement Meeting. MPAC testified that it had viewed the architect’s plans at the Town’s office and is satisfied that its measurements are correct. The Appellants also agreed that MPAC re-measured the building prior to the Mandatory Settlement Meeting.

Findings on Current Value

30The best evidence of current value of a residential property is an open market sale of that property on or near the valuation day. When that evidence is not available, open market sales of similar properties on or near the valuation day are the next best evidence.

31The question of what constitutes a comparable property was raised at the hearing. The Appellants argue that only corner lots are comparable because the Subject Property is bordered on two sides by a road and has development restrictions of a corner lot. The Town’s suggested comparable sales are all corner lots, indicating that corner lots are selling for values which support the Subject Property’s assessed value. MPAC argued that the Subject Property is not a true corner lot but is located on a bend in the road and is not afflicted with the normal nuisances of abutting an intersection. Based on the Appellants’ undisputed evidence that there are development restrictions on properties that are bordered on two sides by roads and MPAC’s adjustment to the Subject Property’s lot size, I find that the Subject Property, while not a true corner lot is more similar to a corner lot than not. However, I will address this further in my review of the parties’ suggested comparable sale properties.

32On the issue of the building area, the Appellants had the onus to disclose this issue and any supporting evidence prior to the hearing but failed to do so. Neither MPAC nor the Town was prepared to address the building measurement because they were unaware that it was an issue. Accordingly, I accept MPAC’s measurements of the Subject Property which the parties agree were taken after the appeal but before the hearing.

33The Appellants argued that property prices in their neighbourhood are artificially inflated due to developers outbidding other prospective purchasers. The Act does not differentiate between developers and non-developers purchasing properties. In determining the current value of a property, the Act sets out that the requirement to be met is that the sales are open market transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. I received no evidence that any of the sales before me were not open market sales.

34Of the five sales presented by the Appellants, I am disregarding the sales for 117 Selgrove Crescent and 88 Selgrove Crescent. Both of these sales occurred in 2013 which is too far from the January 1, 2016 valuation day to provide accurate market data for this appeal.

35Of the Appellants’ three remaining sales, I have disregarded 190 Woodhaven Park Drive and 198 Tracina Drive. I find that they are not comparable to the Subject Property because they have two storey residences while the Subject Property has a single storey residence.

36The best sale properties for determining the Subject Property’s current value are the remaining sale properties submitted by the parties which are summarized in the tables, above. All of these properties sold close to the January 1, 2016 valuation day, have single storey residences, all are located in the same vicinity as the Subject Property and all have similarly sized lots.

37I find that 192 Tracina Drive, 162 Walby Drive, 170 Talbot Drive and 124 Westminster Drive are inferior to the Subject Property. They are either un-renovated or their renovation is dated and all have smaller residence. The evidence is that none are located on corner lots however I find that their lack of renovation likely outweighs any negative associations with this factor. Their time-adjusted sale prices range from $940,901 to $1,154,783. Accordingly, I find that the Subject Property would likely sell for more than $1,154,783.

38I find that 208 Woodhaven Park and 108 Westminster Drive are also inferior to the Subject Property. They are both located on corner lots however the residences are much smaller than the Subject Property. Their time-adjusted sale prices are $907,680 and $987,900, respectively. I find that the Subject Property would likely sell for more than $987,900.

39122 Selgrove Crescent is comparable to the Subject Property in that it is a corner lot, which is similar in size to the Subject Property, and it has a single storey residence. However, the building area is much smaller than the Subject Property, it was built in 1957, and the evidence is that it has not been renovated however a small addition was added more than four decades ago. Therefore, I find that it is inferior to the Subject Property and that the Subject Property would sell for more than its time adjusted sale price of $952,000. The Town’s exercise of comparing these two properties, which were quite similar before the Subject Property’s renovations, is compelling. Adding the Subject Property’s renovation cost to the above sale value results in a value of $1,202,000.

40I find that 1395 Willowdown Road, which has a time adjusted sale price of $1,168,582, is the most similar property because it has had a recent, albeit older, renovation, the residence is a single storey and the lot is a similar size. However, on balance, I find that it is inferior to the Subject Property. It does not have a pool, the residence is almost 40% smaller and the garage is almost half the size of the Subject Property’s. MPAC’s undisputed testimony is that the pool’s value is $60,000 and suggests that the Subject Property’s correct current value should be a combination of this sale’s time adjusted sale price and the value of the pool for a total of $1,228,582. MPAC did not propose adjustments for the difference in building sizes or garage sizes which indicate to me that the value of $1,228,582 may be conservative.

41Based on the above, the current value likely falls between $1,202,000 and $1,228,582. I prefer the Town’s analysis because 122 Selgrove Crescent is a corner lot and the Subject Property was quite similar to it before the renovations. There are too many differences which are not accounted for in MPAC’s analysis. Accordingly, I find that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,202,000.

Issue No. 2: Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be

Appellants’ Evidence

42The Appellants submits that an equitable reduction is required and the current value for the 2017 to 2018 taxation years should be reduced to $1,054,000.

43Below is a summary of the Appellants’ 10 properties.

Table 4 Appellants’ Equity Properties

	Building Size (Sq. Ft.)	Year Built	Assessed Value	Time Adjusted Sale Value
Subject Property	1973	1957/2002	1,107,000	N/A
113 Selgrove Crescent	2302	1957	1,054,000	N/A
117 Selgrove Crescent	2892	2008	1,588,000	N/A
122 Selgrove Crescent	1196	1957	817,000	952,000
88 Selgrove Crescent	1402	1957	824,000	N/A
94 Selgrove Crescent	2176	1957	1,158,000	N/A
147 Viewbank Crescent	2057	1958	1,070,000	N/A
1342 Hixon Street	2285	1959	873,000	N/A
190 Woodhaven Park Drive	2273	1959	1,111,000	1.347.990
1356 Hixon Street	2876	1959	1,394,000	N/A
198 Tracina Drive	1936	1965	1,090,000	1,506,120

Appellants’ Submissions

44The Appellants point out that 113 Selgrove Crescent, 147 Viewbank Crescent, 1342 Hixon Street and 198 Tracina Drive are assessed less than their property however three are larger and one, 198 Tracina Drive, is similar in size. They state that 88 Selgrove Crescent is similar in size to their property and that it was renovated in 2013 yet it has a lower assessment. They believe that their property has been assessed using a different criteria than other properties. They also argue that their property should only be compared with other corner lots.

45They argue that 113 Selgrove Crescent is comparable to their property but it has larger building area of 2,302 sq. ft. and is assessed for less than their property at $1,054,000. They conclude that their property should not be assessed more than $1,054,000.

MPAC’s Evidence

46MPAC presented an Equity Analysis Report of 30 single-family detached property sales, which occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and are located within 1.4 kilometres from the Subject Property. It found that the median assessment to time adjusted sale price ratio (“ASR”) of these 30 sales is 0.954 and the coefficient of dispersion is 7.9.

MPAC’s Submissions

47Relying on its evidence, MPAC’s submits that an equitable reduction of the current value for the 2017 to 2018 taxation years is not required. MPAC takes the position that a median ASR falling between 0.95 and 1.05 indicates that equity has been achieved. MPAC also takes the position that a coefficient of dispersion of less than 15 for residential properties implies “good appraisal uniformity among individual properties.”

48In response to the Appellants’ argument that the Subject Property should be assessed similar to 113 Selgrove Crescent, MPAC submits that the Subject Property was renovated in 2015 whereas 113 Selgrove Crescent was renovated in 2004 and the depreciation of those renovations is reflected in the assessed value of $1,054,000.

The Town’s Evidence

49The Town submitted no direct evidence with regard to equity but argued that because all of its corner lot sale properties are assessed below their market values, it can be assumed that the Subject Property is also assessed below its market value.

Findings on Equity

50The goal of the Act is to determine the correct current value. Any equitable reduction in the current value results in an incorrect current value. Consequently, an equitable reduction should only be made where there is clear evidence to support that such a reduction is warranted.

51The crux of the Appellants’ arguments is equity. They want to be assessed in the same manner and pay the same taxes as their neighbours.

52The ASR is a test of whether MPAC’s model is working well for a class of properties, in this case, single-family detached properties, in a particular vicinity or neighborhood. Ideally, a larger sample of sales is preferred over a smaller sample because a larger sample will provide an indication of whether MPAC’s model is working well.

53The Appellants argued that only corner lots should be considered. I disagree. While the Subject Property is located on a bend with road on two sides of the lot, it does not have the same nuisances as a corner lot at an intersection. To consider only corner lots in determining equity with the small sample I received, would likely lead to an inaccurate result.

54The Appellants also argued that their property should be assessed similarly to a particular property or a few particular properties. This type of equity adjustment should only be used where the comparable properties are identical or nearly identical to the Subject Property. None of the Appellants’ 10 properties are identical to the Subject Property.

55MPAC’s evidence consists of an ASR study of 30 properties resulting in a median ASR of 0.954. MPAC submits that it obtained its properties by searching MPAC’s data base for sales located within 1.4 kilometres which sold from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. However, in reviewing MPAC’s equity study there seems to be some omissions vis-à-vis the three parties’ current value evidence. Missing from the study are the following properties which are located within the 1.4 kilometres and which sold in 2015 or 2016:

a. 198 Taracina Drive has a time-adjusted ASR of 0.724.

b. 108 Westminister Drive has a time-adjusted ASR of 0.759

c. 1395 Willowdown Road has a time-adjusted ASR of 0.821

d. 192 Tracina Drive has a time-adjusted ASR of 0.849, and

e. 170 Talbot Drive has a time-adjusted ASR of 1.015.

56Some may have been omitted as outliers however, based on their ASRs, not all can be considered as such. Including these five ASRs in MPAC’s equity study, results in the following:

• the mean ASR is 0.926,

• the standard deviation is 0.088,

• a 95% confidence range is 0.031,

• the low end of the confidence range is 0.895,

• the high end of the confidence range is 0.957.

57These results indicate to me that MPAC is tending to assess similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property below their current value. Applying the mean ASR of 0.926 to the current value of $1,202,000 results in a value of $1,113,052 or $1,113,000, rounded.

DECISION

58The correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,202,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

59An equitable reduction of the current value of the Subject Property, pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, is required. The assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from current value of $1,202,000 to an equitable assessment of $1,113,000.

60This value exceeds the assessment as returned of $1,107,000. Because no one has served a notice to increase the assessment pursuant to Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedures, I confirm the assessment of $1,107,000 in the Residential Property Class for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.